Comments on: Analysis of the Roy Halladay trade

By: mike77

mike77 — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:04:26 +0000

nowheels,
forget about Michael Taylor. He is gone. He was my favorite prospect too. There is no need though, to go on and on about a player that has’nt done anything at the major league level.
The Phillies wanted Halladay. They traded fair value for him, no matter what you or I think of Michael Taylor. Roy Halladay, the #1 or 2 pitcher in baseball, plus $6million for Michael Taylor and Kyle Drabek? That is fair value, nowheels.

There are 3 issues that cause people to look at the trade incorrectly:

1. They don’t value Halladay any more than Lee. Halladay is BETTER than Lee. Period. Halladay is always great and has been great for 7 years. Lee was great in ’08 and great for stretches in ’09. And even as great as Lee was last year, he still wasnt as good as Halladay.
2. Phillies fans over value our prospects. Everyone assumes Michael Taylor will be better than Ryan Howard because he has better numbers than Howard had in the minors. Well, check Marlon Byrds numbers against Taylors. They are very similar.
3. Phils fans dont respect other teams prospects. People are checking LAST years BA list assuming Seattles’ prospects all stayed in the same order. The prospects the Phillies received from Seattle are just as good as the ones they traded to Cleveland for Lee.

By: nowheels please

nowheels please — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:23:58 +0000

One thing that is bothering me is Blanton. Last year everyone was saying “what a great trade”. This year many are saying we couldn’t get a second tier prospect for him and keep MT and keep Lee even if it for one year.
If Blanton repeats his second half all year he won’t be here either. So we lose if Blanton is good and lose if Blanton is bad wrecking the already thin rotation.

By: Montyburns130

Montyburns130 — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:54:57 +0000

How about the Braves/Yankees trade for Javy Vasquez. I’d be curious to hear everyone else’s take, but from what I’ve read, I think the Braves got more for Vazquez (a less pitcher making more money) than we got for Lee. How is this possible? I’d be shocked if baseball america ranked the prospects we got ahead of what the Braves got. Thoughts?

By: JJ

JJ — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:09:50 +0000

Can I just say that if Carlos Triunfel had been included in this trade, that I would have been WAY happier

By: Ice-9

Ice-9 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:00:53 +0000

On the Aumont move to bullpen (April 6, 2009), from Ben Badler @ BA – Badler thinks the decision was wise:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=3052

Selected quotes:

“We felt that this was a guy, who, if used in a relief role, could be on a real fast-track to the major leagues,” (general manager Jack Zduriencik) said. “And we’re talking a real fast track.”

“Aumont throws a heavy 90-95 mph fastball that peaks at 97, but given the confluence of his elbow problems and scouts’ concerns about his mechanics, who knows how long he’ll be able to throw that hard? There’s no need to keep him in a starting role if it means he’s going to miss another two months (or more) of the season, stunting his development and possibly leading to an atrophy of velocity or movement. Why risk burning out an arm like that if you can having him throwing those bullets in the major leagues instead?

Nobody knows Aumont—his medical history and current health, the development of his slider and his work-in-progress changeup—better than the Mariners. Kudos to them for what’s likely to be an initially unpopular decision, but one that could greatly benefit Aumont’s career.”

Hmmm. I guess I’m for whatever is best for this kid and will ultimately help the Phillies the most.