Angels resume pursuit of Roy Halladay!
by AngryFan on Nov 24, 2009 9:26 AM PST
Email
Print
According to Mike DiGiovanna of the LA Times, "Link":http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-angels24-2009nov24,0,3419215.story
The Angels have resumed pursuit of Jay's Ace Roy Halladay. The asking price seems to be a good young, cheap: Starting Pitching, Short Stop & an OutFielder. The list of Starting Pitchers presumably would be one of (Jered Weaver, Joe Saunders or Ervin Santana), plus a short stop not named Eric Aybar (I'm thinking Wood), and an outfielder (Reggie Wilits?).
The new Jay's GM seems more willing to deal Halladay than let him walk at the end of 2010.
Hopefully this list of our best young players is enough to get us a negotiating window to see if we can sign Uncle Roy to long term deal. Thats a lot to pay for one year of service!
Your thoughts...
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
59 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hey may be, but I think there's little doubt...
…that the Angels are in on Halliday. I think they’d like to avoid a six year Lackey contract if there are comparable short-term options.
by Turks Teeth on Nov 24, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions
They'd be crazy not to be in on conversations...
..but I agree that DiGi is filling text space here.
Not to be a “Nay-Nay”, but it’s a very high cost one year rental:
If Wood is traded you really need to bring back Figgy. You gonna put Izzy at 3B all year?
So, Halladay will cost $15.75M in 2010 and Figgy likely will cost $10M (plus a long-term contract). If Weaver, Santana and Saunders are viewed as equals (implied here) they would likely want Weaver or Saunders as the low $$ option. Santana will make $6M in 2010, then $8M, then $11.2.
Net-net, cost is something like $25M for a one-year rental without much financial offset from the starting pitching you’ve let go (and need to replace). And, you’re out your #1 infield prospect.
The only upside beyond 2010 is you’d still have Figgy beyond 2010 – but isn’t how much that is worth already in question?
Driven into right-center field, Erstad says he has it...the Angels, world champions!
Somebody should tell him about Granderson.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
you're a fool...
Mike D doesnt even know what a google hit is….
Do it for Nick '09
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Nov 24, 2009 9:59 PM PST up reply actions
Hard to give up on those 3 pitchers,if I picked one it would be Santana,but who is 2 say he doesnt revert back to 08 form and win 15 games and be a dominant pitcher..
I would hope that the Jays would take some AAA players in a package maybe along with a player in the majors already.
Halladay is good,but this team was good without him and can be next year with the rotation we have…
Trade Rivera for Cain if you want a pitcher,though I love Rivera and would hate to see him go,it would give Kendry his shot at being the RBI guy next year.
I wouldn't be surprised if . . .
we are negotiating with Halladay for a long term deal before getting the trade done. If it is Weaver or Ervin, plus Willits, Wood, or Napoli, then the deal should get done.
Then the Angels can make a play for Zack Greinke.
Why Willits? Why Wood?
No one wants willits, and trading wood means Izzy starts at 3b with sandoval backing up Izzy and Aybar. What other 3B can we sign, if we indeed trade Wood? Crede? Derosa? AK? Tejada? Uribe?
Zack Greinke would be a prospect heavy package maybe Conger/Reckling/Smith/Trumbo/Bell
They want power. We want respect...
by SenorChuckles on Nov 24, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
Re-Signing Figgy a "Top Priority"
According to Ninja, they want to bring Figgy back. That would seem to make Wood trade bait if they do.
I dont know
I like Aybar a lot, however, he is at an all time high in terms of trade value.
If you could plug in Wood at short, re-sign Figgins, and flip Aybar and some prospects and maybe a starter for Halladay, I think it would be a good move.
I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....
You sir are on to something.
Like you are reading my mind. Aybar had a great season. But his value isn’t much higher. What if we get comparable production out of Wood that we got out of Kendry. And keeping Figgins at 3B keeps a lead off guy who can still set the table.
RIP Nick Adenhart 4/9/09
I blog about the Angels at The Diamond Aces
What?! Nooooooo-ooo!
You’re kidding, right?
Aybar has grown into what you dream about, what you dig and scratch in the Farm for. What you pray to the BB gods for.
You pour millions into your farm system hoping to sift out a few diamonds that can be difference-makers on the Big Club. Most of it goes for nought, but you do it. Most of your top prospects don’t even make it. Of those who do, most are disappointing in comparison to their ‘projected potential’.
So, you get one that steps up BIG in his first few seasons, who fills the key spot in the infield like a Gold Glove veteran, who bats .300 and steals like a burglar, who is 25 years old and is YEARS away from being a free agent – heck, hasn’t even hit arbitration (!)… AND YOU WANT TO TRADE HIM??
Nooooooo-ooo!
I’d like to have Halladay on the mound. We need a starting ace… But trade the guy who’s shaping up nicely as the next Ozzy/Jeter?
Noooooo-ooo!
Driven into right-center field, Erstad says he has it...the Angels, world champions!
by LAASurfin on Nov 24, 2009 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
True
The ceiling on Aybar is enormous. In 2011, someone will bring forth “trade Aybar” posts from the archive, and we’ll all have a good-natured laugh.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 24, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions
I agree. This, I suggest, will be absolutely true with Aybar.
I am on record here for dissing Aybar in his first couple of years. He looked weak at the plate, depending too much on his speed. He was very shaky on the field, overcoming massive footwork and positioning problems with his cannon arm. But over the past season and a half he has washed away ALL of the fielding flaws he once displayed, and went well beyond into the territory of finest defensive SS in the AL (I don’t watch the minor leagues over at the NL, so I cannot comment). And we all witnessed his incredible offensive production in 2009.
Aybar is a rocket. We have no reason to believe he has peaked. He may not be anywhere near his max value to this team, or any other. Time will tell. I agree, we should give it to him. We would be idiots not to.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
respectfully disagree.
wouldn’t trade aybar right now in favor of brandon wood who has done absolutely nothing in the pro’s and is no lock to do so.
we spent the time with aybar and it paid off last season. Wood needs the same time to even think about being what we all HOPE he can be and I’m not sure he’ll get it on this team.
Wood is like the backup QB is football. Everybody loves the guy because youre free to dream and imagine what it’d be like…and as any football fan will tell you, the guy is usually the backup for a reason.
RIP Nick Adenhart
by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 24, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
And some backups become the heir apparent.
Brett Favre, Steve Young.
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 24, 2009 11:28 PM PST up reply actions
true
but Im gonna go out on a limb and say that the Steve Youngs and Tom Bradys of the world are the small percentage we remember and that there are thousands of guys who fans clamored for only to be disappointed when they finally got their wish.
Its easy to root for the unknown. I’m actually surprised it’s being spoken in regards to getting rid of Aybar. It’d be like the Baltimore Ravens fans asking to draft a new QB and start over after Joe Flacco came into his own this year.
RIP Nick Adenhart
by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 25, 2009 1:13 AM PST up reply actions
Damn.
If I had read above and knew we were talking about trading Aybar I would have kept my fingers off the keyboard.
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 28, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
I definitely wouldn't trade Weaver - our best pitcher on staff.
I’d make Saunders part of the package. Maybe Santana, but I still have a belief that he can reproduce his 2008 season every year.
They probably wouldn't want him anyway. Boras, and he is in the money years now.
I agree, it would be unwise to trade Weaver for Halladay.
by Wally's World on Nov 24, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions
He's just entering his arbitration years
This is nothing like his free agency. While he could score big paydays, it would be based upon performance. He’d need to play like Ryan Howard, for example, in order to score Ryan Howard-sized one-year contracts.
Frankly, if Weaver became the Ryan Howard of AL pitching, I don’t think the Jays or any other team would mind writing those paychecks.
When Weaver reaches his free agency for the 2013 season, then Boras becomes a much larger factor. Until then, the arbiter has the final say, and it takes a very persuasive argument to cause the arbiter to authorize a monster payday to the player (see Frankie in 2008).
And there is a lot of baseball to be played before the end of the 2012 season… It is for that reason Weaver might be the most desirable option for the Jays among those currently in the Angel rotation, and one we could stand to lose if receiving Halliday in return was the outcome.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 25, 2009 3:27 AM PST up reply actions
I just seem to notice teams like the Marlins getting rid of guys (or at least talking about it) when they get into arb.
With Weave winning games like he does, leading the team in ERA, Stellar in the playoffs, one has to figure he will get paid over 10 million by the next time.
But yah, I see your point as well. He still is under control for three years. And I know he is the one I would take.
by Wally's World on Nov 25, 2009 7:06 PM PST up reply actions
In 2011?
With Weave winning games like he does, leading the team in ERA, Stellar in the playoffs, one has to figure he will get paid over 10 million by the next time.
Linsecum might get that much in his arbitration hearing—and he has two more Cy Young awards than Weaver.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 25, 2009 7:29 PM PST up reply actions
yah 2011, if he performs as well as he has, or as most of us figure, even better.
Who knows, he is still on his way up. He could challenge for a Cy next season.
by Wally's World on Nov 26, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
MAYBE by 2012
If he has extraordinary years between now and then.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Weaver was the best starter on the Angel rotation in 2009 and is ready to step up to #1. But he is done a great disservice by being compared to Linsecum, who exists on the completely different plane from 99.9% of the other pitchers in MLB. Weaver doesn’t deserve the same amount in an arbitration hearing as Linsecum, any more than Morales would deserve the same as Ryan Howard. Yes, Weaver and Morales led the team in several key categories, but that doesn’t automatically make them a statistical peer of Linsecum or Howard.
Furthermore, Linsecum has accomplished as much as he has without any significant offense to pick him up, while Weaver has been blessed with the Angels bats to provide him some confidence when he steps out on the mound. What Linsecum and Greinke do with every start is something sort of miraculous, reminiscent of Nolan Ryan’s starts in Anaheim, when he’d have to pitch a 1-0 shutout to get a win.
So, no, Weaver isn’t on a track to receive $10M in arbitration anytime soon. He will be compensated handsomely as compared to his MLB minimum over the last three seasons, however, and as long as he stays healthy and continues to mature, he will reap a nice payday in his free agency.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 27, 2009 4:51 AM PST up reply actions
well if that is true, then that is good news.
I wonder if the FO will give him an extension through the arb years, and eat up 1 or 2 of his FA years.?
by Wally's World on Dec 2, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
You forget: He's a Boras client
Scott Boras has all his clients test the free agent market as soon as they’re eligible. They don’t sign away the first few years of their free agency, they don’t give hometown discounts, they don’t sign quickly.
That’s why I thought Weaver was the best player to include in a trade for Halladay, because he’s as good as gone three years from now, anyway.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 2, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
Game Changer...
Get it done Ninja! My one and only request this offseason. Take that window to sign him up for a few more years and I don’t care who they take.
Izzy can manage the loss of any young infielder and we have plenty of #5’s for the rotation.
Prove me wrong, Ninja!
But I suspect we don’t have or are willing to part with the goods that a team like Boston will to get Halladay.
Trading weaver would be a BIG MISTAKE!!!
If I had to pick out of the three to get rid of it would be Saunders… Then they should try and sign the Cuban Lefty and say bye to Lackey…
OK, I'll bite
Why? That is such a strong opinion, I’ll assume there is reasoning behind it.
Why Saunders?
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 27, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
Hair
Weaver > Saundo
Case closed.
What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.
by clover_black on Nov 28, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions
Eventually, you'd have to wake up
Since this would only be a dream. The salary expectations of the combined Lackey and Halladay are greater than even Arte’s largesse. We get one or the other (or neither), but not both.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 30, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions
Boston Globe says Sox backing off from Halladay
The Globe website says that the Sox think the price is too high in players, and the team will instead bid on Lackey.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
That would leave us, the Yanks and the Phillies.
And I think only the Phillies could put together a package as good as ours would be.
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 30, 2009 10:00 PM PST up reply actions
ANY of those teams could do it
ANY of those teams is capable of swinging the deal if the GM decides to make the offer rich. Would the Phillies decide to include Drabek? Would Reagins offer Reckling AND Saunders for one pitcher in return? Would the Yankees put Austin Jackson, Jesus Montero AND either Joba or Hughes on the table?
Likewise, any of those GMs might decide that the Jay’s demand is too rich for the team’s long-term goals. And—don’t laugh—Cashman and the Steinbrenner brothers (Lenny and Squiggy) may look into the team’s financial future and see little to be gained from paying Halladay tens of millions to pitch when the team already has long-term commitments to A-Rod, Sabathia, Teixeira and Burnett—maybe one more expensive contract for a pitcher doesn’t make sense to them?
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 1, 2009 7:24 AM PST up reply actions
I know it seems ridiculous
But the Yankees are running a business, just as Arte is. The Yankees have access to greater internal revenue, but it is still true that money which isn’t spent on payroll (for example) becomes profit to the corporation and its partners.
The team has already invested heavily in Sabathia and Burnett, and a third pitcher might not bring the bang for the buck that an investment in Holliday or Bay would bring. After all, pitching and defense might win championships, but chicks still dig the long ball, and spending the money on a player seen on the field 160 games a season might be a better show for the fans than a guy who pitches every 5th day.
Additionally, the Yankees brain trust may determine that it is better business to sign Lackey and give up a couple of draft picks instead of giving up Jackson (who may or may not be an excellent prospect) and Montero (who apparently has a huge ceiling), as well as Joba or Hughes. The risk/reward, and the Yankees may be sensitive to a growing backlash to the team’s payroll and expenditures.
Then, if you bring in Halladay, is he your ace? Or is that guy still Sabathia, who carried the team through the playoffs? That might make for a ticklish situation.
All I’m saying is that expecting the Yankees to throw money and players at Halladay might not be the scenario which plays itself out.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 1, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions
I suspect that the Yankees are saving up for the Billions and Billions they are going to throw at Joe Mauer.
Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch
Even money says Mauer signs lifetime deal with the Twins
His grandparents have missed something like six games in the five years he’s been playing in Minneapolis. This is a guy who really wants to stay put.
Unlike a lot of players, I suspect that if the Twins make a good-faith effort to sign Mauer to something approximating the going rate, he’ll provide a hometown discount and retire as a Twin.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 1, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
Bangs For The Buck
This point is the one that I focus on when I monitor the Yankees. From the perspective of most teams, the Yankees have what appears to be an unlimited ability to spend. However, how much ceiling do they have left between what they generate as gross revenue now versus what they could possibly do later?
Ironically, in a down economy the ad revenues go down, which actually creates a greater room for revenue improvement. Signing a Halladay provides a marketing opportunity for the Yankees to increase advertising revenues over their YES network, which might defray the expense of his contract.
So if, thinking like a business, the contracts for the existing players are sunk costs and current revenues are down in spite of those investments (blaming that on the economy). Your choices are to continue to contract and protect what financial assets you have until the company is strong again, or invest now while purchase prices are down, and ride that investment to an advantage in the marketplace that can be sustained even when the economy turns around.
So the economy may have inadvertently put the Yankees into a position of being able to financially justify Halladay.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
Don't think I follow you
If it is a down economy, then ad revenues are harder to come by, which would mean the YES network would earn less (or be flat, at best possible case) over the previous year—they’d have to cut ad rates to keep the level of ad participation from current clients.
A winning team yields the most eyeballs, but if they’re going to invest $60M over the next 4 years (assuming Halladay gets a 3 year extension, plus current salary), I would think the Yankees would invest in a player who can generate interest every night (like Bay or Holliday) rather than a guy who steps out on the field every 5th day. Written differently, there is more day-in, day-out marketing value in an everyday star (like A-Rod) than in a rotation player.
More to the point, I would think the partnership in Tampa might want to reap some profits, instead of acquiring every expensive contract in the game and running a payroll twice their closest competitor’s. In theory, at least, if the Yankees don’t trade for Halliday and take on the cost of him through 2014, then that money can stay as profit and be divvied up among the partners in year-end bonuses or whatever.
Plus, the team would have Austin Jackson and Jesus Montero still in the system, arriving as cheap players when they matriculate to the big team. More profit while they labor cheaply.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 1, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
I am fixating on ad revenue.
In an “up” economy, those wishing to spend during Yankee airtime will gleefully do so, knowing the audience to which they will have access. But in a “down” economy, advertisers are more frugal, cutting into Yankee ad revenue. I doubt that teh viewing audience numbers actaully changed when the economy dropped. And this is where we are now. Yankee ad revenue should be down, meaning that there currently is room for growth.
What the Yankees need in order to grab that revenue away from other outlets is a fresh marketable angle. Halladay is that angle. Halladay is a great way for the Yankees to realize ad growth back to previous levels. Without Halladay, they remain at down economy levels and have to look elsewhere to improve marketabiity. Halladay would have a similar impact for lots of clubs, but the Yankees – almost uniquely – have the financial wherewithal to add Halladay AND then to turn around and leverage him via their YES network.
And they would do it with seasonal contracts, not every fifth game contracts.
My point is that, if this were an “up” economy, there would be less head room between current ad revenue rates and theoretical max rates. This means, with less headroom, there is less opportunity to justify this gambit.
Now, a serious intracacy here is what is being calculated to determine profitability. The existing player contracts constitute cost commitments (loving the illiteration there). But with revenue down, so are profits. To increase profits, you need to increase revenue. To increase revenue, you need to increase marketability. Halladay works, but how does his cost weigh against his return? Again, in an up economy, even if his potential return is very high, if the Yankees were already at or near their max ad revenue capacity they would be prevented from acheiving that potential return.
All this is, of course, tempered by the fact that the new stadium is generating massive profit potential right now because it opts the team out of revenue sharing. If ever there was a time to suck profits out of the Yankees, it would be right now. WS champs, solid roster, built-in global economic excuses for penny pinching, etc.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
get it done
plain and simple, look what CC did against us in playoffs. But, has to be a trade and sign. He is a true number 1. I doubt Lackey ill be back and I fear the death of NA will really hurt the Angels and their pitching for many years if we do not make some key signings. Hard to overcome the death of your best young pitcher, who would of been a 1 or 2 eventually.
By the way, can we send Kazmir back to Tampa for S Rod? Then move Howie for a starting pitcher? I know, wont happen, I think we will regret the Kazmir trade in the next couple of years.
by Ca1IFORNIA ANGELS on Dec 1, 2009 6:46 AM PST reply actions
I don't think we'll regret the Kazmir trade
Give the guy a full season with his Buddy Butcher and see what happens.
But I agree, lets get Halladay and go win this thing.
RIP Nick Adenhart 4/9/09
I blog about the Angels at The Diamond Aces
Absolutely right
It amazes me how quickly some “fans” turn on players.
Kazmir has some mechanical issues to work out, but Butcher is the right guy for the job. I expect him to win 14 games while pitching in the #3 or #4 slot in the rotation; more to the point, his fundamental numbers will improve over 2009.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 1, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I concur. I think Kazmir is going to work out great for the Halo rotation.
The worst he could be is a #5, and I would take Kaz now over SOS or Palmer in a heartbeat.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
True
I would take Kaz now over SOS or Palmer in a heartbeat.
But let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 1, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
I hope so, too.
But that would mean we traded SRod for a #5. Worse case scenario. But I would still be fine with that considering what the team has with middle infielders, versus what every team starves for in starting rotation.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
It's just too bad he was our worst starter (by far) in the Postseason.
So as of right now, the trade doesn’t look good. Let’s say he does is go 14-10, and S-Rod or one of the others actuallizes their potential. It still will be a bad trade.
by Wally's World on Dec 2, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
It would be a "bad trade"...
only if Sean Rodriguez would have been a starter, which he wouldn’t with the projected lineup the team has at present. He wouldn’t have replaced Kendrick, or Aybar, or Figgins/Wood, or Rivera.
That means, we had a choice between having a quality pitcher being traded at deep discount because of mechanical issues, or having a player rot on the bench as a “supersub”. If he achieves stardom in Tampa, good for him. But it wasn’t going to happen in Anaheim, absent an unexpected, blockbuster trade, or a major injury.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 2, 2009 7:29 PM PST up reply actions
Halladay says "trade me now" (Dec 1st)...
Halladay would not approve a mid-2010 season trade. Reported, well, everywhere now… Kind of forces the Jay’s hand if they want value for him.
Also, the Toronto Sun is reporting that Roy has said “No” to trades with the Twins and Rangers (Oh, and “Yes” to Yankees…).
Driven into right-center field, Erstad says he has it...the Angels, world champions!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
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.
