Schizophrenic Evan: Multiple Voices On Trading – Or Not – For Roy Halladay

Posted on July 24th, 2009 11:20am by Evan Grant
Filed under Baseball, Talkin' baseball, Texas Rangers

Toronto GM J.P. Ricciardi has imposed a Tuesday deadline for trading Roy Halladay. If he doesn’t get the deal he wants by then, Ricciardi plans on shutting down talks. So, with about 100 hours to go in the Halladay Sweepstakes, should the Rangers push forward in what would be a long-shot bid to land him or not. It’s a long-shot because Halladay would have to approve any trade. It’s a long-shot because even if he does approve a trade, the cash-strapped Rangers would have to figure how to pay him the $4.5 million he’s owed for the remainder of this year and the $15 million for next year. Finding the talent to interest Toronto? That’s not much of a problem, if you ask me.

Anyway, my multiple personalities have been arguing back and forth for a week. I’m tired of the voices in my head. I figured I’d let them talk to you for a while. If you’ve got time – and, hey, it’s Friday, you aren’t going to get any work done anyway – read my two separate columsn on pushing ahead with a deal or stopping this whole process right now. And then give me your thoughts. Maybe that will help me quiet those voices once and for all. And they are really annoying voices, too. One sounds like Gilbert Gottfried and the other like Bobcat Goldthwait.

The Case For A Trade

At the trade deadline, there is one simple rule to abide by for teams harboring any dreams of contending in September and competing in October: Nothing trumps an ace.

Nothing. Not a big bat. Not a lock-down closer. Nothing. We clear on that?

If you have the chance to acquire an ace and the costs make you squirm a little – maybe even a lot – you do it. And if, in acquiring said ace, you are doing more than just renting him for the remainder of the season, you have to be willing to do even more. In the stretch run and in the playoffs, an ace takes on the same value as a dominant center in the NBA or a brick-wall goalie in the NHL. He can turn the playoff race and the playoffs by himself.

An ace isn’t someone capable of a 20-win season; he already has at least one to his credit. Preferably more. He’s not just capable of pitching 200 innings, he usually goes beyond that threshold by 20-30 innings. He’s at least received some Cy Young Award votes, or better yet, he’s won one. And in case there is any question, yes, age is a factor in determining an ace. He’s a guy still in the prime of his career, under the age of 35 and showing no signs of slowing down.

Roy Halladay passes all those tests. He’s won 20 twice and may be on the way to a third such season. He has pitched 220 or more innings five times in his career. He not only has finished in the top five in the Cy Young voting three consecutive years, but he won it it 2003. He’s only two months past his 32nd birthday and signed through 2010. By any and all definitions, he is an ace. The Rangers owe it to themselves, to their fans and to their players to do everything within reason to acquire him.

If that means Jon Daniels must part with a prospect such as Justin Smoak, Neftali Feliz or Derek Holland to headline a deal, he still must pull the trigger. Toronto can have one of those three, but no more. It means President Nolan Ryan must be his most convincing if he gets a chance to sell an on-the-fence Halladay on approving a deal to Texas. And if it means owner Tom Hicks must be willing to dig into his own pockets once more to inject cash into the team, even while Hicks Sports Group struggles, then so be it. He must find the resources.

We are not discussing adding pitching depth here, but rather deepening the entire starting rotation. There is a difference. Pitching depth is a complimentary term for a bottom-of-the-rotation starter who probably wouldn’t make more than 10 starts and who would be a question mark for a playoff rotation. The Rangers have tried the pitching depth thing with the James Baldwins, Scott Ericksons and Kip Wells of the world. There is no reason to add such a pitcher. The young pitchers the Rangers have offer just as much chance to win as that kind of pitcher. And that kind of pitcher doesn’t hve any impact on the rest of the rotation.

An ace, though, makes the entire rotation better. Drops Kevin Millwood to No. 2, Vicente Padilla to No. 3, Scott Feldman to No. 4 and Tommy Hunter to No. 5. How do like those guys in those roles? We like it a lot.

I know what those of you not in favor of making a deal are saying. You are muttering the names of Harold Baines or John Danks under your breath. Or maybe screaming them from the bottom of your lungs. Sure there is risk involved here. Halladay might not pitch well in Texas. He might get hurt. Can you be certain he would be able to act like an ace when he’s basically a hired gun (albeit one with a contract for 2010) being asked to serve in that capacity in a pennant race for the first time.

They are all legitimate concerns. They would be for any deal. But, if there was ever a trade to be made, in which those risks are as minimal as can be, this is it.

In the past, the Rangers have gone into the playoffs wishing they had an ace and they either couldn’t come up with the players to get one or there wasn’t one to be had. He’s out there now, waiting to be had. It is time to act.

The Case Against A Trade

Ask yourself this: If the Rangers acquire Roy Halladay – or any pitcher on the market – does it absolutely, unequivocally make them the team to beat in the AL West?

If you can’t answer “yes,” then you can’t make the deal.

Sure, in the past, an ace would have made great Rangers offensive teams a real force to be reckoned with in the playoffs. But because this team hasn’t performed up to its expected standards offensively, acquiring an ace might dress up the reoster quite nicely, but it won’t fix all the holes on this team. This team is more than one player away from assuring itself of a trip to the playoffs. And to fix all the holes necessary, the Rangers wouldn’t just be dipping into their minor league talent reserve. They’d be tapping it dry.

So, tempting as Halladay or anybody else would be, the timing still isn’t right. It’s closer than its been in a long time, but the only thing that could wreck the coming Era of Rangers AL Domination is to act prematurely. Making a trade right now would qualify as suffering from premature expectations.

The time to act, Evan, is coming, but it is not now. The Rangers embarked on their growth and development plan really in 2007. They are actually seeing results more quickly than they expected, but this is still a season of growth. The reason the offense has been something of a disappointment? So many hitters in the order are still going through the growing pains necessary to establish themselves as bonafide big leaguers.

By next July, Chris Davis may have made all the adjustments necessary to stick around the big leagues for a long, long time. And if not, Justin Smoak might just be one of those rare cases of a power hitter who can step into the majors and contribute immediately. If Jarrod Saltalamacchia makes nearly as much progress at the plate this offseason as he did behind last year, the Rangers will have an All-Star catcher on their hands. And Elvis Andrus isn’t going to be a .250 hitter throughout his major league career. He’s liable to jump a good 10-20 points from the first year to the second.

Next year, this offense will truly have its legs. The young starters like Tommy Hunter and Derek Holland will have a huge base of knowledge to work with. Next year, the Angels will be even older and more brittle. Next year, the talent that seems to keep blossoming throughout the Rangers minor league system will make it that much easier for the Rangers to skim some off the top and make a trade for the one piece that will put the club over the top.

All along their building plan, the Rangers have eyed 2010 as the time when things would really come together. They might make the playoffs this year with a trade. But I’m confident that if they wait another year before making a move, they will be making the playoffs for years to come.

Well, what do you think?

This is not part of the column. It’s a solicitation for feedback. Which of my personalities is more persuasive? Is either of them?

Bookmark and Share
64 Comments to “Schizophrenic Evan: Multiple Voices On Trading – Or Not – For Roy Halladay”
  • Tom @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am

    I tend to go with the case against, but that was by opinion going in, so I guess neither of them is persuasive.
    But the reasons you give for the case against are the same as mine. If you had assurances you were making the postseason and wanted a deep run, you make a deal for Halladay.
    But the Rangers aren’t guaranteed a playoff berth or anything else once they get there.
    I think it’s better to try and win the division or get the wild card this year, then plan on getting to the World Series in 2010. To do that, you (for the most part) keep your big league club and farm system intact.

  • Jesse @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am

    Gilbert is exactly 674% more annoying than Bobcat. Do not make this trade.

  • Steve the Dog @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:36 am

    You HAVE to make this trade. I believe Nolan can sell the Rangers to Halladay. I do not want to be sitting here in October, wondering “what if”. We have the prospects to make the deal happen, let’s do it. If not, I say we try to deal Millwood or Padilla for even more depth for the future. We have to do something.

  • Doug Fu @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:44 am

    I could go either way with this.

    I don’t think I’d be mad if they made the trade, and I don’t think I’d be made if they didn’t

  • Andrew in Boston @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:47 am

    I came in against, but now I am not so sure. The biggest reason against is I don’t think Roy wants to pitch here. And even more than his no trade clause, if we are giving up all that, I want a player who want to be here.

  • iHARTtherangers @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Also keep in mind that we would have Halladay for ALL of 2010. If 2010 is “the year” then why not secure an ace for that rotation right now?

  • Blusox @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:51 am

    Against. Unless we can get Fred Manrique as a throw-in.

  • Doug Fu @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:54 am

    @IHARTtherangers: that is an excellent point, and one that I think gets lost in the discussion.

  • RangerFan @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:57 am

    I’ve always been team “No Trade”. But now, I don’t think I’ll be disappointed either way. If there was a trade to be made, I’d rather it be around Smoak than Holland or Feliz. Only time will tell…

  • Paul @ July 24th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Take the risk. If 2010 is a bust Halladay still has some value on the market next season…2 first round picks worst case scenario.

  • Tom B @ July 24th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    Take a Holiday from Halladay. Don’t sell the Farm. This is the road the Rangers have gone down every time they smell somethinmg like a winning streak. Stay The Couirse on Youth Development. Keep the cheap players and let somebody else break their bank. Dump Blalock and Padilla at seasons snd wait on C Davis and Smoak to develop an eye. They have defense, BP, Starters and need a big bat. Not ROY or Siegfried.

  • Mike Gray @ July 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    Remember Ron Darling and Walt Terrell for Lee Mazzilli. Even worse than Wilson Alvarez and and Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines. Let the young pitchers (and Smoak) mature at the major league level and take your chances.

  • Chris Hartman @ July 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Get Halladay. He is a proven horse. Give them a package with their choice of ONE of the following: Wilson, Hunter, Feldman, Holland, Feliz, or Smoak. Perez and Andrus are unavailable. Then let them choose Three of the following: Beavan, Davis, Moreland, Font, Beltre, Arias, Vallego, Main, Kirkman, and Ross. It would be a fair price. The kicker would be that Toronto would have to pick up his salary for the remainder of this season to receive this haul. Next year, we should be able to budget for Halladay’s 2010 salary.

  • Rangers Fan @ July 24th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Toronto has said they will not pick up any remaining salary.

  • Rangers Fan @ July 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Also, the deal should not include anyone on the 25-man roster. The point it to add..not subtract. They can’t afford to take away anyone from current roster, certainly not Wilson who is our most reliable closer this year.

  • Jim @ July 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    Chris, I like the way you are thinking.

    I’m leaning towards doing the deal. Everyone keeps talking about keeping young talent and building for the future. Well, the future is now. No one knows if any of these kids will be able to play. The odds of any of these kids being big time players in the league are not that great. You have an opportuntity to win this division now! If this farm club is as loaded as everyone says it is, you should be able to absorb one big trade.

    There is one reason and one reason only that I think we should do this….Nolan Ryan. I think Nolan can talk Halladay into this and I think he could talk Halladay into a contract extension.

    Think of this next year….Your rotation next year could be Halladay, Millwood, Feldman, Hunter and a combination of either Holland, Perez or Moscosco.

  • Murphy fan @ July 24th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Toronto won’t pay a penny of Doc’s remaining salary once he leaves. Put Halladay out of your mind stick with the plan. Getting him now is like seeing a runner pass you in a marathon and kicking it into gear too early thinking you can keep up, only to burn out before the race ends. Stick to your gameplan and don’t be overly enamoured with an enticing trade which preys on your overconfidence.

  • Ryan @ July 24th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    I say do it, if 2010 is the year, you bring in an ace. I would give them feliz, but not smoak or holland ( keep holland because he is left handed), there is no guarantee with any prospects. Also, if next year blows up on us we can ship Halladay to someone else, realizing we won’t get equal value as to what we gave up, we could still get good value.

  • Josh @ July 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    I just don’t see how getting him changes much here at this point. I am not saying he wouldn’t be an awesome addition, but as Evan states, it doesn’t help the offense, which is what is hurting this team. And if you have to give up your top hitting prospect in Smoak, you now have no real internal options in adding talent to the lineup. If the cost is Feliz, and someone like Ballard and Vallejo, ok do this. But the Jays don’t want that type of talent.

  • J. Blake @ July 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    I like your point about acquiring an ace. I’d be happier with Cliff Lee over Halladay. He’ll probably cost you less prospects and makes less money. Also, lefties play well at our ballpark. The only point of yours that I disagree with would be putting Padilla ahead of Feldman in the rotation. Feldman is this team’s #2 right now and Hunter is on his way to establishing himself as a legitimate number 3. I’d be happy to see Padilla go in a trade to free up salary. He doesn’t fit this team.

  • Terry @ July 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    Thanks, Evan. I’ve had the same competing voices in my head. Glad to see I’m not the only one. At the end of the day, I think I have to stay the course. Not all of the prospects will make it, and just sheer numbers say some will need to be dealt over the next few years, perhaps for someone well below Halladay’s talent level. But as a longtime Ranger fan, I am so excited at the organizational progress that has been made. I would rather see it through. The regret of missing Halladay would be less than the regret of not seeing the fruition of all of the great personnel moves over the last few years. One other note: for those who like to criticize Jon Daniels, these are the times he earns his salary (and perhaps future gray hairs). We can blog about it. He’s got to make a decision and publicly live with the consequences. Maybe being a GM is not as much fun as we all fantasize it to be! But for us to pretend sure is!

  • Ehren @ July 24th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    You can’t do it. Not for Halladay. Dan Haren would be a better choice to go after.

  • Brad Corbett @ July 24th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    I say piss on it..

  • Buck @ July 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Sure make the trade. All I ask is that you don’t trade Holland, Kiker, Ross, Perez, Hunter, Harrison, Wieland, Beavan, Main, B. Jones, B. Vaughn, or Feliz. Oh, and I would be pissed if we traded Davis and Smoak – perhaps one but not both. Of course you can’t trade Andrus, Cruz, Kins, and Hammy – these guys are untouchable. I like both Salty and Teagarden. The platoon system seems to work. Salty will get that bat thing figured out.

    That leaves Andruw Jones and Blalock.

  • Tommy @ July 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Halladay is about the only pitcher out there worth selling the farm over. If Texas is going to do it, it should be for a Halladay. In just about any other year, I would say this trade is a no brainer to do if Hallday wants to come and Toronto wants to do it (even though I think it will take 2 out of the threesome of Holland, Feliz, and Smoak or else one of those three and Kiker and Teagraden or some such deal).

    But this year (unbelievably), I don’t think our problem is pitching, and so I don’t think Halladay gets us over the hump (assuming we don’t already have enough to make the playoffs). This team simply cannot hit consistently, and when they are bad, they are very bad. So I could easily see Hallday coming in and pitching 5 or 6 complete games this year with a 2.50 ERA and still only be a being a .500 pitcher.

    If Texas gets him, it’s to maybe make playoffs this year but to go for it all in 2010 – division champion, league champion, World Series champion. Anything less would be a disappointment knowing what it would have cost to get Halladay.

  • Doc @ July 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    Whether to trade or not comes down to what the Rangers have to give up. If it is 2 or 3 top prospects – no way. If it is 1 with 2 or 3 lesser prospects- let’s do it. This has nothing to do with 2009 or 2010.

  • Tom B @ July 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    There is one thing for sure. JD is going to be an idiot either way he goes. If he does and does not win the next three pennants he is toast. If he doesn’t, then we have grist for the blogmill for at least a gigabyte.

  • RA @ July 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    I’ve seen too many of these deals not make much difference (Todd Stottlemyre). And too many that did Alexander for Smoltz not really be worth when you consider that the team might well have won anyway. Getting someone for the stretch run is too much of a flip of the coin to give up major prospects. You can come up with heads or tails either way.

  • Longhorn Matt @ July 24th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    I am just as torn as you are, Evan. As much as I would love to have a true ace like Halladay, I tend to think that this year is too early. Chances to get aces to come play for the Rangers are rare, so I am tempted to want the Rangers to go for it. But I am also afraid of the consequences if Halladay does not put the Rangers over the top. With the job that the Rangers pitchers have done this year, I don’t know how much of an impact that Halladay could have. He may allow the Rangers to win up to 5 more games, maybe. But what if the Rangers trade for him, and the offense continues to struggle and the Rangers miss the playoffs? Then the Rangers may have traded away the future for a player that did not have the desired impact. Plus with a $15 million contract for next year, I would not want Halladay’s salary to impact the Rangers’ payroll flexibility next year. If the Rangers do get Halladay, I may not be unhappy (depending on who the Rangers have to give up to get him), but I would rather have the Rangers play it safe one more year and make a hard push for 2010.

  • Ryan @ July 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    A trade needs to follow the following guidelines. The 25 man roster needs to be maintained because we are trying to win and gutting the team is not the best move. Bourbon must stay because of his destiny as the future centerfielder in RBiA. No Rangers team has ever won without a solid defensive centerfielder and I know of no one prepared to take over if he is traded away. Keep Perez because I don’t think the fan base will forgive trading another golden pitching prospect like the Young or Danks debacles and he might be ready to move into the rotation by 2011, even though that is the rose-colored glasses speaking. Otherwise try to use Smoak as the centerpiece rather than Feliz and let Toronto pick another two, three or even four prospects depending on the talent they are after. Smoak can go because he is in the most replaceable position in the sport. Davis is defensively ready for the big leagues and with the bats we currently have, he does not need to develop into a middle of the order hitter. He just needs to lower his strikeouts. If Davis does not work out, a first baseman is a relatively cheap part to acquire in trade relative to a frontline starter. Heck, if they would take Smoak and Feliz it’s a heck of a deal because you turn a top hitting prospect in a replaceable position and a prospect with only a single major league ready pitch into an ace for two playoff cycles. The worse thing that happens is the Halladay completely fails as a Ranger and becomes a B class free agent and you get a sandwich pick instead of two first rounders.

  • ebennett @ July 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    I vote “no.” It doesn’t matter because Halladay isn’t coming here. Too hot, and the team goes to Arizona not Florida. But even if he changed his mind I’d say no. He gives them a shot at the division but that is far as they can go and they may get there anyway. Then you have him for a year. He’ll be 33. The price will be far too high. If you trade Halladay you have to make a Tex level trade. The Rangers would be giving up all they gained. Same thing with Lee (who isn’t near the pitchers Halladay is but is left handed).

  • texaslifter @ July 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    If the Rangers are comfortable trading Feliz or Holland along with other high ceiling pitching talent (Font, Kiker, Beavan, etc), then deal for Greinke, not Halladay.

  • texaslifter @ July 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    I would be comfortable trading the entire starting rotation in Frisco (Kiker, Poveda, Kirkman, Beavan) plus Matt Harrison and Brandon McCarthy for Zack Greinke.

  • Ruffian @ July 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    I’ve gone on record before as not wanting to make any trades that would break up either the nucleus of the current team of the top tier of the prospects coming up. Although I have been waiting a long time to see the Rangers as a legitimate contender, I am more interested in seeing them as a legitimate contender not just this year and/or next, but perhaps for the next decade. And with the talent in the pipeline at this point, I think they have a real chance to do exactly that. Give the kids a chance to develop and grow from within. NO TRADE!!!

  • redbullwings @ July 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    We are going to have to make some decisions on some of these prospects as soon as this offseason. The ones left off the 40 man will be available in the Rule 5. I don’t know if Halladay is the answer, but even if he was “average” for him I think it’s safe to say that, along with Millwood, we could have a very strong 1-2 punch. Seattle has a pitiful offense, but their 1-2-3 starters are studs. If Toronto is willing to take a bit more in quantity over quality, I say go for it. If it’s quality only, pass. 2 from the Smoak, Feliz, Holland group should open up a lot of doors this off season if we choose that route.

  • Bamma @ July 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Fist of all i went line by line reading what my fellow Ranger fans thought of this deal or no deal… and when i got to Brad Corbetts… i laughed out loud at my desk.. In fact i am still laughing right now… I told myself before the season started that this season would be a giant success if we just saw improvement… Well, that has certainly happened. Before we made all the trades midway in ’07 i told my pops that this team was 9 or 10 players away with nothing on the horizon.. the fact that in just two years this team has gone from that.. to this.. is damn near unbelievable.. We are now one BIG bat (someone who can protect Josh and doesnt strike out 500 times a year), one BIG starting arm, and bullpen arm away from seriously contending for a really long time.. the question is.. can Smoak be that bat (next year of course).. can Feliz or Holland be that BIG stud starting arm.. can one of the other guys turn into a servicable bullpen arm.. because God knows those guys have a 1.13 ERA one year.. and couldnt get me out the next… So the pressure is on the talent evaluators.. They have done a helluva job getting this organization to this point.. But then again.. that is why they are where they are.. and i am sitting here at this desk.. writing a post that no one will read… This organization has gotten it wrong so many times… surely its time for that luck to turn… Right???

  • Jackson @ July 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    Halliday is an ace. The Rangers need an ace. If it all works out, the Rangers go to the playoffs two consecutive years. If it doesn’t work out, the Rangers turn around and trade him next July for prospects that may be as good as the ones they give up. It would be fewer prospects. But they should be good ones. At worst case, Halliday pitches though 2010, and the Rangers wind up with some great draft choices. Right now, the farm is full of potential. Darrell Royal always said that “potential is what gets coaches (or managers) fired.

  • Section 339 @ July 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    The Rangers wont sign Halladay. I have a feeling if they make a deal it will be a Scott Erickson type trade. Someone that no one is even talking about.

  • Brad Corbett @ July 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    Bamma,
    Thank ya, thank ya very much.
    I’ll be here all week..

  • ChrisP @ July 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    Does anyone’s answer change now that Matt Harrison is out for the season?

  • Dylan @ July 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    The problem is this is all a moot point. The money part of this problem isn’t gonna happen.

    Hicks isn’t going to loan more money into the HSG that he is trying to divest himself of and adding more debt to an asset that he’s trying to sell in a terrible economy doesn’t make it any easier. That’s why the Halliday trade will never happen.

    That being said, if we eliminate the money issue I think you make this trade. You make the trade because it doesn’t just make you better this year, it also makes you better next year (when it is all supposed to come together anyway).

  • Auditor @ July 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    I am in the “against” position. Just to win the AL West is not worth the loss of prospects and I do not see them going deep into the World Series with 1 true ace (Roy) and a lot of young talent.

    The real question that has been missed- or not addressed- is who to we trade away NOW. We need to get something for Hank, Byrd, and AJ. I will even take lower A or AA picks than AAA (like the Lofton for Max R deal).

    The worst thing this team could do right now is be in-between a buyer and a seller and do nothing.

  • Rangers Fan @ July 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    Oh dear…Bascik on the ticket is now campaigning for Adam Dunn. WHAT? Adam Dunn who makes “most embarrassing play” options nightly?? I can’t bear to think of him playing in the field here. Maybe if he was only the DH. But that would have to be it!

  • Chris Hartman @ July 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    If Toronto isn’t willing to take on salary for this year, the number of prospects must be reduced in return. One top five type, and two top twenty through ten types. The reason I would include Hunter, Feldman, and Wilson as possibilities is to protect the future, and also if I were Toronto, I would want a major league ready pitcher in return. I love Feldman as a 3-5 starter; Same for Hunter. I’m not sure either will be top of the rotation guys in the future. Wilson is having a great year. I’m just not sold that he will do it again next year. Admittedly I’m not a CJ fan. I’m for selling high while his value is maxed out. I’m betting two years from now CJ’s value will be significantly lower.

  • scooper @ July 24th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    When you have a chance to get an ACE, you get him. Cliff Lee is not an ACE, Roy Halladay is. I think it is a moot point because I don’t think he will waive his no-trade clause, but if he does then go get him. Remember, 2010 is the targeted year and we would already have our ace. I trust JD to make the deal (if he gets the chance).

  • Jon @ July 24th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    I think you guys are trying to low ball Toronto and they will not do it this year for what most of you are proposing. Maybe next year this time, but not this year.

    Think the Ranger-Atlanta Tex deal only this time we get to be in the barrel.

    Still interested?

    I’m not.

  • Auditor @ July 24th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    Trust? JD? Not when he over spends to acquire talent. Glad that Adam Eaton is still with us.
    ;)

  • Gunter @ July 24th, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    I’m with Auditor and am actually more concerned with the Rangers moving Byrd or Andruw (preferably Andruw) and getting prospects back. No point in holding on to both when neither will be here next year.

    I’d say the same for Blalock were it not for his silly salary and the struggled of Davis.

    That’s how theyve built the farm system, why not continue building it?

  • Gunter @ July 24th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    Oh, and no on Halladay. It will make me insane if Feliz, Holland, or Smoak come even close to their talent ceiling and we traded it for a season and a half of Halladay, no matter how great he may be.

    I’m as impatient as the rest of you and would kill for a playoff run this year, but stick to the plan….it will pay dividends eventually.

  • Leemer in Austin @ July 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    I’ve read all the comments so far, and here is my (very informal) tally:

    For: 10
    Against: 16
    Fine either way: 3 (counting me)
    Too nebulous to count: 4

    Best point brought up? With apologies to iHARTtherangers, I am going to have to go with redbullwings. Having a great minor league system is awesome, but it can create some stressful 40-man roster situations. The team can’t keep ‘em all, you know. Sometimes you must sell high.

  • Leemer in Austin @ July 24th, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    (Two more “against” votes while typing my comment, by the way.)

  • Mike E @ July 24th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    I vote for Adrian Gonzalez. And then Halladay.

  • JustSaying @ July 24th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    Does Halliday give the Rangers a shot at going past the first round? I’m not certain he does considering the other holes…….Have the Rangers brain trust shown a talent for making trades involving pitching? This one is a big no for me. What is certain is that the Rangers do have one of the top minor league systems now in baseball, so why not be patient for the fruits of that to blossom?
    So my vote is NO

  • The Depot: Rangers-Royals Live Game Blog, News, Notes And Some Other Stuff @ July 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    [...] In case you missed it earlier, we’re having a fine time discussing my schizophrenia over a trade for an ace. And if you just want to catch up on the Royals, intrepid intern Ryan Jones [...]

  • The Depot: Rangers-Royals Live Game Blog, News, Notes And Some Other Stuff « wire2 @ July 24th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    [...] In case you missed it earlier, we’re having a fine time discussing my schizophrenia over a trade for an ace. And if you just want to catch up on the Royals, intrepid intern Ryan Jones [...]

  • morgan @ July 24th, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    I think there is too much risk in this trade. There’s no way Halladay would stay past 2010 if we could even afford him in the first place, and with the top farm system there’s no way we should risk a decade of playoff-caliber baseball (which we would have if really just two out of Holland, Feliz, and Smoak develop as planned) for mediocrity after Halladay. The more I think about it, the less I like this trade.

  • Ryan @ July 24th, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    Hey, I am not for making any trade and letting the kids play this year. I just feel that if you could do a Smoak + (2 or 3 lower ceiling player like Beaven or a Kiker) or Smoak + Feliz + maybe a middle grade prospect such as a Lemon . I think you have a solid chance to improve the team for multiple years and recoup the large part of the expense in prospects at least. Toronto would ramp up their system very well(a solid power hitting 1B, a SP/Closer candidate and utility infielder) and clear their books of 20 million and give us an ace. I doubt they could do better set as close to MLB ready from any other farm system. Of course, I think even if there was a yes from Toronto, it would not matter for he would not accept the trade. But this is all fun and games and I am glad I do not have to make such decisions.

  • Jack Daddy @ July 24th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    NO

  • Jack Daddy @ July 24th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    Let me elaborate, Halladay is my SECOND favorite pitcher in baseball. First? Holland. Nuff said.

  • Gunter @ July 24th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Could someone explain how the minor league players would be affected by the 40 man roster situations and the rule 5 draft? I enjoy baseball, but thats the side of the game I just don’t follow.

    If the point can be made that yes, we really would start to lose worthwhile players from the farm system during the off-season, then that really does make a difference here. Anyone care to explain it in depth, and yet in lamens terms?

  • Leemer in Austin @ July 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

    @Gunter: I rely on Newberg for that, as he has an annual entry titled something like “The 40-Man Roster Conundrum”. (Perhaps MJH could expound on it for all the Inside Cornerians.) But the gist of it is this: Teams heavy on prospects cannot leave them toiling in the minors forever. For example, a money-rich team cannot horde prospects for several years while snagging free agents that keep said prospects from making “the leap”.

    At the risk of sounding stupid, I think the rule allows minor leaguers 5yrs before they have to be added to the 40-man roster. Or somesuch.

    In other words, PLEASE – someone much smarter than me answer his question.

  • dude in Afghanistan @ July 25th, 2009 at 9:06 am

    I say yes if it involves anyone on the current ML/MiL rosters except Kinsler (but I may change my mind after another half-dozen pop-ups…looks like a pitching wedge…too much golf?) or Andrus, and none of these three either: Holland, Feliz, Perez. Anybody else would be fine, including Ham-Bone. Just keep it down to 4 players, please.

    As far as the Rule 5 explanation, I think it takes some rocket science, so go simple and check out Scott Lucas’ list here: http://rangers.scottlucas.com/site/rule5.htm. I think there will be a lot of room for everyone we’d definitely like to keep, as long as Mendoza and Bannister are waived, plus we don’t keep vets like Blalock, Vizquel, Byrd, Andruw, Grilli, Eddie, or Jennings. We also can’t sign/keep very many similarly veteran free agents. Some interesting decisions might need to be made on guys like Boggs and Golson (seems like he should be on Scott’s lists somewhere?), and a whole group of decent relievers down at AAA.

    2009 doesn’t look too bad, but wow, look at next yr. There are so many great talents becoming eligible after 2010, it’s scary. Beltre, Boscan, Brigham, Miggy DLS, Font, Gomez, Kiker, Lemon, Moreland, Nam, Pimentel, and Smith. Don’t see Moscoso on there, but I’m sure he probably eligible after this yr or next.

    I think it might be a good decision to test several of these guys’ value now…can’t possibly keep much more than half of these studs without purging all the veterans on the current roster.

  • dude in Afghanistan @ July 25th, 2009 at 9:14 am

    Apparently, the rules of eligibility are thus…anyone not on the 40-man roster as of 15 December (?) and also meets one of the following 2 criteria:

    Were signed at Age 19 or older and have been with the current organization for 4 yrs; or

    Were signed at Age 18 or younger and have been with the current organization for 5 yrs.

  • Opposed @ July 25th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    “Todd Zolecki of MLB.com reminds us of a rarely used rule that could possibly come into play if Roy Halladay is moved before this year’s trade deadline. If a player signed a multi-year extension before October 2006 and is traded during the life of the contract, the player can then demand a trade during the offseason. If the team falls to trade the player by March 15th, he becomes a free agent. Halladay signed a three year, $40MM extension in March of ’06.”

    You want to trade Holland, Smoak, Feliz and Feldman (because that’s what it is going to take, trust me) for a guy who MIGHT be here next year?

    I’m enjoying the heck out of watching Feldman, Holland and Andrus develop into good MLB players this year. Can’t wait for the others to get here, so I can watch them, too. Stick with the plan, let’s grow our own and succeed or fail with them. Look how the Texeira trade blew up for Atlanta.