I don't disagree that flags fly forever, and I'm fine with giving up a lot to get him, as I think he's very valuable.

I just think it is possible to overpay - even if he is everything expected, no guarantee that you wouldn't be better off with what you gave up if it is "too much". To me, too much is Drabek for the reasons I gave upthread. Reasonable minds can differ.

nycphils wrote:I don't want to get too off track, and certainly don't mean to be condescending, but I don't think you understand the "winner's curse" theory based on that response. The whole point is that the party that thinks the acquisition will be worth the most to them - in your example, that Halladay continues to be great, leads Phils directly to WS, collect $200 - bids the most. The problem arises when it turns out that the asset wasn't worth the highest estimate - say, Halladay has nagging injuries and only posts a 12-10, 4.50 ERA, or other players get injuries and there are no replacements - and thus the winner suffers for having overpaid.

I likewise do not want to condescend, but you seem to be assuming that the highest bidder in an auction is always a victim of the "winner's curse,' or that, at the very least, it's the inevitable outcome of the Phils being the highest bidder for Halladay. First, if the Phillies are aware of the winner's curse and adjust their estimation going in (e.g., by factoring the risk of injury), they need not necessarily overpay. Second, one could easily argue that acquiring Halladay has value to the Phils independent of the market (e.g., fan interest value, player commitment value, let alone winning winning the WS). Of course, there's also always the possibility that the value of a player could exceed expectations (Raul Ibanez may become an example, although it's still too early to tell).

So, the winner's curse is not an inevitable outcome for the highest bidder in an auction. What we can say is that it is a risk in every auction. But, once acknowledged, it does not necessarily mean bad things in practice.

OTOH, assuming the worst (e.g., Halladay blows out his shoulder) inevitably leads to underestimating the value of the asset. It's what we might call the "Loser's Curse" -- by estimating the value too low, you always lose the auction.

Additionally, the winner's curse tends to be more of a risk when a new, inexperienced bidder enters an auction and overestimates the value of the asset. Although such a result is certainly possible in MLB, it's less of a risk because there is a finite pool of bidders. A new, outside bidder, looking to enter the industry is not suddenly going to start bidding for Halladay's services.

So, yes, the winner's curse has to be considered. But my original point stands: Only the highest bidder wins the auction. And, secondly, being the highest bidder doesn't necessarily make you a victim of the winner's curse.

Finally, back to my question: If everything works out as both would hope (i.e., Halladay helps the Phils win another WFC, but the players traded end up having HOF careers), how will we know if the Phillies overpaid?

karn wrote:No surprise they'd want Happ. Guess it just matters how much they value ML readiness when discussing what else goes with him. I see the center of any deal as being Happ + Taylor

Those are the two guys I least want to see traded, which means it will come to pass.

It really is a trip that the Phils are actually in the hunt both financially and in terms of prospects.

JFLNYC wrote:It really is a trip that the Phils are actually in the hunt both financially and in terms of prospects.

Plus we're defending WFC, there's a weird sense of optimism surrounding the team.

MLBTR.com notes:

SI's Jon Heyman hears that the Jays may want a top SS prospect for the Doc, which could bode well for the Phillies, White Sox and Brewers, who all harbor chips in Jason Donald, Gordon Beckham and Alcides Escobar, respectively.

Brewers - Alcides Escobar would appeal to the Jays, who don't have an answer at short after Marco Scutaro becomes a free agent this year. But Escobar's untouchable, and probably wouldn't net Halladay on his own.

If the Brewers get him over the Phillies there's a problem.

Ken Davidoff at Newsday says it'd be "irresponsible" for the Mets and Yankees to not inquire on Halladay. Davidoff talked to Ricciardi, who insinuates that he wants a bigger package than what the Braves gave for Mark Teixeira a couple years ago.

I can't believe Toronto will trade him in the division, especially to the Yankees .

The Mets have so many holes at this point they'll be lucky not to be 10 games out by August. Then again, listening to WFAN the natives are getting mighty restless.

What was the Braves package for Tex? How do we compare?

The Tex package was

Jarrod Saltalamacchia, C
Elvis Andrus, SS
Beau Jones, LHP
Neftali Feliz, RHP
Matt Harrison, RHP

You have to look at the deal in the context of what these players were when they were dealt.

Salty had been in the majors for about 2 months and wasn't really lighting the league on fire. He was still one of ATL's best prospects, and was considered the centerpiece at the time, along with Andrus. In the minors, he had 2 average seasons, a breakout season at A+, then a down year in AA in 2006, then he was raking at AA before being called up and traded.

Andrus was a toolsy SS who basically was just hitting for average in the minors and stealing bases, no power, but good defense. He was only 18 and playing in A+ ball before the deal. Texas kept him in A+ ball for the rest of 2007, then moved him to AA last year, then jumped him to the majors in 2009.

Jones and Harrison are fringe arms in the Andrew Carpenter mold. Feliz wasn't really hyped at the time of the trade, he was in rookie ball, but he picked up considerable steam and hype in 2008 and was being put in the elite tier heading into 2009 before hitting a few bumps in the road at AAA.

JFLNYC wrote:It really is a trip that the Phils are actually in the hunt both financially and in terms of prospects.

yeah, I know what you mean... nice to be WFC and have some pieces to play with...


when you are talking about a franchise with all of 2 WFC's in its 125+ year history -- I will never fault the Phils for going after a guy of Halladays pedigree to win another one while they have the roster to do it... whatever the outcome, overpay, whatever... I don't want to give up Happ, we'd all like Halladay AND Haap in there... and ya never know what will happen moving forwards but its not just about the future. We have a window now to snag another WFC or two... go for broke...

we can debate the esoteric stuff while sitting in our WFC's swag chair, t-shirts and sippin cold frostys in the WFC's mug!

CSN poll: would you include Drabek in a trade for Halladay?

Currently 58% yes

Another 71% would also depart with Jim Deshaies

It's surreal hearing that the Phillies would be the most likely team to trade for Halladay on ESPN from Buster Olney.

BigEd76 wrote:CSN poll: would you include Drabek in a trade for Halladay?

Currently 58% yes

42% who's Drabek?

Philly the Kid wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:It really is a trip that the Phils are actually in the hunt both financially and in terms of prospects.

yeah, I know what you mean... nice to be WFC and have some pieces to play with...


when you are talking about a franchise with all of 2 WFC's in its 125+ year history -- I will never fault the Phils for going after a guy of Halladays pedigree to win another one while they have the roster to do it... whatever the outcome, overpay, whatever... I don't want to give up Happ, we'd all like Halladay AND Haap in there... and ya never know what will happen moving forwards but its not just about the future. We have a window now to snag another WFC or two... go for broke...

we can debate the esoteric stuff while sitting in our WFC's swag chair, t-shirts and sippin cold frostys in the WFC's mug!

this. win now. i don't see the point in holding onto these guys for when our core is gone. i'd rather have a mini run now while everyone is peaking and worry about rebuilding later.

So just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't a Halladay acquisition doom us to not repeat as WFC? The last top of the rotation pitcher acquired at the trade deadline that helped his team go on to win the WS was. . .?

GET IT DONE RUBE.

Just remember your BATNA

stevemc wrote:So just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't a Halladay acquisition doom us to not repeat as WFC? The last top of the rotation pitcher acquired at the trade deadline that helped his team go on to win the WS was. . .?

Randy Johnson had an okay run in Arizona

Woody wrote:

stevemc wrote:So just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't a Halladay acquisition doom us to not repeat as WFC? The last top of the rotation pitcher acquired at the trade deadline that helped his team go on to win the WS was. . .?

Randy Johnson had an okay run in Arizona

Free agent signing by the D-Backs.

stevemc wrote:So just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't a Halladay acquisition doom us to not repeat as WFC? The last top of the rotation pitcher acquired at the trade deadline that helped his team go on to win the WS was. . .?

I always cringe when I hear this reasoning. It's not as if there's some spooky curse on so-called ace pitchers where, if they are traded, are doomed to miss out on winning a championship.

The playoffs are a crapshoot, really. That's why the 83-win Cardinals were able to power their way through the playoffs a few years ago.

Essentially, all you want to do is increase your probability of winning. Upgrading your pitching staff with a #1 pitcher like Halladay goes a long way towards increasing those odds; the Phillies become a whole lot tougher to beat in the playoffs.

On a side note, Joe Blanton could be considered a "top of the rotation pitcher acquired at the trade deadline". Of course, it was the Oakland Athletics' rotation, in which Adam Eaton could have been a #3.

Although I'm all for acquiring Halladay at a not ridiculous price, it was Houston that acquired Randy Johnson at the deadline, not AZ - he went to AZ thereafter as a FA, I believe.