Gammons On Wedge, Halladay, Giants

Ummm... I have a couple of Q's for Sabean.

1. Why did you overpay Zito?

2. After overpaying Zito and hearing the negative feedback and seeing results, Why did you overpay Rowand?

3. After overpaying Zito and hearing the negative feedback and seeing results, and overpaying Rowand and seeing results, Why did you overpay Renteria?

4. WHY DO YOU THINK YOU THINK YOU SHOULD BE RENEWED????

"Zito was one of the best pitchers in baseball when he signed."

No he was an above average pitcher who had the best agent. His periphery stats were going in the wrong way for years. WHIP had been rising, number of walks were rising, number of strikeouts falling, etc. Hell even the year he won the CY Young he wasn't even the best pitcher. Sabean was suckered.

It's not just Sabean's dumb free agent signings, it's his stupid trades, as well. Look at what he gave up to get A.J. Pierzynski and Freddy Sanchez, for example.

The only reason the Giants contended this year was because of their homegrown pitching, and that falls on the laps of the scouting director, not Sabean. The dude has been terrible.

I have a couple of questions for Gammons? By which standard does he figure the Jays will get 60% in a trade for Halladay in the off season. Where is the rationale for that, and exactly where does that figure come from. And what exactly does 60% mean? This guy writes to hear himself think.

The core problem with the current system is not that teams in bigger markets are capable of wielding larger payrolls, the problem is that larger payrolls wield so much more powerful of teams. MLB should focus on reducing the impact of free agency and/or placing more emphasis on the draft rather than redistributing the owners' money.

One way to do this would be to fix the Elias Ranking system and to use the draft to penalize high-impact free agent signings more strongly and appropriately. The arbitration system may also need work; it favors the players too heavily. Coupled with the broken Elias system, it often makes offering arbitration too risky for teams with low payrolls, causing them to lose homegrown players to free agency with no compensation.

At least two teams wanted him badly enough during this season, unless you also think various reports are absurd too.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but to me 1.5 years of Halladay is worth more than 1 year of Halladay.

Assuming the teams that were interested in Roy this year are also interested this off season, not counting the Phillies, why would they offer MORE for less of Halladay?

I mean, the supposed front runner for his services already picked up their pitcher. You'd assume they're not looking to add him, I don't see how his demand can go any higher than it already was.

karlmalone

Suppose, for example, that the Yankees and the Sox suffered injuries to their best starters during the postseason that would keep them out of the 2010 season. All of sudden, they would both likely be far more motivated buyers that would almost certainly seek to acquire Halladay. That bidding war could theoretically jack up the effective yield beyond what it was during the season.

What you are missing is that the decision-making behavior is based on both extrinsic (the length of Halladay's remaining contract) and intrinsic (each team's motivation and need) factors.

Getting really tired of all this talk that Wedge had no chance to win because he lost Victor and Cliff Lee.

They were traded AFTER the season was lost!!!!

Had he won before they'd still be with the club. It's his (and the players) fault they had to be traded.

Another manager easily could have won 5-6 more games heading into June/July, which would have put the Indians in contention in the extremely weak AL Central.

But instead, another TERRIBLE start forced the team to trade it's best pitcher.

7 years and only 1 winning April? Sorry, but a new direction is needed.

karlmalone

Yeah, you are missing it, and based on reading your posts, I understand why that is.

Teams often identify payroll space in the offseason, as contracts expire and budgets are formulated. Other teams decide that the team that they had thought would be good enough actually fell short of expectations, and as a result, are now willing to bid for talent that upgrades their roster.

But whatever, I have only so much time to waste with obtuse internet posters that don't understand reality and can't rebut a fact.

"Ah so the problem is with me..."

Indeed, but whatever, the comedy continues.

You do realize that Halladay's choice is to remain with a team that probably can't compete for a playoff spot, or to agree to be traded to another team for no more than one season that may well have the ability to make the playoffs. Given the incremental parity (and the one year outlay) that has characterized MLB since the recent CBAs, that could cause a number of teams to enter the bidding. Even the painfully small market Brewers traded multiple assets for Sabathia for less than a season's worth of a commitment.

So using the Brewers as the predicate, any number of teams could emerge as bidders, and those bidders don't necessarily have to be big market teams.

Gammons's point, like yours, is nonsensical.

I can't afford the paycut, but thanks for the encouragement.

"I'm saying it won't be for more than the ridiculous reported offers that were on the table this year."

I agree. It will still take a small army of prospects to acquire Halladay, but it's a considerable smaller army than what they probably were really offered. It comes down to a matter of value. Which is more valuable, a 32 year old ace signed cheap for 1.5 years or a 33 year old ace signed cheap for 1 year.

Edit: offers for Halladay not Burnett (a revealing slip of the keyboard, to be sure)

Ha! The jays can get as much for halladay in the post season as ever. They can offer the ability to negotiate a long term contract which they couldn't/wouldn't during the season. And they have a broader market b/c they aren't only appealing to teams competing in '09 but anyone trying to compete in 2010.

Ok here is an analogy:

Lets say I was selling pool passes. I go to you and say, "Ok, Ill sell you a pass to ________ Pool for $1000 and the pass lasts for the rest of this year and next year." You say no to my proposal and in 6 months I come back to you and say, "Ok,I know you said no the last time but this time the deal is better. Instead of 1.5 years for $1000 I will give you a pass for only 1 year and you now have to pay $1200"

Does that sound reasonable to you?

55saveslives= smart
rmb915= dumb

mainly because
rowand=260.
renteria=260.
zito=overpayed and 4.00 era and above/ way too much for getting payed 18.5 mill he should have a 3.00 or under e.r.a for what he is getting

Halladay will be worth less - far less in the off-season.

1. Control - as has been stated 1.5 years is significantly more valuable than 1 year. This is especially true in the context of the playoffs. Most of the teams interested in Halladay didn't need him for the regular season. He was going to earn his paycheck in the post-season. Only having him available for possibly one post-season makes him less valuable.

2. Need - the trade deadline always brings out more because their is an immediate need. Most teams are not desperate when they start their season. Injuries / poor performance, etc always drive knee jerk reactions which often benefit the team trading away established talent.

3. Supply and demand - this is the biggest reason why Halladay is less valuable. There are other pitchers available. While Lackey isn't to Halladay's level, the drop off isn't severe. Why pay Halladay $16m PLUS give up a ton of talent when Lackey is available for less cash + a draft pick? Maybe some teams don't need Halladay (he was more of a want) - there are other potential high-upside pitchers available. The fact is, at the trade deadline there was Lee and Halladay. Everyone else was either unavailable or terrible.

4. Finally, someone mentioned that teams might be able to sign him to a long-term contract - something not possible during the regular season. Why wasn't it possible? Why did the Jays block that option during the season but make it available for the off-season?

You can rationalize JP's bungling of the trade all you want. You can quibble with Gamon's 60% figure. But you would be hard pressed to find people in the business who think that the Jays will get more for Halladay in the off-season than what they would have received at the trade deadline. Sure everyone could be wrong and you could be right. I just wouldn't bet on it.

The 60% quote from Gammons had to do to dealing him within the division. So you can imagine that Theo Epstein's mouthpiece got his "info" from his higher ups at the Red Sox nation front office..

Still who ever signs Lackey will still have to give up 2 good draft picks as he is a type A free agent.
Also I dare anyone to prove to me that John Lackey is 60% as good as Roy Halladay... because he is not. He isn;t as durable. Has lesser stuff..

I still think its hilarious that the Dodgers refused to part with their vaunted minor league players and/or Chad Billingsley or Kershaw for Doc. I mean Manny ain't Manny anymore. The Dodgers staff is regressing hard. Bad decision by the Dodger nation I would say... This obviuosly has nothing to do with Gammons I just think its funny