206 replies to this topic

[Wingack]

New York Daily News

Thanksgiving isn't until Thursday, but the Halladay season is officially underway.

The Red Sox are "putting on a full-court press" to acquire Roy Halladay, according to a source, and are hoping to add the former Cy Young winner to the top of their rotation to go with Josh Beckett and Jon Lester.

"They would love to get it wrapped up before the winter meetings (beginning Dec. 7)," the source said of the Red Sox, who made a big push to deal for Halladay last summer.

If the Red Sox are serious about dealing for Halladay in the next two weeks, the Yankees will likely have their chance to get involved in the sweepstakes for the Blue Jays ace, although it will take a package of top prospects - as well as a sizeable contract extension for Halladay, who has a full no-trade clause - to get a deal done.

To land Halladay, Boston would likely have to give up Clay Buchholz, the organization's top young pitcher, as well as Casey Kelly, the pitcher/shortstop who signed with the Red Sox in 2008 after being recruited by Tennessee to play quarterback. Red Sox GM Theo Epstein is said to be smitten with Kelly, which could be a sticking point in talks with Toronto if Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos insists on the 20-year-old being included in a deal.

The Yankees would love to acquire Halladay, although Cashman has been reluctant to deal away top prospects such as Austin Jackson and Jesus Montero for a player he would then have to sign for more than $100 million, such as Halladay. Toronto would also likely require either Phil Hughes or Joba Chamberlain in a deal.

Other teams figure to be involved in the Halladay mix, including the Angels, who reportedly have stepped up their efforts this week as they prepare for the possibility that John Lackey will sign elsewhere.

[Mike Greenwall]

n/m. I'm going to need more details

Edited by Mike Greenwall, 25 November 2009 - 02:49 AM.

[SoxScout]

I'm going to need more details

The only details I want are the ones of Epstein telling them to screw.

[TomRicardo]

The only details I want are the ones of Epstein telling them to screw.

Telling who to screw? Toronto? Why? There isn't even a proposed trade in that article. Just a New York Sports writer naming the two prospects he knows in the Red Sox system. I would rather the Red Sox got this done sooner. Especially if Cabrera is available.

[Wingack]

Globe

The Red Sox are making a push to obtain Toronto ace Roy Halladay before the start of baseball’s winter meetings Dec. 7, according to industry sources. But the Blue Jays reportedly want top prospect Casey Kelly along with young starter Clay Buchholz.

[V.I. Tessie]

Oh boy.....here we go. Let the "Giving up the future for the present" comparisons begin.

I'll jump right in by saying that I feel incredibly uneasy with talks of trading a 25 year old major league pitcher with a prospectively big upside, and a 19 year old successful prospect pitcher (who's also a pretty good hitting shortstop) for a 32 year old ace.

However, that's just me and I look forward to the pros and cons arguements.

Nothing makes the winter go a little quicker like a really hot stove.

[sodenj5]

I've come to terms with trading Buchholz to acquire a big name player such as Halladay or Adrian Gonzalez, but Buchholz and Kelly? Come on, now. Maybe Kelly's ridiculous first half of the season last year was an abberation, and he comes back to earth, but his ceiling as a pitcher is huge. Not to mention the Sox are trading away 2+ potential cost-controlled studs to a division rival for a 32 year old ace that they'll have to pay 100 million.

Also, what would that contract mean for potential offensive upgrades? What does it mean for Beckett?

[AlNipper49]

Make sure you guys sign into the chat room tomorrow night!

[jacklamabe65]

It comes down to the CHARACTER of Clay in my mind. He has the physical stuff, but does he have the mental acumen to be a top guy. If he does, no thanks.

[GreyisGone]

It comes down to the CHARACTER of Clay in my mind. He has the physical stuff, but does he have the mental acumen to be a top guy. If he does, no thanks.

Oh for the love of God. We're back to this psycho-analysis BS?

[bosockboy]

I was hoping this wasn't the centerpiece of their offseason, but if it takes Buchholz/Kelly it likely will be. I guess I'm OK with it if they get the extension done....that will allow them a lot of flexibility moving forward with Beckett, and Halladay will age well IMHO. Should have 4-5 more dominant years.

If this happens I guess the plan is to resign Bay, and build a brick wall on the left side of the infield for Halladay. Hello, Beltre and Scutaro.

[yecul]

You have to think about why this information is out there: Toronto is leaking it.

They want Kelly and Buchholz. Duh. Note that there have been recent rumors about the Yankees being interested as well as the Angels and maybe other teams, including rough specifics or at least articulating some urgency.

Toronto needs to make up for last summer's dropped ball and want to generate as much interest as possible. Making sure everyone knows that teams are hot for him and a bunch of big packages are getting thrown around is going to help them out in that regard. A little marketing.

Boston won't trade that package, so no big deal. If they can get a window and extend him, then this is obviously a wise move. Halladay is a great pitcher and it covers you against Beckett hitting free agency with huge demands, which he's likely to do. That said, I don't expect them to be the team to get him.

Edited by yecul, 25 November 2009 - 07:59 AM.

[RedOctober3829]

If they want both Kelly and Buchholz I'd be asking for Adam Lind to be included in the deal. That's about the only way I'd give both of them up. I'm not sure you give up cost-controlled years of Clay without getting a window to extend Halladay. Also, if they do ink Halladay do you have enough money to extend Beckett as well?

OTOH, I have dreams of a Halladay-Lester-Beckett ALDS dancing in my head.

[Rough Carrigan]

Of course, Clay Bucholz pitched, arguably, a better game than either Lester or Beckett did in the playoffs.

[Joshv02]

You have to think about why this information is out there: Toronto is leaking it.

Right. Complete with a pseudo, media driven time line. Therefore, like all such rumors, discount everything until there is real reporting.

[absintheofmalaise]

Of course, Clay Bucholz pitched, arguably, a better game than either Lester or Beckett did in the playoffs.

Then that should answer the questions about his CHARACTER.

[HomeBrew1901]

I can't stand discussions like these because of the inevitable "YOU CAN'T GET RID OF HOT MINOR LEAGUER X BECAUSE HE IS AN UBERPROSPECT" arguments. For all we know Casey Kelly is just as likely to be the next Andy Marte as he is the next Pedroia so if it takes Kelly and another minor leaguer for Halladay I'm fine with that. He is a proven AL East ace with no history of health problems and provides Beckett insurance.

IMO you never give up a lot to trade for a 32 year old pitcher with one year on his contract that the Sox will need to extend, especially when Toronto screwed the pooch last year when Halladay's stock was a lot higher (a full season and a half rather than one season). I've never been a big Buchholz fan so if the Sox want to use Buchholz in a trade that brings in a power bat like Cabrera or a young phenom like Gonzalez then you give up [Buchholz in a heartbeat.

Edited by HomeBrew1901, 25 November 2009 - 09:18 AM.

[Drocca]

Why is there a hang-up over a 32 year old pitcher? History favors the 32 year old having more success in the next five years than the 25 year old.

[HomeBrew1901]

Why is there a hang-up over a 32 year old pitcher? History favors the 32 year old having more success in the next five years than the 25 year old.

The only hangup I have is what Toronto would want for a guy with 1 year left on his contract that is going to demand and is worthy of a long and expensive extension. If you give me a choice between a 32 Year Old Halladay and a 25 YO Buchholz, I'm taking Halladay every time.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I don't really have a problem with giving up Buchholz but giving him up for a pitcher who is signed for just one year, even though he's a great pitcher, doesn't seem like the best use of him given the team's long term needs at other positions. If the Sox give up Buchholz for Halladay, and give Halladay a ton of money, what does that mean for Beckett? What does it mean for the 3B / LF situation? Is there a plan to flip Beckett to the Mets for Beltran or Reyes or someone? Moving Dice-K? Or is this all just a smokescreen designed to distract everyone from what the Sox are really trying to do- a somewhat public announcement that the Sox are in on Halladay increases the odds that the Yankees land him, doesn't it?

Will be a good test to see if Halladay's value is really half of what it was at the trading deadline, as the experts predicted.

[Maalox]

Oh for the love of God. We're back to this psycho-analysis BS?

Lamabe has a point - admirably concisely, for him. Temperament is an essential component of success in any human endeavor. That's a fact of life which no amount of online bitching and moaning is ever going to change so you'd be best off just accepting it.

In short, yes, we're back to this psycho-analysis BS. Suck it up and deal.

[pokey_reese]

You have to think about why this information is out there: Toronto is leaking it.

They want Kelly and Buchholz. Duh. Note that there have been recent rumors about the Yankees being interested as well as the Angels and maybe other teams, including rough specifics or at least articulating some urgency.

Toronto needs to make up for last summer's dropped ball and want to generate as much interest as possible. Making sure everyone knows that teams are hot for him and a bunch of big packages are getting thrown around is going to help them out in that regard. A little marketing.

Boston won't trade that package, so no big deal. If they can get a window and extend him, then this is obviously a wise move. Halladay is a great pitcher and it covers you against Beckett hitting free agency with huge demands, which he's likely to do. That said, I don't expect them to be the team to get him.

I have to agree with this, and it is helping me to stay calm. I have a hard time believing that Toronto was asking for much more than Buchholz, Kelly + parts over the summer, and if the Sox passed on the deal then, I can't imagine that they would pay this much with only one year left on the current deal, unless they have reason to believe that they can sign Halladay to a really team-friendly deal, which is virtually impossible since he declared that he was leaving Toronto to get the big FA bucks.

Toronto is now in just about the exact same position that the Twins were with Santana a few years ago, except that Halladay is 32 instead of 29. If the Sox give up Buchholz and Kelly for the chance to sign Halladay to the same contract that they could sign him to a year from now for no prospects, then Theo has lost his mind. All of the pressure to make this deal is on the Toronto FO, unless they want to risk just getting 2 picks for Halladay, and then the Sox can sign him anyhow.

[absintheofmalaise]

Why is there a hang-up over a 32 year old pitcher? History favors the 32 year old having more success in the next five years than the 25 year old.

It does? Not that I wouldn't want Halladay on the team and I'm not a don't trade prospects guy, but don't most pitchers decline in their mid to late thirties?

[Rudy Pemberton]

I have a hard time believing that Toronto was asking for much more than Buchholz, Kelly + parts over the summer, and if the Sox passed on the deal then

Weren't the rumors (for whatever those are worth) that the Blue Jays turned down that offer, not the Sox?

[Yaz4Ever]

I agree completely with Shaun (and Maalox). Character is a big deal even if there is no quantitative formula for us to determine who has better/worse character traits than someone else and how that equates to wins.

I'm fine with trading Clay for Roy, but I want to see who else will be part of the deal (officially, not speculatively) before I get too excited about anything.

edit: although, I'd MUCH rather see Clay part of a deal that nets us Adrian Gonzalez.

Edited by Yaz4Ever, 25 November 2009 - 09:51 AM.

[HomeBrew1901]

I have to agree with this, and it is helping me to stay calm. I have a hard time believing that Toronto was asking for much more than Buchholz, Kelly + parts over the summer, and if the Sox passed on the deal then, I can't imagine that they would pay this much with only one year left on the current deal,

IIRC, the Sox offered a ridiculous package of Buchholz, and 3 or 4 other top prospects and Toronto actually turned the Sox down because it wasn't enough.

[Foulkey Reese]

IIRC, the Sox offered a ridiculous package of Buchholz, and 3 or 4 other top prospects and Toronto actually turned the Sox down because it wasn't enough.

Well keep in mind that Ricciardi was still running the show back then and he was pretty heavily criticized for not taking that or a package like that when he had the chance.

[HomeBrew1901]

Well keep in mind that Ricciardi was still running the show back then and he was pretty heavily criticized for not taking that or a package like that when he had the chance.

True, but I have to assume that ownership had final say and ultimately turned that package down, I think JP was just the fall guy. Just like Theo doesn't have the final authority to give Halladay a 5 year 100M contract, I can almost guarantee that JP didn't have the last word on what Toronto would take for Halladay.

edit: I have no way of knowing that, but I can't imagine that JP had that much authority when it was pretty obvious he was on his way out.

Edited by HomeBrew1901, 25 November 2009 - 09:48 AM.

[Joe D Reid]

The potential cost bothers me as well, though more because it might preclude the team from making another trade for an impact bat. To my mind, the bat is the bigger need right now. Although last year's team finished 3rd in RS and RA, the rotation already in place for next year (Beckett/Lester/Dice-K/Buchholz/Wakefield) is a lot more solid than the lineup, which currently has no LF and question marks at 3B, SS, and DH.

Once Halladay is obtained and extended, I have trouble seeing where the money or trade chips necessary to help the lineup are going to come from, unless the team reverses course and shows a willingess to either totally burn down the farm system or go deep into luxury tax territory.

[GreyisGone]

Lamabe has a point - admirably concisely, for him. Temperament is an essentially component of success in any human endeavor. That's a fact of life which no amount of online bitching and moaning is ever going to change so you'd be best off just accepting it.

In short, yes, we're back to this psycho-analysis BS. Suck it up and deal.

Feel free to post any studies that show that temperament is a predictable measure for future pitching success at the major league level.

Since, as far as I know, there is no evidence it actually exists, we may as well talk about how the necklaces Buchholz and Beckett wear provide them with added skills needed to be a successful major league pitcher. In short, talking about things that we have no way of proving (and then proving value of) is pointless. Suck it up and deal.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Well keep in mind that Ricciardi was still running the show back then and he was pretty heavily criticized for not taking that or a package like that when he had the chance.

Also, Halladay was more valuable then - you got him for a year and a half instead of just a year, and he could have been the "guy who puts you over the top" if you were a contending team in the heat of a pennant race, especially if your John Smoltzs and Brad Pennys were in the process of falling apart.

[mt8thsw9th]

It does? Not that I wouldn't want Halladay on the team and I'm not a don't trade prospects guy, but don't most pitchers decline in their mid to late thirties?

When Schilling was 32, he was still in Philly being managed by Terry Francona. Randy Johnson was a Mariner and Roger Clemens was still with the Red Sox. I really don't see how Roy Halladay can't still have 4-5 ace-level seasons left. That's a level Clay Buchholz will likely never approach, and something this team needs if they want to do more than be perpetual AL East runners up again. Buchholz to Halladay is a huge jump.

Of course they should only do the deal if it's contingent on an extension, but not trading for a legitimate ace that has dominated your biggest competition in your division over hype that may or may not pan out is certifiably insane if you can afford the deal.

[NomarRS05]

The potential cost bothers me as well, though more because it might preclude the team from making another trade for an impact bat. To my mind, the bat is the bigger need right now. Although last year's team finished 3rd in RS and RA, the rotation already in place for next year (Beckett/Lester/Dice-K/Buchholz/Wakefield) is a lot more solid than the lineup, which currently has no LF and question marks at 3B, SS, and DH.

Once Halladay is obtained and extended, I have trouble seeing where the money or trade chips necessary to help the lineup are going to come from, unless the team reverses course and shows a willingess to either totally burn down the farm system or go deep into luxury tax territory.

I agree. If it comes down to using Buchholz to acquire a big bat rather than a 32-year old arm, then I go for the big bat. Of course, that would leave a hole in next season's rotation, but at least the Sox would have the option of pursuing someone like John Lackey through free agency to fill the void. If Theo pulls the trigger on a Halladay trade then there is virtually no chance of landing an impact bat.

[yecul]

Edit - Meh, nevermind.

I would be inclined to not trade Buchholz for Halladay if possible. It all depends on what else is being offered to them.

Boston seems to want to make a big splash. Adrian Gonzalez's cost is likely prohibitive. I am skeptical that Cabrera will be moved. So... you're not left with a ton of options. Halladay gives you a killer rotation in '10 and replaces Beckett beyond.

Edited by yecul, 25 November 2009 - 09:58 AM.

[Foulkey Reese]

Well I sure hope they're able to get a competent left side of the infield if they're going to trade Buchholz for a ground ball machine like Halladay.

[HomeBrew1901]

The question is which Buchholz is going to show up each and every season. Is it the Buchholz that threw a no-hitter and was pretty dominant at the end of 2009 or the Buchholz that showed absolutely no signs of growth, maturity, or even pitching skills in 2008 and the first half of 2009?

He absolutely sucked balls in 2008 and arguably cost the Sox the division and as a result the ALCS (due to lack of home field) and a chance to beat the Phillies in the WS.

Can he continue the dominance his showed at the end of last year? None of us really know which is why people are questioning not so much his character, but if he has the mental fortitude to pitch in the AL East.

[Worst Trade Evah]

I agree with Lamabe and Maalox -- character is not an irrelevant consideration. I don't know much about Buchholz's character, and in general I hate it when people try to read body language to get into the minds of athletes. I always thought the stuff about the Derek Lowe Face was way, way over-blown.

But there are lots of players with loads of physical talent who just lack the extra stuff upstairs or inside to get it together. If the Sox have reasons to think Buchholz might be one of those guys -- which I half-suspect myself -- then that is absolutely a relevant factor. It's not just about WAR or RAR or whatever the fashionable stat is these days.

"Character" for me in baseball terms does NOT necessarily mean nice, or intelligent. It just means a certain competitive spirit, a willingness to work, an ability to get into the game and maximize talent, which probably means some time thinking about what you need to do to be successful. "Character" is a good short-hand description of the set of habits, dispositions and aptitudes that amplify or inhibit realization of physical talent. It's the 5 cent head on a million-dollar arm. In baseball terms, a gym rat is a high character trait. Obsessive film studying is a good character trait. You can be successful without those, but it's a mark against. It's hard for us to know those things about Buchholz (is the string of busty bimbos a good sign or a bad one?...), but Lamabe is right to point out that the Sox are in a different position.

Buchholz may be one of those guys with a big arm who never puts it together, and if the Red Sox think there's some chance of this, that's a reason to be willing to move him, 3+ pitches or not. Personally, I don't think he'll ever be an ace-level pitcher, and if moving him gets us Halladay, that seems okay to me.

But I also disagree that pitchers 32 and older are safer bets. They're worse bets, a few steroid-aided and historical freaks aside. I just think Halladay is a beast.

edit: if Miguel Cabrera is in play for Buchholz, I think you have to go there first. Cabrera's historical comp is Hank Aaron. The Sox could use a Hank Aaron.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 25 November 2009 - 10:09 AM.

[absintheofmalaise]

When Schilling was 32, he was still in Philly being managed by Terry Francona. Randy Johnson was a Mariner and Roger Clemens was still with the Red Sox. I really don't see how Roy Halladay can't still have 4-5 ace-level seasons left. That's a level Clay Buchholz will likely never approach, and something this team needs if they want to do more than be perpetual AL East runners up again. Buchholz to Halladay is a huge jump.

Of course they should only do the deal if it's contingent on an extension, but not trading for a legitimate ace that has dominated your biggest competition in your division over hype that may or may not pan out is certifiably insane if you can afford the deal.

There are more examples of pitchers doing well from age 32 on than that. Even without "help". Just as there are many examples of pitchers declining. Every study that I've seen shows that players, pitchers and position players, decline from age 29-30 onward. That was what I was commenting about. The odds are pretty high that Halladay will decline and since it only makes sense to trade for him if they can sign him to an extension, I would be very worried about what those last couple of years would look like. Sure he could beat the odds like some others have done, but the odds are against that happening.

[ngruz25]

Feel free to post any studies that show that temperament is a predictable measure for future pitching success at the major league level.

Since, as far as I know, there is no evidence it actually exists, we may as well talk about how the necklaces Buchholz and Beckett wear provide them with added skills needed to be a successful major league pitcher. In short, talking about things that we have no way of proving (and then proving value of) is pointless. Suck it up and deal.

This thread is chock-full of stuff we have no way of proving. There's no way to prove that Buchholz will be better than Halladay in the long run, that Halladay will continue to dominate into his late 30's, that Kelly will amount to anything... it's all conjecture. Some of it is enlightened conjecture, but it's conjecture nonetheless. Even the proposed pieces of the trade are guesses. We're better at guessing at some things than others, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of message board discussion.

[NoLastCall125]

if Miguel Cabrera is in play for Buchholz, I think you have to go there first. Cabrera's historical comp is Hank Aaron. The Sox could use a Hank Aaron.

This.

I liked what Buchholz did last year, the improvement was clear. But I don't give him up for Halladay. I'd give up a Casey Kelly and whoever (within reason) to get Halladay, but would like to see the Sox use Buchholz to get a bat instead. He raised his value significantly by performing like a beast the final half of the year. They should be able to get more than a 32 year old ace with him as a center piece.

Furthermore, Halladay, in essence, would be a Buchholz replacement in the rotation. Kind of like the idea mentioned in other threads about how signing Lackey would make Buchholz more expendable. If they can keep Buchholz and get Halladay, then Buchholz becomes much more expendable in a deal for a hitter.

But this also hinges on the assumption they can't get the big bat without Buchholz. If they actually can, then I care a little less about Buchholz going for Halladay unless they can use him to swing a deal for Hernandez/Johnson, but that's a whole other discussion.

That said, they are deep enough to do both. They could get a Miggy Cabrera and Halladay with the farm system they got. But, I'm also in the camp where if they get Halladay for quality prospects, they have to be given the opportunity to extend him. If not, no deal.

[TheoShmeo]

Feel free to post any studies that show that temperament is a predictable measure for future pitching success at the major league level.

Since, as far as I know, there is no evidence it actually exists, we may as well talk about how the necklaces Buchholz and Beckett wear provide them with added skills needed to be a successful major league pitcher. In short, talking about things that we have no way of proving (and then proving value of) is pointless. Suck it up and deal.

Why not talk about everything that matters or could matter? The fact that we can't prove or measure something doesn't mean that it's not relevant. It's not as if we have space limitations here on SoSH.

More to the point, if you listen to what players actually say, it's abundantly clear that things that can't be measured like commitment, dedication and, yes, temperament actually matter. At the very least, players seem to think that they do. Curt Schlling didn't suddenly figure out how to pitch midway through his career. He began to have success after Roger Clemens lectured him. Now that doesn't mean that we can divine such things by watching Buchholz, and it's clearly the case that any discussion about these issues involves a high degree of speculation. But that doesn't negate the fact that factors that are not easily defined matter a lot. And when discussing whether to part with a talent with as high a ceiling as Clay Buchholz, I'm interested in everything that could matter.

In addition, one could argue that in Buchholz's case, character issues matter quite a bit. We all know that he was lousy in 2008, and that a likely cause was that his head and conditioning weren't in the right place coming off of the success he had in 07 and the no hitter. Last year was a different story, and it's likely his mental approach had a lot to do with that.

[czar]

It's like I've seen this thread before...

Well I sure hope they're able to get a competent left side of the infield if they're going to trade Buchholz for a ground ball machine like Halladay.

Is this merely sarcasm going over the top of my head? Last year Buchholz had a 53.8 GB% compared to Halladay's 50.2.

In addition, one could argue that in Buchholz's case, character issues matter quite a bit. We all know that he was lousy in 2008, and that a likely cause was that his head and conditioning weren't in the right place coming off of the success he had in 07 and the no hitter. Last year was a different story, and it's likely his mental approach had a lot to do with that.

This is not "a likely cause," it's pure conjecture.

Edited by czar, 25 November 2009 - 10:41 AM.

[Foulkey Reese]

Is this merely sarcasm going over the top of my head? Last year Buchholz had a 53.8 GB% compared to Halladay's 50.2.

Wow I had no idea Buch's GB% was so high. I should have looked that up before posting. My mistake.

[zenter]

We all assume that Toronto leaked this, but if I'm Theo, I leak this.

Theo has, at times, laid down cover fire while negotiating a completely separate deal. Remember, even though Halladay was the talk of July, Theo went after Gonzalez, King Felix, and Victor Martinez at least just as hard. IIRC, the Nomar, Bay, and Martinez deals were all done without much media knowledge until the last minute.

Since the sports media can be used in this way, it would make sense to me if Theo started stoking the Halladay flame while going after bodies to fill the bigger hole (1B/3B/DH). It also sends a message to Toronto: as far as the Sox are concerned, in a trade, Clay = Halladay.

EDIT: It also tells other teams Clay is on the table.

Edited by zenter, 25 November 2009 - 11:03 AM.

[smastroyin]

Wow I had no idea Buch's GB% was so high. I should have looked that up before posting. My mistake.

I think you still have two points.

1) The upgrade from Buchholz to Halladay with a neutral defense (i.e. in this comparison they both pitch for the 2010 Red Sox and we don't know how that defense will look yet) is probably not as large as people think.

2) If you are paying through the nose to upgrade then you better understand that to get the full benefit of that upgrade you need a better defense.

I think the upgrade to Halladay from Buchholz is a 20% that Halladay is better than Buchholz's best, 20% the chance that Halladay will be more durable, and 60% the chance that Halladay will be better than Buchholz's worst (i.e. you know what you are getting). Halladay is clearly better right now and a very good bet to be better for the next 5 years. He will probably pitch more and there is obviously much less risk involved with his performance since he is an established guy. I won't deny any of that.

But, the real thing is that trading for Halladay almost makes 2010 a must-win. That seems like a situation the Sox wouldn't want to get into. I think Halladay is pretty intent to test the free agent waters and that if you want to extend him, the exclusive negotiating window only increases your odds of being the team that pays full market value (to be clear, that's worth something, I just don't think he will sign at any kind of discount). On the plus side, of course, the equation in this case also nets you two draft picks if you let him walk. Or, if the Sox were to drop out of contention, they can try to flip him for more than they gave up, although if the Teixeira example is any indication that is a move doomed to failure.

[Worst Trade Evah]

This is not "a likely cause," it's pure conjecture.

I guess I agree, to a certain extent. On the other hand, he wasn't injured, and he was pretty bad. It's pretty fair to wonder what non-physical issues might have been in play. If it's just numbers we're looking at here, Halladay's and Buchholz's don't really compare. Have you seen Buchholz's marcel projection? It's pretty lousy. The whole enterprise in thinking about Buchholz's future is conjecture, whether there's a thin layer of numbers put on that or not.

[mt8thsw9th]

Wow I had no idea Buch's GB% was so high. I should have looked that up before posting. My mistake.

You should check the Blue Jays' UZR figures, too. Simply replacing Lowell with a league average fielder, and the Red Sox infield is every bit as good, if not markedly better than theirs was in 2009. Encarnacion was Lowell-bad in his brief time with the team.

http://www.fangraphs...B...009&month=0

The Blue Jays simply weren't a good defensive team at all. For comparison, here's the Red Sox:

http://www.fangraphs...R...009&month=0

[MannysDestination]

But, the real thing is that trading for Halladay almost makes 2010 a must-win. That seems like a situation the Sox wouldn't want to get into. I think Halladay is pretty intent to test the free agent waters and that if you want to extend him, the exclusive negotiating window only increases your odds of being the team that pays full market value (to be clear, that's worth something, I just don't think he will sign at any kind of discount). On the plus side, of course, the equation in this case also nets you two draft picks if you let him walk. Or, if the Sox were to drop out of contention, they can try to flip him for more than they gave up, although if the Teixeira example is any indication that is a move doomed to failure.

I agree. I'd actually prefer this trade if it were contingent on an extension. If we're talking a one-year rental, the prospect price tag would have to drop considerably. If I were Hallady, I'd demand a new 5-year contract in excess of $100 million. If I were the Sox, I'd probably try to get him to an AAV of $20 million.

We've shed a ton of payroll relative to a few years ago. We have payroll room to add one or two superstars and a couple all-stars given the contract makeup of the team.

[SMU_Sox]

There are more examples of pitchers doing well from age 32 on than that. Even without "help". Just as there are many examples of pitchers declining. Every study that I've seen shows that players, pitchers and position players, decline from age 29-30 onward. That was what I was commenting about. The odds are pretty high that Halladay will decline and since it only makes sense to trade for him if they can sign him to an extension, I would be very worried about what those last couple of years would look like. Sure he could beat the odds like some others have done, but the odds are against that happening.

5 years of a cost controlled 25 y/o who pitched well in an elimination playoff game and had a streaky season but who has ace stuff, or a) 1 year of Halladay, or b) x years of Halladay, a 32 y/o pitcher who 1) will cost a lot more than Buchholz, 2) is more likely to experience a decline in his performance due to his age, and 3) whose value might only be equal, or just slightly higher or lower, to Buchholz if Buchholz consistently reaches his potential.

Aren't we glad we didn't trade Lester for Santana? In that case a lot of posters thought Lester's best upside was anywhere from a 2-4 pitchers, with many saying 3/4. Needless to say he exceeded those expectations. In this case it's clear Buchholz upside is 1/2. I don't think it's a good trade based on comparative value. Is that a risk? Sure, but it's one I'd take.

In 6 games from August 29th to September 24th Buchholz was on fire: 41 innings, 6 ER, 1.32 ERA, 31 K's, 10 BB's.
But in 4 out of 16 games he gave up over 6 ER's.
He's still getting it together but he proved 3 things this year: 1) he can bounce back from a bad start, 2) he can bounce back from a bad play mid game, and 3) he pitched, in Boston, in an elimination game and pitched fairly well. To me, that's 3 exhibits of mental toughness, or w/e the psycho babble crap it is.