Shaun Marcum Traded to the Brewers for Brett Lawrie

[Randle McMurphy]

A year ago we traded Roy Halladay - a pitcher that no franchise should ever trade -

unless that pitcher walks into the GM's office and says he wants to be traded to a contender or will sign as a FA with a contender, which Halladay did. but go on.

Not exactly how it went down there, but OK.

[Randle McMurphy]

I like Lawrie as a prospect, assuming he can stay at 2B or 3B, so I'm not denying that the Jays got a top prospect in return, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily equal value.

To me, it should have taken quite a bit more than just Lawrie to give up Marcum. But my guess is that AA found himself restricted by Rogers in what he could pay him on an extension and decided to trade him for a top prospect while he still could.

[Duffman100]

A year ago we traded Roy Halladay - a pitcher that no franchise should ever trade -

unless that pitcher walks into the GM's office and says he wants to be traded to a contender or will sign as a FA with a contender, which Halladay did. but go on.

Not exactly how it went down there, but OK.

Essentially that's exactly what happened.

[WpgPage]

Come on guys Money availability had nothing to due with this move

[Michael Bradley]

A year ago we traded Roy Halladay - a pitcher that no franchise should ever trade -

unless that pitcher walks into the GM's office and says he wants to be traded to a contender or will sign as a FA with a contender, which Halladay did. but go on.

On what planet did that happen?

From what I remember. Halladay simply wasn't going to sign an extension because he was unsure what direction the team was going in, and then gave a list of teams he would waive his NTC for. The only trade request I remember reading was Halladay requesting the trade happen prior to a certain time period (Spring Training?) so he didn't have to have the circus follow him around all season.

The Jays not doing anything in 2009 or 2010 to win with Halladay was inexcusable. Nothing Halladay did caused that.

[WpgPage]

A year ago we traded Roy Halladay - a pitcher that no franchise should ever trade -

unless that pitcher walks into the GM's office and says he wants to be traded to a contender or will sign as a FA with a contender, which Halladay did. but go on.

Not exactly how it went down there, but OK.

yeah that was basically it with nicer words, do we really think AA would have moved Roy if he had gone in there and said he was all for finishing his career in TO and was ok with the possibility of never winning a WS

[Randle McMurphy]

Essentially that's exactly what happened.

Well, except for the part where Halladay supposedly demanded a trade or told the Jays he wouldn't sign with them as a FA in the 2010 offseason.

Neither of those things ever happened.

[Duffman100]

Essentially that's exactly what happened.

Well, except for the part where Halladay supposedly demanded a trade or told the Jays he wouldn't sign with them as a FA in the 2010 offseason.

Neither of those things ever happened.

Cmon, don't be naive. He told them he wasn't going to sign back with them which forces their hand on a trade.

He may not have DEMANDED a trade, but made it impossible to not trade him.

[Randle McMurphy]

yeah that was basically it with nicer words, do we really think AA would have moved Roy if he had gone in there and said he was all for finishing his career in TO and was ok with the possibility of never winning a WS

I think AA moved him because Halladay told Beeston that he wasn't willing to sign an extension at the time and that he wanted to wait until free agency to decide on his future.

Halladay was always willing to play out the entire 2010 season with the Jays...it was AA's decision (and I feel he made the right one) to trade him before that happened.

[Randle McMurphy]

He may not have DEMANDED a trade

Exactly, he didn't. And that was my clarification. That's all.

[YogiStewart]

unless that pitcher walks into the GM's office and says he wants to be traded to a contender or will sign as a FA with a contender, which Halladay did. but go on.

Not exactly how it went down there, but OK.

Essentially that's exactly what happened.

not essentially. that's exactly what happened.
guess some people forget Halliday's wife on the radio during the Jays' broadcast, helping out with the Jays' wives food drive thing, crying about her great years in Toronto and how she'll miss the city.

she did this months before the offseason and trade.

[LBJSeizedMyID]

And apparently the same thing happened with Marcum..

[Michael Bradley]

Halladay was willing to play out the final year of his contract and proceed from there.

That is not demanding a trade nor is it forcing a trade.

Don't let the Blue Jays PR spinning override what actually happened. Rogers wanted to shed salary, and they couldn't do that + appease Halladay at the same time, so a trade was done.

[Duffman100]

He may not have DEMANDED a trade

Exactly, he didn't. And that was my clarification. That's all.

Alright, sorry, you're right. He didn't outright demand a trade.

But telling them he's not going to sign back essentially is asking for trade.

[Randle McMurphy]

The Jays not doing anything in 2009 or 2010 to win with Halladay was inexcusable. Nothing Halladay did caused that.

The blame can only be put on Rogers for that. They've been saying "this year we'll save, but next year we'll spend" for quite a few years now.

[Randle McMurphy]

But telling them he's not going to sign back essentially is asking for trade.

#1. No, it isn't. He was entire willingly to play out the final year of his contract and would have had another regular Doc year.

#2. He never said he wouldn't have signed back with them as a FA, only that he wouldn't commit himself to an extension without knowing Rogers' willingness to spend on other parts of the team. In fact, I suspect that the Jays might have had a pretty good shot at re-signing him if they allowed him to become a free agent. The draw of familiarity would have been tough for him to ignore.

[Duffman100]

The Jays not doing anything in 2009 or 2010 to win with Halladay was inexcusable. Nothing Halladay did caused that.

The blame can only be put on Rogers for that. They've been saying "this year we'll save, but next year we'll spend" for quite a few years now.

I think some blames go to JP. They increased his team's salary like clockwork every year only to get zero results.

We hit almost 100 million in 2008. What's the point in spending 20 million more for almost the exact same record? Doesn't make any business sense.

[Duffman100]

But telling them he's not going to sign back essentially is asking for trade.

#1. No, it isn't. He was entire willingly to play out the final year of his contract and would have had another regular Doc year.

#2. He never said he wouldn't have signed back with them as a FA, only that he wouldn't commit himself to an extension without knowing Rogers' willingness to spend on other parts of the team. In fact, I suspect that the Jays might have had a pretty good shot at re-signing him if they allowed him to become a free agent. The draw of familiarity would have been tough for him to ignore.

Give me a break, the writing was on the wall. He wanted to play for a contender, we were in no position to contend. There was almost NO chance he was going to come back here.

What he said to the media was not what he said behind closed doors. It never is. If the Jays thought they could resign him, they would have kept him.

[WpgPage]

they spent 100 million in 2008 do we all forget that??

[Schad]

The blame can only be put on Rogers for that. They've been saying "this year we'll save, but next year we'll spend" for quite a few years now.

I was in the same boat until we started throwing money in directions without short-term returns. We gave the Reds $4m to sweeten the Rolen deal, the Phillies $6m to sweeten the Halladay deal, Hech got $4m upfront, we spent a tonne on the draft, and we haven't been shy about extending our pre-FA guys. We offer arbitration even to the likes of Frasor, who'll probably end up getting more than he's worth, because there's a payoff on the off chance that he turns it down.

Are they likely to spend $150m one of these years? No, but I don't get the sense that they're willing to carry an above-average payroll when it's justified. Cheap teams don't generally okay cash giveaways in deals where they're giving up the best player, unless they're willing to back that investment up with a larger one should the team find itself in a position to compete.