The Yankees Case for Halladay

[Gom]

Great article.

 

The Yankees' case for Halladay

 

Thursday, December 3, 2009 | Feedback | Print Entry

 

The Yankees, Mets and Red Sox have spent more money in free agency over the past decade than any other teams, as ESPN's esteemed Mark Simon notes:

 

Biggest free-agent outlays 1999 to 2008 (approximate in millions)

Yankees: $1.45 billion

Mets: $651.3 million

Red Sox: $621.0 million

Cubs: $598.4 million

Giants: $595.2 million

 

Smallest free-agent outlays 1999 to 2008 (approximate in millions)

Pirates: $55.6 million

Twins: $80.2 million

Athletics: $87.7 million

Nationals: $91.5 million

Padres: $106.1 million

 

But then again, you knew that already. Even in years in which free-agent outlay is diminished by a high percentage -- and this is probably going to be one of those years -- the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox are usually pretty active, relative to teams like the Pirates. To put the above numbers in perspective: Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia will make more in free-agent dollars in the first three years of their current contracts than the Pirates have spent in the past decade … on anybody.

 

There will be more of the same this offseason. The Yankees won't necessarily be the winning bidder on John Lackey, Matt Holliday or Jason Bay, and they do intend to try to lower their payroll. But they do have what many, many teams don't have: the financial capability to paint outside the lines and pursue a player who makes them better, despite the cost.

 

Which brings us to Roy Halladay.

 

Getty Images

 

Brian Cashman should gather the opinions of his manager and others, then make the call on whether to pursue Roy Halladay.

 

Two winters ago, the Yankees essentially passed on the opportunity to trade for Johan Santana because they were unwilling to absorb the double-barreled cost of first trading prospects like Phil Hughes or Joba Chamberlain, and then paying Santana like a free agent. The Yankees have been vindicated for that choice. They kept Hughes, Chamberlain, Melky Cabrera, Austin Jackson and all the other prospects discussed as possible pieces in a Santana deal and saved their money to sign CC Sabathia, and as a result they will now spend part of this winter asking club employees for their ring sizes.

 

Now Halladay is available, and there are many parallels between the Halladay and Santana situations. The Yankees (and Red Sox) are generally leery of giving up their best prospects and throwing in a long-term contract for Halladay, who turns 33 next season and has pitched a lot of innings.

 

But here are a couple of things that are different since the Santana talks: Hughes and Chamberlain. They are two years older, two years further along, with (generally) two more years of major league service time. Both players will be eligible for salary arbitration for the first time after next season. Hughes, 23, is coming off a year in which he demonstrated that he could be a shut-down reliever during the regular season -- he struck out 96 in 86 innings, with a 3.04 ERA -- before he struggled in October. Chamberlain, 24, had flashes of excellence as a starter, but generally was erratic, before finishing his year with some strong outings in the postseason.

 

If I were sitting in Brian Cashman's chair, I would identify the smartest pitching people I have on my staff, whether it be manager Joe Girardi or pitching coach Dave Eiland or others, and I would ask them two questions: What are Hughes and Chamberlain now, and what do you think they will be going into the future?

 

In other words, do you think in three years they will be middle relievers? Do you think they will be dominant closers? Do you think they will settle in as back-of-the-rotation starters, or do you think they will be frontline AL East starters?

 

And if the smart people that Cashman trusts believe that Hughes and/or Chamberlain will be anything other than (A) dominant closers, or ( No. 2-type AL East starters, well, then I'd call Toronto immediately and be ready to talk about trading one or perhaps even both of the young pitchers.

 

In the midst of Boston's trade discussions about Santana, Red Sox pitching coach John Farrell all but threw his body in front of young left-hander Jon Lester, who had pitched a total of 144.1 innings in the big leagues at that point. Farrell argued that the Red Sox should keep Lester and not trade him for Santana, stating that the lefty could wind up winning more games than Santana over the course of Santana's contract. And Farrell has looked pretty smart so far: Lester has won 31 games over the past two seasons, Santana 29.

 

You can bet that Girardi and Eiland, who have strong opinions, have clear-eyed views of what they think Chamberlain and Hughes can become.

 

Some of the best rival scouts have doubts about whether Chamberlain will be able to maintain and repeat his delivery -- the source of his inconsistent control in 2009 -- as he gets older, and there are growing concerns about whether Chamberlain could be anything more than a five-inning starter. Some of the same scouts do think Chamberlain is capable of being an effective late-inning reliever. Do Eiland and Girardi, who know Chamberlain better than anyone, share those sentiments? Do they see more in him? Some of the best rival scouts were greatly impressed by Hughes's improvement last year, and they see room for growth in him, but they wonder if he'll ever be a frontline starting pitcher, given that he generally pitches at 90-91 mph. They wonder if he'll develop a strong third pitch, which would be necessary for him to evolve into a top starting pitcher. Do Eiland and Girardi see him that way?

 

If Girardi and Eiland see great futures for the two pitchers, Cashman should keep them. But if Girardi and Eiland project either or both as above-average middle relievers, or as average starting pitchers, then the time is now for Cashman to look to trade them, to capitalize on their value, and to build a package in an attempt to get Halladay. Because the Yankees, with their resources, should never have any trouble acquiring average starting pitchers or above-average relievers.

 

Cashman has been right to focus on the team's player development over the past four years, and Chamberlain and Hughes are two of the jewels from the Yankees' system. But if the Yankees believe internally that either is not going to reach the excellence projected for them in 2007, then they should make their move now, while one of the best pitchers on the planet is available.

[a700hitter]

I think that the Yankees will rest on the laurels a bit this off season. They will sell over $4 million tickets this year, and they'll have the banner hanging from the flag-pole, so why spend another boat-load of money.

[Gom]

I think that the Yankees will rest on the laurels a bit this off season. They will sell over $4 million tickets this year' date=' and they'll have the banner hanging from the flag-pole, so why spend another boat-load of money.[/quote']

 

a700, did you read the article?

 

The point of the article is where are Hughes and Chamberlain going. Are they going to be top notch players, or average pitchers? The time to sell on them is now...if you think that they aren't going to be stars. I like the part of Farrell throwing his body in front of Lester and not wanting to trade him. Really, a great article.

 

I'd love for Jacko to chime in here.

[Dipre]

I disagree with ORS.

 

Please trade Montero and Hughes for Halladay.

 

Please give him a 5-year, 100 mill extension right after.

[example1]

That is an interesting article, although I laughed when I saw this framing sentence at the beginning:

 

The Yankees, Mets and Red Sox have spent more money in free agency over the past decade than any other teams, as ESPN's esteemed Mark Simon notes:

 

Biggest free-agent outlays 1999 to 2008 (approximate in millions)

Yankees: $1.45 billion

Mets: $651.3 million

Red Sox: $621.0 million

Cubs: $598.4 million

Giants: $595.2 million

 

Seriously?

 

Why even include the Mets and Red Sox in this discussion? Their FA spending isn't relevant to the rest of the discussion. It's just there to wrap Yankee fans in a nice, warm hug. "Just like the Yankees, the Mets and Red Sox have spent a shitload on FAs over the decade, they're the same."

 

Why stop at the Red Sox, they're only $23m ahead of the Cubs, whereas the Yankees are more than double their nearest competitor. It's a weak opening point of an otherwise interesting article.

[example1]

About Joba and Hughes, I pretty much agree that if they're going to suck the Yankees would be better off trading them. That's a no brainer. Of course if they're going to suck then the Blue Jays should seek something else.

 

I imagine Joba getting fat and lazy if he gets traded from the Yankees to a 2nd tier team like Toronto.

[a700hitter]

a700, did you read the article?

 

The point of the article is where are Hughes and Chamberlain going. Are they going to be top notch players, or average pitchers? The time to sell on them is now...if you think that they aren't going to be stars. I like the part of Farrell throwing his body in front of Lester and not wanting to trade him. Really, a great article.

 

I'd love for Jacko to chime in here.

The article makes sense, but just don't see the Yanks having any urgency to add a big chunk back to the payroll.

[yankees228]

The article makes sense' date=' but just don't see the Yanks having any urgency to add a big chunk back to the payroll.[/quote']

 

This is what I expect, based on nothing more than conjecture. I think they bring back Damon and Pettitte and call it an offseason (with the exception of some minor moves). We'll see.

 

On the other hand, obviously, I wouldn't a big addition.

[jacksonianmarch]

It depends on need Gom. If NY is getting tighter on the payroll strings, then it likely wont stop after this yr. And to have 3 starters locked up long term for an AAV of $59.5 million, then you cause them to have to tighten the belt a little more. I'd rather have some flexibility.

 

Also, the urgency is gone. We have a very solid top 2 in the rotation with a true blue #1 ace in CC. We still have a lineup that can mash with and probably better than anyone and we have a farm system which has started to produce. The flexibility will be key.

 

Now, at the same time, our contingency plans are going to need to be there as well. If Pettitte retires and Lackey signs with Boston, then a 3rd pitch is a definite need. So the trade market will need to be scoured. Overall, I would rank the 4 prospects as follows: Montero, Hughes, Chamberlain, Jackson and would be very, very reticent in moving Hughes or Montero. And I would have to be blown away to deal Joba in both return and need. Right now, that need isnt there and I am not sure about the return.

 

Also, why not just sign Lackey. That takes all the pressure off. He's younger, he'll only cost a draft pick, and he's pitched well in the playoffs.

[Gom]

It depends on need Gom. If NY is getting tighter on the payroll strings, then it likely wont stop after this yr. And to have 3 starters locked up long term for an AAV of $59.5 million, then you cause them to have to tighten the belt a little more. I'd rather have some flexibility.

 

Also, the urgency is gone. We have a very solid top 2 in the rotation with a true blue #1 ace in CC. We still have a lineup that can mash with and probably better than anyone and we have a farm system which has started to produce. The flexibility will be key.

 

Now, at the same time, our contingency plans are going to need to be there as well. If Pettitte retires and Lackey signs with Boston, then a 3rd pitch is a definite need. So the trade market will need to be scoured. Overall, I would rank the 4 prospects as follows: Montero, Hughes, Chamberlain, Jackson and would be very, very reticent in moving Hughes or Montero. And I would have to be blown away to deal Joba in both return and need. Right now, that need isnt there and I am not sure about the return.

 

Also, why not just sign Lackey. That takes all the pressure off. He's younger, he'll only cost a draft pick, and he's pitched well in the playoffs.

 

First thing...we're not the Red Sox. We're not happy with fielding a competitive team that makes the playoffs and hopes to get lucky.

 

Secondly, the Yankees made some serious dough this year. You want to validate $1200 seats? You gotta get the stars. You aren't going to sell out those seats with Hairston and Swisher.

 

Thirdly, acquiring a Halladay puts you in the drivers seat for the next two to three years. You can effectively shut down the AL East until 2012. I say do it. You have three years to build up that farm system again. My two cents, anyways.

[bsox0407]

First thing...we're not the Red Sox. We're not happy with fielding a competitive team that makes the playoffs and hopes to get lucky.

 

Secondly, the Yankees made some serious dough this year. You want to validate $1200 seats? You gotta get the stars. You aren't going to sell out those seats with Hairston and Swisher.

 

Thirdly, acquiring a Halladay puts you in the drivers seat for the next two to three years. You can effectively shut down the AL East until 2012. I say do it. You have three years to build up that farm system again. My two cents, anyways.

 

You know that Halladay is only 14-14 against the Sox. Also he has a WHIP of 1.277 which his second highest against teams he has pitched against more than 20 games. 12-11 against the Rays but against the Orioles he is 20-4.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=hallaro01&year=Career&t=p

[Gom]

No matter. Halladay ensures a new stretch of Yankee dominance.