Blue Jays contact Cubs about Halladay

[Guest]

any chance we could trade Zambrano for the parts to get Halladay? I'd much rather have Halladay as the ace over Zambrano, even if he is older.

Halladay is clearly the better pitcher, but we don't need to do this. We have plenty of prospects, that's not the problem.

 

We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice.

 

Crazy talk.

 

Goony for GM! \:D/

[davearm2]

any chance we could trade Zambrano for the parts to get Halladay? I'd much rather have Halladay as the ace over Zambrano, even if he is older.

Halladay is clearly the better pitcher, but we don't need to do this. We have plenty of prospects, that's not the problem.

 

We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice.

So are the Cubs "already too old", or do they need to "upgrade (their) veteran pitching situation" by swapping a 28YO for a 32YO?

 

You'll get no argument from me that Halladay > Zambrano, but if you're truly concerned about the age of the team, then this is a big step in the wrong direction.

[haubrich91]

Why would the Blue Jays want another high priced contract right as they are getting out of Halladay's?

[soapy]

Why would the Blue Jays want another high priced contract right as they are getting out of Halladay's?

I think the suggestion was to trade Z to another team for prospects. Then turn around and trade those prospects (plus some) to Toronto for Halladay.

[Guest]

Why would the Blue Jays want another high priced contract right as they are getting out of Halladay's?

I think the suggestion was to trade Z to another team for prospects. Then turn around and trade those prospects (plus some) to Toronto for Halladay.

 

And Zambrano would waive his no trade clause for what reason?

[mul21]

any chance we could trade Zambrano for the parts to get Halladay? I'd much rather have Halladay as the ace over Zambrano, even if he is older.

Halladay is clearly the better pitcher, but we don't need to do this. We have plenty of prospects, that's not the problem.

 

We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice.

So are the Cubs "already too old", or do they need to "upgrade (their) veteran pitching situation" by swapping a 28YO for a 32YO?

 

You'll get no argument from me that Halladay > Zambrano, but if you're truly concerned about the age of the team, then this is a big step in the wrong direction.

 

The age factor has relatively little to do with this situation. You're getting a better pitcher who, while a little older, has been not only exceptionally reliable, but is one of the best in the game. The idea is to get an influx of younger, cheaper guys to make up for the position players who are getting up in age, will likely have production drop off, and are expensive. Swapping out Z for some prospects and then sending those guys and maybe a little more for Halladay is a win-win if you can get him to sign a not outlandish extension.

[jersey cubs fan]

any chance we could trade Zambrano for the parts to get Halladay? I'd much rather have Halladay as the ace over Zambrano, even if he is older.

Halladay is clearly the better pitcher, but we don't need to do this. We have plenty of prospects, that's not the problem.

 

We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice.

So are the Cubs "already too old", or do they need to "upgrade (their) veteran pitching situation" by swapping a 28YO for a 32YO?

 

You'll get no argument from me that Halladay > Zambrano, but if you're truly concerned about the age of the team, then this is a big step in the wrong direction.

 

It's increasing the age at one spot, but maintaining the prospects. Zambrano isn't young. He's got a lot of miles on his arm and has shown signs of serious wear and tear. Halladay has been a much more stable and effective pitcher.

 

That's not a big step in the wrong direction at all. Halladay is better now and likely to be better for a few years. You upgrade the team, but at the same time you don't trade away prospects, or at least you don't take a significant net hit in prospects.

 

I see no way this actually happens, but it would be a good thing for the Cubs if it could.

 

The advantage of having prospects around to replace the older core is they are cheaper to employ, have room for upside, and presumably have a much larger window of time where they can be useful. Zambrano is already ridiculously expensive, he's shown a likelihood of already having passed his prime and settling into a lesser pitcher, and he may or may not have a lot of years ahead of him. Swapping him for Halladay doesn't really have any negative repercussions on the age of the core.

[davearm2]

any chance we could trade Zambrano for the parts to get Halladay? I'd much rather have Halladay as the ace over Zambrano, even if he is older.

Halladay is clearly the better pitcher, but we don't need to do this. We have plenty of prospects, that's not the problem.

 

We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice.

So are the Cubs "already too old", or do they need to "upgrade (their) veteran pitching situation" by swapping a 28YO for a 32YO?

 

You'll get no argument from me that Halladay > Zambrano, but if you're truly concerned about the age of the team, then this is a big step in the wrong direction.

 

It's increasing the age at one spot, but maintaining the prospects. Zambrano isn't young. He's got a lot of miles on his arm and has shown signs of serious wear and tear. Halladay has been a much more stable and effective pitcher.

 

That's not a big step in the wrong direction at all. Halladay is better now and likely to be better for a few years. You upgrade the team, but at the same time you don't trade away prospects, or at least you don't take a significant net hit in prospects.

 

I see no way this actually happens, but it would be a good thing for the Cubs if it could.

 

The advantage of having prospects around to replace the older core is they are cheaper to employ, have room for upside, and presumably have a much larger window of time where they can be useful. Zambrano is already ridiculously expensive, he's shown a likelihood of already having passed his prime and settling into a lesser pitcher, and he may or may not have a lot of years ahead of him. Swapping him for Halladay doesn't really have any negative repercussions on the age of the core.

Well I guess some clarification is needed here.

 

Are you proposing extending Halladay once he's acquired, or just keeping him for a year and then letting him go?

 

Because if you plan on extending him, then you've traded away a 28YO pitcher that's owed a big chunk of money through age 31 or whatever it is, and gotten back a 32YO pitcher that'll be owed over twice as much and will be signed through age 38 or 39 (6-7 years @ $20M a year is the right ballpark).

 

Saying that doesn't have any negative repercussions on the age of the core is just flat out wrong. You've got more than twice the money tied up in an older player for more than twice the years.

 

Now on the other hand if you're willing to trade 3 years of Zambrano for one of Halladay, that's a separate discussion altogether. Probably not one worth having, though, since a team willing to extend Halladay would outbid the Cubs in the first place.

[Pushfrog98]

Why would the Blue Jays want another high priced contract right as they are getting out of Halladay's?

I think the suggestion was to trade Z to another team for prospects. Then turn around and trade those prospects (plus some) to Toronto for Halladay.

 

And Zambrano would waive his no trade clause for what reason?

he said he'd pitch for the white sox... who's to say he wouldn't want to pitch elsewhere too?

[jersey cubs fan]

Well I guess some clarification is needed here.

 

There really isn't any clarification needed. I said it would be nice to upgrade from Zambrano to Halladay while at the same time maintaining your net quantity of prospects, because you help the team in the short-term but maintain the longterm help that is required to replace the agining core of the team, Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Fukudome, Lilly, Dempster.

 

I'm not advocating for any move. I don't see anything of the sort happening. I was pointing out that Halladay is better than Zambrano, and while he's older, that's not much of a factor since Zambrano's relatively young age is offset by all the negative aspects.

[davearm2]

Well I guess some clarification is needed here.

 

There really isn't any clarification needed. I said it would be nice to upgrade from Zambrano to Halladay while at the same time maintaining your net quantity of prospects, because you help the team in the short-term but maintain the longterm help that is required to replace the agining core of the team, Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Fukudome, Lilly, Dempster.

 

I'm not advocating for any move. I don't see anything of the sort happening. I was pointing out that Halladay is better than Zambrano, and while he's older, that's not much of a factor since Zambrano's relatively young age is offset by all the negative aspects.

Of course there's clarification needed. Extending Halladay is a far different scenario than letting him walk after a year. I trust you're neither too dense nor too stubborn to concede that.

 

Trading for Halladay and extending him instantly makes him the most expensive and longest-signed part of that aging core you're so concerned about. In fact only Soriano's even in the same ballpark in that regard. Yet somehow committing to pay $20M+ for the guy's age 37-38-39 seasons improves the "getting too old" situation?

 

Not to mention, the notion of completing these two trades on a prospect-neutral basis is just silly. Halladay's value is much greater than Zambrano's, so you're not coming out even on this whole deal.

[MSG T]

 

We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice.

So are the Cubs "already too old", or do they need to "upgrade (their) veteran pitching situation" by swapping a 28YO for a 32YO?

 

You'll get no argument from me that Halladay > Zambrano, but if you're truly concerned about the age of the team, then this is a big step in the wrong direction.

 

It's increasing the age at one spot, but maintaining the prospects. Zambrano isn't young. He's got a lot of miles on his arm and has shown signs of serious wear and tear. Halladay has been a much more stable and effective pitcher.

 

That's not a big step in the wrong direction at all. Halladay is better now and likely to be better for a few years. You upgrade the team, but at the same time you don't trade away prospects, or at least you don't take a significant net hit in prospects.

 

I see no way this actually happens, but it would be a good thing for the Cubs if it could.

 

The advantage of having prospects around to replace the older core is they are cheaper to employ, have room for upside, and presumably have a much larger window of time where they can be useful. Zambrano is already ridiculously expensive, he's shown a likelihood of already having passed his prime and settling into a lesser pitcher, and he may or may not have a lot of years ahead of him. Swapping him for Halladay doesn't really have any negative repercussions on the age of the core.

Well I guess some clarification is needed here.

 

Are you proposing extending Halladay once he's acquired, or just keeping him for a year and then letting him go?

 

Because if you plan on extending him, then you've traded away a 28YO pitcher that's owed a big chunk of money through age 31 or whatever it is, and gotten back a 32YO pitcher that'll be owed over twice as much and will be signed through age 38 or 39 (6-7 years @ $20M a year is the right ballpark).

 

Saying that doesn't have any negative repercussions on the age of the core is just flat out wrong. You've got more than twice the money tied up in an older player for more than twice the years.

 

Now on the other hand if you're willing to trade 3 years of Zambrano for one of Halladay, that's a separate discussion altogether. Probably not one worth having, though, since a team willing to extend Halladay would outbid the Cubs in the first place.

 

 

He was one of the best pitchers in baseball and just entering his prime when he signed a 3/$40 extension in 2006. What makes you think it would take 6 years at $20 mil per to extend him? Wouldn't 3 years at $45-50 mil be a significant raise and not take him into his age 38-39 seasons. Especially if an extension was part of a trade that would allow him a better chance at going to the playoffs?

 

I'd trade Z for Halladay (using prospects acquired in Z's trade) and extend him for 3/$45-50. I would not do 6/$120 under any circumstances, but I'd also be shocked if it took anywhere close to that to extend him as part of a trade.

[davearm2]

Well I guess some clarification is needed here.

 

Are you proposing extending Halladay once he's acquired, or just keeping him for a year and then letting him go?

 

Because if you plan on extending him, then you've traded away a 28YO pitcher that's owed a big chunk of money through age 31 or whatever it is, and gotten back a 32YO pitcher that'll be owed over twice as much and will be signed through age 38 or 39 (6-7 years @ $20M a year is the right ballpark).

 

Saying that doesn't have any negative repercussions on the age of the core is just flat out wrong. You've got more than twice the money tied up in an older player for more than twice the years.

 

Now on the other hand if you're willing to trade 3 years of Zambrano for one of Halladay, that's a separate discussion altogether. Probably not one worth having, though, since a team willing to extend Halladay would outbid the Cubs in the first place.

 

 

He was one of the best pitchers in baseball and just entering his prime when he signed a 3/$40 extension in 2006. What makes you think it would take 6 years at $20 mil per to extend him? Wouldn't 3 years at $45-50 mil be a significant raise and not take him into his age 38-39 seasons. Especially if an extension was part of a trade that would allow him a better chance at going to the playoffs?

 

I'd trade Z for Halladay (using prospects acquired in Z's trade) and extend him for 3/$45-50. I would not do 6/$120 under any circumstances, but I'd also be shocked if it took anywhere close to that to extend him as part of a trade.

IMO those figures are hopelessly unrealistic.

 

If I'm Halladay, you'd better be coming with Sabathia (7/161) or Santana (6/137) loot, or else I'm playing out the last year and seeing what kind of bidding emerges when I'm a free agent. That's the basis for my estimate of what it would take to sign him to an extension. Heck I'd say 6/120 is on the conservative side, if anything, but probably pretty close given he's older than those other elite guys.

[Neuby]

Halladay to Angels? Nope. Told that thing about training in Florida is still "absolute."

 

Unless this whole move to naples thing was part of the plan to get Doc al along .......

[sweetpeteman]

Hallady to Phils, C Lee to M's, stuff to BJ's, with Phils trying to work out extension w/ Doc according to MLBTR.

[erik316wttn]

Might as well lock this one.