Halladay is on the block, fyi

by **Grotewold** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 14:57:56

So is Gillick in on all this

by **Blur** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 14:58:57

It's moot at this point as the Blue Jays have already said that they won't trade Halladay until the day of the deadline.

by **Blur** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 15:01:16

Grotewold wrote:So is Gillick in on all this

I've totally forgotten about the Gillick factor. Interesting.

by **Blur** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 15:05:21

ek wrote:
Blur wrote:It's moot at this point as the Blue Jays have already said that they won't trade Halladay until the day of the deadline.

i thought they said no pre-trade contract negotiations or something like that?

Is that what is was? I must've misread it. I do recall reading that they weren't trading him until the 31st however.

by **stevelxa476** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 15:05:39

ek wrote:
Blur wrote:It's moot at this point as the Blue Jays have already said that they won't trade Halladay until the day of the deadline.

i thought they said no pre-trade contract negotiations or something like that?

I think I heard it reported both ways, but I am pretty sure it is just the latter.

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 15:30:54

traderdave wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
traderdave wrote:
Grotewold wrote:Heard a Kurkijen snippet this AM about the Phils' brain trust having "internal meetings" today to hash out and or finalize the package they'd be willing to offer to the Jays of Canada

I hope that Rube just goes to them with our best offer and puts like a 48-hour time limit on it.

I'm afraid that won't produce the desired result.

Probably not but we can't let JP shop our deal around to everybody else in the league plus if we are giving up those kinds of prospects I don't want Halladay making another four starts for Toronto.

Rube is showing me the nerves of a gambler here and, I have to say, I'm impressed. I think he knows he's got the best deal available and he's biding his time. And that's really my point. Riccardi is interested. You have to be patient now, no matter how much you want Halladay and want him now. Be patient, wait for Riccardi to come back to you, which he most definitely will.

by **Squire** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 15:52:25

Hey. There's two parties in this trade. The Blue Jays don't get to dictate all the negotiations. Why do we always assume we are the weaker party when we are both buying and selling?

SQUIRE

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 15:56:49

CrashburnAlley wrote:Awesome breakdown of a Roy Halladay trade at Beyond the Box Score.

Here's a quick and dirty estimate of what prospect packages would equal Halladay's trade value. Based on past trading history, some are more likely than others.

* One stud position player. (Win for Blue Jays.)
* One top 50 position player.
* Two top 100 position players.
* One top 10 pitching prospect and a grade B prospect.
* Two top 75 pitching prospects.
* Four grade B prospects.
* Twelve to twenty grade C prospects. (The Ricky Williams strategy?)

Phillies

While everybody's raving about the Phillies' pitching prospects, they only had one ranked in Baseball America's Top 100 before the season, Carlos Carrasco. Mid-season, however, Kyle Drabek has cracked the Top 25. Both of those guys would be woth $15M in excess value going forward, while B-prospects J.A. Happ and Jason Knapp are each about half as valuable. Just looking at pitchers, then, one from each group would make for a fair trade, while two of the studs or three of the four would tip things in the Jays favor. How Pedro Martinez looks over the next two weeks will go a long way towards determining how much of their future the Phillies are looking to sacrifice.

The Phillies do have some quality position player prospects, though, too, namely Dominic Brown and Michael Taylor, two outfielders who both made BA's mid-season top 25, plus Jason Donald (INF) who was a Top 75 pre-season pick. That's an expected value of $25M each for the two otufielders and $15M for Donald. Maybe the Jays strategy is to push for multiple pitchers, then "settle" for just one plus a blue-chip outfield prospect?

So, if I'm reading the analysis correctly, the writer thinks that Taylor straight up or Carrasco and Donald would be fair trades. Why do I think Riccardi wouldn't agree?

by **BigB** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 15:59:17

At what point does JA Happ go from being a prospect to a major league player. Hell the guy has been in the major leagues since last year. He was part of the playoff and World Series run. He is not longer a "B prospect" he is a young starting pitcher who has had success at the major league level.

by **Bakestar** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:00:02

The fact is the Phillies don't "need" to make this deal, which gives them more leverage than anything.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:00:49

JFLNYC wrote:So, if I'm reading the analysis correctly, the writer thinks that Taylor straight up or Carrasco and Donald would be fair trades. Why do I think Riccardi wouldn't agree?

It's not so much what the author thinks. It's the difference between real and perceived value. What players will actually be swapped is based on perceived value; Sky (the author) is basing his analysis on real value.

by **scottdg** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:02:03

Squire wrote:Hey. There's two parties in this trade. The Blue Jays don't get to dictate all the negotiations. Why do we always assume we are the weaker party when we are both buying and selling?

SQUIRE

Because we are Phillies fans and while they may be WFC it still takes a while for it to sink in that these aren't the same old Phillies. Also because I think some people still look at it as if the Jays may hold onto Halladay which I don't believe. I think they not only want to but now feel like they have to trade him.

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:02:41

CrashburnAlley wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:So, if I'm reading the analysis correctly, the writer thinks that Taylor straight up or Carrasco and Donald would be fair trades. Why do I think Riccardi wouldn't agree?

It's not so much what the author thinks. It's the difference between real and perceived value. What players will actually be swapped is based on perceived value; Sky (the author) is basing his analysis on real value.

Sorry, but no one (other than, perhaps, Nostradamus) knows what "real value" is when it comes to specific prospects. His analysis is no more than another view of perceived value.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:07:12

JFLNYC wrote:Sorry, but no one (other than, perhaps, Nostradamus) knows what "real value" is when it comes to specific prospects. His analysis is no more than another view of perceived value.

Well, yeah, but it's without bias, as GM's will over- and under-value certain players based on a variety of factors including the team's needs, the player's reputation, the agent, etc. Sky's analysis is just based on the numbers.

by **Blur** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:09:59

scottdg wrote:
Squire wrote:Hey. There's two parties in this trade. The Blue Jays don't get to dictate all the negotiations. Why do we always assume we are the weaker party when we are both buying and selling?

SQUIRE

Because we are Phillies fans and while they may be WFC it still takes a while for it to sink in that these aren't the same old Phillies. Also because I think some people still look at it as if the Jays may hold onto Halladay which I don't believe. I think they not only want to but now feel like they have to trade him.

Agreed.

I think Roy Halladay showing up on Philly radio and at the All-Star Game, discussing the potential of a trade, made it so much more likely that the Jays will trade him at this year's trade deadline.

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:17:13

CrashburnAlley wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:Sorry, but no one (other than, perhaps, Nostradamus) knows what "real value" is when it comes to specific prospects. His analysis is no more than another view of perceived value.

Well, yeah, but it's without bias, as GM's will over- and under-value certain players based on a variety of factors including the team's needs, the player's reputation, the agent, etc. Sky's analysis is just based on the numbers.

Just because it's all numbers doesn't mean it's unbiased. In order to get to those numbers, certain assumptions were made (including, e.g., one assumption stated in the article about Halladay's future performance) and those assumptions have an inherent bias, even if the bias does not favor one result over another. Plus, when you consider that the result produced from the analysis is one which would never happen in real life, I would conclude that the analysis has little to no value.

Put otherwise, for purposes of this (or any other) market transaction there is no daylight between perceived and real value. The only value is set by the market and is based on what the market perceives.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:31:08

Uncle Milty wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
CrashburnAlley wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:So, if I'm reading the analysis correctly, the writer thinks that Taylor straight up or Carrasco and Donald would be fair trades. Why do I think Riccardi wouldn't agree?

It's not so much what the author thinks. It's the difference between real and perceived value. What players will actually be swapped is based on perceived value; Sky (the author) is basing his analysis on real value.

Sorry, but no one (other than, perhaps, Nostradamus) knows what "real value" is when it comes to specific prospects. His analysis is no more than another view of perceived value.

Nostradamus was a charlatan.

No one understood his player evaluations since they were all kinds of cryptic.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:34:39

CrashburnAlley wrote:Awesome breakdown of a Roy Halladay trade at Beyond the Box Score.

Here's a quick and dirty estimate of what prospect packages would equal Halladay's trade value. Based on past trading history, some are more likely than others.

* One stud position player. (Win for Blue Jays.)
* One top 50 position player.
* Two top 100 position players.
* One top 10 pitching prospect and a grade B prospect.
* Two top 75 pitching prospects.
* Four grade B prospects.
* Twelve to twenty grade C prospects. (The Ricky Williams strategy?)

Phillies

While everybody's raving about the Phillies' pitching prospects, they only had one ranked in Baseball America's Top 100 before the season, Carlos Carrasco. Mid-season, however, Kyle Drabek has cracked the Top 25. Both of those guys would be woth $15M in excess value going forward, while B-prospects J.A. Happ and Jason Knapp are each about half as valuable. Just looking at pitchers, then, one from each group would make for a fair trade, while two of the studs or three of the four would tip things in the Jays favor. How Pedro Martinez looks over the next two weeks will go a long way towards determining how much of their future the Phillies are looking to sacrifice.

The Phillies do have some quality position player prospects, though, too, namely Dominic Brown and Michael Taylor, two outfielders who both made BA's mid-season top 25, plus Jason Donald (INF) who was a Top 75 pre-season pick. That's an expected value of $25M each for the two otufielders and $15M for Donald. Maybe the Jays strategy is to push for multiple pitchers, then "settle" for just one plus a blue-chip outfield prospect?

If Riccardi read that, he might be thinking he can get 30 players.

Take the 20 C's option. That'll redefine the term "selling the farm" as we won't be able to field one of the minor league teams :idea:

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:37:15

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
CrashburnAlley wrote:Awesome breakdown of a Roy Halladay trade at Beyond the Box Score.

Here's a quick and dirty estimate of what prospect packages would equal Halladay's trade value. Based on past trading history, some are more likely than others.

* One stud position player. (Win for Blue Jays.)
* One top 50 position player.
* Two top 100 position players.
* One top 10 pitching prospect and a grade B prospect.
* Two top 75 pitching prospects.
* Four grade B prospects.
* Twelve to twenty grade C prospects. (The Ricky Williams strategy?)

Phillies

While everybody's raving about the Phillies' pitching prospects, they only had one ranked in Baseball America's Top 100 before the season, Carlos Carrasco. Mid-season, however, Kyle Drabek has cracked the Top 25. Both of those guys would be woth $15M in excess value going forward, while B-prospects J.A. Happ and Jason Knapp are each about half as valuable. Just looking at pitchers, then, one from each group would make for a fair trade, while two of the studs or three of the four would tip things in the Jays favor. How Pedro Martinez looks over the next two weeks will go a long way towards determining how much of their future the Phillies are looking to sacrifice.

The Phillies do have some quality position player prospects, though, too, namely Dominic Brown and Michael Taylor, two outfielders who both made BA's mid-season top 25, plus Jason Donald (INF) who was a Top 75 pre-season pick. That's an expected value of $25M each for the two otufielders and $15M for Donald. Maybe the Jays strategy is to push for multiple pitchers, then "settle" for just one plus a blue-chip outfield prospect?

If Riccardi read that, he might be thinking he can get 30 players.

Take the 20 C's option. That'll redefine the term "selling the farm" as we won't be able to field one of the minor league teams

Surely we could find enough free agents. Aren't C guys mostly minor league roster filler anyway?

by **CrashburnAlley** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 16:39:58

JFLNYC wrote:
CrashburnAlley wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:Sorry, but no one (other than, perhaps, Nostradamus) knows what "real value" is when it comes to specific prospects. His analysis is no more than another view of perceived value.

Well, yeah, but it's without bias, as GM's will over- and under-value certain players based on a variety of factors including the team's needs, the player's reputation, the agent, etc. Sky's analysis is just based on the numbers.

Just because it's all numbers doesn't mean it's unbiased. In order to get to those numbers, certain assumptions were made (including, e.g., one assumption stated in the article about Halladay's future performance) and those assumptions have an inherent bias, even if the bias does not favor one result over another. Plus, when you consider that the result produced from the analysis is one which would never happen in real life, I would conclude that the analysis has little to no value.

Put otherwise, for purposes of this (or any other) market transaction there is no daylight between perceived and real value. The only value is set by the market and is based on what the market perceives.

I don't think his "X for Y" list was meant to be applied to real trade scenarios. It's not like Amaro will call up Ricciardi and say, "I'm only going to offer you two top-75 prospects because that's what Halladay's worth according to Sky Kalkman's research." As you point out, there are a lot of assumptions made... like top-75 prospects. The Baseball America rankings are, themselves, subjective to a wide degree.

When Halladay does get traded, the Jays' haul shouldn't be compared to Sky's list and used to judge whether or not the Jays got ripped off or not. It's just to get an idea of Halladay's worth and the disparity between prospects' real and perceived value at varying levels.

Your criticisms are absolutely valid but the article, I believe, wasn't meant to be taken down to the T, so to speak.

Archived

Halladay is on the block, fyi