Halladay to Dodgers?

[gosensgo101]

Ownership needs to put a gag order on both Beeston and Cito, they open their yaps too much.

[HoustonGM]

I would definately give up Billingsley if I'm the Dodgers to get Roy (assuming they can work out a contract negotiation).....but if I'm the Jays I need more than Billingley. Roy is proven to be one of the best pitchers in baseball for the past few years and is still relatively young.

I would also give up Kershaw to get Roy....Kershaw has less than 1 good season who knows what he'll end up being, you know what you get with Halladay.

You also will be spending a lot more money on an older player.

[skudplayr]

Kershaw, Billingsley, Kemp, Ethier, Loney, and Elbert for Halladay. Sign Roy to a 7 year, $250 million contract.

Sound good?

[haveacigar]

What I'm saying though is that LA will agree to a long-term deal with him before acquiring him.

Maybe, and if they did have that worked out, you could certainly talk about trading Bills (Kershaw has to be untouchable).

[actionjackson]

Kershaw, Billingsley, Kemp, Ethier, Loney, and Elbert for Halladay. Sign Roy to a 7 year, $250 million contract.

Sound good?

Halladay's NTC would shoot that one down in a heartbeat because you've traded him to a team that's not much better than the one he's leaving and he certainly wouldn't sign an extension. The man wants to win, not spend 7 years surrounded by dreck counting his money.

[kellys11]

You also will be spending a lot more money on an older player.

Older, but in his prime and one of the top 3 pitchers in baseball. Who cares about money when your the Dodgers????

Kershaw and BIllingsley are good but they are still unproven, who knows what there career will be like. WIth Halladay you know your getting a pitcher who will win 18-23 games with an era of 2.5-3 and give you 7 strong innings 90 persent of the time.

Personnally the only pitcher I see better in baseball is Lincecum. Santana doesn't pitch enough innnings so I put Halladay ahead of him. CC would be close now though too.

[kellys11]

Kershaw, Billingsley, Kemp, Ethier, Loney, and Elbert for Halladay. Sign Roy to a 7 year, $250 million contract.

Sound good?

A little extreme . Obviously your joking .... good one.

I don't think the Jays have enough players to get this done.

Halladay for Billingsley and Loney or Ethier
A.Hill for Kershaw
Snider and Lind for Kemp and Elbert

....I don't see the Dodgers accepting this one.

7 years 250 mill . . . maybe a bit much but I bet somebody will give him 150mm.

[HoustonGM]

Older, but in his prime and one of the top 3 pitchers in baseball. Who cares about money when your the Dodgers????

Uh, the Dodgers probably care. They don't have unlimited money. And their owner is currently going through a divorce which may or may not hamstring their financials for a bit.

Kershaw and BIllingsley are good but they are still unproven, who knows what there career will be like. WIth Halladay you know your getting a pitcher who will win 18-23 games with an era of 2.5-3 and give you 7 strong innings 90 persent of the time.

They're not exactly "unproven." Not as good as Halladay, certainly, but they both have had a record of success in the majors and are likely to only get better. These aren't minor league prospects we're talking about here.

Personnally the only pitcher I see better in baseball is Lincecum. Santana doesn't pitch enough innnings so I put Halladay ahead of him. CC would be close now though too.

He's definitely one of the best pitchers in the game. But, as haveacigar said:

The marginal benefit of Halladay over Billingsley simply isn't worth the massive increase in cost and loss of team control.

I don't think the Dodgers should avoid trading for Halladay, I just think that offering Kershaw or Billingsley would defeat the purpose.

[200tang]

Older, but in his prime and one of the top 3 pitchers in baseball. Who cares about money when your the Dodgers????

Yeah, who cares about money! Not like the owner has anything happening right now..oh..wait..

Well, it's not like they don't have star players they're going to want to sign to keep around for a long time...Oh..what's that? Kershaw/Kemp/Ethier/Billingsley all don't have long term contracts..

I know the Dodgers are a big market team, but right now isn't really the time to be talking about bringing that big of a contract.

[NYDodgers]

Um..as a Dodger fan, I would NOT give up Billingsley or Kershaw.

Am I the only fan who wouldn't mind if the Dodgers ran out the same product as this year more or less? They're not in a win-now mode, and have the makings up of a possible dynasty. I say save the money you'd pay Halladay and just focus on keeping all the young players.

And the maturation of players like Billingsley, Kemp, Ethier, Martin, Kershaw, Loney, Broxton, etc. already might be enough to get them over the hump this year.

The young, homegrown talent that the Dodgers are bringing up remind me a lot of the 90s Yankees, and I wouldn't be surprised at a dynasty-type run. At least for the NL pennant.

[200tang]

Not sure if I would be dead set with Loney at first, but I agree the Dodgers have a lot of young talent and shouldn't give up Bills or Kershaw for Halladay. One could argue that Kershaw & Bills provide more value than Halladay alone and cheaper over the next 6 years allowing you to use the money saved (not a ton, but a bit) to upgrade other parts of the club.

[kellys11]

Originally Posted by haveacigar
The marginal benefit of Halladay over Billingsley simply isn't worth the massive increase in cost and loss of team control.

I don't think the Dodgers should avoid trading for Halladay, I just think that offering Kershaw or Billingsley would defeat the purpose.


Marginal benefit of Hallady over Billingsley???????

Halladay was a top 3 pitcher this year, according to ESPN rankings Billinglsey was 89 . . . and Billingsley played in a much friendlier park and a vastly easier division.

I don't understand the loss of control comment?

Sure it would add more payroll, probably about 20mm per year....but they would also put more fans in the seats, get more advertising and in that division would almost be guaranteed a playoff spot which equals quite a bit of extra money as well. I don't think it would cost as much as you think.

[HoustonGM]

Originally Posted by haveacigar
The marginal benefit of Halladay over Billingsley simply isn't worth the massive increase in cost and loss of team control.

I don't think the Dodgers should avoid trading for Halladay, I just think that offering Kershaw or Billingsley would defeat the purpose.


Marginal benefit of Hallady over Billingsley???????

Halladay was a top 3 pitcher this year, according to ESPN rankings Billinglsey was 89 . . . and Billingsley played in a much friendlier park and a vastly easier division.

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showpos...3&postcount=20

I don't understand the loss of control comment?

Team control. They have Billingsley and Kershaw under their control for 4 or so years each. Halladay would be for one if they don't spend the money to sign him to a long-term deal - and that significantly large monetary cost is part of the marginal benefit evaluation.

[kellys11]

Not sure if I would be dead set with Loney at first, but I agree the Dodgers have a lot of young talent and shouldn't give up Bills or Kershaw for Halladay. One could argue that Kershaw & Bills provide more value than Halladay alone and cheaper over the next 6 years allowing you to use the money saved (not a ton, but a bit) to upgrade other parts of the club.

Other than a Dodger fan, I don't think anybody can possibly argue that Billingley or Kershaw has more value than Halladay????

Kershaw I can definately see not wanting to give up though.

Halladay is undervalued by most because of being in Toronto, if he played in New York he would be valued higher (and have a couple more cy youngs).

[200tang]

Other than a Dodger fan, I don't think anybody can possibly argue that Billingley or Kershaw has more value than Halladay????

I meant added together since they'd cost less per year than Halladay and are for sure under control for the next few years where as Halladay isn't. Halladay is better than each, but not together and when we're talking about value & control time.

Halladay is undervalued by most because of being in Toronto, if he played in New York he would be valued higher (and have a couple more cy youngs).

I don't think he's undervalued at all. He'd probably have more Cy's in NY though because of the W stat and getting to pitch against Toronto rather than the Yankees.