Jason Stark and the Doc Deal

by Boundforbeach on Mar 17, 2010 11:20 AM EDT Comment 26 comments

I always enjoy Jason Stark's columns. He posted one last night on ESPN styled "Blue Jays enter life without Roy Halladay." Linky It's a pretty good piece about how the Jays are trying to rebuild their team to ultimately compete in the demanding AL east. Lots of praise for Doc as the best pitcher in baseball and the consequences of losing him. And lots of talk about Drabek and the lofty expectations he now faces. But one of the more interesting (at least to me) tidbits in the article was a passage about how Doc apparently was only willing to waive his no-trade clause for a single team - the Phils:

They made the best deal they could make, with the only team their ace was willing to waive his no-trade clause to go to: the Phillies.

The consensus around the sport is that the Blue Jays did amazingly well in that trade, considering they only had one team in the auction house. They got a 22-year-old starting pitcher with big upside in Kyle Drabek. They got a 23-year-old, potential middle-of-the-order hit machine (via Oakland) in Brett Wallace. And they got a 21-year-old catcher who projects to be a starting catcher in the big leagues in Travis d'Arnaud.

That's "three future regulars," said one AL executive -- an excellent take for a team that was "in a box, with Halladay having so much control over the trade."

What's done is done and - all things being equal- I'm pretty damned excited about having Doc locked up in Philly for the forseeable future. But I had never heard - until Stark's column- that Halladay was only willing to waive his no-trade clause for just the Phillies. I wonder if RAJ had any inkling of this when the negotiations were going down. If so, it really changes my opinion of the trade. If Anthropoulos had marching orders to unload Doc and the Phils were the only team he could do a deal with, I would like to think we could have leveraged this a bit better (sort of like we could have leveraged the Cliff Lee trade a bit better) and possibly not given up as much. I know, I know - it's in the past. But it bothers me nonetheless.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Yeah, I thought the worst part of the Halladay/Lee trades was how much we gave up for Halladay. We could and should have gotten him for less. The difference between what we should have vs. what we did give up for Halladay was bigger than the difference between what we should have gotten vs. what we did get for Lee.

Even without knowing about the no-trade waiver. Ruben should have known that he was basically bidding against himself – all the other big-budget contenders were out of the running for one reason or another.

by taco pal on Mar 17, 2010 12:20 PM EDT reply actions

Oh, and it’s “Jayson” Stark.

by taco pal on Mar 17, 2010 12:22 PM EDT reply actions

OMG… I just spit up my soda. We’ve created a monster

by Boundforbeach on Mar 17, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions

He spelled Halladay correctly, so no problem in my book.

by Cormican on Mar 17, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Not to reopen this old wound, but I’m fine with giving up Drabek and D.Arnaud, as pitching and catching prospects are so volatile that there’s a decent chance we look back in 5 years and neither guy made it to the majors due to injuries, catcher stagnation syndrome, or whatever. Michael Taylor bothers me the most, as his bat could have replaced Werth’s if we don’t resign him and all of the other outfield talent is 3 years away (except Domonic Brown), at best. Taylor could have contributed late this season

by Cormican on Mar 17, 2010 1:54 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah, I had a lot of hopes seeing Taylor blossom as a Phillie. Ah well.

by eaqIes on Mar 17, 2010 6:38 PM EDT reply actions

taylor is underrated. considering his numbers in triple-a, he was given away rather quickly.
batting .300 in lehigh is practically ready for at least some kind of role with the phils.

by #26HOF2B on Mar 17, 2010 8:16 PM EDT reply actions

Taylor

The problem with him is his body type. He is going to translate into a Howard/Fielder type of body. It’s not really a horrible thing, so long as he can hit, it’s just that defensively his only option will eventually be 1B. Big slow guys who can’t hit are not common place in the majors.

by hessshaun on Mar 26, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions

Taylor isn’t slow.

by taco pal on Mar 26, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions

Well, if he were to expand to Prince Fielder’s dimensions, he probably would slow a good bit. Not that I necessarily agree with the post in question.

by Cormican on Mar 26, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions

I was happy for a while, as this was no longer an issue.

But its rearing its ugly head again. I know people still have some bad feelings about the deal, and I can understand why. But personally, I’m fine with it. If we win another championship, than its worth it for me.

In Kolb we trust

by yophillybro on Mar 18, 2010 10:55 AM EDT reply actions

I agree. At first, I really didn’t like this deal, but I think it will take time before we can pass judgment. Ultimately, if you win a WS with Halladay as your best pitcher, then it’s a success in my book.

by zfg on Mar 18, 2010 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I think that’s a bit of a fallacy. If we win a WS but could have gotten Halladay for less, then it wasn’t a good deal.

Also, even if we win a WS with Halladay, there’s no guarantee that we wouldn’t have won the WS anyway without making the trades also.

by taco pal on Mar 18, 2010 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions

I actually considered those scenarios right as I was hitting the post button, and you’re 100% correct. The WS victory would be enough to make me happy about it, though, which I’m sure is what Reuben Amaro Jr had planned all along…

by zfg on Mar 18, 2010 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions