Halladay is on the block, fyi

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 14:41:16

dajafi wrote:
FTN wrote:I just feel like he's dumb enough to sit on his hands instead of making a lesser deal now. I really dont think there are many teams who have the farm system depth we do, and the eagerness to trade prospects plus take on salary. Look at the Cardinals. I think our system is much deeper, and we have three elite guys at the top, they have 1. Rangers can't afford his salary this year.

I'm really wondering whether any other team aside from maybe Boston, which has bottomless resources and a deep farm, is even truly in the mix for Halladay--and if the "in-division premium" JP would have to get from the Sox above the package he could accept from us really renders the Phils the only logical destination.

Again, if I'm Amaro, these are my three parameters:

1) Drabek is absolutely off-limits, and you can have one of Taylor or Brown but not both

2) If you want Happ in the deal, you can have any two guys other than Drabek and one of the OFs, then we get to protect a few more prospects (the three I'd try to keep at that point are Marson, Savery, and one of the Lakewood OFs), then you can pick one more

3) If you don't want Happ in the deal, you can have any four guys other than Drabek and one of the OFs

There are probably other permutations we could get into--picking up some/all of Halladay's '09 balance, including another player who could help the Phillies right now (Millar, Scutaro or Bautista, say), etc.

I like the way you set this up, dafaji, so I'm going to follow your lead in format and give my basic parameters:

I guess first is to identify what you are unwilling to part with (although you shouldn't necessarily tip that to Toronto right away). From "untouchable" to "the last guy I would be willing to give up," I'd go: Brown, Taylor, Happ, Marson, Drabek (not because Drabek isn't better than Happ or Marson, but because Happ helps the team now, and Marson can very soon - 2010 - if not this year, and Drabek can't do that, so if we're talking about a move to win a WS this year and next year, I think you have to prioritize those players most likely to be able to help you this year and next year), Knapp. Everyone else can go in the deal without me thinking twice about it.

Like you, dafaji, I'd part with Brown OR Taylor, but definitely not both, and unlike you, I'd part with Drabek and Knapp before either of those two. So, any deal I make is probably built around one or both of those pitchers, plus two lesser position prospects. Happ is not part of any deal I want to make, but, if he is included, then either Knapp or Drabek comes off the table.

First offer: Carrasco, Knapp, Donald, Savery

When that is rejected: Carrasco, Drabek, Donald, Savery

When that too is rejected: Drabek, Savery, Donald, D'Arnaud

Hopefully we're getting warm at this point, so I then go to: Drabek, Knapp, Donald

And, rather than give up any of the guys I don't want to give up, my last offer would be Drabek, Knapp, Donald, D'Arnaud. If that doesn't get it done, see you later. But I've got to believe it would.

Someone can talk me in to switching Taylor for Knapp or Drabek in my last offer, but I know I'd really rather not.

by **GrizzledVeteran** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 14:44:08

Drabek and Knapp? Yikes.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 14:48:16

GrizzledVeteran wrote:Drabek and Knapp? Yikes.

Knapp is 19. Anything could happen between now and when he is ready. Drabek has already had one arm surgery. I'm not talking about trading these people for Aaron Harang or Jason Marquis. Roy Halladay people. You have to expect it to cost. Players closer to the bigs are more valuable to a team trying to win now and in the next few years by acquiring a guy like Halladay. I would lose no sleep over Drabek & Knapp for Halladay if it means I am keeping Happ, Taylor, and Brown. That's a coup d'etat for the Phillies.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 14:52:42

GrizzledVeteran wrote:Drabek and Knapp? Yikes.

Yeah. As I said, I hang up the phone if it's Drabek or nothing. But more generally, mozart27 seems to think that TINSTAAP is a strong enough consideration that you part with top pitching talent much more readily than top hitting talent.

At this point for the Phillies, I strongly disagree. While Taylor has probably a greater likelihood of reaching his full potential than Drabek does, I don't think it's that big of a difference--and between the Phils' greater short/medium term need for pitching (especially if you posit that Brown will be ready by the time Ibanez moves on) and my belief that Drabek's ceiling is higher than Taylor's, I value Drabek more highly.

Another way of looking at it might be this: if we'd talked four months ago about what Kyle Drabek would need to do in 2009 to establish himself as a quality major league pitcher, the list would have been something like

--prove he can stay healthy
--demonstrate that his stuff is intact after the TJ and rehab
--show that he's grown up since 2006
--move up at least one level of competition without performance dropoff
--actually pitch in the majors and hold his own

He's done four of those five things, and probably won't get a chance to finish the set solely because of a front-office decision (one with which I strongly agree, btw). Other than the general concept of TINSTAAP, there's no reason to think this guy won't be a contributor in 2010, and get better from there.

by **momadance** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 14:54:14

How does Randy Miller still have a job? The dude is a moron.

by **Woody** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 14:56:25

FUN FACT: Kyle Drabek's dad is only four months older than Jamie Moyer

p.s. look at this windup

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 14:57:42

Woody wrote:FUN FACT: Kyle Drabek's dad is only four months older than Jamie Moyer

Wow. Weird.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:03:20

dajafi wrote:
GrizzledVeteran wrote:Drabek and Knapp? Yikes.

Yeah. As I said, I hang up the phone if it's Drabek or nothing. But more generally, mozart27 seems to think that TINSTAAP is a strong enough consideration that you part with top pitching talent much more readily than top hitting talent.

At this point for the Phillies, I strongly disagree. While Taylor has probably a greater likelihood of reaching his full potential than Drabek does, I don't think it's that big of a difference--and between the Phils' greater short/medium term need for pitching (especially if you posit that Brown will be ready by the time Ibanez moves on) and my belief that Drabek's ceiling is higher than Taylor's, I value Drabek more highly.

Another way of looking at it might be this: if we'd talked four months ago about what Kyle Drabek would need to do in 2009 to establish himself as a quality major league pitcher, the list would have been something like

--prove he can stay healthy
--demonstrate that his stuff is intact after the TJ and rehab
--show that he's grown up since 2006
--move up at least one level of competition without performance dropoff
--actually pitch in the majors and hold his own

He's done four of those five things, and probably won't get a chance to finish the set solely because of a front-office decision (one with which I strongly agree, btw). Other than the general concept of TINSTAAP, there's no reason to think this guy won't be a contributor in 2010, and get better from there.

It's not just TINSTAPP, though that is a big part of it. Position players, since they play every day, are worth more than pitchers, regardless of other questions, in my mind. Additionally, I simply don't think there is a deal for Halladay without Drabek. So the question, in my mind, isn't "Drabek or Taylor?", rather the questions are "Drabek or Halladay?" (Halladay, duh) and "Taylor or Knapp?" Taylor can help the 2010 Phillies Knapp might help the 2012 Phillies.

Frankly, the Blue Jays should prefer Taylor to Knapp. But I would try to talk them into Knapp over Taylor, and I think the Phillies could, because I believe Drabek/Knapp/Donald/D'Arnaud is better than any package they are likely to get from anyone else. So, unless they just want to punish us for spite for not including Taylor and trade Halladay to some other team for less, they'll take our package and like it, too.

I love being WFC.

by **FTN** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:07:31

no offense, but i think that view is pretty ridiculous

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:10:38

FTN wrote:no offense, but i think that view is pretty ridiculous

Yeah, I overstated it at first, so I edited. Everything is context-dependent; in this case, my strong feeling is that Taylor is more valuable to what the Phillies are trying to build, in the first place, by acquiring Halladay than Knapp is. This is not to say that Knapp won't turn out to be more valuable than Taylor in an absolute sense, but I'm looking at the Phillies over all picture and thinking in terms of maximizing the current roster and the roster for the immediate future. Hence my re-edited post above.

by **FTN** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:12:57

but if you trade away your best pitching prospects because TINSTAAPP, then you'll always end up overpaying for guys like Adam Eaton.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:15:12

FTN wrote:but if you trade away your best pitching prospects because TINSTAAPP, then you'll always end up overpaying for guys like Adam Eaton.

I think Hamels/Halladay at the top of the rotation for several years (assuming a Halladay extension) will give us time to develop more pitching prospects. I wouldn't do this but for maybe 3 other pitchers in baseball (Santana... actually, he might be it).

by **karn** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:17:48

That's your world though. Here in THE world, Taylor is blocked. He won't be unblocked for several years and you can't just let him rot. His value- as a prospect- can go no higher. Knapp, on the other hand, will have infinitely more value next year or the year after. Trading him now would be wasting an enormous opportunity later. There is no later for Taylor, later and he's not worth nearly as much as he is RIGHT NOW. I swear, if Taylor is still a minor leaguer in our system next year, his value will be down the tubes. His age will become part of the discussion, talked about as a defect. "If he's so good, why isn't he in Philly?" and so forth. Trade him now or trade one of your three All-Star outfielders now but do something with the situation or risk blowing the enormous opportunity that's there.

by **philliesphhan** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:18:36

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:19:12

FTN wrote:but if you trade away your best pitching prospects because TINSTAAPP, then you'll always end up overpaying for guys like Adam Eaton.

by **mcare89** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:19:56

philliesphhan wrote:

Beautiful.

by **philliesr98** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:20:30

karn wrote:That's your world though. Here in THE world, Taylor is blocked. He won't be unblocked for several years and you can't just let him rot. His value- as a prospect- can go no higher. Knapp, on the other hand, will have infinitely more value next year or the year after. Trading him now would be wasting an enormous opportunity later. There is no later for Taylor, later and he's not worth nearly as much as he is RIGHT NOW. I swear, if Taylor is still a minor leaguer in our system next year, his value will be down the tubes. His age will become part of the discussion, talked about as a defect. "If he's so good, why isn't he in Philly?" and so forth. Trade him now or trade one of your three All-Star outfielders now but do something with the situation or risk blowing the enormous opportunity that's there.

this is a refreshing post as to why trading Taylor now makes sense...

well put

by **kruker** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:21:54

krazy for karn

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:22:41

karn wrote:That's your world though. Here in THE world, Taylor is blocked. He won't be unblocked for several years and you can't just let him rot. His value- as a prospect- can go no higher. Knapp, on the other hand, will have infinitely more value next year or the year after. Trading him now would be wasting an enormous opportunity later. There is no later for Taylor, later and he's not worth nearly as much as he is RIGHT NOW. I swear, if Taylor is still a minor leaguer in our system next year, his value will be down the tubes. His age will become part of the discussion, talked about as a defect. "If he's so good, why isn't he in Philly?" and so forth. Trade him now or trade one of your three All-Star outfielders now but do something with the situation or risk blowing the enormous opportunity that's there.

If you keep Taylor, this offseason you look to flip Victorino for some pitching help (to, for example, the Yankees). Victorino's value on the trade market will be diminished somewhat by his rising cost, but I believe he has value and could land you either a middle-of-the-rotation starter or, at the least, some useful bullpen arms. Then you plug Taylor in to right, move Werth to center, save yourself some cash, extend Halladay, collect a draft pick for Myers, and all is good.

by **FTN** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 15:26:54

then you plug Taylor in.

And what if he stumbles?

Then what.

Triple A is littered with big time prospects who never hit at the next level.

In prospect land, there are no sure things. At all. David Price was basically a shoe in for the Cy Young/ROY this year. And in reality, he's been pretty pedestrian. Wieters is jesus and was supposed to come up in June and still win the triple crown, but hes struggled while making adjustments.

There are zero sure things, ever. Look at Hamels. He went nuclear on minor league hitters, came up, was good, but also had a few clunkers as well.

Roy Halladay is one of the best pitchers in baseball. If you can trade everyone but Drabek for him, you should. But when it comes to trading prospects, you shouldn't be predetermined to trade pitchers just because they get hurt. Position players flame out and get hurt too.

Archived

Halladay is on the block, fyi