Monty kills the Halladay hard on

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:36:40

Kendrick for Willingham would be awesome. Marson for Qualls, decidedly less so.

by **Brantt** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:37:24

ek wrote:i got a mysterious PM on another board where someone is telling me marson was scratched and there are two deals. Kendrick for Willingham, Marson for Qualls. who knows. just thought I'd put it out there

I don't believe either.

Kendrick for Willingham is a laughable steal. Qualls for Marson is probably a fair deal assuming the Jays don't want Lou.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:37:55

I just got an email saying we got Halladay

I sent it to myself, but signed it Jon Heyman so it got me hopes up when I clicked on it

by **FTN** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:38:03

the next 11 days are going to be so painful

by **stevemc** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:38:34

jerseyhoya wrote:Kendrick for Willingham would be awesome. Marson for Qualls, decidedly less so.

Sounds bad separately but doesn't sound so bad when you say Kendrick & Marson for Willingham and Qualls. I know it doesn't justify the Marson trade but still seems more palatable.

by **Woody** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:41:09

Heman twitter

Some (porn?) site called Backshegoes just contacted me for an exclusive interview. Also asked if I had the latest on the Sparky Lyle case?? ?

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:41:55

Wizlah wrote:Wait, so it's okay to trade for a reliever/bat off the bench who will have even less of an opportunity to have a more marginal impact in a playoff situation than it is to trade for a pitcher who will go at least 7 innings? and halladay gives us a better chance to win again next year?
n.

I don't know why you can't understand that a reliever and a righty bat fills a different need than Halladay AND that they will cost MUCH MUCH MUCH less. If those two spots cost us drabek and taylor or brown, then I wouldn't want them either. Pretty simple.

Wizlah wrote:
and like I said, the cost is high if we're never getting another drabek+taylor/brown ever ever again. Please, give me a convincing argument why our farm system is going to dry up, then I'll believe that you have a valid point.

I swear, all of you are now living in ed wade land. slow and careful. don't do anything to rash. Next, someone is going to accuse advocates of a halladay trade of bringing a boom and bust mentality. or calling them bankers.
n.

I never said we wouldn't get another one of these players. In fact, I think I said the opposite of that. The problem is that these players will mature and be ML ready right around the time the big boys' contracts will expire. I like the idea of a seamless transition because then the young guns can learn at the ML level in a winning atmosphere. If we do what you suggest, we have to hope we can develop more young stud prospects, AND we will have to hope they can hit the ground running right at the time many of our other big guns will be leaving. Again, pretty simple.

Also, we just lost Arbunkle and a few of his key personnel, the guy who is responsible for most of the studs in our system. There is no guarantee his successor, Mr I-Love-Me-Some-Tools will have the same success. I think this is all a mater of opinion and personal preference. An solid argument can be made for either side. No need to get your sizeable panties in a bunch.

by **Bucky** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:42:34

FTN wrote:the next 11 days are going to be so amusing

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:45:30

drsmooth wrote:Not the off-topic economics thread, but if anyone is looking for expressions of the concept behavioral economists refer to as loss aversion - a tendency most of them claim is utterly hardwired into the mammalian information processing apparatus - well, you've come to the right place.

For those interested, I'm taking up a testicle collection in support of the acquire Halladay campaign. We're only asking for one.

Right, because a difference of opinion means someone is without balls. That makes sense. There's a logical argument for both sides. If I was without balls, I would have been against all the other trades I suggested or hoped would happen over the years. But never let common sense stand in the way of a good insult, I guess.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:47:20

drsmooth wrote: - a tendency most of them claim is utterly hardwired into the mammalian information processing apparatus -

Is that an esoteric reference to our very own King O' Polls :?:

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:48:37

Grotewold wrote:I'd definitely do it for a package that included neither Drabek nor one of Taylor/Brown.

t.

So would I. I would do cartwheels.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:55:48

I think I've set my bar for happiness for this potential deal as only including one of the Big Three. In order of who I'd trade first: 1. Taylor; 2. Drabek; 3. Brown.

One of the Big Three + I don't give a fuck who else or how many.

by **traderdave** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 13:56:17

Bucky wrote:
FTN wrote:the next 11 days are going to be so amusing

Well if you believe the NY Post thing we are down to only seven days of entertainment.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 14:00:40

Monkeyboy wrote:
drsmooth wrote:Not the off-topic economics thread, but if anyone is looking for expressions of the concept behavioral economists refer to as loss aversion - a tendency most of them claim is utterly hardwired into the mammalian information processing apparatus - well, you've come to the right place.

For those interested, I'm taking up a testicle collection in support of the acquire Halladay campaign. We're only asking for one.

Right, because a difference of opinion means someone is without balls. That makes sense. There's a logical argument for both sides. If I was without balls, I would have been against all the other trades I suggested or hoped would happen over the years. But never let common sense stand in the way of a good insult, I guess.

You have a persecution complex or something, because that post of mine did not refer to you specifically, and frankly I don't recall reading any of your posts here until this one.

How you read an insult into a placid observation about a nascent field of study concerning human decisionmaking behavior is quite beyond me.

by **traderdave** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 14:01:59

Complete just off-the-cuff question here but I noticed in the "Trade Deadline" thread all the talk of Nationals' scouts following LV around the country. Is there any way a three-team deal between the Jays-Phils-Nationals could be in the works? It just seems like the Nationals and Phillies are odd trade partners independently.

by **FTN** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 14:02:11

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 14:02:45

gpicaro wrote:Carrasco, Brown, Donald, D'Arnaud

if it goes down, I think this will be the deal, though maybe marson instead of D'Arnauld

by **Bucky** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 14:03:15

smooth, you'll have to speak to my better half about my portion of the contribution

by **uncle milt** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 14:03:30

Monkeyboy wrote:Right, because a difference of opinion means someone is without balls. That makes sense. There's a logical argument for both sides. If I was without balls, I would have been against all the other trades I suggested or hoped would happen over the years. But never let common sense stand in the way of a good insult, I guess.

i miss buddygroom

by **Trent Steele** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 14:04:08

WASHINGTON – J.P. Ricciardi’s cellphone keeps ringing every hour, but he has yet to hear any proposal that would persuade him to deal pitcher Roy Halladay.

“If you ask me today if we’re going to trade Roy Halladay, I’d say no,” Ricciardi, the Toronto Blue Jays’ general manager, said Tuesday morning. “Something could happen between now and the trade deadline, but this isn’t something that’s suddenly going to happen with someone on the 30th.”

While the non-waiver trading deadline is July 31, Ricciardi said that the Jays would most likely enforce an internal deadline of July 28 to make a deal. Since Ricciardi said the Jays “have to be knocked off our feet” to trade Halladay, he said trade talks with prospective suitors will need to have accelerated several days before the deadline. An 11th-hour deal sounds unlikely.

“There are too many pieces that have to be in play with this,” Ricciardi said.

Ricciardi noted that Halladay is scheduled to start on July 29 and added that he did not want Halladay to have to make that start with the possibility of a trade still lingering over the pitcher. By then, Ricciardi hopes that the Jays have traded Halladay for a pile of prospects or have decided to keep him. Halladay has a no-trade clause and must approve a deal.

Although Ricciardi declined to specify how many teams have inquired about Halladay, he said he received “a new call from another team every day.” The Phillies are seriously interested in Halladay, a two-time 20-game winner, and he would be a superb fit for them. The Rangers, the Dodgers, the Angels and the Brewers are also interested. It is unlikely the Yankees or the Mets will be involved.

SI.com reported that the Jays had asked the Mets for outfielder Fernando Martinez, pitchers Jonathan Niese and Bobby Parnell and shortstop Ruben Tejada. Baseball executives said that would be a dubious trade for the Jays. Ricciardi would not respond directly to the report, but he added, “If I’m getting subpar prospects, I don’t have to make the trade.” In addition, the Mets have spoken internally about not making any significant moves before the deadline.

NYTIMES

Archived

Monty kills the Halladay hard on