Would you trade Pelfrey and Tejada for Halladay ?.
Via Metsblog.
about 2 years ago
fxcarden
53 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I still don't like the idea of giving out the kind of contract Halladay will command
to a 33 year old pitcher, although it would be hard to get away from getting him for that type of package. But trading Pelfrey also opens another hole in an already weak rotation. Obviously Halladay/Santana would be pretty deadly but you still need someone pitching after them and anyone we bring in will likely not be much better than pelfrey, while being more expensive and will only be a short-term solution.
I see your point, however....
Santana / Halladay is much much better than Santana / Pelfrey (at least in the short term….say next 2 -3 years)
Oh I agree
But I’m saying, if we’re going to trade for Halladay, it might be worth giving up a better prospect package to not have to move Pelfrey. Since he’s our only cheap pitching option for the time being.
One the flipside, though
if we’re trading Pelfrey at all (which I would discourage), Halladay would realistically be the best pitcher to come back in the deal.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Sure
But that is taken out of context. It says at least Pelfrey and Tejada which means we’d have to include a few other prospects as well. I’m not that big on getting Halladay (or hday1!!!!), for the reasons Gina listed.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
I'll play a bit of devil's advocate here
And say I’m not completely opposed to going after Halladay, and that I would consider a package focused on Pelfrey and Tejada. This isn’t Pedro a la 2005. He’s never been quite as dominant as Pedro, but he’s been remarkably durable, and his physical profile is about as opposite as you can get. He’s consistently been among the MLB leaders in IP, and while that might mean extra mileage, the fact that it hasn’t really slowed him down at all yet is a pretty positive sign. A five year deal would lock him up through his age 38 season. A six year contract, 39. I think giving Halladay a five year deal at about market value is, at most, as risky as the deal the Braves gave Derek Lowe, and there’s a lot more potential reward, being that Halladay is one of the few pitchers in baseball who can be worth 5+ WAR, which gives him an extra value premium. Giving up Pelfrey would hurt, but that value premium is arguably worth the 2 WAR type value you’ll get out of Pelf for 0.5 WAR money over the next few years.
But I should add, I wouldn’t do this trade unless I felt my hand was being forced. A lot of these packages sound like the Blue Jays asking price. There’s no reason to jump the gun on a trade like this, I’d absolutely wait and see how the market played out a bit first.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 27, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
I'd be in favor of that trade in July, if the Mets look to be in a position to add major pieces for a world series push.
When there are readily available fixes on the free agent market I’d hate to see this trade made.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Nov 27, 2009 4:06 PM EST reply actions
We'd need to add two more starters through trade or free agency
for Halladay to be worthwhile, otherwise we’d be adding a marquee name to a team that’ll win 84 games.
I’d like to sign him to 4/80, but you probably have to tear up his contract for 2010 to get a deal, and so he’s a lot more likely to get at least 5/110 with a vesting option for $27m or so for 2015. I’m trying to figure out what Pelfrey’s worth over the next four years. He’s got a little over 2.1 years service time—anyone know if he’s a Super 2? My wild ass guess is that Pelfrey will be worth about $30m over the next four years (the midpoint between his 2008 and 2009, muliplied by 4, then fudged by a o.75 health factor), and that the Mets will have to pay him about $20m through his arb years. Tejada is a lot less predictable, so I’ll guess his value at around $10 million over what the Mets would have to pay to get his production through FA. Summing, trading the two will cost the Mets $20 million in order to give to the Mets the right to sign Halladay to a market contract minus whatever break Halladay wants to give the Mets to ensure a huge payday against the chance he suffers a serious injury in 2010.
So, I have to say paying $20m for the privilege of having Halladay on my team at market rates through 2010 is not sensible, financially.
I think Pelfreys situation is weird
He was signed to a major league contract when he was drafted. According to Cots he was signed to a 4 year 5.5 million dollar contract with an option for 2010, which escalates to 6.6 million if he’s on the 25 man roster 07-09, which I think he was. So I have no idea what he’s being paid next year or how it affects his arbitration years. I know we’ve being paying him more than the league minimum pre arbitration players usually get.
He's getting a pay reduction for next year, actually.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
It is weird.
My impression is that Squid’s correct, but I can’t back that up with any sources.
by SeanSchirmer on Nov 27, 2009 6:44 PM EST up reply actions
I understand what you're saying
But a superstar at a market rate contract isn’t a neutral value. If you pay 4.4 mil per marginal win for a 5 WAR player, its a better deal than a market rate contract for a 2 WAR player, since its much easier to find 2 WAR players. There just aren’t that any guys who can generate as much on-field value as the elite superstars of the game, and the only free agent who can do so is Matt Holliday. I’m not saying this makes the situation clear in any way, if anything it makes it more complicated. But I can definitely see a case being made for this kind of premium being paid to acquire a player.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 27, 2009 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
Unless
we could force their hand and make them take a deal similar to the Santana deal, it wouldn’t be worth it. Maybe the fact that they won’t have to face him three or four times a year would be enticing but who knows. How does Halladay project as a 37 year old pitcher? or a 39 year old pitcher. I don’t want to make trades for the sake of making trades. Maybe sending brad holt, tejada plus maybe pagan and a deolis guerra type to toronto would equal to what they want.
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
A similar deal to the Santana one would be like
Mejia, Holt, Familia and Fernando or Davis. At the time, the Santana trade was not a steal, they were all highly regarded prospects.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
I don't think it would be that much
I’d say it would be more like Niese would have similar value to Mulvey, Familia would probably have similar value to Guerra, or a combination of the two at least is similar value to Mulvey and Guerra it’s probably not that direct. Then for Gomez it would be a bit trickier, since he was and probably not ml ready but his defense made him playable, where as Davis probably wouldn’t be able to be an average player out of the gate, like Gomez was, but if given more time in the minors has a good chance to well exceed that. I really think rather than Davis maybe Tejada, or a combination of like Tejada and Nieuwenhuis might be similar value to Gomez. Then Humber is also a weird case cause he was a huge risk huge reward reclamation type and I’m not sure what would equate to him.
Well lets see, I'm even going to change Familia to Niese
Mejia=Guerra – Mejia will certainly be a top 40 prospect this year (I can see him around 25), Guerra was 35 in 08
Holt=Mulvey – Highly regarded but not quite top 100
Niese=Humber (Maybe) – Niese was 77 last year and probably won’t be top 100 this year after the injury, Humber was 73 in 07 then fell out the next year
Davis=Gomez - Davis will probably be a top 100 prospect this year, Gomez was number 52 in 08
We got lucky with the Santana trade, they were all good prospects who just never panned out.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
if it means unloading Mejia and Davis
i say fuck it
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
by Hoyadestroya85 on Nov 27, 2009 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
if halladay was 25 years old
i’d do it but absolutely not
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
by Hoyadestroya85 on Nov 27, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
Because hes a 33 year old
Who’s going to cost 20 million for the next 6 years. And even adding hm we’re still a team full of holes, and after committing 20 million to him and moving all those prospects we wouldn’t have resources to fill those holes. We’d be marginally better than we’ve been the last few years, between an 87-93 win team depending how things break, with no way of improving the team.
LOL...
Yeah, a team full of holes, run by a-holes.
What’s your prediction for 2010? I think we’ll be better, just because we can’t be worse. But I still don’t think we make the playoffs.
Best case, I think we recover about 50% of the production we lost to injuries to first tier players last year, and as usual, I think the second tier players continue to be crap.
I’ll give us 85 wins.
81 wins for me.
Sam should start a pool where everyone posts their W-L prediction, and close it out on April 1st, and then let’s see where we are in October.
We're 20-1 to win the WS, behind PHI and ATL.
Team Open Current
N.Y. Yankees 3/1
Boston 13/2
Philadelphia 13/2
St. Louis 8/1
L.A. Angels 17/2
L.A. Dodgers 9/1
Tampa Bay 11/1
Chi. White Sox 12/1
Atlanta 12/1
Chi. Cubs 14/1
Colorado 20/1
Detroit 20/1
N.Y. Mets 20/1
At least we’re ahead of FLA (30/1). That’s pretty bad though, ATL being 12-1. Jesus.
I disagree about Meija=Guerra
maybe last year Meija did but Guerra never had the success in full-season ball that Meijas had. I’d say Meija is well above Guerras value. I’d say disagree about Holt and Mulvey, Mulvey was considered a lower upside, at best a #3, who would be ready quickly. I guess maybe the fact Holt will take longer to develop might counter-act his higher upside. And Humber was coming off tommy john surgery so I definitely wouldn’t say his value was equal to Niese. Niese doesn’t have the upside Humber was but he’ll likely stick at the end of someones rotation very cheaply, Humber was a reclamation project to an extent.
Agreed
A few weeks ago Keith Law noted that Mejia was the best looking pitching prospect he had seen in the AFL up until that point.
Mejia looks much better than Guerra
But I’m not entirely pleased with the way he’s been pushed. What happens if he’s pitching well in Double-A/Triple-A this year and the Mets need an arm? Are they going to let him throw 100+ innings after the all-star break? That would seem very risky. We still don’t know how he’s going to react to a 150+ inning season. His arm is special, but there’s still a lot we don’t know about what he’s capable of.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 29, 2009 2:43 AM EST up reply actions
You know, this looks reasonable, but at the same time is more than I'd want to pay
even though I was very happy to get Santana for those four. I’m not sure if that’s because of the difference in timing… Santana looked like he could be the last piece that would put us over the top. With Halladay I feel like we’d still need to add a lot. If we already had, say, Garland and another decent starter, Cameron for LF/CF, and a solid, inexpensive catcher, then I’d be willing to trade half the farm. If we’re NOT going to get those other pieces, I don’t see the point in adding Halladay.
by SeanSchirmer on Nov 27, 2009 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
this is a good point
also, Johan was significantly younger than Halladay is now. Hell, Johan is younger than Halladay, period.
"[The Giants] beat us down. We were beat by a grown-man team, a team we want to be like one day. They came in here and took it to us. Out-manned us, out-gunned us. ... It wasn't even close." - Raheem Morris, 9/27/09
Yeah we're talking like a 5-6 year age difference right?
Santana was 27/28 and Halladay will be 32/33, that’s pretty significant especially for a pitcher you’re going to give a huge contract.
More importantly would Toronto do it?
I’d say no way.
I have a feeling the Blue Jays will be able to get a king’s ransom back for Halladay. The only thing that hurts them is the two biggest suitors are the Yankees and Red Sox, in their division. So I’d say they won’t trade him there.
They are going to be looking for some guaranteed production back, or some elite prospects.
I think some team will pony up because Halladay is viewed as one of the best, and a workhorse. Not to mention the Yankees just won by getting Sabathia, so many teams will be looking to copy.
not necessarily....
this is a game of chicken to see who is the last team standing when the Jays realize they better get something (anything) for Doc.
There's only 3 teams that can afford Halladay
If they don’t want to trade to the Sox of Yankees, I wouldn’t say that’s the “only” thing that hurts them, who else, in this economy, can take on Halladays contract demands? Everyone now is trying to dump salary, no ones looking to take that on. The Blue Jays basically had to give Rios away for free to get rid of his contract. if they won’t trade to the Yankees or Sox that basically only leaves us.
Well, not sure...
Other teams can usually afford 1-2 budget busting FAs. The Angels, Dodgers, etc. Even teams like the Cubs, Rangers, Phillies.
I agree Toronto gave Rios away, but Rios isn’t like Halladay. Any team that imagines themselves to be a contender would also imagine that Halladay would “put them over the top”.
I was just looking at Baseball America, and they rank Tejada as the #9 Met prospect. Outside of Met-ville, I think Pelfry is viewed as just another mediocre starter, and Tejada as a fringe-ish prospect.
You’re right that the salary must be considered, but I’d bet that there must be 6-8 other teams outside of the Yankees and Sawx that would offer more than Pelfry/Tejada.
If I was the Toronto GM, I wouldn’t deal Halladay for Pelfry and Tejada. I’d rather get better players back from the Yankees or RS than deal him for those two.
I disagree
The Dodgers are having ownership problems and they massively cut payroll last year, even after resigning Manny, I definitely don’t think they’re in it. The Phillies payroll is probably at the max it’s going to get right now. The Cubs, like Detroit, have been trying to shed payroll and are having major financial problems and have a bunch of backloaded contracts. The Rangers aren’t going to give up the prospect package and add that payroll, they’re owner has been having financial problems as well, I think he may have declared bankruptcy or something earlier in the season. I don’t know one way or another about the Angels though. But in this economy even most of the big market teams are hurting financially.
I guess we'll see
I don’t think we are going to be serious players for Halladay. I think the Mets are in the same bad financial market as all other teams outside of the Yankees/Red Sox.
I’d rather see us sign Lackey than trade for Halladay. That’s not happening either.
My preference is to try to rebuild in 2010. I’m fine with missing the playoffs yet again, as long as we regain some positive steps forward for a change.
Halladay's already said
He’d reject a west coast trade unless he decided against talking contract extension with his new team, I believe.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 27, 2009 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
Oh I don't think we'll be serious players either
I just don’t think it’s going to take a very strong package to get him if he gets traded. I’m honestly not even certain he’ll get traded because of the financial shape most teams are in.
I make the move in a heartbeat
----Warner----
-------13-------
by Scent of a Woman on Nov 27, 2009 5:47 PM EST reply actions
Halladay's just not worth that much in trade.
That’s why the Jays couldn’t move him last year. They see the best pitcher in the majors while other teams see only the right to sign the best pitcher in the majors, at the going rate for that.
Since the Yankees can outspend any other team if Halladay hits free agency, the only motivation they have to act now is to keep him from being traded to another team and extended by that team. Their preferred scenario is that no one trades for Halladay and they pick him up for cash only after 2010 rather than give up two or more good young cheap players for the privilege.
The Red Sox need to get Halladay now or forget about him because of the Yankee’s budget. The RSox can afford him, and have shown over the years that other than an allergy to the luxury tax there’s no hard cap on salary for them.
The Mets can afford him but given their crying over payroll I wouldn’t be surprised to see them decline because of the cost and commitment and the inability to fill any other significant holes if payroll sits at around $130m
I don’t see the Phillies in the running—they’re around their payroll maximum (iirc) and with Lee their rotation isn’t a problem.
The Dodgers seem to be having trouble adding payroll what with the McCourt’s troubles.
The Angels also seem to be having payroll issues—they may not have enough to keep Lackey, let alone add Halladay.
The Rangers I’m not sure of. No one else seems to be a candidate.
Halladay comment
I saw a funny comment on an MLB blog discussing the Jays possibly dealing Halladay:
“Do the Blue Jays pay their draft picks, or are they more like the Mets?”
Hahaha…Great f-ing franchise we root for.
Great
I look forward to him pitching 2 CG a year against us
DO WHAT JOSE REYES DO!!!
by Jadden Hopkins on Nov 27, 2009 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
Ignoring monetary constraints, absolutely. Taking them in mind, absolutely.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 29, 2009 8:37 PM EST reply actions
Are you trying to lobby me!?
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 29, 2009 8:57 PM EST up reply actions
Gimme two million dollars, and then we're talking.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 30, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
another option
throw in parnell or pagan and see if you can get josh johson
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
