Zomg!!! Halladay is gone and so is cliff lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

Of course, but you always evaluate trades with what you know and most likely outcomes.

---

I know, just the article made it sound like this deal was already a steal, you don't know that usually until a few years from now. The three guys you gave up could all be beastly players one day and Lee could be horrendous. But god damn it looks good at this point.

That's all I was saying, you can't really effectively evaluate until a few years have gone by, more or less saying that to the guy writing the article, not you.

How I think it's going to play out:

1) Halladay to Phils. Halladay signs a 3-year extension under $60M.
2) Lee to Seattle. Lee will want 6 years at $22M+.
3) d'Arnaud, Taylor and Aumont to Jays.
4) Gillies and Aumont to Phils.

I don't think the Phils did well here. I bet it went public that Lee wasn't going to re-sign and that hurt the Phils' bargaining power. Dumb, since keeping Lee and Halladay for one year would give them a much chance to 3-peat.

If I were the Phils, I'd make the Halladay trade and then keep Lee for one more year and take the compensation picks. One year of a superstud pitcher at below market price is worth A LOT -- especially when you already have a team good enough to make it to the playoffs.

I agree with Clay.

Unless it was for $ reasons, I can't see why they would have got rid of Lee.

Halliday+Lee+Hammels+That Offense = About as close to a playoff lock as you can get

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

Halliday+Lee+Hammels+That Offense = About as close to a playoff lock as you can get

---

And significantly increases your chances to prevent the Yankees from winning #27!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clay Dreslough

And significantly increases your chances to prevent the Yankees from winning #27!

---

F the Yankees

philly get juan ramerez too. I am kinda confused why they just didn't trade the guys for halladay last year...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

I know, just the article made it sound like this deal was already a steal, you don't know that usually until a few years from now. The three guys you gave up could all be beastly players one day and Lee could be horrendous. But god damn it looks good at this point.

That's all I was saying, you can't really effectively evaluate until a few years have gone by, more or less saying that to the guy writing the article, not you.

---

Results-based analysis doesn't really work in baseball, because of the completely random nature of the game. By focusing on the results, you aren't really determining who made the smarter deal as much as which side got luckier to see their returns pan out.

The idea of analyzing deals like this is that you're comparing the participating GMs on the basis of what they know at the present time and how they react, compared to what they should know and how they should react. The future results are not available for decision-making purposes. And because baseball has so much entropy, results can say absolutely nothing useful about which sides made the smarter deals. There have been many bad idea trades that have worked out, many good idea trades that have failed.

That's not to say that you can't learn ANYTHING useful from results; often you can tell which teams do a better job of scouting, coaching, and evaluating players (count how many deals which have gone poorly for Andy Friedman's Rays. Maybe 2 total), and which teams don't (Houston). But that's not always the case, and at the present time, there is more than enough data available to effectively evaluate the deal at the present time.

Besides, if you had to wait for the results of all the minor leaguers' careers, you'd have fangraphs writing 4 year old articles all the time.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clay Dreslough

I don't think the Phils did well here. I bet it went public that Lee wasn't going to re-sign and that hurt the Phils' bargaining power. Dumb, since keeping Lee and Halladay for one year would give them a much chance to 3-peat.

If I were the Phils, I'd make the Halladay trade and then keep Lee for one more year and take the compensation picks. One year of a superstud pitcher at below market price is worth A LOT -- especially when you already have a team good enough to make it to the playoffs.

---

Yah, I definitely agree. I think Halladay is an upgrade over almost every SP in the league, but Philadelphia's downfall last season wasn't that they lacked a stud pitcher, it's that they lacked pitching depth (even compared to the Yankees who went to a three-SP rotation because of their own starting depth problems). Between Halladay and Lee you can guarantee yourself a stud pitching in 5 games over a 7 game series. In a Yankees/Phillies series, Halladay wouldn't have a problem holding his own against Sabathia and then the Phillies could overwhelm the Yankees in a Lee vs Burnett matchup.

Quote:

---

The Phillies get Roy Halladay, who will take a physical today, according to Ed Price, and $6MM from the Jays. They also get Phillippe Aumont, Tyson Gillies and Juan Ramirez from the M's. (Ryan Divish of the Tacoma News Tribune confirmed that Ramirez is headed to Philly.)
Halladay will also agree to a three-year extension that will pay him about $20MM annually through 2013, according to Stark. The extension won't affect his 2010 salary ($15.75MM) and will include a vesting option.
The Mariners get Cliff Lee from the Phils and they could be getting more.

---

If we got more than Lee....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clay Dreslough

And significantly increases your chances to prevent the Yankees from winning #27!

---

THey already did win 27 WS...

Roy Halladay and the Phillies appear to have agreed to a contract extension. It's 3-years/$60 mil with 2 vesting options. That's not a bad deal for Philadelphia.

http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/6698062678
http://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/6697970281

I'd like to see another piece coming to the Jays, but with us getting Wallace for Taylor, I like this.

I definately like Wallace better than Taylor, especially if he's going to play 3rd base, since we have Cooper on the way at first, but I guess he's best suited for first base. Anyways, Taylor wasn't really a fit either, we don't need a 3rd young left fielder.

I think both Overbay and Encarnacion will be gone come opening day, hopefully we can get some good pieces for the future, but I'm not holding my breath for a good return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

Results-based analysis doesn't really work in baseball, because of the completely random nature of the game. By focusing on the results, you aren't really determining who made the smarter deal as much as which side got luckier to see their returns pan out.

The idea of analyzing deals like this is that you're comparing the participating GMs on the basis of what they know at the present time and how they react, compared to what they should know and how they should react. The future results are not available for decision-making purposes. And because baseball has so much entropy, results can say absolutely nothing useful about which sides made the smarter deals. There have been many bad idea trades that have worked out, many good idea trades that have failed.

That's not to say that you can't learn ANYTHING useful from results; often you can tell which teams do a better job of scouting, coaching, and evaluating players (count how many deals which have gone poorly for Andy Friedman's Rays. Maybe 2 total), and which teams don't (Houston). But that's not always the case, and at the present time, there is more than enough data available to effectively evaluate the deal at the present time.

Besides, if you had to wait for the results of all the minor leaguers' careers, you'd have fangraphs writing 4 year old articles all the time.....

---

This is true, and a more appropriate way to review things.

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosensgo101

I'd like to see another piece coming to the Jays, but with us getting Wallace for Taylor, I like this.

I definately like Wallace better than Taylor, especially if he's going to play 3rd base, since we have Cooper on the way at first, but I guess he's best suited for first base. Anyways, Taylor wasn't really a fit either, we don't need a 3rd young left fielder.

I think both Overbay and Encarnacion will be gone come opening day, hopefully we can get some good pieces for the future, but I'm not holding my breath for a good return.

---

where did you here this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

Results-based analysis doesn't really work in baseball, because of the completely random nature of the game. By focusing on the results, you aren't really determining who made the smarter deal as much as which side got luckier to see their returns pan out.

The idea of analyzing deals like this is that you're comparing the participating GMs on the basis of what they know at the present time and how they react, compared to what they should know and how they should react. The future results are not available for decision-making purposes. And because baseball has so much entropy, results can say absolutely nothing useful about which sides made the smarter deals. There have been many bad idea trades that have worked out, many good idea trades that have failed.

That's not to say that you can't learn ANYTHING useful from results; often you can tell which teams do a better job of scouting, coaching, and evaluating players (count how many deals which have gone poorly for Andy Friedman's Rays. Maybe 2 total), and which teams don't (Houston). But that's not always the case, and at the present time, there is more than enough data available to effectively evaluate the deal at the present time.

Besides, if you had to wait for the results of all the minor leaguers' careers, you'd have fangraphs writing 4 year old articles all the time.....

---

Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls today's word of the day...is entropy. Nice one, haveacigar. :D