Halos Heaven

damn why can I never spell that guys name right.............

H A L L A D A Y!

i agree but i still dont like the idea of getting rid of joe saunders id rather they did (weaver or santana)

Or none of the above.

opiejeanne - December 12, 2009 reply

Weaver is a much better pitcher than Saunders. Don't let Saunders' win totals fool you.

na i disagree totaly but even if that was the case santana is def. not better than either of the later and would want him offered

first out of these three

he wont be

toronto wants cheap talent. santana is the most expensive of those 3 pitchers after we gave him that contract extension

ihearhowie2.0 - December 12, 2009 reply

yes i am just saying if one thats the one id want. but i say if we had to get rid of one that is more porbably

i want it to be weaver cause i personaly have found saunders to be the best of the three (weaver is good but not the best)

That's misleading

toronto wants cheap talent. santana is the most expensive of those 3 pitchers after we gave him that contract extension

Santana was signed to buy out his arbitration years. If Saunders earns more through arbitration than $6M in 2010, $8M in 2011 and $11M in 2012, then he could cost more than Santana, and if he continues to pitch as he has the past two seasons he could easily eclipse that three-year total simply in yearly arbitration hearings (or in settlements).

Likewise, Santana’s contract includes a team option for 2013, which would have been the first year of his free agency; if he lives up to his expectations then that locked-down 7th pro season through the option would be tremendously cost-effective as opposed to losing him through free agency and paying market rate for a contract from 2013 and beyond.

BryanHarvey'sMoustache - December 12, 2009 reply

Just think "Holiday" with some gnarly Minnesota accent....

Agree norcal....

As Stirrups said in a recent comment, “potential” is what you use to acquire real talent — Cy Young caliber talent. Halladay is a true difference maker. We need something/someone to shift the scales against the like of the Yankees. Halladay, more than any one player who we can realistically acquire is likely to be that guy.

Jack Frost - December 14, 2009 reply

Reckling, Aybar and

jimmuscomp - December 12, 2009 via mobile reply

Oops. Hit send too quick on my phone.

Reckling, Aybar and who? I’d rather give up Saunders than Reckling. Saunders is fine, but has no ceiling. His K rate doesn’t allow for him to get better unless he goes to the Glavine school of change-up.

Reckling is a hard throwing lefty who was young for his league in AA. He is going to be a legit #2 starter in 2011, methinks.

Also, keep Napoli, this team needs the offense.

So, I’d not make a trade that included Reckling and I certainly wouldn’t make a trade that gives up Reckling AND Napoli, not for the chance to pay Halladay $20 million per year for the 5 years including his decline.

This team has balked a these type of deals in the past and I agree that the cost of talent AND money is too much. The only way to offset a Halladay contract is to have inexpensive and above average starters in the rotation with him. Trading Reckling makes that harder and I can’t stomach seeing Mathis play 120 games a year.

I vote a loud no.

The only deal I make is: Saunders, Aybar and Petit or Bourjos. Take it or leave it.

jimmuscomp - December 12, 2009 via mobile reply

ill change it a little i say: weaver/santana, aybar and bourjos/petit

Why does everyone think Saunders is...

Better than Weaver or Santana? Think upside people. This is as absolutely good as Saunders can be. Santana and Weaver (to a lesser extent) have upside. Saunders is just not a good bet to be more than. Pitcher with an ERA around 4.5.

Santana isn’t as consistent. If that is the reason, then I can at least understand that.

jimmuscomp - December 12, 2009 via mobile reply

well that is one and i think your wrong about saunders era. i dont feel like doing number unless i have to but i think

it will be more around 3-3.5 average per season for him. remember much of this season he played hurt. also why do you say he cant get better i find that somwhat ignorant. also as of right now saunders is better for sure and if he doesn’t get better he is still a very good pitcher. i say already a muliti 18 game winner by how he has done the last two years won 17 both years would have easily had 18 (possibly more) if he hadn’t been hurt

mark my words if he doesn't get hurt and i dont think he will he will win 18 games this year

if he does win 18 it will be because our offense picked him up

Kaz will win 18

well offense helps most pitcher when they win 18 or more

im talking about Matt Palmer type of offense.

Look I like Saundo, but if we can get Halladay then sorry hes gone. And besides we can replace Saundo with another lefty O’Sully.

maybe in june-july when he was pitching hurt...

but Saundo didnt need much offense when he shut out Greinke and the Royals (yes i know its KC).

and that game where he shut down Greinke was one of the one he was hurt

Yeah the dude has posted up good numbers in back to back years.

But I just like Santana more than Saundo. If the rotation looks like Halladay, Weav, Kaz, Santana, O’Sully, then we might be K everyone that goes up to bat, with the exception of O’Sully of course.

Wins is an awful way to measure a pitcher...

oh, hell. Why do I bother explaining this to some folks…

Saunders career ERA is 4.22 in 600 innings. Why would he lower his ERA by a run per nine innings entering his age 29 season? What could possibly account for that type of up-tick in his performance?

Nothing can make that happen – especially as his K rate drops and his BB rate rises.

Geebus, get over it – they guy is not bad, but he is a #3, #4 starter at best and his skills will get worse over the next couple of years – not better.

Because Saunders' ERA is inflated by a learning curve and his shoulder injury.

The last two years (when not injured) his ERA has been between 3.5 and 4 which, in my book, would make him a solid #3. Not a #3 at best.

Santana has not been close enough to consistent for me. I don’t know which Ervin is gonna show up. Is he gonna throw a CGSO? Is he gonna be pulled in the 4th with us down 5 runs? And his elbow problems last yer severely screwed with his head and you could see it in his velocity and his demeanor on the mound.

at least santanas velocity was picking up near the end of the season so thats good

but his injury issures worry me goin into the future

It did pick up a little bit towards the end.

But we weren’t seeing that explosive movement that we got accustomed to seeing the year before. I would be more than happy to see Santana stay over Saundo if that elbow issue hadn’t stunted his 2009, but now it’s going to change the type of pitcher he was. And that might not be the same successful Ervin.

No, Saunders' ERA is inflated by a WHIP that's been below 1.41 only once.

Weaver is better year in and year out. And Santana, being a strikeout pitcher, I’d peg as having the potential to replicate his 2008 season more often than Saunders will replicate his own 2008 season.

really cause saunders has already replicated his 07 in his 08 and that 08 he was hurt for some time.

but i see you sound like your more of a person that likes strike out pitchers over pitchers that rely on movement and such. i can understand that but doesn’t mean they are better necessaraly

Saunders did not replicate his 2008 season in 2009...

Not by a mile. His ERA jumped by over a run per nine innings and his walk rate went up to over 3 per nine innings as well. H also gave up 8 more HR’s.

Saunders has a stunning 2008 – I’ll give you that. But he is not likely to repeat that going forward based on the trajectory of the stats that I like to look at when trying to figure out what Pitcher A is “likely” to do in a certain season.

yea but you have to take into account that he played what half last season with

a hurt shoulder. so i can tell you right now that would directly effect his walks number one plus his era and HR’s allowed, i say without that injury it wouldn’t be much of a jump to say he would have had the number ne had in 08 in 09

What ANGELSFAITH said.

His shoulder injury kept him from extending. Which compromised both velocity and movement. The Saunders we saw after his DL stint, is more like the Saunders we should expect to see.

And is the Saunders we saw before the injury really took hold, too.

Remember April and the first part of May, anyone?

He was actually injured then too.

He said in an interview that it was at least managable earlier in the year.

Yeah, exactly.

I thought about that too. Bottom line, Saunders is awesome, far more so than most give him credit.

Clutch - December 13, 2009 reply

Blackberry trouble?

Saunders is just not a good bet to be more than. Pitcher with an ERA around 4.5.

Looks like something I do all the time: Space twice by mistake, which drops the period and caps the next letter.

Doh!

Phone trouble, yes. iPhone, not Blackberry – but yes.

So...

Saunders bourjos reckling Napoli?

If that’s for halladay and halladay only…It may be a tad expensive

Figgi4life - December 12, 2009 via mobile reply

What price would you be willing to pay for a WS championship?

If Halladay is such a guarantee of a ring

count how many he has won to date.

Not so much that he is a guarantee........

but he increases the odds on this team…….moreso than a guy like Reckling plus the 3 names being mostly spouted as pieces to this trade puzzle…

You cant judge Halladay on wins!

He has been stuck on a horriable team for years now!

Walter Johnson says hello.

Quad Fin Rider - December 12, 2009 reply

Do you always rec your own posts?

damned clever — could “anaslime” and “anacrime” possibly be the same fucktard?

I'm gonna go with a hell yeah.

At least come up with a creative new name after being banned. Not one 99% like your previous one.

Quad Fin Rider - December 13, 2009 reply

Customer Service inquiry:

Filed as Stupidity from Inept Users…

How can you tell who Rec’d it?

LAASurfin - December 13, 2009 reply

Click on the profile of person whoever rec'd it

and it will appear under the category “Recent Activity”

But where on the comment does it show who rec'd it? Or how do you find out whose profile to click?

snowhor - December 13, 2009 reply

yes he is the same but was he banned cause his comments hadn't all been taken off when he came

with his new name?

TheAngelsColts - December 13, 2009 reply

It was on the profile of "anacrime"

but all those posts have since been removed (along with most of those of “anaslime”) after that clown got banned

Quad Fin Rider - December 13, 2009 reply

CC did'nt win any ring until he went to NYY.

44FAN - December 12, 2009 reply

My point all along...

This is overpaying to the max…I like our chances for the LT as is. I would not do this trade as is…there has got to be way more coming back than just a 33 yr old pitcher!

K3YEROUT - December 12, 2009 reply

i agree...if the Halos were do a trade of this much talent...

i’d rather it be for an everyday player like an Adrian Gonzalez (not that im advocating THAT specific trade), but for someone like him; a game-changing, young, everyday player

Whos to say that...

Getting Halladay is a slam dunk to a WS title.
Hell wasn’t Kazmir supposed to be that guy last season that would lead us to glory..?
Especially how our offense has been garbage at times in giving run support to our starting pitching.(Hell we had Jered Weaver throw a freaking no hitter in 08 all for nothing if my memory serves me correct)
Plus now we lose Figgins.
Im not trying to be a negative nancy but it just seems as if our run atop the AL West may be coming to an end.

deejayelleseven - December 12, 2009 via mobile reply

"Hell wasn’t Kazmir supposed to be that guy last season that would lead us to glory..?"

And Tex in 2008…

Figgi4life - December 12, 2009 via mobile reply

I was at Dodger Stadium for that game

Jered and Arredondo I think it was combined for a no hitter and we lost 1-0. I almost got in a fight in the 5th inning with some douche wearing a Russel Martin t-shirt.

Good times.

yea it was those two

word.

i can’t tell you how vomit inducing statements like “oh, kaz is a lock against boston or the yanks” or “halladay is a guarantee title”… “we own the yankees in the post season”

Shit happens, and nothing is a lock in baseball.

clover_black - December 12, 2009 reply

remember though regeans said there may be other players that could come over from the jays

I know

That’s what I was thinking. I’m pretty sure were not giving up all them for one pitcher…this could be exciting!

Figgi4life - December 12, 2009 via mobile reply

could mabye it be reckling instead of saunders?? unlikely but mabye possible

BryanHarvey'sMoustache - December 12, 2009 reply

who? Name a player that they would send over in addition that we would actually want?

If you say Hill or Snider fuggedaboutit. They aint sending them….I promise you that.

i dont know who regeans is thinking just know he said it

League, Downs, Frasor all can help our BP.

i like reckling, i do

but this would be one of those times to sell high. He had a great season but walked a ton of guys. If he has a bad follow up this year we’ll be kicking ourselves for not cashing in before his value crashed.

Let’s not forget about jordan walden. If he’s healthy, he could re-establish himself as our top pitching prospect and more than ease the pain of losing the potential of reckling.

ihearhowie2.0 - December 12, 2009 reply

As long as we can sign Halladay long term, FINE.

jessthelion - December 12, 2009 reply

What about Saunders/Reckling

for Cliff Lee? Than Philly trades them and some other pieces for Halladay?

That would be the second time the Phillies would lose Saunders.

But would net a starter of near the same efficiency and cost much less. On the other hand, a Halladay trade hinges on an extension. Would Lee be easy to lock up long term?

Well, damn. They just want the sun and the moon AND the stars, don't they.

opiejeanne - December 12, 2009 reply

Isn't this a sign that Halladay WOULD accept an extension from the Angels?

I said this on the other thread so this is sorta from the Department of Redundancy Department but seems important to me.

The Jays are surely talking to Roy about this since he has an iron-clad no trade clause. The Angels have clearly stated that any trade like this would be predicated on an extension. If Roy had indicated to the Jays that he would NOT sign an extension with the Angels, wouldn’t the Jays have just dropped the whole idea?

Isn’t the fact that they keep coming back for more (or different) players an indication that Roy is willing to come to Anaheim?

LAASurfin - December 12, 2009 reply

The Jays are in the driver's seat

From the consensus of reports, the Phillies have the inside track on the basis of geography. They train a matter of minutes from the Halladay home in Florida (giving him more time with wife and kids) and play on the East Coast for the majority of games.

The Angels, on the other hand, train in AZ and play the majority of their games on the West Coast, which makes them geographically unfriendly to Halladay.

He has to approve any deal, and while he apparently has told the Jays he’d approve a deal to Anaheim (else there would be no trade negotiations), the Angels would have to come across with a more rich deal than the Phillies to make the Jays push for an Angels trade—and even then, Halladay has to sign off.

Therefore, it makes sense that the Jays would upping the ante in demands, with Reckling being added to Saunders (or another front-line starter), Napoli (I seriously doubt Aybar has anything to do with trade demands) and a AAA player like Bourjos. The Phillies most likely don’t have as high a threshold to reach in terms of return talent (A) because there is a greater likelihood that Halladay would sign off on a deal to the Phillies and (B) because he can’t come back and haunt them in the future as he could is he stays in the AL.

The biggest stumbling block for Amaro is giving up Drabek and others (the Phillies are very high on Drabek, the way the Angels were with Adenhart), and the fact that they’re serious about capping payroll for the next few years at $140M, and wish to retain Lee to an extension past 2010—keeping Howard, Lee, Rollins, Utley, et al PLUS Halladay at a $140M budget over the next few seasons would be extremely difficult without some creative accounting.

Will the Angels reach a point where the demands are too high? Most likely, yes, but it never hurts to negotiate unless it is clear the demands are intractable and high on the other side. For the moment, though, it seems likely that Halladay is headed to Philly, not to Anaheim.

Halladay doesn't care what prospects he's traded for

3eyes - December 12, 2009 reply

yea he doesn't care

Argument (A) doesn't make any sense.

Either he’s willing to go to Anaheim or he’s not.

“Roy, are you willing to go to Anaheim?”
“No.”
“But, they’re willing to give up more for you than Philly. Now will you go?”
“Well, in that case – okay.”

Can’t see Halladay giving a rat’s ass how much the Jays are getting back in return.

Argument B on the other hand may have some merit, but the difference between Roy in the NL and Roy in the AL West isn’t all that dramatic (1 start against the Jays, maybe).

PitPerc - December 12, 2009 reply

Actually, it does

There is said to be a gentleman’s agreement between Halladay and the front office/ownership of the Jays.: They’ll work to trade him to a contending club and give him a shot at a World Series ring (something he clearly wouldn’t see staying in Toronto), and Halladay in turn will approve a trade which leaves the club he’s leaving in the best possible position for the future. Halladay apparently feels this is the straight-up way to respect the guys who have been his teammates in past seasons, some of those men for several years.

Thus, there is a benefit to the Angels offering a more rich deal than the Phillies. It still comes down to risk/reward and whether the Angels are better off acceding to demands in relinquishing players AND saddling the payroll with a huge deal, potentially through 2014 or 2015.

what do you think the likelyhood...

..Would be that their demands could drop if he approves a trade but doesn’t sign an extension? If the jays want our players more than any others, does that make it cheaper to get him just for 2010?

AlohaHalofan - December 12, 2009 via mobile reply

From what I have read around about the situation with the Phillies

is that they would have to shed payroll to even afford Halladay by trading Lee in exchange for prospects they would flip to Toronto or trading Happ and Blanton away to accommodate Halladay’s salary. That is a significant amount of deal making before they could entertain acquiring Halladay. The Angels have multiple pieces in place and the money now to make the deal now. Seems like an advantage to the Angels in this respect.

44FAN - December 12, 2009 reply

from what i heard there is no way that trade happens but we know managment doesn't always tell the truth cause they dont want to tip there hand

Is anyone else starting to feel that the Jays can just go screw themselves?

I mean, we offered them a pretty tasty deal for a guy who wouldn’t even be with us for more than a year unless he signed an extension and still they turned it down.

BryanHarvey'sMoustache - December 12, 2009 reply

No, I dont feel that way.

Also, read the reports. We wont accept any trade UNLESS Halladay agrees to an extension.

Yes I know that

But all indications are that he won’t and is more likely to go to the Phillies.

I don’t give a crap what the Blue Jays want until Halladay agrees to negotiate an extension.

im pretty sure he has and the trade wont go through if it doesn't get done but we wouldn't be still going after him

if he hadn’t

I think many are missing the point.

If he isn’t interested in signing an extention, Tony will kill whatever deal they’ve come up with. It’s as if the worry about an extension is moot. If he’s not willing to do that, then we aren’t giving up any of our prospects for him – deal dead. See you next year in free agency.

PitPerc - December 12, 2009 reply

That's what I think is more likely

In which case, I think we’d be better off going after Lackey, Oliver, Vlad or some other DH and continuing to shop GMJ. Basically we should just get back to handling our own roster. Maybe take a short term chance on a guy like Sheets or Piniero (sp?) or Escobar for the pen if we feel the need.

If we still need help for some reason in June or July we can trade for a guy like Webb or Haren or someone at that point, or go for Halladay round 3.

also we didn't offer last summer the deal that one we heard is what the jays countered with

Quad Fin Rider - December 12, 2009 reply

There's probably more to this deal now than just Halladay

"We’ve talked about a lot of things," Reagins said of his discussions with Toronto. “They have a lot of pieces that are attractive.”

I think some people are reading way too much into this latest bit of news. If Reckling is indeed being added to the mix of players going to Toronto, it’s probably because we’re getting more than just Halladay in return. This team has far more needs that must be addressed other than acquiring a new #1 starter and I think Reagins is too smart a guy to throw in all of his chips this early just to acquire one missing piece.

we have already stated this :) but thanks

Fine, I'll take Halladay and say Ricky Romero

If we’re gonna give them 4, 5, or more players.

i still think it is only three players

i think reckling would be in place of one of the other three that were already mentioned

Reckling just another unproven phenom

For Christ sakes, trade him. How many McPhersons, Woods, etc. is it going to take for the Angels to realize that their phenoms never pan out?? While you’re at it add Mathews and Bourjos.

Manic - December 12, 2009 reply

false statment mabye as you cant say none of our prospects pan out casue it seems some are or is it only me.

realize that most of the guys in the majors on our team are from out minor league system

Mathews?

Yeah, that Tim Salmon guy really fizzled out

How many McPhersons, Woods, etc. is it going to take for the Angels to realize that their phenoms never pan out??

And John Lackey. And Francisco Rodriguez—what the hell was the team thinking letting Percival go and leaving the closing to Frankie? And Howie Kendrick—we let Adam Kennedy go so Kendrick could start? What the hell for? And we already saw what a bust that stupid Kendry Morales was—we should have paid more for Teixeira than the Yankees did. At least trading for Teixeira got rid of that horrible, no-talent Casey Kotchman. Bad enough that the front office let Orlando Cabrera walk so that Aybar could be a waste of fabric at SS.

And Joe Saunders, and Jered Weaver, and Darrin Erstad, and Ervin Santana, and Scot Shields, and Mike Napoli, and Garett Anderson, and Jim Edmonds, and…

You’re right, none of the guys ever pan out.

BTW, you might want to let Wood have a year of playing at the MLB level before you pronounce him as a bust. A few folks made that mistake in the winter of 2008 regarding Morales. They don’t look too intuitive right now.

i still hold though that sean rodriguez was better than wood but hope i am wrong cause wood is the one we got :)

Man our Scouting department sucks

You’d think at least one of those players would have forged a decent Major Leauge career.

ryanfea - December 12, 2009 reply

yea seriously lol

And Troy Glaus, don't forget him!

And how about the guys the FO realized were terrible and let go? I’m SO GLAD we didn’t roll the dice on Bobby Jenks, Alberto Callaspo, Damion Easley, and Alexi Casilla, for example…

Its really hard to be proven

When you haven’t played in any game.

well we will be getting news on one front or another today as all teams are required to offer contracts to

unsigned players by today

mayday, mayday, abort mission

screw the jays. i don’t think the deal will happen because: 1) both teams have to agree on a package trade and b) we have to sign halladay to an extension. sign lackey so we can keep our prospects and still have our ace because in 4-5 years both lackey and halladay will be more concerned about where they’re going to golf in their upcoming “retirement” and we’ll be crying the blues as napoli, saunders, wood, aybar, bourjos, reckling or whoever is involved in the trade in whatever combination are regular mlb players.

thejd - December 12, 2009 reply

im actually sorta ok when nap. was part of the trade talks cause we have plenty fo players to fill that role and wilson is basically

the same player as nap with a little more power anyway and better D

where the hell have you heard

that Wilson has more power than Napoli?

b0rd3rline - December 12, 2009 reply

how about from scocia and nap.

scocia?

who’s that?

and how does Wilson have more power than Napoli if he has never hit more than 14 HR’s in a season (Rancho Quakes), and has an OPS in the .700’s in his minor league career.

b0rd3rline - December 12, 2009 reply

It's amazing that people still don't get how good of hitter he is.

I know - it drives me nuts...

This FO will trade away the best hitting catcher in franchise history before folks realize that what they were witnessing was a once-in-a-generation offensive player that can also catch well enough to play in the majors.

look would i rather it was mathis to go?? YES but is it going to be if one does?? NO

at least it isn't very likely to be

Grammar & Punctuation

Please learn some. Your posts are really getting annoying.

Angel Hawker - December 14, 2009 reply

The same crap, over and over and over again!

Either make the deal or don’t! This is getting sickening!

Dono Romantico - December 12, 2009 reply

Amen brutha

tomorrow it will be some new twist.

Yawn

If you want Halliday

You’re going to have to give something meaningful in return. This assumes to do the deal you can sign him to an extension. We’re not going to get a Cy Young caliber player for wretched bench players.

I still think Santana is a curve-ball away from TJ surgery, so he’d be the pitcher I’d look to move. I do think Saunders is a 5 at best, but he’s a lefty so he stays. We need Weaver.

The Jays don’t need to make a deal before spring training. It does them no harm to ask for a 4 or 5 player deal with top talent coming in return until Halliday says he won’t waive his no trade clause.

umm you need to explain this as it makes no sense to me.

how do you figure he is a curve ball away from TJ sugery and realy really he is a 5 your kidding i would say at least a 3

1) Santana had a ligament strain/tear in his elbow last year – remember all the time he missed? When he came back he never was the same prior to the injury.

2) Saunders throws in the low 90’s upper 80’s and his best pitches are the off-speed junk. OK, I’ll play along and say he’s a 4 or 5. Unless he’s pitching for the Nats, Pirates or Padres, there’s no way he’s a 1,2 or 3 starter.

ok i would agree that santana especially with the issues he has had like you pointed out may be close to TJ surgury but.....

oh wait lol haha sorry i thought you said saunder that is why i was questioning you i didn’t see how he would be close to TJ surgery :) but i do agree on santana thats why id want them to trade him before it happens just another good reason.

yea he pitches in the low 90;s and such as you said but he is very effective with that breaking ball and has done very well

remember speed of the pitch isn’t everything

are you serious????

he’s not a 3 starter on anyone except the Nats, Pirates, or Padres???? He made the All-Star team in 2008 and before he got injured and didn’t tell anyone he was doing even better the first 2 months of this year. Then when he came back he had great starts again, and he put the Angels in position to win Game 2 of the LCS against like “the best offense ever”.

For like 9 of the past 12 months baseball has been played his ERA is a bit over 3. The only time he struggled his shoulder was messed up. I’m not saying he’s a #1 but if he’s not AT LEAST a #3 then you have a way way way overinflated idea of what starting pitchers are able to do nowadays.

MH252525 - December 12, 2009 reply

Yes, I'm serious

I’m making the 4 / 5 assessment looking forward. I just think we’ve seen his best already.

a bit spoiled by how good the entire Angels rotation has been the last 2 seasons ?

Saunders is NOT a 5… the last 2 seasons he’s had the quality of a 2-3 starter, save the 2 or so months he pitched injured. I think im convinced more and more that we shouldnt trade anyone for Halladay. Weave, Voodoo, and Saundo can all still improve and all 3 combined would come cheaper than Halladay. Don’t break up a young, cheap, quality rotation with those 3 plus Kaz. Sign a cheap # 5 or go with Moseley or Palmer @ the 5 and wait for the best of Walden/Reckling/Bell/SOS/Ortega when they develop further in 2010 or ’11.

No, not spoiled

I’m making the 4 / 5 assessment looking forward. I just think we’ve seen his best already.

As a Jays fan maybe I can add a few things:

1. I’m not convinced about the reported concerns from Halladay about where he would train in the offseason. So far Halladay hasn’t said a single thing about it, so I remain skeptical.

2. A Halladay extension doesn’t necessarily equal 5 years/100 million. Halladay has routinely taken less than market to stay in TO and give the team payroll flexibility. I have no doubt he would do the same for his new team (except the Yankees). He has also repeatedly stated his desire to test free agency (i.e. choose where he goes). So, what I’m trying to say is that he may sign an extension but it could easily be a 2 or 3 year one for less than market value (14-16 mil. per) if it helps consumate a deal (he wants to help the Jays as well).

3. Other players that the Angels might have interest in (feel free to disagree) could be: relievers Scott Downs and Jason Frasor – both have closing ability. Downs has put up fantastic numbers the past few years, although an injury lower his performance last year. Frasor developed a third pitch this past year and was lights out. Either one could help offset the loss of Arredondo (sp?). I don’t think we have any starters you would be interested in and the only position players that the Jays would be willing to trade/have any usefulness are Encarnacion (3B), Overbay (1B) and Wells (CF). I don’t think the Angels would be interested in any of these players.

cnagy77 - December 12, 2009 reply

hey thanks for you veiw as a jays fan who would you like to see in the trade from us our of the names being thrown out there??

What I want and what the Jays management wants are probably two different things. I’d be more interested in your close-to-ready prospects (Reckling, Wilson, Wood, etc.) and maybe Aybar rather than established major leaguers (Saunders, Napoli). I’m actually kind of confused why the Jays would request a Saunders in return. He doesn’t really fit into a mini-rebuild, unless the Jays flipped him to a 3rd team.

cnagy77 - December 12, 2009 reply

i think he sorta does, i mean for one he is young, and inexpensive right now

but i dont want him traded id rather do a santana/weaver then aybar and a prospect

And he's under club control for the next 3 years.

So he could very well be part of a veteran presence in the Jays’ 2012 playoff run, as hoped—and then sign a long-term extension with them just after he’s fitted for his ring.

That is, unless the Halos steal the ring first that year…!

THANK YOU

1. The Spring Training rumor reeks of BS…

2. Agree – it will be more like 4 years @ $20 per…

3. Halladay and Frasor for Reckling/Saunders/Napoli/ another prospect … sounds Grrrrreat!!!!!!

Maybe, maybe no

1. The Spring Training rumor reeks of BS…

Halladay and his wife are devout Mormons who give a substantial amount of their time and money to charities assisting children, especially sick children. Halladay’s wife established a Christian ministry for the wives of the players.

It makes perfect sense that he’d place a priority upon a situation which allows him more time with his wife and kids.

Ah, but Arizona is a heavily Mormon place, no?

And afaik there’s a fairly large Mormon community in OC, too.

I promise not to make any Mormon jokes if he indeed sign an extension with us.

which is hard due to their magic underwear…

True

But it isn’t about being in a Mormon community. I thought that at first, too, but then I realized he is going to continue to live in Florida—the fact it has no state income tax is a huge matter to a guy making $18M a season, especially compared to a residence in CA. That is why Tiger Woods, who grew up in CA and went to Stanford, lives in Florida.

Besides, he has established roots in his community, so he isn’t seeking to move. Thus, proximity to his family could be a sizable draw towards playing for an East Coast team.

I disagree!!

I don’t care how nice a Halladay might be, but he is getting a little older so he is not going to be willing to be underpaid out of kindness.. I am sorry, but everyone has their price and he will to. The price is always as much as I can get!! End of Story!

Possibly, but every indication from Roy over the years is that he wants to A) win and B) be paid fairly. He’s not an AJ Burnett. Is he going to sign for 1 mil a year? No, but I don’t think he’ll seriously ask for 20 mill per season.

cnagy77 - December 12, 2009 reply

If he does

I will give him a ton of respect. Most people are going to want at least what their fair market value is and Hallady can easily obtain 20 mil per season. Not everyone is the same and if he loves baseball and being a nice guy more than having an extra 4 million dollars in his pocket, that would definately command respect. I just don’t see it though!

learn to use the REPLY feature

dude.

hows that! DUDE,,,

I wonder if Halladay says "A" alot!

you mean eh right?

Woops..

He's from Colorado and lives in Florida

Doubtful.

Very good point!!

is anybody really surprised at this?

like… at all?

it wouldn’t surprise me if the Jays wanted Reckling over Saunders. The only reason (IMO) they want Saunders is so they have someone to pitch for them next year, taking Halladay’s spot. Reckling, from all accounts, is a very solid young pitcher, and he’s incredibly projectable. But, as others have pointed out, he’s not a sure thing. He’s a prospect. That being the case, I’d trade him. Here’s my offer -

Saunders, Reckling, Pettit/Bourjos, and Mathis/Wilson.

and that’s only if Halladay agrees to an extension.

howiestheman - December 12, 2009 reply

I like the sound of Reckling more than I like the sound of Aybar/Napoli/Saunders

If Toronto wants to save money & engineer a near-term rebuild, then they should be cleaning out our Walden/Reckling/Conger/Bourjos/whoever file, and we should be handing them the keys.

We’ve got a very good major league team AS IS, with a good young home-grown infield and a good young (mostly) home-grown rotation just now rounding into form, right as a couple of good young (or at least new) bullpen arms mature into contributors. The 2006 rebuilding project that was supposed to produce Mathis-Kotchman-Kendrick-Wood-McPherson has finally revealed itself as Napoli-Morales-Kendrick-Aybar-Wood; Saunders/Santana/Weaver have matured into two All-stars & a guy who deserved to make the team last year … and now, after all that trial and error, and a lowish-cost future that looks super bright, we want to start coughing up major chunks?

I vote hell no. Though short on near-term middle infielders, our farm system has some legit prospects, particularly pitchers and catchers, both positions of which Toronto is desperate to shore up. Some of those guys might turn out great, some might bust, but none of them are needed at the big league level any time soon, because we’ve got a great core.

If we trade Napoli, we have negative offense from the catcher position for probably at least two years. If we trade Aybar, we remove the last vestiges of our once-staggering infield depth, while seriously degrading the infield D and watching an exciting & talented player reach his prime in another uniform. If we trade Saunders or Santana (by far the most palatable of the three scenarios, as far as I’m concerned), we can look forward to at least 30 & more likely 45+ starts from a pool of Matt Palmer, Trevor Bell, Anthony Ortega, and the ghost of Jack Lazorko.

I want Halladay like a bastard. But I also like winning every year with this great organizational depth. We carve up the big-league team, that gets jeapordized. Exhaust the minor league supply, re-stock with draft picks that can help out when our core all become free agents, and see if that can get a deal done first.

mattwelch - December 12, 2009 reply

I agree. I'd much rather give up prospects than established guys.

The amount of players that Toronto sounds like they want us to give up sounds way to steep to me.

MH252525 - December 12, 2009 reply

As usual Matt

we are on the same page…

K3YEROUT - December 12, 2009 reply

hey a little off topic but who do we think takes over the role of utility player now

i'd like to see Sandoval get his shot.

Brown will also be in the mix… either could be an upgrade of Q

i completley agree but

just remembered that unless we trade away a catcher bobby wilson will be on the roster for opening day so although he isn’t utility cause he only plays two positions there is a chance he will be taking up a roster sport that would be a utility role so izturis may be the backup/ utility guy

Why will Wilson be on the roster if we don't trade Naps or Mathis?

Is he out of options?

yes he is out of options that is why i thought mabye he would be used in a trade

this is also why i knew wood would be on the roster cause he was out of options. i cant remember who the third person was though cause there was a third and where i had it in an article would be two hard to find now.

Ah, I see

I wonder if Wilson can be spun into a Halladay package? Probably hard to do given that he’s not highly rated and doesn’t have much major-league playing time, but he could perhaps be done as the final piece after two or three awesome prospects or players.

Clutch - December 13, 2009 reply

Why don't we throw in our 2002 WS Trophy and a trip to Disneyland...

Do the BJ’s really expect us to trade away our starters and best minor league prospects to rent a player for one year???

805halo - December 12, 2009 reply

sigh

Do the BJ’s really expect us to trade away our starters and best minor league prospects to rent a player for one year???

Do you really not know the Angels won’t close the deal without an extension in hand first?

Thats why I think its taking so long

So you would argue that the longer the extention he signs, the more players we have to give up?

I am aware of that, thank you for giving me so much credit. That may be the way it goes, but to me it seems like the BJ’s are double-dipping.

If I sold you a used car, would you pay me more $$ if you decided to keep it for 2 years instead of 1?

805halo - December 12, 2009 reply

Bad analogy

If I sold you a used car, would you pay me more $$ if you decided to keep it for 2 years instead of 1?

Baseball of the last 20 years has continued to work on a basic premise: A “rental player” has less value in trade than one who would remain under team control for a longer period of time.

To rework your analogy, I would pay more to own your car for 4 or 5 years than I would if I was going to own it for just one year, knowing that I wouldn’t be able to drive it after that year was up.

yes, but...

If the BJ’s were knowingly trading him with 4 years left on the contract, that is a different position than trading him with one year left. I suspect the BJ’s are not sitting in the room while the Halos and Halladay are negotiating if so, the Angels are losing a lot of leverage.

The key to this analogy is whether or not the BJ’s will know the Angels extension terms before the trade is done. If they are privy to the extension terms, then you are correct. If the extension terms are private, then my anaology is more accurate.

I will not pretend to know which scenario is the correct one, but if I were the Angels I would play some hardball with the BJ’s. In my opinion, it is not worth engaging in the slippery slope that the BJ’s are creating.

805halo - December 12, 2009 reply

Their knowledge of the extension terms is irrelevant

The key to this analogy is whether or not the BJ’s will know the Angels extension terms before the trade is done. If they are privy to the extension terms, then you are correct. If the extension terms are private, then my anaology is more accurate.

This isn’t rocket surgery—if Halladay agrees to an extension, then there is a trade. If he doesn’t, then there is no trade. Halladay has more intrinsic value to the team if he can be signed to an extension and therefore remain a part of the team for several years; in that case, he is worth more players in exchange than if he is a part of the team for just one season before becoming a free agent.

Put differently, the Angels wouldn’t trade Joe Saunders, who is under team control for the next three seasons, for Halladay if the get him only for one. Not just from the standpoint of economics but also from personnel management, it doesn’t reconcile itself. But if Halladay can be signed to an extension of, say, three years, then it adds up, since Halladay would be guaranteed to be with the team for four seasons, effectively replacing Saunders, who was scheduled to be in the starting rotation for the next three years.

Without an extension in hand, Halladay isn’t worth Saunders alone. Thus, the need by the Angels to have a negotiation window in advance of the trade, something the Jays would have to agree to in advance. For an historical perspective, review the trade of Johan Santana to the Mets.

George Kaplan - December 13, 2009 reply

Lol this is crazy

if Aybars in the trade we don’t want it. Aybars not in it but we don’t want to give up Reckling. you’ve got to give up talent to get it. I’m all for giving up GMJ and Roder Lodge for Halladay but I don’t think toronto will take that.

angelskid2210 - December 12, 2009 reply

Hahaha

What if we re-sign Physioc and throw him in, too?

im ok with aybar being in the trade

Okay its either

Saunders or Reckling, they won’t get both unless they include a pitcher with Halladay.

and out of the two id rather put reckling in the deal over santana

Yeah me too

But I’d also rather ship off Santana than Saunders.

same here

this is what i have been saying but where people disagree with me is id also do weaver before saunders as well

Haha

Don’t know about Weaver before Saunders but yeah I don’t want either of those two to go.

like i said most dont agree with me :)

i think saunders has proven a lot more though than weaver though he showed me a lot this last season and gained some ground with me so i must admit i like him a little better now than before, before i would say he wasn’t close he hadn’t really done anything yet.

lightupthehalo29 - December 12, 2009 reply

Reckling+Napoli+Bourjos+pitching prospect for Halladay+Downs

Assume Halladay signs a 3-4 year extension for 18 mil a year.

This deal let’s us keep all our starters so we can win now, which is apparently what Reagins is trying to do, and has been.

Thoughts?

yea i actually like this if it happened

i just dont see the jays doing it which is disappointing as it would be nice if it would work.

lightupthehalo29 - December 12, 2009 reply

Why not?

I’ve seen Downs mentioned all over the Jays blogs too. I think he’s the perfect man to replace Oliver’s role in the bulpen and they would want Reckling over Saunders too!

This would be my offer.

no i dont have a problem with Downs i just get the feeling

that we will have to give up more than what you have but i do hope you right

for those who care Jason Bay doesn't seem like will be returning to the sox he had turned down there offer and said

he has better offers and it is now being reported somone has offered him a 5 year deal finally which is what he was looking for

lightupthehalo29 - December 12, 2009 reply

It's not from us! haha

no i am sure it isn't probably the mets i know they have been trying hard to get him

We should trade for Halladay

…and then flip him to the Yankees for Granderson.

~MMP~ - December 12, 2009 reply

na dont want granderson that bad lol

Halladay + the deed to California Adventures...

for Granderson…. final offer

Nah, throw in Torii, Kendry, Fuentes, and Shields to seal the deal.

Halladay of course would be great to have the next 4-5 seasons...

but if the Rays could get to the series with a playoff rotation of Kaz/Shields/Garza who’s to say the Angels cant get there with 3 of Kaz/Weave/Saundo/Santana ? i say keep the talent we have and compete.

yea and just look we almost got there last year

what about...

we see what type of deal we would need to pry Carl Crawford from the Rays? the dude’s contract is expiring, and you know the Rays will have trouble paying the money to resign him. i think it’s worth checking out… if the price is too much, fine, move on. i think that’s a guy who would really be a nice fit for this lineup and injects a whole lot of speed into the leadoff spot for a team that just lost Chone Figgins. i think it’s another direction to go in addition to all the Holliday/Bay/Halladay talks.

ghsu - December 12, 2009 reply

Didn't the Rays just pick up his option?

linkbruin - December 13, 2009 reply

Misconceptions

Four major misconceptions in most posts:

1. Reckling throws harder than Saunders. Wrong. Saunders velocity is 93-94 and Recklings is 91-92. Reckling isn’t a hard throwing lefty like CC nor does he throw harder than Saunders.

2. Saunders is a #3-4 pitcher. Who beat Zack Grienke 1-0 this year? Who’s won 32 games the past two years and pitch hurt for 1/2 of this year to boot? Give the guy a break. He’s a solid pitcher. Reckling has proven nothing so far. Just take a look at his walk ratio.

3. Halladay will sign a 3-4 year extension for 18 mil a year. He’s already said he wants CC type of money. $23M / year.

4. Halladay assures the Angels the WS. Halladay throws no harder than Lackey (91-92). He’s a very similar type of pitcher who has pin point fast ball control and a good breaking pitch. Getting to and winning a WS is a fluke. The Angels have the pitching staff to do it. What “ACE” did they have in 2002?

Just re-sign Lackey and get Jepsen ready to replace Fuentes as closer. The lack of a “Halladay” type of pitcher didn’t cost the Angels the Yankee series. The gopher ball by Fuentes to ARod that tied game two did.

ksangel - December 12, 2009 reply

I was in agreement with everything until this...

The lack of a "Halladay" type of pitcher didn’t cost the Angels the Yankee series. The gopher ball by Fuentes to ARod that tied game two did

That one pitch (which I blame Mathis for) did not cost us the series. Boneheaded mistakes cost us the series.