Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Heyman: Red Sox "going hard" after Roy Halladay


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
85 replies to this topic

#1 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,633 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 02:34 PM

Jon Heyman was just on with Mike Francessa. He says the Red Sox "are going very hard and may be a lock" to get Roy Halladay this offseason. He said their offer was Buchholz, Hagadone, Bowden, and one other prospect. He then goes onto say that they will go at them with a lesser offer given the time left on Halladay's contract. If anyone else heard this interview and could add anything else please do.

Whether this is true or not, it shows that Theo has still not given up on a significant upgrade to the rotation.

#2 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,695 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 02:39 PM

Well, they won't be able to make that trade since Hagadone was part of the package used to get Victor Martinez from Cleveland.

To be honest, that offer Heyman reports sounds like it might have been made at the trading deadline and been rejected by Ricciardi. Are you sure he wasn't talking about this past deadline?

EDIT: Reading your post again, I see that Heyman was indeed talking about this past trading deadline.

#3 BoSoxFink


  • Stripes


  • 4,789 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 02:39 PM

If true, I would prefer them to not include Buchholz in the deal now that he only has one year left on his deal, but I'm not sure how plausible that is. Now that Hagadone is gone, maybe the offer they throw at them is the exact same one minus Nick Hagadone.

I'm curious as to what people think about this deal if it does include Buchholz and if how they feel if it doesn't include Buchholz. Would it be possible for them to pull it off without including Clay? I'm sure the Blue Jays will want him as the main piece in any deal for Roy Halladay and I would prefer for Theo to make a run at King Felix first given the age of Roy Halladay. Then again I am not very inclined to believe anything Jon Heyman says about the Sox anyways.

#4 Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat


  • has big, douchey shoulders


  • 12,985 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 02:53 PM

I heard the interview, and it didn't strike me as anything more than Heyman conjecture. It almost sounded like he's just connecting a few dots....he said that he feels that Halladay will be traded this off season, and he talked of how the Sox made a significant offer at the deadline. Therefore...

#5 Toe Nash

  • 3,117 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 02:57 PM

If he's willing to do this, I don't know why he wouldn't have thrown together an offer to beat the Phillies' package for Cliff Lee, unless Shapiro was asking for significantly more from the Sox than he got from Philadelphia, or Shapiro significantly overvalued the package he got from Philly.

And yes, given Buchholz's solid performance after the trading deadline this year, I don't see it as an upgrade at all to trade him for a much older, much more expensive pitcher with just one year left on his contract, whose performance won't be a whole lot better.

#6 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,633 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 03:02 PM

QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ Oct 29 2009, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, they won't be able to make that trade since Hagadone was part of the package used to get Victor Martinez from Cleveland.

To be honest, that offer Heyman reports sounds like it might have been made at the trading deadline and been rejected by Ricciardi. Are you sure he wasn't talking about this past deadline?

EDIT: Reading your post again, I see that Heyman was indeed talking about this past trading deadline.


I was as well. I didn't make myself clear enough in that sentence.

#7 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9,999 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 03:37 PM

You really have to wonder if the ultimate price for Halladay is taking all or some of Vernon Wells contract. This would certainly play into the Jason Bay negotiations. It's hard to imagine both Wells and Bay in the same outfield next season. Wells contract has to be one of the worst in baseball. You'd have to think the Jays would have to eat part of it to move him even with Halladay.

#8 Seels

  • 1,498 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE (Trautwein's Degree @ Oct 29 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You really have to wonder if the ultimate price for Halladay is taking all or some of Vernon Wells contract. This would certainly play into the Jason Bay negotiations. It's hard to imagine both Wells and Bay in the same outfield next season. Wells contract has to be one of the worst in baseball. You'd have to think the Jays would have to eat part of it to move him even with Halladay.

I don't see any other player in baseball that when traded with Wells makes that trade a win. He's worth basically nothing, and is owed this:
10:$12.5M, 11:$23M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$21M.
That's 98.5 over 5 years, 19.7 AAV. Why should the Sox, or any team, pay almost 10 million dollars for Halladay?

As far as Halladay goes, I don't see any way the Sox part with Buchholz to get one year out of Halladay. It makes no sense at all. At least if it's prior to the deadline, he has the potential to help in two post seasons...that obviously isn't the case now.

Wells is the most untradeable player in recent baseball history as far as I'm concerned.


Edited by Seels, 29 October 2009 - 03:45 PM.


#9 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,381 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 03:45 PM

Wells is owed $116M over the next 5 years ($99M in salary, $17M in bonuses); and he has a no-trade. He's also a pretty terrible player. I can't imagine anyone is going to touch that to get 1 year of Roy Halladay. How much would the Jays have to pay to make one consider it? 90M?

#10 Alternate34

  • 2,461 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 04:02 PM

QUOTE (Toe Nash @ Oct 29 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And yes, given Buchholz's solid performance after the trading deadline this year, I don't see it as an upgrade at all to trade him for a much older, much more expensive pitcher with just one year left on his contract, whose performance won't be a whole lot better.


The upgrade would be:

(1) Betterness - Halladay is probably going to be better. He will pitch more innings in the near term at least and his performance has been consistently awesome in those innings. He is a whole lot better. Substantially more innings. Substantially less walks. Substantially less homer. Buchholz is only comparable in Ks. Clay can look better with inclusion of AAA numbers, but it still wouldn't compensate for the walks and homers differential.

(2) Certainty - While Buchholz did do well after this trade deadline, Halladay has been better than that for many more years. Halladay is 4 seasons removed from a bad season, and bad only because he was injured.

I can understand not wanting to make the trade because of cost and remaining contract time, but not wanting to make it because Halladay isn't a whole lot better seems baseless.



#11 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 04:11 PM

Heyman was on 98.5 at noon and said the Sox will obviously go back and ask about Halladay and Felix. He didn't have any new information then, only saying that people think the price of prospects will drop because now you only have him for one playoffs, but that is not the case since more teams will now be bidding on him, like the Mets and other teams who were already out of it in July.

#12 EastCoasterOutWest


  • Viva zapatos!


  • 3,873 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 04:28 PM

I don't see how Toronto accepts any offer from the Sox that doesn't include Buchholz. That's not really worth it unless the Sox feel that they can sign Halladay after a year to reasonable money. He's probably going to want something like 4/70 and he'll be 34 at the start of the '11 season. Given Theo's propensity not to give long contracts to aging players, I can't see Halladay with the Sox after a year unless they don't resign Beckett. Ortiz and Tek will both likely be gone (unless Ortiz has a resurgent year next season), Victor's contract is up, and the Mauer sweeps will be in full swing (assuming he doesn't get traded at the deadline next year).

I'd rather see them pass on Halladay and keep Buchholz. Then, if Buch is doing well next year, try to put him in a package to get Mauer. OR if they do sign Halladay and Buch is gone, swing him for Mauer. Really depends on who you see as the better chip in that trade.

#13 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 21,281 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 04:31 PM

QUOTE (Trautwein's Degree @ Oct 29 2009, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You really have to wonder if the ultimate price for Halladay is taking all or some of Vernon Wells contract. This would certainly play into the Jason Bay negotiations. It's hard to imagine both Wells and Bay in the same outfield next season. Wells contract has to be one of the worst in baseball. You'd have to think the Jays would have to eat part of it to move him even with Halladay.

That was the rumor going around Toronto after the trading deadline last summer -- that Ricciardi was holding out for getting somebody to take Wells off his hands. That was just about the only outcome that could have kept Ricciardi his job, so it's understandable that he tried to shoot the moon, and equally understandable that nobody was foolish enough to rescue Ricciardi from his own folly.

QUOTE (Alternate34 @ Oct 29 2009, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The upgrade would be:

(1) Betterness - Halladay is probably going to be better. He will pitch more innings in the near term at least and his performance has been consistently awesome in those innings. He is a whole lot better. Substantially more innings. Substantially less walks. Substantially less homer. Buchholz is only comparable in Ks. Clay can look better with inclusion of AAA numbers, but it still wouldn't compensate for the walks and homers differential.

(2) Certainty - While Buchholz did do well after this trade deadline, Halladay has been better than that for many more years. Halladay is 4 seasons removed from a bad season, and bad only because he was injured.

I can understand not wanting to make the trade because of cost and remaining contract time, but not wanting to make it because Halladay isn't a whole lot better seems baseless.

I agree that there's a high likelihood that Halladay at 33 will be somewhat better than Buchholz at 26 -- but it's not obvious to me that the difference will be a whole lot. Halladay won't get better than he is now, and may eventually decline. Buchholz should improve a bit, and could improve a lot. Buchholz may be seen in retrospect as a late-maturing pitcher simply because of the nature of his stuff -- harnessing 4 plus pitches with variable command has taken him a while, but the improved slider and sinker to my mind indicate a higher ceiling than when Buchholz had two plus-plus pitches and an unreliable fastball.

Of course, the real calculation has to be made with the cost and contracts included. Buchholz has another pre-arb year in 2010 and then 3 arbitration years through 2013, and Halladay has one year at $15.75 million before free agency. At this point, it's not clear that even Buchholz-for-Halladay straight up would make sense, because I think that the likelihood of Buchholz putting in an outstanding performance in 2012 or 2013 for arbitration prices is very good indeed.

An additional consideration is that with Beckett, Lester and Matsuzaka already in the rotation, we would be discussing net improvement in the starting rotation for a fourth pitcher. For the regular season, at least 5 starters are essential; for the playoffs, the most cost-effective formula would be three aces and a competent fourth. Needless to say, if the Red Sox traded Buchholz for Halladay, a playoff rotation of Halladay-Beckett-Lester would be outstanding, but it only makes sense if 2010 is a go-for-it-now year. We know from experience and public comments, however, that the Red Sox regarded 2004 as a GFIN year, and every year since then as 95 wins and take your chances in the playoffs.

#14 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,588 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 04:36 PM

For the Jays to get maximum value for Halladay, the deal would have to be coupled with a negotiating window for the acquiring team to sign Halladay to an extension.

Tom Tango's model assumes that players who sign a year prior to free agency take a 25% discount relative to their FA value. If you assume Sabathia's 6/140 contract represents market value, and that Halladay will get only 4 years because he'll be 5 years older when the extension kicks in than C.C. was when the Yankees signed him, then after the 25% discount Halladay could command a 4/70 extension this winter.*

Vernon Wells isn't going anywhere, in a Halladay deal or otherwise. According to FanGraphs, Vernon Wells was replacement-level in 2009, and from 2007-09 he only produced 2 WAR. Even a generous valuation of Wells wouldn't justify any team assuming a material part of his contract. So even if a team placed a $20-25mm value on the right to sign Halladay a year early, they probably wouldn't agree to assume even one-third of Wells's deal. Wells is only 30, so the Jays are best served to keep him, hope for a bounce-back year, then reassess their options if Wells's stock rises.

Unless the FO knows something bad about Beckett's health that we don't, I can't see giving up elite talent for the right to pay Halladay 4/70, when the Sox probably could extend Beckett (who is 3 years younger than Halladay) for something like 5/85. Is Halladay better? Yes. Is the difference big enough to part with Buchholz and two blue-chip prospects? No.


*-Yes, shorter deals usually provide higher AAV than longer ones, but I'm assuming Halladay's age roughly offsets that here. As a cross-check, I did a WAR analysis using D-Lowe's 4/60 deal with Atlanta as a comp, rather than Sabathia's deal with the MFY. That produced a 4/77 extension value for Halladay, so I think I'm in the right ballpark.

Edited by maufman, 29 October 2009 - 05:18 PM.


#15 BigMike


  • SoSH Member


  • 18,246 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (RedOctober3829 @ Oct 29 2009, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Jon Heyman was just on with Mike Francessa. He says the Red Sox "are going very hard and may be a lock" to get Roy Halladay this offseason. He said their offer was Buchholz, Hagadone, Bowden, and one other prospect. He then goes onto say that they will go at them with a lesser offer given the time left on Halladay's contract. If anyone else heard this interview and could add anything else please do.

Whether this is true or not, it shows that Theo has still not given up on a significant upgrade to the rotation.


Or it confirms that Heyman believes Theo hasn't given up on a significant upgrade in the rotation.

I think ultimately it would come down to what do the Toronto baseball people think of Buchholz. If you have someone making the decision who loves Clay, then yeah I think there is a great chance to get a deal done. But Clay has been very up and down so far in his career, and there certainly may be baseball people out there who view him as a back of a rotation guy (or at the minimum someone who will never be consistent). If you run into a GM who is in that book, then it becomes really hard to find a combinaiton of players that makes it work.



#16 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3,583 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:09 PM

QUOTE (BigMike @ Oct 29 2009, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Or it confirms that Heyman believes Theo hasn't given up on a significant upgrade in the rotation.

I think ultimately it would come down to what do the Toronto baseball people think of Buchholz. If you have someone making the decision who loves Clay, then yeah I think there is a great chance to get a deal done. But Clay has been very up and down so far in his career, and there certainly may be baseball people out there who view him as a back of a rotation guy (or at the minimum someone who will never be consistent). If you run into a GM who is in that book, then it becomes really hard to find a combinaiton of players that makes it work.


Clay has been "down" for what, like 100 innings (2008 and his first 8 starts of 2009) out of 630 in his professional career?

I'm with Sprowl on this one. I think you have to think hard about packaging Buchholz (a guy who just put up a 112 ERA+) who is under your control for the next four years (age 25-28 seasons; the statistical peak among average SP) at what a year of Halladay costs and extra players (Lowrie, Bowden, Reddick, etc.). In return, you get a single guaranteed season thrown by 33 year-old Roy Halladay along with the "right" to get first dibs at offering him a 6 year, 100+ million contract which takes him (declining) through his age 39 season. You can certainly make an argument that Halladay helps the "win it now" crowd next year, but there's a very real shot that Buchholz is significantly better value starting in 2011, maybe even as soon as next year.

At the very least, Buchholz's trade value has grown leaps and bounds over what it was at the trade deadline given the fact that he had a 3.49 ERA from August on and made arguably the best start of the short-lived postseason-- I think you're significantly underestimating Buchholz's A) talent and B) trade value if you think that there are GM's around baseball that see him as a long-term "back of the rotation starter" at best.

Edited by czar, 29 October 2009 - 06:10 PM.


#17 ElcaballitoMVP

  • 2,139 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:27 PM

I don't see any way the Sox trade Buchholz for one season and $15M of Roy Halladay. The Sox and Jays can come to an agreement that doesn't include Buchholz. For one season of Halladay, I think the Sox would have to give up something like Kalish, Navarro, and Bowden. Maybe they throw in one more low level guy. I don't see Navarro helping us out with Lowrie/Iglesius around and may be better served as a solid trading chip. Kalish, if he can stick in CF, could replace Wells down the line and Bowden offers a back of the rotation option for them. I don't know, maybe Toronto will insist upon a Buchholz or Bard in the package, but if I'm Theo, I don't do it. I'd rather he take those type of guys and put them in a big package for King Felix, should the Mariners listen to offers for him.

As for Vernon Wells, there isn't a single team in the league that would take on that contract, even if he was paired with Halladay.

#18 jacklamabe65


  • A New Frontier butt boy


  • 6,041 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:52 PM

No thank you.

#19 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20,951 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:56 PM

QUOTE (jacklamabe65 @ Oct 29 2009, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No thank you.


No thank you to what? A deal involving Clay? A deal forcing Theo to take Wells back as well? A deal for Halladay no matter what else is involved? I'm all for exploring a trade for Halladay again. Riccardi was obviously not going to be reasonable about it, but the new GM might be. For all we know, the price might be worth it.

#20 Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat


  • has big, douchey shoulders


  • 12,985 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:58 PM

QUOTE
As for Vernon Wells, there isn't a single team in the league that would take on that contract, even if he was paired with Halladay.

This seems to be the popular sentiment here, but I'm not so sure. I think this would be a potential move for the MFYs. While Wells isn't very good, he's got to be better than Melky, or he could fill the void in left, with Damon potentially moving to DH. Meanwhile, they would signigicantly upgrade their rotation with Halladay, and pitching depth seems to be their biggest weakness.

People keep saying that money is no object for the Yankees. If they can get Halladay for what amounts to "just money," while Wells at least becomes a usable part of an already loaded lineup, I think they'd seriously consider it.

#21 jimc

  • 512 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 07:15 PM

QUOTE (Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat @ Oct 29 2009, 07:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This seems to be the popular sentiment here, but I'm not so sure. I think this would be a potential move for the MFYs. While Wells isn't very good, he's got to be better than Melky, or he could fill the void in left, with Damon potentially moving to DH. Meanwhile, they would signigicantly upgrade their rotation with Halladay, and pitching depth seems to be their biggest weakness.

People keep saying that money is no object for the Yankees. If they can get Halladay for what amounts to "just money," while Wells at least becomes a usable part of an already loaded lineup, I think they'd seriously consider it.


Wells 2009: OPS .711, UZR/150 -12.2
Cabrera 2009: OPS .752, UZR/150: 2.6

Maybe Wells bounces back a little next year, but I don't think any team would view him as an upgrade. That's a monster contract to take on - dare I say it, even for the Yankees - and he's either a downgrade or on the bench. For the same reason, for the Sox, count me in the 'no Wells at any price' camp.

#22 Pumpsie


  • The Kilimanjaro of bullshit


  • 10,625 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 10:51 PM

QUOTE (Snodgrass'Muff @ Oct 29 2009, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No thank you to what? A deal involving Clay? A deal forcing Theo to take Wells back as well? A deal for Halladay no matter what else is involved? I'm all for exploring a trade for Halladay again. Riccardi was obviously not going to be reasonable about it, but the new GM might be. For all we know, the price might be worth it.


Explore all you want. Just don't give up Buchholz. The guy's going to be the most cost-effective player on the roster in 2010, and will be a solid, cost-controlled pitcher for years to come. It's on players like this that a good roster is built. Give them Hagadone, Bowden, and some other position prospects (the Jays have plenty of young pitching coming up) but Buchholz...nope.

#23 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,021 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 10:55 PM

If you acquired Halladay and then were to sign Beltre and Scutaro, that would be a devastating infield defense for a groundball machine like Halladay. He also seems like he would age pretty well and could be effective into his late 30's.

Maybe this is where you get pieces for Papelbon and use them and some of ours and keep Clay.

#24 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22,128 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 11:09 PM

Buchholz made me a believer in August and September (I think his shaky finish was likely due to hitting the innings wall). He's quite likely the real deal. I don't expect him to be as good as Prime Halladay, but I do expect him to be good enough to be well worth keeping around.

I would love to add Roy, but I'm not sure I would want to commit to him for another 5 years (which is what it would take to buy him out of free agency). So I'd take Halladay as a one year rental if the price was right, but I think there will be other teams (Mets? Cards? Cubs?) who will want him more and be willing to pay a higher price and try to extend him and I consider Theo's chances at landing him to be poor.

#25 NoLastCall125

  • 531 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 11:12 PM

There's a very big part of me that says that the Sox should trade Buchholz because this is exactly the position they were hoping to be in at the end of the season. Remember, half way through the year, everybody was unsure as to how Buchholz would develop and that starting him for the rest of the season may boost his value if he performed well enough.

He certainly did that. I think, if anything, Buchholz performing well has made him more valuable on the trade market and could make it even more enticing for teams to give up superstars because he's becoming more of a known quantity, especially after really harnessing that two-seamer. The package offered to Seattle for King Felix or to San Diego for Adrian Gonzalez might seem a better now that Buchholz has shown he's ready to stay in the major leagues and can pitch well consistently.

But Halladay is not someone I would give up Buchholz for. Buchholz may never be as good as Halladay ever was, but I can't imagine them giving up a monster package for someone who is very much on the wrong side of 30. Although he's proven he is one of the best pitchers in baseball, just from a business aspect, it's hard to imagine giving up so much talent for Halladay and then extending him for another four years at a high salary for his down years, especially with Beckett being a free agent so soon and the likely need to resign him as well.

That's not to say I wouldn't want to trade for him. If they could keep Buchholz out of the package, I would love to see him pitching for the Sox, even if it's for a year. I just think Buchholz should be saved as a chip to get a Hernandez/Gonzalez/Ramirez type player. I wouldn't think twice about trading Buchholz if the right package did come along for a premiere bat or young ace and I think his value is extremely high because he's still not arbitration eligible and relatively young.

But he should just be traded for a budding superstar, not an aging ace.

#26 grantb


  • Couldn't get into a real school


  • 1,598 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 11:13 PM

Thinking of it from the Toronto point of view, if they trade Halladay within the division they're essentially punting on the year and rebuilding. If that's the case, players two years out are very close to as valuable as a player one year out. At the trading deadline Buchholz's MLB stock was still low and it would make sense that Toronto would be okay with getting a player back that possibly needs another year or two to develop. But since Buchholz seems to have figured out some of his issues in the majors, he is more valuable for this coming year than he was projected to be at the trading deadline. The Sox FO will understand this and will reduce the number of prospects included in any deal accordingly.
I just don't see it happening.

#27 ElcaballitoMVP

  • 2,139 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 11:23 PM

QUOTE (Pumpsie @ Oct 29 2009, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Explore all you want. Just don't give up Buchholz. The guy's going to be the most cost-effective player on the roster in 2010, and will be a solid, cost-controlled pitcher for years to come. It's on players like this that a good roster is built. Give them Hagadone, Bowden, and some other position prospects (the Jays have plenty of young pitching coming up) but Buchholz...nope.


Hagadone was traded to Cleveland in the V-Mart deal.

But I agree, I don't give up Buchholz for one year of Halladay. At the deadline, I would have done it since it would give us two postseason runs with Halladay over one, but the return for him is going to be a lot less than it was at the deadline this year. Clay improved and Halladay can now only help for one season. I also think we have enough prospects to get a deal done without having to do anything with Papelbon (with Westmoreland and Kelly off limits to Toronto). I enjoyed having a very strong bullpen this year and I'd like to see that depth back again, even with the raise Papelbon is going to get.

At this point, I only trade Clay if it helps us get Felix Hernandez. Would a Bowden (or MDC)/Lars/Kalish/Navarro offer be of any interest to the Jays? What other teams out there would top that offer for 1 year of Halladay (and maybe the inside track on resigning him)?

#28 Phragle


  • wild card bitches


  • 11,295 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 11:42 PM

He is the best pitcher in the game, but our starters led the league in FIP this year, and there is a good amount of free agent arms out there. I find it hard to believe we would be wiling to give them the best package.

#29 YTF

  • 3,694 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 05:04 AM

QUOTE (Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat @ Oct 29 2009, 07:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This seems to be the popular sentiment here, but I'm not so sure. I think this would be a potential move for the MFYs. While Wells isn't very good, he's got to be better than Melky, or he could fill the void in left, with Damon potentially moving to DH. Meanwhile, they would signigicantly upgrade their rotation with Halladay, and pitching depth seems to be their biggest weakness.

People keep saying that money is no object for the Yankees. If they can get Halladay for what amounts to "just money," while Wells at least becomes a usable part of an already loaded lineup, I think they'd seriously consider it.



Monty, good point made about the MFY possibly taking on Well's contract and who knows, maybe he finds his stroke surrounded by that line up. I feel they're still going to have to offer the Jays something in return and I'm guessing that Toronto NEEDS to get back a couple of MLB ready prospects. Don't they HAVE TO give fans a reason to start coming to the ball park? Do the Yanks have that? Hughes? Joba? Do they give up Gardner? Probably there are a position player or two that's blocked because of the free agent "All Star" signings they pursue, but can they compete with other packages from other teams AND more importantly I have to wonder how much longer they can afford the "it's only money" mentality? We saw an awful lot of empty "premium" seats in the new toilet this season. Perhaps the outcome of the World Series will dictate the need or desire to take on Verno's contract.

#30 NDame616


  • will bailey


  • 995 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 06:00 AM

Switch "Clay Buchholz" for "Jon Lester" and "Roy Halladay" for "Johan Santana" and I swear we had this discussion two years ago....

Some of the talking heads were talking about how NOW is the time to trade Buchholz, but I can't see it. As a prospect in all stages of development, whether it being fresh off a no hitter or fresh off of a pretty mediocre season, Theo has always dangled Buchholz but never pulled the trigger. With all the deals that have come and gone, and Clay staying here, I honestly don't think Theo will trade him now that Buchholz has actually showed he's a viable MLB pitcher.

#31 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,181 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 06:49 AM

QUOTE (NDame616 @ Oct 30 2009, 07:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Switch "Clay Buchholz" for "Jon Lester" and "Roy Halladay" for "Johan Santana" and I swear we had this discussion two years ago....

Some of the talking heads were talking about how NOW is the time to trade Buchholz, but I can't see it. As a prospect in all stages of development, whether it being fresh off a no hitter or fresh off of a pretty mediocre season, Theo has always dangled Buchholz but never pulled the trigger. With all the deals that have come and gone, and Clay staying here, I honestly don't think Theo will trade him now that Buchholz has actually showed he's a viable MLB pitcher.


No, thats not even accurate. Santana was younger and looking for an extension. I doubt Halladay will have any interest in an extension.

Including Buchholz in the deal makes little sense. I don't doubt he was shopped at the deadline but I don't think he is going anywhere now.

#32 Purpose Pitch

  • 271 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:08 AM

This offseason is time to do something aggressive, one way or another.

Yanks: CC, AJ
Phils: Cliff Lee, Pedro
Sox: Smoltz, Penny

That sums up why the Sox are at home right now.

#33 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,695 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:09 AM

QUOTE (Purpose Pitch @ Oct 30 2009, 09:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This offseason is time to do something aggressive, one way or another.

Yanks: CC, AJ
Phils: Cliff Lee, Pedro
Sox: Smoltz, Penny

That sums up why the Sox are at home right now.

The Phillies traded for Lee in July and signed Pedro in August. Hardly the offseason.

The Sox are home right now because they scored 1 goddamn run in 18 postseason innings on the road, and their "ace" closer decided Game 3 would be the perfect time to have the worst performance of his entire career.

#34 Purpose Pitch

  • 271 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:17 AM

QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ Oct 30 2009, 09:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Phillies traded for Lee in July and signed Pedro in August. Hardly the offseason.

The Sox are home right now because they scored 1 goddamn run in 18 postseason innings on the road, and their "ace" closer decided Game 3 would be the perfect time to have the worst performance of his entire career.


I said "this" offseason.

Edited by Purpose Pitch, 30 October 2009 - 08:19 AM.


#35 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20,951 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:18 AM

QUOTE (Pumpsie @ Oct 29 2009, 11:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Explore all you want. Just don't give up Buchholz. The guy's going to be the most cost-effective player on the roster in 2010, and will be a solid, cost-controlled pitcher for years to come. It's on players like this that a good roster is built. Give them Hagadone, Bowden, and some other position prospects (the Jays have plenty of young pitching coming up) but Buchholz...nope.


I agree that Buchholz shouldn't be offered. I'd have him off the table at this point as I'm completely in agreement that he'll be more cost effective than pretty much anyone on the roster in 2010. I think he's a good bet to be a better value than Halladay next season, though I think Halladay is likely to be the better pitcher. Either way, keep Clay around and try to work out a deal with other pieces.

I would, however, like to see Theo work on a trade for Adrian Gonzalez first, as the pieces needed to land Halladay would likely cross over with what's needed to bring Gonzalez over from San Diego. If a Gonzalez deal seems unlikely, turn to Halladay. He's more of a luxury than a need for this team and it's a risk worth taking that they might miss out on him because they're close to Gonzalez.

I think the priority should be signing Bay or Holliday, then Adrian Gonzalez, Beltre or Figgins, then Halladay. If Gonzalez is looking like a dead end, Theo can focus on Halladay at the same time as working the Beltre and Figgins angles.

#36 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,695 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:20 AM

QUOTE (Purpose Pitch @ Oct 30 2009, 09:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I said "this" offseason.

Doesn't the Phillies example you provided show that major improvements can be made during the regular season too? Hell, the Sox received a significant upgrade by trading for Victor in July.

It's not all contingent on the offseason moves.

#37 Purpose Pitch

  • 271 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:26 AM

QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ Oct 30 2009, 09:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Doesn't the Phillies example you provided show that major improvements can be made during the regular season too? Hell, the Sox received a significant upgrade by trading for Victor in July.

It's not all contingent on the offseason moves.


Sure, I fully agree. I think Theo did a brilliant job of obtaining Martinez, and to a lesser extent, picking up Billy Wags and AGonz as waiver wire pickups.

I just found it ironic watching these teams play the last two nights, getting four very good pitching performances out of pitchers that were new to the team. I was pretty disappointed that the Sox went on the cheap getting those two asshats, and was a little perplexed why they didn't go harder after Lee, seeing what Cleveland got for him. So I am just saying that while the Sox have a good team, I think now is the time to be aggressive and spend some of that money. There were far too many starts last year by mediocre pitchers. If the Sox won the division, who knows what might have happened? A weak rotation puts more pressure on your pen, on your elite starters...etc......

The Sox have the money. Go compete with the Yankees.

#38 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20,951 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:33 AM

The Yankees won 103 games while easing up on the throttle down the stretch. Picking up Lee was not going to win the Sox the division this year. I don't think there was any one move that was possible that would have won them the division. Your premise is a non-starter (if you'll excuse the bad pun). There is a reason the Sox don't try to compete with the Yankees directly for the division every year... and that reason is they don't have the money to do so.

What they do have is the resources (money included) to win 95ish games a year and make the playoffs almost every season. So that's what the front office does. I agree with you that the Sox should have made a push for Lee... and maybe they did? Cleveland might not have been willing to deal him to an AL team for all we know. But going out and winning the division with a 200 million dollar monster spending 400 million in an off season to snag the three top free agents is far more difficult than you make it sound.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 30 October 2009 - 08:34 AM.


#39 John Marzano Olympic Hero


  • has fancy plans, and pants to match


  • 15,243 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:35 AM

QUOTE
The Sox have the money. Go compete with the Yankees.


By doing "what" exactly?

Overpaying in terms of prospects for Halladay?

You blow your load on one year's worth of Roy Halladay, you can forget trying to get a stud 1B like Adrian Gonzalez or a pitcher with a higher upside like Felix Hernandez.

Overpaying in terms of cash for Holiday or Bay?

The free agent crop this year isn't very good. These are the years when teams like the Mets or the Cubs start signing mediocre free agents to insane contracts so that their teams look awesome in December and January. Come May, the teams are scuffling the free agent that they signed for $15M a year is playing like he should have signed for $8M and the season is over. You want the Sox to do that just to compete with the Yankees?

#40 Alternate34

  • 2,461 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:37 AM

QUOTE (Sprowl @ Oct 29 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree that there's a high likelihood that Halladay at 33 will be somewhat better than Buchholz at 26 -- but it's not obvious to me that the difference will be a whole lot. Halladay won't get better than he is now, and may eventually decline. Buchholz should improve a bit, and could improve a lot. Buchholz may be seen in retrospect as a late-maturing pitcher simply because of the nature of his stuff -- harnessing 4 plus pitches with variable command has taken him a while, but the improved slider and sinker to my mind indicate a higher ceiling than when Buchholz had two plus-plus pitches and an unreliable fastball.

Of course, the real calculation has to be made with the cost and contracts included. Buchholz has another pre-arb year in 2010 and then 3 arbitration years through 2013, and Halladay has one year at $15.75 million before free agency. At this point, it's not clear that even Buchholz-for-Halladay straight up would make sense, because I think that the likelihood of Buchholz putting in an outstanding performance in 2012 or 2013 for arbitration prices is very good indeed.


I pretty much agree with you. I think that at least some consideration of injury probability favors Halladay in the near term. Buchholz doesn't have any injury history, but he still hasn't been put to task to pitch the workload that Halladay has. The other thing that is cause for concern with Buchholz in the short term and long term is consistency. His improved sinker and slider will help him there giving him other options on days when his other pitches are giving him fits, but late maturing could turn into never maturing. We are falling over ourselves with praise for his August and September, and he was good, but 2 months is not enough for me to believe in his consistency, even when he appears to have gotten on top of his stuff.

Overall, I wouldn't give up Buchholz because of the money. That money is needed to improve the offense and defense behind the pitchers, but my enthusiasm for Buchholz is tempered compared to others.

#41 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,381 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:41 AM

If Buchholz is truly available; I'd much rather the Sox see what kind of bat they can get for him, ideally someone like Gonzalez, who maybe comes into play if you dangle Clay. Then, sign Lackey. Buchholz as the centerpiece of a Halladay deal is possible, but only if you already signed Bay or Holliday.

#42 pokey_reese


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,096 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 09:34 AM

I'm not totally sure that the Jays would want to lump Wells' contract in with a Halladay trade at this point, since the money that the acquring team would be taking on would result in the Jays getting back very little in terms of prospects. At this point, and given way that mid-market teams have been avoiding giving up big free agent contracts recently, it makes more sense for the Jays to maximize their return in talented, cost-controlled young players rather than freeing up cash to sign players at market value. If they try to foist off Wells on a trade partner, they will get back almost nothing for Halladay, whereas trading Halladay on his own means at least one or two elite prospects and some lower level guys.

Basically, I wonder if they wouldn't think that something like Lars, Bowden, Kalish and Navarro is worth far more than what they could get in FAs by spending the 17.5 million/year that they would save on Wells + Bowden.

For the record, count me as someone who does not want to see Buchholz traded for a pitcher in his mid 30s coming to the end of a contract, no matter who it is. He isn't untouchable, but if moved it has to be for a young slugger like Gonzalez or Cabrera. Halladay can't win us the playoffs if the offense doesn't score any runs.

#43 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,633 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 09:53 AM

So, basically the offseason is going to come down to these 5 options. The success of 2010 is based upon how many of these get done IMO.

A) Sign Bay or Holliday--most important
B) Trade for Adrian Gonzalez--significant upgrade to 1B/3B
C) Sign Adrian Beltre or Chone Figgins--significant upgrade to 1B/3B
D) Trade for Felix Hernandez or Roy Halladay/Sign John Lackey--luxury acquisition to the rotation
E) Sign Rich Harden or Eric Bedard--Smoltz/Penny role

#44 Omar's Wacky Neighbor

  • 2,849 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 09:58 AM

QUOTE (RedOctober3829 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
E) Sign Rich Harden or Eric Bedard--Smoltz/Penny role
This is the second or third time I've seen Bedard mentioned in the past few days.

Am I the only one who wants to stay as far away as possible from that head-case (OK, headcase is a bit strong)? I don't see how he could possibly even begin to pitch in Boston.....


#45 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,021 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 10:10 AM

QUOTE (RedOctober3829 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, basically the offseason is going to come down to these 5 options. The success of 2010 is based upon how many of these get done IMO.

A) Sign Bay or Holliday--most important
B) Trade for Adrian Gonzalez--significant upgrade to 1B/3B
C) Sign Adrian Beltre or Chone Figgins--significant upgrade to 1B/3B
D) Trade for Felix Hernandez or Roy Halladay/Sign John Lackey--luxury acquisition to the rotation
E) Sign Rich Harden or Eric Bedard--Smoltz/Penny role


Good list. I'll add that Harden/Bedard both have dominated in the AL before, and Bedard in the AL East. They have way more upside than Penny and Smoltz, but just a minor nitpick. I would go after Bedard and try to extract one 2007 type year out of him.

Also, SS is an area to upgrade. Scutaro not only gives you Alex Gonzalez defense, but just posted a .370 OBP. Even if that levels off to .350 or so, that's a tremendous OBP sitting in the 9-hole.

Edited by bosockboy, 30 October 2009 - 10:11 AM.


#46 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22,128 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 10:17 AM

the other obvious element to making a trade for Halladay is that the Sox would have to be comfortable sending talent to Toronto and then facing that talent within the AL East 19 games a year for several years.

If Buchholz is traded (or any of our prospects), wouldn't everyone rather see him (them) end up far away from the division?

#47 DieHardSoxFan1


  • Smarter than Theo, just ask him


  • 2,777 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 10:28 AM

QUOTE (Rudy Pemberton @ Oct 30 2009, 09:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If Buchholz is truly available; I'd much rather the Sox see what kind of bat they can get for him, ideally someone like Gonzalez, who maybe comes into play if you dangle Clay. Then, sign Lackey. Buchholz as the centerpiece of a Halladay deal is possible, but only if you already signed Bay or Holliday.


Including Buchholz in a deal for Gonzalez is perfectly cromulent, but giving $100 million to John Lackey would rank among the worst decisions of the Epstein Administration.

This season, the 31-year-old Lackey posted his lowest K/9 in five years his highest BB/9 since 2005. I'd rather spend $50-$60 million on Chapman, who's at worst a dominant reliever if not a top-notch starter, than break the bank for John Lackey.

#48 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,381 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 10:46 AM

QUOTE
Including Buchholz in a deal for Gonzalez is perfectly cromulent, but giving $100 million to John Lackey would rank among the worst decisions of the Epstein Administration.

This season, the 31-year-old Lackey posted his lowest K/9 in five years his highest BB/9 since 2005.


John Lackey's K Rate.

2006: 7.9
2007: 7.2
2008: 7.2
2009: 7.1

John Lackey's BB Rate

2006: 3.0
2007: 2.1
2008: 2.2
2009: 2.4

Looks pretty consistent to me. Agreed that I probably wouldn't give him $100M, I guess, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him. A lot of moving parts here...what is the cost of Lackey + a bat you could get for Buchholz vs. Holliday (or Bay) + a pitcher you can get for Buchholz (short term and long term)? Although, if the team believes in Buchholz it makes the most sense to keep him and go after the bat unless you can get a bat for him that you can'get approximate in free agency.



#49 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 3,188 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 12:04 PM

I think we all know the only way Wells leaves Toronto is with the BJ's eating at least half the contract. For christsake, Marlon Byrd puts up better numbers then him. And he could be bought on the FA market for considerably less if the Sox were filling a hole in LF. I doubt we will see Wells in Boston next year. Halladay is nice, but as said previously, the price for a potentially 1 yr rental rental would be $15mil + top prospects. IMO, thats just barely more likely than Wells.

RedOctober summed it up nice and simple. The Sox are only going to sign players that are going to improve this team, not the ones that are the most cost effective. ex. signing Bay for $15/mil vs. a type B for 5-10/mil. Obviously they are going to do there best to bring the price down, but the focus I'm sure Theo and crew already have are a handful of targeted players.


A) Sign Bay or Holliday--most important ------- Agreed.
B) Trade for Adrian Gonzalez--significant upgrade to 1B/3B ------- Definately take a shot at it.
C) Sign Adrian Beltre or Chone Figgins--significant upgrade to 1B/3B ------If AGonz doesnt pan out, must sign one or the other.

C1.) SS. Alex . currently has a 6mil option, Lowrie's ability to finish a season healthy is questionable. SS FA market is pretty weak. Trade is a possiblity.

D) Trade for Felix Hernandez or Roy Halladay/Sign John Lackey--luxury acquisition to the rotation ------- Definately a luxury.
Current depth chart-- 1.)Beckett, 2.)Lester, 3.)Buch, 4.)DiceK, 5.)Wake. Tazawa, Bowden could spot start. I'd take a flier on Bedard, or Sheets, before unloading for Felix.

If a blockbuster trade is made for AGonz, option C is crossed off. Spend an assload of cash on Bay/Holliday, and LF is taken care of for 5 yrs. Re-sign Alex for SS, and pay some cash for a SP.



#50 D Jack's Dome


  • The Jinx


  • 1,836 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 12:20 PM

This really doesn't make a whole lot of financial sense to me. The Sox currently have almost 109 million tied up for the '10 season, including the club/player options I assume that will be activated (Gonzalez, Beckett, Martinez, Varitek PO, Wakefield.) The following list is arbitration eligible players, as well as a rough estimate of what they'll cost (if they choose to keep them of course.) I based my estimates on what players of equal service time/production made in last years arbitration cases. Obviously it is not an exact science, so I did the best I could. I also rounded up to give a safe barrier on their max payroll.


  • Kotchman, Casey (3.0 Mil)
  • Okajima, Hideki (3.5 Mil)
  • Gathright, Joey (1.0 Mil)
  • Cabrera, Fernando (.65 Mil)
  • Green, Nick (.75 Mil)
  • Delcarmen, Manny (.70 Mil)
  • Ellsbury, Jacoby (1.4 Mil)
  • Ramirez, Ramon (.75 Mil)
  • Anderson, Brian (.50 Mil)
  • Lowrie, Jed (.50 Mil)
  • Buchholz, Clay (1.8 Mil)


With these players, the payroll sits at 129.5 million. Without Clay, it sits at roughly 127.75 Million. So now they're going to take on Halladay at 15.75 Mil pushing the payroll to 143.5 Million? The teams highest payroll to date was in 2007 with 143 Million. So what do we do with left field and, potentially 1B/3B? There's obviously a whole lot of variables going into this, but this very basic breakdown leads me to the assumption that Heyman is doing what he does best, which is blow smoke. Why would the Red Sox handcuff themselves from signing an impact OF, as well as trade away young talent for a one year rental? I don't buy it, not even a little bit.