Would You?

I see half the sentiment thus far for “hell no” and half for “maybe, if.”

Wondering if people would be more willing to trade pitching for pitching (say, Carrasco, Knapp and a third, lesser arm plus Donald and one of Taylor or Dom Brown). Is it quality, quantity or both? You can’t get Halladay without giving up at least one, probably two, of our top three prospects, though maybe if you do three of the top five (one of Brown/Taylor, plus Carrasco and Knapp) you can keep two of the top three.

I find this stuff almost endlessly fascinating, as is probably evident.

I’m not nearly as baseball/Phillies educated as most who post here, but it seems that we will do OK without making any “big” trades.

On a somewhat related note, has there been any general understanding of why we let Coste go and kept Bako? I simply don’t comprehend Bako as part of a winning team.

Thank you.

With what we have, Im not sure were the class of the NL his year. Getting Halladay definatley changes that. I would be for the deal, as long as a few things happen. 1) Jamie Moyer is removed from the rotation 2) we only get Halladay if we sign him long term as part of the deal and 3) we keep the team intact for next year (resign Werth) and beyond. If all these things happen, I think we could have more than just 1 more Championship with this group of guys, and I think that makes it ok to deal some of our future parts.

There’s no room at the inn until at least 2011 (when Werth’s contract is up). In 2012, Victorino will be a free agent and Ibanez will be…retiring, probably. Considering Taylor is in the middle of proving himself too good for Double-A, he’s looking like he might be ready before that. And if the Phillies let him waste away in Lehigh Valley, they might be making the same mistake they made with Howard before he was called up.

capture player, sign him to long term. This is a good trade as long as he stays for more than a year and a half.

trade and sign, but if hes not willing to commit to being 1-2 in the phillies starting rotation, why do we want him here?

I’ve gone back and forth on whether or not I’d do this ever since the subject came up. I voted “Maybe,” and if I had to rank my preferences, “No” would be #2.

I love prospects (which is sort of what I was getting at with the too-long lede of this piece). I won’t be upset if they don’t do it, I’m pretty sure. If they do, I’ll swallow hard and hope for the best. I’m almost more interested in the discussion and all the permutations than in the outcome.

You’ve done a great job of laying out the arguments on each side, and it’s certainly not a no-brainer either way. Personally, I keep coming back to the fact that there is an almost perfect storm of factors that make this the right move: (1) the core players of this team are in their primes right now; (2) the only major weakness for the club is at the top of the rotation; (3) Halladay is quite possibly the best pitcher in baseball; (4) we get him for two playoff runs; (5) the farm system is deep enough to take the hit and still have a number of quality players.

I’m very much like you, dajafi: I love prospects, and I’m loathe to give them up. I wasn’t a big fan of the Blanton deal at the time, and even though it wound up working out, I still think I was right for questioning the thought process. But I think this is different because Halladay is, as I said above, quite possibly the best pitcher in baseball, and opportunities like this don’t come around very often.

One specific point: as far as the logistics of a deal go, the Phillies can only surrender one of Taylor/Brown, and one of Drabek/Carrasco. I’d also be loathe to part with Happ since he’s such a valuable piece for the current club, but if the Jays would release Drabek from the deal and take Happ instead, I think we’d have to think about that. As you say, the permutations are fascinating.

The Phillies will not have a problem scoring runs or on defense for quite some time (maybe 3-4 years), but pitching is another story. Drabek has top of the rotation stuff. That’s too much to give up.

Doc Halladay if he joins the Fightin’s rotation instantly becomes the best starter we have had since Lefty. He eats innings, he wins games and gets a lot of ground balls, perfect for CBP. Just imagine the best starting pitcher in the American League East turned loose in the NL? Prospect means maybe………ok I’ll give you “likely” Taylor has been dominating so far in single and double A. So was Marv Thronberry. It has become a huge leap from the minors to the majors for starting pitchers. That’s why every team is looking for them. There is no guarantee that Drabek or Carrasco will make it to the Show and if they do it’s almost certain they will not be Doc Halladay. Do the deal……….be smart about it………but do the deal.

I thought this was a really good post. Of course, the “devil is in the details” with any trade.

I think it’s worth noting that the prospects are not the only risky element of a trade like this. The “established veteran” also presents a risk, albeit a lesser one.

For instance, on the Tim Hudson trade, although Dan Meyer clearly didn’t work out as Oakland had hoped, Hudson also hasn’t been the same pitcher for Atlanta that he was with the A’s. He was pretty good, but not spectacular, before his injury, and of course he now hasn’t pitched in almost a year.

Another thing that’s worth point out is that the Hudson trade wasn’t a midseason
“deadline deal.” It was during the offseason, when I think prices are generally more reasonable. So the Braves weren’t overpaying to relieve the pressures of a pennant race. Meyer was an excellent prospect, but the other two guys weren’t really seen as anything special. I think it would be the rough equivalent of trading one of our three untouchables, but in a package with, I dunno, maybe Mayberry and Bastardo.