No Thanks, Pete Abraham, I'm going to pass on Roy Halladay
I'm going to get ridiculed for this, and I don't care. Here is the article, again:
If the season ended today, the Yankees would qualify as the AL Wild Card, albeit with the second-best record in the league and third-best record in all of baseball. Their playoff rotation would look like this
#1 CC Sabathia - 3.86 ERA, #2 AJ Burnett - 3.77 ERA, #3 Andy Pettitte - 4.85 ERA, #4 Joba Chamberlain - 4.25 ERA
The Red Sox would look like this:
#1 Josh Beckett - 3.35 ERA, #2 John Lester - 3.87 ERA, #3 Tim Wakefield - 4.31 ERA, #4 Brad Penny - 4.71 ERA
The Tigers would look like this:
#1 Justin Verlander - 3.38 ERA, #2 Edwin Jackson - 2.52 ERA, #3 Rick Porcello - 4.14 ERA, #4 Armando Gallaraga - 5.09 ERA
The Angels would look like this:
#1 John Lackey - 4.93 ERA, #2 Jered Weaver - 3.22 ERA, #3 Ervin Santana - 7.81 ERA, #4 Joe Saunders 4.65 ERA
The only thing that matters to me is getting to the postseason. I don't care how the Yankees get there, whether it's via the division title or the wild card. I don't care if they do it by playing .750 baseball against losing teams and .250 baseball against contenders. I don't care if they do it by getting 4 innings from their starters and 5 innings for their relievers.
Once you're in the postseason you have a chance to make it to the World Series, and contrary to what anybody might tell you, no team that qualifies, not the Red Sox, not the Angels, has a substantially better than 1 in 8 chance of winning it all.
Look at these starting rotations. Is any one of these better - by leaps and bounds and miles and miles - than the Yankees? Does the Yankees rotation match up horribly against any of these teams?
I don't think adding Roy Halladay is the only way to improve the Yankees rotation. CC Sabatthia could lower his ERA by half a run, or Joba Chamberlain tcould start throwing strikes a little more often, or Chien Ming Wang could come off the DL and start pitching like himself, or Andy Pettitte could post a league-average ERA, or Phil Hughes could come back into the rotation and pitch reasonably well. Realistically, they only need one of these things to happen for the rotation to improve, and its even feasible that two or three could happen. There's also the option of trading for a starter (other than Halladay).
The Yankees have a solid bullpen core with Rivera, Aceves, Coke, and Hughes (if he stays in that role). They have the third-best defense in the AL, and the best amongst these four teams. They are fourth in the AL in stolen base effeciency, and best amongst these four teams. I don't need to mention that they have the best offense in baseball, and it is more well-rounded than in years past. The Yankees are a legitimate World Series contender right now. Adding the best pitcher in baseball gives them an edge, obviously, but how much of one?
In my opinion, not enough of an edge to trade Joba Chamerlain, Jesus Montero, and Austin Jackson to a team that they'll face 19 times a year in exchange for 45 starts from Roy Halladay. The Yankees can improve their rotation with a lot less than Roy Halladay, at a much lower cost, and still increase their likelihood of advancing to the World Series.
40 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Since Im 1st Im going to ridicule the piss out of you
….
no Im not. I agree.
Having a 1-2 punch of CC and Halladay would obviously make the Yanks rotation the best in baseball. Add in AJ, that’s a 3 man recking crew. And if CM Wang decides to resemble himself? WOW!
But you’re right, there are other much more reasonable options out there to get if the Yanks really think they need someone in the rotation.
And while potentially Halladay could bring them a title much like Randy Johnson and that other fat a-hole that shall not be named brought the title for the D-Backs (or at least got them there…), the Yanks just have too many underachieving pitchers in their rotation.
Still, if there was the possiblity that the Yankees retain Montero and either Joba or Hughes while still dealing for Halladay, then I get it done.
If the cost is say….Joba, Melancon, Austin Jackson and Betances? And that’s for Halladay and Alex Rios? That’s Ok with me.
I agree with not trading for Halladay
But you can’t honestly have Joba as the 4th starter in the playoffs, unless you believe either:
a) the Yankees will skip him 3-4 times to keep him below his innings max
OR
b) they are planning on going behind the innings limit.
I’d also add that looking at current regular season ERAs is a pretty bad way to judge a playoff rotation.
Beckett is a certified postseason master … Sabathia is not.
Lester has pitched big games in the playoffs. Burnett has not.
Someone will label me a Red Sox fan for saying this, but I would give the Red Sox pitching a BIG advantage in a short series.
by New York Sports Jerk on Jul 16, 2009 12:54 PM EDT reply actions
no you're right
wow, I think that’s twice this week. Must be the All-star break.
Right now, Joba looks like a shitty 4th starter and I wouldn’t want him there. But this could turn around as Im sure your sick of hearing. You never know cuz he’s really not pitched in the playoffs other than against midges. He could get that postseason rush and……who the hell knows?…..
But the Red Sox pitching is better for the postseason than the Yankees, simply put, going by past history (not just stats either.) They even had half a Beckett last postseason and he damn near carried them.
And the Angels, it doesn’t matter who pitches for them, they just put together more runs than the Yankees.
Its also not like Halladay is the biggest postseason pitcher….he hasn’t even been there. Tho I wouldn’t say he won’t dominate in the playoffs
by FreeBradshaw on Jul 16, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
So if not Joba in a playoff rotation, and Hughes stays where he is because he is excelling.....
then who do you turn to CMW? Aceves? You go on the market, forget Halladay, and go get who? I don’t know too much about Sergio Mitre, but you put the house on him?Halladay might not be the answer, which is very true. But, the schedule doesn’t get any easier the rest of the way. Is this not a good opportunity to at least consider? You guys are killin’ me with posts of "oh, we don’t need him, too many prospects, yada, yada,yada. I can remember a team that rhymes with Foston Dead Fox taking a couple risks these past seven years and got a couple titles too. Schilling was a risk remember? The Yanks’ had considered getting him also back then. Theo spends thanksgiving with the Schills,next thing you know he socked our ass.
Why attach yourselves to every single prospect not knowing what the hell they are gonna do up in the bigs. That is ridiculous.that is an emotional logic. Is it about emotions or winning? I choose the latter.
by ReggieARodJeter on Jul 16, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Thing is
while Schilling was 37, they really didn’t give up any prospects the caliber of the ones talked about the Yanks would send to the Blue Jays (nor were the same caliber prospects sent in the David Cone or Clemens deal…tho they did send David Wells to the Jays).
And when they traded for Beckett with Hanley Ramirez, who Jesus Montero is probably in the same caliber as a hitting prospect (don’t know about the field…not close actually), Beckett was 26 years old.
Halladay is 32. Not old by any means of course. But while the Red Sox could reasonably expect to get 10 years out of THIS Beckett, the Halladay we see right now may only last for 4-5 years.
Do the Yankees NEED him? I don’t know about that, but it would be nice of course. But kinda like its turning out with Santana, the Yankees just might be better off standing pat.
ANd the reason why at least I would be attached to my prospects, mainly Jackson and Montero, is because there really are no other hitters in the minors for them.
Im saying, if the Yankees could keep Montero, and maybe even Jackson, Im all for it. If that means Joba AND Hughes, then no.
There are other guys like Cliff Lee and Eric Bedard who probably would cost much less and provide a similar impact.
by FreeBradshaw on Jul 16, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes
precisely. Schilling was avaliable as a salary dump trade for b-level talent because he was older and had a significant injury 1 year before. He was a risk for the Sox only in terms of performance and money, not in terms of players. Actually, those kind of moves (plus penny stock free agent pickups) have really helped the Sox over the last 6 years. That is how the Sox picked up Millar, Meuller, Ortiz, Penny, Smoltz, Saito, etc. Sometime these guys suck, and sometimes they don’t, but you don’t lose much to try with them. Of course Schilling cost more than those guys in terms of salary, but still. Generally, the MO of the Red Sox FO has been to build the farm, not to resign aging guys for too long if you can, pick up penny stock FAs and sometimes expensive FAs, and avoid if at all possible giving up high level prospects.
It really seems
the Red Sox just had a ton of luck with all those talented players panning out.
Its kind of amazing the success rate of guys like Penny and Ortiz. They had a ton of talent whether it was untapped in Ortiz’ case or in the case of Penny an injury (but he’s still kinda young and started an all-star game not too long ago!)
Its funny cuz the Patriots seem to follow the same blueprint (and maybe the Celtics are now too with Sheed) of getting players for 10 cents on the dollar, then having them pan out.
Is it luck, good coaching or a bit of both? I don’t know, but its working ( and I CAN’T STAND IT!!!…..well, at least the Red Sox and Celtics I can’t stand it…the Patriots? I’ll always have 18-1 to think about!)
by FreeBradshaw on Jul 16, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
"Luck favors the prepared"
-Louis Pasteur
Or if you prefer:
“In my experience, there’s no such thing as luck.”
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
by New York Sports Jerk on Jul 16, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Luck
to a certain degree, but overall it is a cost/risk strategy:
a)guys like Millar/Mueller were picked up becase at the time few other organizations yet understood the value of non-traditional hitting metrics. The As did, and the Sox did. They got these guys on the cheap because they get on base and were built to play in a peculiar park. This is what is called a “market inefficiency.” The Rays FO picked up on that with defensive value.
b)All of these guys were cheap. Thus, if they don’t work out, who cares?
Sure, how good Ortiz turned out was not something the Sox could predict-same with Bartlett and Zobrist for the Rays. But, the stategy is a very efficient one.
You can even look at the Giant's (FB) in there
They have been getting mainly B class talent that want to be contributors. We can thank them for the 18-1 Patriots season. :)
Paragraphs are wonderful things
It’s not about attaching yourself to every prospect. It IS about winning, but you need to make rational player moves. I’m saying the team has the 3rd best record in all of baseball. The rotation needs to improve. How can that happen? There are lots of ways. One is to add Roy Halladay. But there are many, many others. Consider how good the team is right now, how close they are to having a better rotation simply through improvement and recovery from injury, adding Halladay may not make sense, given what he will cost, because the team may not need that much of a bump.
So clinging to prospects gurantees a goo FUTURE right? Ok,what about NOW...
and like I said 4get about Halladay for a minute. Winning revolves around pitching, so if your pitching is questionable at this point, when it was SUPPOSED to be near the top in baseball,what do you do? Keep going? Wait on Wang? Wait for Pettitte to get younger? What is your suggestion?
by ReggieARodJeter on Jul 17, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Why
do fans have an instant gratification problem? Why not wait-the Yankees have about as good a chance THIS year to make the playoffs as any other team as is. Halladay would increase those chances by a small percentage. Say Halladay is worth 3 more wins above replacement, then you are likely looking at maybe 2 extra wins for the rest of the year. Could make the difference, but likely not. And you don’t mortgage the future (bye bye Jackson and Hughes, or Bye Bye Hughes and Montero…) to do so.
it is NOT instant gratification to improve a weakness dude...
like I said, 4get Hallady, don’t touch the prospects….What do you do?
by ReggieARodJeter on Jul 17, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
If I
am Cashman I do 3 things:
a)look to see what I can pick up under the radar as a decent back end guy w/o trading too much.
b)Send Hughes down for 2/3 turns to get his arm stretched out.
c)See what you ahve with Wang.
If a) works out, then that is it. If not, I weigh a combo of b) and c) to see what gives me the better option. If Wang looks like he can give 5-6 dencent innings, and I am somehow sold that Hughes is going to be a high leverage pitcher out of the pen the rest of the way, then I stick with Joba and Wang. If not, I slot Hughes into the rotation and find a spare part for the pen. Aceves, Coke and Robertson are good enough behind Rivera.
I like (a)...
But you trust Robertson that much? Do you think Bruney gets it back though? I’d rather get him in there healthy. As you propose Wang might with ©
by ReggieARodJeter on Jul 17, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Not selling the farm and getting what you need.
You can always let go of a couple of mid level prospects that you aren’t looking for in the future and get a avg to above avg pitcher that has a history of chewing up bout 7 innings a start.
Agreed...
But ALL I’ve been saying is make the call to the Jays to see what they say. If they’re dumb enough to let him go,dumb enough to set Wells up like that in the first place,they might be dumb enough to bite on a trade of a couple mid-level guys and say…..Melky for example.
by ReggieARodJeter on Jul 17, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
That to me is doable . . .
but to me selling joba and/or hughes who both have the potential to be mainstays in the Yankee rotation for years to come is just unthinkable for a 32 year old that is on the opposite side of his prime.
Well
as for the Sox rotation, that is not what it would be. It would either be:
Beckett, Lester, Smoltz or
Beckett, Lester, Penny.
Assuming Smoltz holds up than, yes, I would take that in a heartbeat over the Yankees 3-man rotation. The problem is that you are using ERA as a way to measure how good or bad a pitcher has been or will be moving forward. Use a luck neutral measure such as FIP or tRA. In looking at those, the Yankees top three has been in fact worse than they look by ERA, and the Sox significantly better. Lester may be the best lefty in all of baseball right now. He is sporting a nifty 10.31 K/9, a great 3.79 K/BB, a nasty 3.22 FIP. His ERA is only as high as 3.89 because he has been unlucky (342 BAPIP against). Beckett also has an awesome 3.29 FIP. Smolz has not pitched enough to know. However in the small sample his FIP is 2.27 and his stuff looks good (eg his fastball velocity is only down 0.7MPH from 2005). If he hold up, that is a playoff tested 3 man of 3 guys who are pitching very well. If not, Penny has actually been good-his FIP is 21st best in all of the AL.
On the other hand, I can pretty well guess that Burnett will regress. His FIP is bad-4.56. Despite the slightly better ERA than Lester, Lester has been much better. Pettitte’s FIP stinks-4.89. CC has been good-but his 3.74 FIP is closer to Penny or Wakefield’s than it is to Beckett’s or Lester’s.
On the other hand, I actually agree about not trading for Halladay. The Yankees success in the postseason will hinge on both offense and defense. It will not come from shut-down pitching.
No ridicule, just refinement
I totally agree with you that if the season ended today I’d be happy with the Yankee team headed into the postseason.
The trouble is that the season doesn’t end today, and the Yanks play the contenders (Tigers, Angels, Red Sox and Rays) a ton in the second half.
The Yanks are tied for the second best SV% in baseball, 3 points behind the Rangers. Their relievers have 283.1IP, 25 more than the Red Sox, 20 more than the Rays, 30 more than the Angels, and 25 more than the Tigers. I see serious room for regression there, which would mean falling a couple games towards the pack.
Maybe later I’ll check out those playoff rotations by WHIP, but the battery on my laptop is dying, which means it’s time for me to go out and get my daily dose of sunshine.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
I should have done something different than ERA
And yes, Buzzy, you’re correct, FIP and other things do come into play besides just ERA.
I guess my point is that throwing Sabatthia and Burnett up against Beckett and Lester, or any other top two, isn’t exactly like throwing Kevin Millwood and Vicente Padilla instead.
I’m not sure how far AJ Burnett’s actual ERA is from his “true” one. He does have a somewhat low .285 BABIP this season, but then again, the Yankees staff as a whole has a .299 BABIP based on the team’s defensive efficiency.
I think it’s also worth nothing that Joba Chamberlain has very high BABIP – .331 – and should be due for a bounceback. I know some would attribute this to his command struggles and difficulties making his “out” pitches this season, but a .331 BABIP is really high, especially considering the team has a .701 defensive efficiency.
Joba currently ranks 54th out of 92 ERA qualifiers; of the next 20 pitchers on the list, #55-74, 18 have a lower BABIP than Joba. These are pitchers with a higher ERA, pitching “worse” than he is, yet they have a lower BABIP. I have a hard time believing this is due to any fault of Joba’s.
Hanging sliders get hit pretty hard...
…just saying.
by New York Sports Jerk on Jul 16, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I know your disdain for advanced metrics
but if BABIP is entirely a reflection of a pitcher’s ability (or lack thereof), why do so many pitchers with a worse ERA have a better BABIP? How does that make any sense?
Aren't you supposed to be explaining that to me?
Fck if I know how it makes any sense. I will point out that Joba has given up 10 unearned runs, so if those are scoring on the hit AFTER the error, you could say that Joba’s pitches aren’t as effective with runners on base, so while his ERA doesn’t suffer his BABIP does.
Let’s look at a hypothetical, with 2 outs in an inning.
Batter A: reaches on error
Batter B: walk
Batter C: 3-run home run
BABIP: .500
ERA: 0.00
There are dozens of possible factors, but people who cling to BABIP love to stick to only one: Luck.
And Joba has a significantly higher LD% than does Moyer.
by New York Sports Jerk on Jul 16, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
because BABIP has a lot to do with luck
You can call it whatever you like, but once the ball leaves the bat, the pitcher has little control over what happens.
29 of the 37 pitchers with worse ERAs than Joba have a better BABIP. These are pitchers with worse K/9 rates, worse K/BB ratios, worse H/9 ratios, yet somehow they manage a better BABIP.
Jamie Moyer has a 17% LD rate, Joba has a 22%. It’s not significantly higher, and I’d venture that Joba’s higher K rate more than makes up for it.
Not to pick
because I understand your point, but HRs are not included in BAPIP -they are considered not in play, and are not considered luck related (and thus are factored into FIP). Thus this would be BAPIP and ERA=0.
Also-LD% is flukey in the sense that the definition of a LD is somewhat subjective, so differences of a few percent is not so significant. A LD% of 30% vs 20% might be telling, but 22% vs 19% is not a big deal.
All of Joba’s secondary numbers look a bit off, in particular his swinging K% and K/9. Most telling is the FB velocity-which you can find on fangraphs and is way way down. I don’t know how much of that is related to measurements that include when he was in the pen, and thus could throw harder.
Ok, so it's a 2-run double then.
ERA still 0.00
BABIP still .500
I’ve been on Joba’s fangraphs page quite a bit … his velocity last year as a starter compared to this year was much higher. Injury-related perhaps, but he hasn’t matched it yet this season.
by New York Sports Jerk on Jul 17, 2009 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes.
I don’t know how much that velocity was influenced by his innings of relief, since a 95 average for a starter is really, really high. However, my gues is he has lost at least 1.5 MPH off the FB (maybe more) on average, and that is troubling if you are a Yankee fan.
The BAPIP argument for Joba does not seem to hold much water, as I mentioned, Joba has always pitched to a high BAPIP in the past, likely for a different reason-hitter guessing fastball and not King.
I agree
about the Yankees rotation. These are quality arms, and will give the team a good chance to win against anyone. I see the point indeed. The Yankees have a premium offense, an improved defence, and quality arms, even if those guys have not quite lived up to what they can do. As for FIP-I don’t think it takes park into account-and it may hurt Yankee pitchers and AJ in particular with regard to HRs allowed. Joba, rather interestingly, seems always to be a high BAPIP pitcher even in the past.
Roy isn't going to NY
Who would the Yanks trade for him? Who? For a chance to have him for one year? Would he sign a multi year deal? Do the Yanks want another pitcher on the other side of 30???
Screw that.
Yanks should stand pat. They’ll improve in the 2nd half and then we’ll see what they have in the playoffs. They WILL be in the playoffs. One thing about a streaky team is that the kinks can be ironed out.
Don’t sell the farm for Halladay!!!
What about switching Hughes and Joba?
I believe that Hughes and Joba are still good pitchers with the potential to be very good depending on attitude, health, and maturity. Hughes seems to be on a more steady foundation in these three categories. Joba has an agressive attitude that can stunt his growth. Being agressive is good to a point, but how many stories of players with great upside have we seen bow out to his selfishness.
I would “look” at switching Joba to the bullpen and Hughes to the rotation. Hughes has gained some confidence, and Joba needs to regain his. Just a thought.
another option
is Cliff Lee, who, though not on Halladay’s level, is still a very good pitcher, younger (30), and best of all, would cost a fraction of what it would cost to get RH.
not really
Lee has this year and a 2010 option left on his deal (9M) he’s making just 5.75M this year.
Believe it or not, Cliff Lee is on pace to be roughly as valuable as Roy Halladay so far. he’s at 3.5 WAR while Halladay’s at 4.2 (of course Halladay missed some time) they were roughly the same last year as well.
I guess intuitively. Halladay is likely to be better than Lee in 2010. but they been basically the same over the last 2 year. so it’s hard to really say. but trading for Halladay now means your paying at least 8M more to find out.
So I would say Halladay’s more valuable. but you’d be crazy if you think Cliff Lee will come at “a fraction” of Halladay’s cost.
to expand
If Halladay is worth 1 REALLY REALLY good prospect (say Jesus Montero + Ivan Nova). then Lee is worth probably a couple very good onces (say Mcallister + Ivan Nova ), there’s certainly a significant difference between Montero and Mcallister. but Mcallister is not a fraction of Montero. more like 60%.
semantics
you’re right that Lee has been great, but Halladay’s track record and his team being in the same division would likely mean considerably more via prospects than Lee. what’s ‘considerable’ mean? imo, Jesus is considerably more than McAllister. would you disagree?
perhaps i was a bit hyperbolic with ‘fraction’. is ‘considerable’ better?
going by BTB’s trade calculator, a top 10 hitting prospects is worth $36 mil. a top 10 pitching prospect is worth $15 mil. considering McAllister is NOT a top 10 pitching prospect, would he be considered a ‘fraction’ of Jesus?
sure
it’s a definition thing. but I was thinking fraction more along the lines of some fringe prospects or high upside low probability guys.
by RollingWave on Jul 17, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
another option?
my thoughts is that halladay is too expensive, but i am hearing that Erik Bedard and Jarrod Washburn might be available. Getting Bedard for just the rest of the season could be a big help if he could stay healthy, but we would only need him for short term use in which he is a free agent in 2010. Even though he is a bit expensive, his sub-3 ERA could definetly help out the staff whose ERAs have been high most of the year. this could be a great move to help us out

by 


















