OT: Halladay has more CGs than 24 TEAMS

[Raps in 4]

Since 2003.

He threw the 60th complete game of his career Saturday in a 2-1 victory over the Mets at Citizens Bank Park. It was his 55th complete game since 2003. If that sounds like a lot, it is. It's more than 24 teams have thrown in that same time span. Only the Toronto Blue Jays (77), Cleveland Indians (66), Oakland A's (59), Chicago White Sox (57), St. Louis Cardinals (55) and Phillies (56) can match him.

Of course, the Blue Jays lead the list because Halladay pitched with them through 2009. And the Phillies are up to 56, because Halladay has thrown 11 complete games since he joined them last season.

Individual pitchers don't even come close. CC Sabathia has thrown 28 complete games since the start of the 2003 season. Livan Hernandez has thrown 26 and Cliff Lee has thrown 21.

No other pitcher in baseball has thrown more than 18.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... b&c_id=mlb

[Evermore]

He's putting together a Hall of Fame career...


Does anyone remember his first major league start?

I believe it was his first start...and it was against the Tigers

He lost a no-hitter with 2 out in the 9th on the final day of the season...


Or am I misremembering the specifics?

[Skin Blues]

It was a perfect game if not for a bobbled grounder to second base by... I can't remember who. Tomas Perez maybe? The error allowed Bobby Higginson to get another at-bat and he ruined the no-hitter with a homerun. I vividly remember watching that game.

[Michael Bradley]

Felipe Crespo.

And man, I would love to give Drabek, Gose, and d'Arnaud back to Philly for Roy right now. I know this is beating a dead horse, but Rogers not willing to spend money in 2009 and 2010 while we had the best pitcher of this generation locked up for two more years was a freakin' crime. It has been nothing but slashing payroll ever since, although AA has hid some of that by being awesome.

[Schad]

Felipe Crespo.

And man, I would love to give Drabek, Gose, and d'Arnaud back to Philly for Roy right now. I know this is beating a dead horse, but Rogers not willing to spend money in 2009 and 2010 while we had the best pitcher of this generation locked up for two more years was a freakin' crime. It has been nothing but slashing payroll ever since, although AA has hid some of that by being awesome.

We didn't have much chance of keeping Halladay in 2010, as he was a Phillie at that point.

By 2009, Doc wanted out. Spending in 2009 to keep him would have been idiotic, as we were several players away from competitiveness (and eventually ended up twenty games out of the playoffs...I would have loved to have demonstrated that we could compete with him, but it wasn't going to happen. We wouldn't have Halladay right now had we refused to pull the trigger on a deal; he'd have left this past off-season.

[Michael Bradley]

Felipe Crespo.

And man, I would love to give Drabek, Gose, and d'Arnaud back to Philly for Roy right now. I know this is beating a dead horse, but Rogers not willing to spend money in 2009 and 2010 while we had the best pitcher of this generation locked up for two more years was a freakin' crime. It has been nothing but slashing payroll ever since, although AA has hid some of that by being awesome.

We didn't have much chance of keeping Halladay in 2010, as he was a Phillie at that point.

By 2009, Doc wanted out. Spending in 2009 to keep him would have been idiotic, as we were several players away from competitiveness (and eventually ended up twenty games out of the playoffs...I would have loved to have demonstrated that we could compete with him, but it wasn't going to happen. We wouldn't have Halladay right now had we refused to pull the trigger on a deal; he'd have left this past off-season.

Halladay was a Phillie in 2010 because the Jays traded him there, not because he signed there. The Jays could have kept him in 2010 and rolled the dice that a good season may have convinced him to stay.

The chances of competing in 2009 were slim since Marcum and McGowan were out the whole year and Burnett opted out, but they were hyping 2009 as being a bridge to 2010. Why couldn't they have held true to that? Why not take the risk of going for it in 2010 with a better GM option (AA) behind the wheel? They were not obligated to trade Scott Rolen, who once his swing was altered became the first two-way 3B the team has had since god knows when. He asked for a trade, so what? Convince him to play out his contract (which was only a year left anyway). The team wasn't obligated to dump Rios for nothing, but hard to look back on that with much regret since it opened up RF for Bautista. From the beginning of 2009 when they refused to let Ricciardi sign anyone to a MLB contract it was clear the organization had no intention of trying to win with Halladay. Since he had two years and well below market rate left on his contract, yes, I would qualify that as pissing away two years of his prime (even if one of those years was in Philly). Halladay wanted out because of the actions of the organization. If the organization doesn't go into tank mode, then the trade circus in 2009 likely doesn't happen (at least not as seriously as it did).

So worst case, the Jays keep Halladay for one year and he leaves to sign with Philly after 2010. The Jays get 2 picks for him. So it is two picks vs. Drabek, Gose, and d'Arnaud. Is there really a franchise-altering difference between those two scenarios? If the Jays ended up getting another Aaron Sanchez and Jake Marisnick (for example) out of those two picks (+ one extra year of Roy which could have changed the outcome of the 2010 season), how much different would the situation be for the franchise? Same deal with Rolen (Stewart vs. comp picks).

I think people are becoming way too prospect happy, and I said as much when Marcum was traded. It has gotten to the point where the Jays have brainwashed fans into valuing prospects over established talent. I like the job AA is doing, and agree with his plan (getting impact talent at each position, etc, etc) but every time I see a clip of Halladay or read a snippet about him, it infuriates me that the team didn't do anything in 2009-10 to build a winner around him. As much as I hate JP and the job he did here, I can acknowledge he at least tried to build a winner in Toronto. He just wasn't good enough to do it. But in 2009-10 the organization practically gave up.

[Schad]

Halladay was a Phillie in 2010 because the Jays traded him there, not because he signed there. The Jays could have kept him in 2010 and rolled the dice that a good season may have convinced him to stay.

Halladay had already made clear that he intended to leave in free agency. Keeping him based on a fantasy that we could have won 95+ games and caused him to change his mind is just bad management.

And to head off the inevitable, we did win 85 games, which placed us only 10 games out of the playoffs. However, we won 85 games because we got unbelievably good performances from some 'scrubs'...had we sold out to compete, there's little chance that we would have been starting Jose Bautista and his 91 OPS+. We probably go for more-established options, higher-performance options, and don't decide to ride cheap pickups in Buck, Encarnacion and Gonzalez. The only 'sure things' offensively entering 2009 were the two guys who ended up struggling mightily...had we gone for it that off-season, they wouldn't have been the ones replaced.

The chances of competing in 2009 were slim since Marcum and McGowan were out the whole year and Burnett opted out, but they were hyping 2009 as being a bridge to 2010. Why couldn't they have held true to that? Why not take the risk of going for it in 2010 with a better GM option (AA) behind the wheel?

Because it simply wasn't going to happen. There's risk-taking, and there's being blind to the reality of your situation.

They were not obligated to trade Scott Rolen, who once his swing was altered became the first two-way 3B the team has had since god knows when. He asked for a trade, so what? Convince him to play out his contract (which was only a year left anyway).

Yeah, it's as easy as that to convince a guy who had demanded to be moved to a Midwestern team. And again, if we keep Rolen, Bautista (who struggled out of the gate in 2010, but got to still play everyday because we booted Encarnacion to AAA for failing to hustle) doesn't have that sort of season.

The team wasn't obligated to dump Rios for nothing, but hard to look back on that with much regret since it opened up RF for Bautista.

Agreed. But as noted, RF/3B wouldn't have been open for him had we decided to go for it, as Rolen would have remained in the fold and right field would have been appeared to be of our glaring weaknesses entering 2010. You can't presume clairvoyance here.

From the beginning of 2009 when they refused to let Ricciardi sign anyone to a MLB contract it was clear the organization had no intention of trying to win with Halladay. Since he had two years and well below market rate left on his contract, yes, I would qualify that as pissing away two years of his prime (even if one of those years was in Philly). Halladay wanted out because of the actions of the organization. If the organization doesn't go into tank mode, then the trade circus in 2009 likely doesn't happen (at least not as seriously as it did).

Halladay wanted out because he desired a chance to pitch in the playoffs while he was still in his prime. Having failed to make the playoffs in sixteen years at that point, even if we hadn't had a bad 2009 season it would have been one hell of a sell job.

So worst case, the Jays keep Halladay for one year and he leaves to sign with Philly after 2010. The Jays get 2 picks for him. So it is two picks vs. Drabek, Gose, and d'Arnaud. Is there really a franchise-altering difference between those two scenarios? If the Jays ended up getting another Aaron Sanchez and Jake Marisnick (for example) out of those two picks (+ one extra year of Roy which could have changed the outcome of the 2010 season), how much different would the situation be for the franchise? Same deal with Rolen (Stewart vs. comp picks).

Three top 100 prospects (when it was Drabek/d'Arnaud/Wallace) vs. at best a mid-20s and mid-30s pick? Degrees of magnitude better.

And with both Halladay and Rolen, you have to take into consideration that players and agents tend to take notice when you basically hold their clients hostage. It tends to get around the league if your players want out and you tell them to suck it up because they'll reach free agency in another year or thereabouts.

I think people are becoming way too prospect happy, and I said as much when Marcum was traded. It has gotten to the point where the Jays have brainwashed fans into valuing prospects over established talent. I like the job AA is doing, and agree with his plan (getting impact talent at each position, etc, etc) but every time I see a clip of Halladay or read a snippet about him, it infuriates me that the team didn't do anything in 2009-10 to build a winner around him. As much as I hate JP and the job he did here, I can acknowledge he at least tried to build a winner in Toronto. He just wasn't good enough to do it. But in 2009-10 the organization practically gave up.

The Jays haven't brainwashed ****...many of us felt that it was necessary that we began accumulating young talent in order to make a run in a couple years, because the team simply was never going to magically add 10-15 wins even if management started spending hyper-aggressively. We lauded the decision because many of us decided that the change in direction was necessary before Rogerts did.

[Michael Bradley]

Halladay had already made clear that he intended to leave in free agency. Keeping him based on a fantasy that we could have won 95+ games and caused him to change his mind is just bad management.

And to head off the inevitable, we did win 85 games, which placed us only 10 games out of the playoffs. However, we won 85 games because we got unbelievably good performances from some 'scrubs'...had we sold out to compete, there's little chance that we would have been starting Jose Bautista and his 91 OPS+. We probably go for more-established options, higher-performance options, and don't decide to ride cheap pickups in Buck, Encarnacion and Gonzalez. The only 'sure things' offensively entering 2009 were the two guys who ended up struggling mightily...had we gone for it that off-season, they wouldn't have been the ones replaced.

Short-stop and catcher are two positions that are very difficult to fill via free agency or trade regardless of a team's plans. Options are always limited. Gonzalez and Buck may have been signed regardless just due to the poor market that generally follows those two positions. Hell, Marco Scutaro was probably the best SS free agent available at the time (unless I am missing someone). It wasn't like the Jays had the opportunity to sign Tulowitzki but went with the cheaper option due to a rebuild.

Those are the only scrubs, outside of EE (who stunk for most of the year), who performed above expectations. They likely would have traded for Morrow anyway since outside of Roy, Marcum, and Romero nothing was set in stone in the rotation.

Because it simply wasn't going to happen. There's risk-taking, and there's being blind to the reality of your situation.

How is the current rebuilding plan any more bullet proof? We are dealing with lottery tickets hoping a few of them hit the jackpot. Most of them are sucking in the minors right now (Gose, d'Arnaud, Hech, etc). If the Jays added established talent in 2010, yes maybe they do still fall short, but we don't really know what would have happened.

Yeah, it's as easy as that to convince a guy who had demanded to be moved to a Midwestern team. And again, if we keep Rolen, Bautista (who struggled out of the gate in 2010, but got to still play everyday because we booted Encarnacion to AAA for failing to hustle) doesn't have that sort of season.

Rolen had to waive a no-trade clause to come to Toronto in the first place. I'm guessing he knew about Canada and the field turf long before he agreed to that.

As far as Bautista/2010, Bautista had a quote in the Fan recently where he said that Cito wanted to get him in the lineup more often in 2009 but his two positions were blocked (3B and RF). Once Rios was dumped, which came from ownership not the GM, they played Bautista everyday in RF and saw him belt 10 HR in September with an altered approach at the plate. We already know AA liked Bautista since he was the one who made the call to pick him up in the first place, and Cito/Murphy worked with Bautista to fix his swing/timing, so why wouldn't they have put Bautista in the OF everyday (LF or RF) in 2010? You think Travis Snider, a player that Cito benched in favor of Dwayne Wise and AA demoted for Fred Lewis/Rajai Davis/Corey Patterson/David Cooper/etc the last two years was going to alter their perception of Bautista (whatever that may have been after 2009)? I'm not saying they definitely would have started him, but I got the impression they liked him a lot prior to 2010 and liked him more than other teams would have in that same situation. When the GM and the manager both like you, there is a good chance you will play a lot.

Halladay wanted out because he desired a chance to pitch in the playoffs while he was still in his prime. Having failed to make the playoffs in sixteen years at that point, even if we hadn't had a bad 2009 season it would have been one hell of a sell job.

A strong 2010 was the only way to convince him. They never tried to.

Three top 100 prospects (when it was Drabek/d'Arnaud/Wallace) vs. at best a mid-20s and mid-30s pick? Degrees of magnitude better.

And with both Halladay and Rolen, you have to take into consideration that players and agents tend to take notice when you basically hold their clients hostage. It tends to get around the league if your players want out and you tell them to suck it up because they'll reach free agency in another year or thereabouts.

GM's are communicators for a reason. If Bautista demanded a trade to New York today, do you do it to avoid his agent and future players looking down on the organization? I'm not comparing Rolen to Bautista here, I'm just saying you don't cater to the player in that particular situation, especially if you go from a 4.0 WAR 3B to a (whatever the hell EE is/was).

As far as the prospects, Drabek is really the only one who will make a difference over the next few seasons (Gose and d'Arnaud look years away). Long-term, how much of an impact would that have made? We are not talking about A-Rod level prospects here.

The Jays haven't brainwashed ****...many of us felt that it was necessary that we began accumulating young talent in order to make a run in a couple years, because the team simply was never going to magically add 10-15 wins even if management started spending hyper-aggressively. We lauded the decision because many of us decided that the change in direction was necessary before Rogerts did.

When Marcum was traded for Lawrie, some were saying it was fair because Lawrie was MIL's top prospect. How many times do you see teams trade a legit #2 calibre starter for one prospect who may or may not stick in the infield? I'm not saying Lawrie won't be good, he has an all-star calibre bat, but it is all speculative at this point. You are paying $100 for a lottery ticket hoping the ticket leads to better than $100 value. You can't keep doing that and expecting great returns.

[Schad]

Short-stop and catcher are two positions that are very difficult to fill via free agency or trade regardless of a team's plans. Options are always limited. Gonzalez and Buck may have been signed regardless just due to the poor market that generally follows those two positions. Hell, Marco Scutaro was probably the best SS free agent available at the time (unless I am missing someone). It wasn't like the Jays had the opportunity to sign Tulowitzki but went with the cheaper option due to a rebuild.

Scutaro was the best free agent shortstop available. As such, the logical decision if we're plowing ahead to win is to re-sign Scutaro (and if we can somehow mollify Rolen and Doc, surely we could convince Marco to return), who ended up being worse than either Gonzalez or Escobar.

Those are the only scrubs, outside of EE (who stunk for most of the year), who performed above expectations. They likely would have traded for Morrow anyway since outside of Roy, Marcum, and Romero nothing was set in stone in the rotation.

Perhaps we trade for Morrow. But does he survive in the rotation while carrying an ERA of 6.00 through the end of May? Of course not; we're a team that absolutely has to win that season, and we wouldn't be wasting starts trying to convert a reliever with control issues back into a starter.

How is the current rebuilding plan any more bullet proof? We are dealing with lottery tickets hoping a few of them hit the jackpot. Most of them are sucking in the minors right now (Gose, d'Arnaud, Hech, etc). If the Jays added established talent in 2010, yes maybe they do still fall short, but we don't really know what would have happened.

We can guess with a high degree of likelihood what would have happened, yeah...we'd have watched our best player walk, and having sold off the kiddies chasing a dream, we would have among the worst minor league and major league talent in baseball.

Rolen had to waive a no-trade clause to come to Toronto in the first place. I'm guessing he knew about Canada and the field turf long before he agreed to that.

And yet he demanded to be traded, suggesting that he changed his mind rather dramatically.

As far as Bautista/2010, Bautista had a quote in the Fan recently where he said that Cito wanted to get him in the lineup more often in 2009 but his two positions were blocked (3B and RF). Once Rios was dumped, which came from ownership not the GM, they played Bautista everyday in RF and saw him belt 10 HR in September with an altered approach at the plate. We already know AA liked Bautista since he was the one who made the call to pick him up in the first place, and Cito/Murphy worked with Bautista to fix his swing/timing, so why wouldn't they have put Bautista in the OF everyday (LF or RF) in 2010? You think Travis Snider, a player that Cito benched in favor of Dwayne Wise and AA demoted for Fred Lewis/Rajai Davis/Corey Patterson/David Cooper/etc the last two years was going to alter their perception of Bautista (whatever that may have been after 2009)? I'm not saying they definitely would have started him, but I got the impression they liked him a lot prior to 2010 and liked him more than other teams would have in that same situation. When the GM and the manager both like you, there is a good chance you will play a lot.

Not Snider, no. What I'm saying is this: if we were going balls out to win, it's fairly unlikely that we wouldn't have brought in an established major leaguer to play RF, rather than a 29 year old career utilityman who had a good month.

But similar to Morrow, let's say that we do start the year with Jose. Bautista then proceeds to hit .182/.351/.318 over the first dozen games, and while he's drawing walks, his bat looks anemic. Or the .206/.301/.402 mark that he carried through May 2nd. Again, in a year where it is imperative that we make the playoffs, do you keep throwing him out there everyday? If you answer yes, you're lying...Cito and Anthopolous would be shredded for deciding to keep playing the scrub with our team's long-term fortunes on the line. They had the luxury to play a hunch (and stick with it while he scuffled) because the season wasn't particularly important.

A strong 2010 was the only way to convince him. They never tried to.

Because they knew that it was almost assuredly a losing cause.

GM's are communicators for a reason. If Bautista demanded a trade to New York today, do you do it to avoid his agent and future players looking down on the organization? I'm not comparing Rolen to Bautista here, I'm just saying you don't cater to the player in that particular situation, especially if you go from a 4.0 WAR 3B to a (whatever the hell EE is/was).

They are communicators, but they aren't **** Rasputin.

As far as the prospects, Drabek is really the only one who will make a difference over the next few seasons (Gose and d'Arnaud look years away). Long-term, how much of an impact would that have made? We are not talking about A-Rod level prospects here.

The idea is to have enough assets on hand that we can fill holes with very good players when we're ready to compete. We weren't ready to compete at the time of the 2009 off-season, and had little in the stores to dangle to get us there. In a year or two, we will.

When Marcum was traded for Lawrie, some were saying it was fair because Lawrie was MIL's top prospect. How many times do you see teams trade a legit #2 calibre starter for one prospect who may or may not stick in the infield? I'm not saying Lawrie won't be good, he has an all-star calibre bat, but it is all speculative at this point. You are paying $100 for a lottery ticket hoping the ticket leads to better than $100 value. You can't keep doing that and expecting great returns.

Heh, Lawrie's bat is considerably less speculative than the scenario that you've laid out here.

[Michael Bradley]

Scutaro was the best free agent shortstop available. As such, the logical decision if we're plowing ahead to win is to re-sign Scutaro (and if we can somehow mollify Rolen and Doc, surely we could convince Marco to return), who ended up being worse than either Gonzalez or Escobar.

Not if they felt Scutaro overachieved, which I think everyone and their mother agreed on. While Scutaro was better in 2009, Gonzalez's WAR was better in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and ultimately 2010 (he missed all of 2008). It was a case of signing a better defensive player with more power at a cheaper price. The Red Sox had Gonzalez twice, and they were going for it every year. He wasn't exactly a rebuilding SS option only. Even in a year where they were going for it, Gonzalez + 2 picks beats Scutaro coming off a season he had no chance of repeating.

Perhaps we trade for Morrow. But does he survive in the rotation while carrying an ERA of 6.00 through the end of May? Of course not; we're a team that absolutely has to win that season, and we wouldn't be wasting starts trying to convert a reliever with control issues back into a starter.

So they would have demoted Morrow in your scenario, but continued to trot Brian Tallet out there? Or Litsch (who was clearly not ready for a return in 2010)? None of us know what they would have done in that situation, but I would guess they would have more patience with Morrow than Tallet or Litsch or whoever else. Maybe they put Cecil in that spot a little sooner and we don't see Dana Eveland (who outside of a few starts was trash). A lot changes in that scenario.

We can guess with a high degree of likelihood what would have happened, yeah...we'd have watched our best player walk, and having sold off the kiddies chasing a dream, we would have among the worst minor league and major league talent in baseball.

Pardon my ignorance here but which prospects did the Jays acquire for Halladay/Marcum/Rolen that have contributed to the MLB squad in 2010-11? Drabek and? The Major League talent would have likely been similar. The minor league talent would have taken a hit, but I would hope that trading 1) the best pitcher of this generation, 2) a legit #2 starter, and 3) a two-way 3B would lead to a quick turnaround as far as minor league rankings are concerned.

And yet he demanded to be traded, suggesting that he changed his mind rather dramatically.

A demand the team did not have to comply to. Talk to the man and his agent. Convince him to stay.

I can't be the only one who thinks it is absurd to 1) trade a 4.0 WAR player with only one year left on his deal, 2) send over $4M to cover his salary, and 3) take back a $5M scrub to replace him. Is Zach Stewart worth all of that? I sure hope so.

Not Snider, no. What I'm saying is this: if we were going balls out to win, it's fairly unlikely that we wouldn't have brought in an established major leaguer to play RF, rather than a 29 year old career utilityman who had a good month.

But similar to Morrow, let's say that we do start the year with Jose. Bautista then proceeds to hit .182/.351/.318 over the first dozen games, and while he's drawing walks, his bat looks anemic. Or the .206/.301/.402 mark that he carried through May 2nd. Again, in a year where it is imperative that we make the playoffs, do you keep throwing him out there everyday? If you answer yes, you're lying...Cito and Anthopolous would be shredded for deciding to keep playing the scrub with our team's long-term fortunes on the line. They had the luxury to play a hunch (and stick with it while he scuffled) because the season wasn't particularly important.

Cito Gaston would have given Dick Schoefield and Darrin Jackson 500 PA each in 1993 if Schoefield didn't break his leg (which forced Gillick to trade Jackson for Fernandez). How long did he stick with Lind, Hill, and Overbay in 2010? Or Wells and Rios in 2009? You can accuse Cito of a lot of things, but having a quick trigger on struggling players is not one of them.

They are communicators, but they aren't **** Rasputin.

You are AA. Brandon Morrow (or whoever fits into the Scott Rolen 2009 mold) comes into your office and tells you he wants to leave Toronto ASAP. Do you talk to him and convince him to change his mind, or simply listen to his wishes?

The idea is to have enough assets on hand that we can fill holes with very good players when we're ready to compete. We weren't ready to compete at the time of the 2009 off-season, and had little in the stores to dangle to get us there. In a year or two, we will.

I'm not denying it would have been hard to compete in 2010. I've been preaching for years that Ricciardi's drafting and overall player acquisitions left a lot to be desired (which many here have disagreed with for some reason). What I am saying is no attempt was even made to compete even when JP was out of the picture. They were willing to spend $23 million on Chapman and spent $10M on Hech, but couldn't put any of that money into improving the big league club short-term? Couldn't they have started the rebuild after 2010 if their short-term contending goal failed?

Heh, Lawrie's bat is considerably less speculative than the scenario that you've laid out here.

If he is forced to play the outfield in the long run, how does that change the perception of his bat? If Gose and d'Arnaud can't hit, how does that change their prospect status? Like I said, lottery tickets. Big reward, but equally high risk/bust potential. That is true for most/all prospects.

Like I said, I'm not saying the Jays are in a bad position right now. AA has done a great job and I fully support the rebuilding plan as is. But that doesn't mean the organization made a good decision in terms of how they got there.

[Schad]

Not if they felt Scutaro overachieved, which I think everyone and their mother agreed on. While Scutaro was better in 2009, Gonzalez's WAR was better in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and ultimately 2010 (he missed all of 2008). It was a case of signing a better defensive player with more power at a cheaper price. The Red Sox had Gonzalez twice, and they were going for it every year. He wasn't exactly a rebuilding SS option only. Even in a year where they were going for it, Gonzalez + 2 picks beats Scutaro coming off a season he had no chance of repeating.

And then Boston dumped Gonzalez in favour of Scutaro, suggesting that not quite everyone and their mother agreed on valuation.

Another what-if, though...if we're trying to compete, do we use Gonzalez to buy low on Escobar? It was undoubtedly the right move, but it's bloody hard to pull the trigger and trade a guy with a 112 OPS+ on the year for one struggling to top 70 at that point.

So they would have demoted Morrow in your scenario, but continued to trot Brian Tallet out there? Or Litsch (who was clearly not ready for a return in 2010)? None of us know what they would have done in that situation, but I would guess they would have more patience with Morrow than Tallet or Litsch or whoever else. Maybe they put Cecil in that spot a little sooner and we don't see Dana Eveland (who outside of a few starts was trash). A lot changes in that scenario.

Or, given that in this scenario we're trying to make the playoffs, I'd imagine we'd have gotten a veteran or two; no team hoping to play in October starts Tallet or Eveland.

As for Morrow, patience doesn't begin to cover it; through 10 starts (almost a third of the season) his numbers were awful; some of his peripherals weren't, but overall it was pretty ugly. He was walking nearly 6 batters per 9, his ERA was approaching 7, and he completed six innings only once in his preceding five starts. I can't fathom that you would have preached patience in such a circumstance...no one would.

Pardon my ignorance here but which prospects did the Jays acquire for Halladay/Marcum/Rolen that have contributed to the MLB squad in 2010-11? Drabek and? The Major League talent would have likely been similar. The minor league talent would have taken a hit, but I would hope that trading 1) the best pitcher of this generation, 2) a legit #2 starter, and 3) a two-way 3B would lead to a quick turnaround as far as minor league rankings are concerned.

I said nothing about them contributing on the major league level yet. What I'm referring to in that regard is the state of affairs if we'd attempted to get into the playoffs and failed...we'd have a rough analogue of this roster (without Drabek and Encarnacion, and probably Gonzalez rather than Escobar) and a considerably weaker minor league system. We wouldn't just be screwed presently; we'd have little base on which to build. As it stands, we have the depth of talent in the minors to start making some big moves to give us a multi-year window in which to compete, rather than shooting our wad in 2010 hoping that we somehow succeeded and kept Halladay.

A demand the team did not have to comply to. Talk to the man and his agent. Convince him to stay.

I can't be the only one who thinks it is absurd to 1) trade a 4.0 WAR player with only one year left on his deal, 2) send over $4M to cover his salary, and 3) take back a $5M scrub to replace him. Is Zach Stewart worth all of that? I sure hope so.

You think that they didn't try to convince them? C'mon now.

Cito Gaston would have given Dick Schoefield and Darrin Jackson 500 PA each in 1993 if Schoefield didn't break his leg (which forced Gillick to trade Jackson for Fernandez). How long did he stick with Lind, Hill, and Overbay in 2010? Or Wells and Rios in 2009? You can accuse Cito of a lot of things, but having a quick trigger on struggling players is not one of them.

With a below-average hitter manning a premium position in our most important season in a decade and a half, I'm guessing that they wouldn't have been sticking with him, no.

You are AA. Brandon Morrow (or whoever fits into the Scott Rolen 2009 mold) comes into your office and tells you he wants to leave Toronto ASAP. Do you talk to him and convince him to change his mind, or simply listen to his wishes?

Again...you think that they didn't? The Halladay situation played out over the course of a year; I'm fairly sure at some point in there they tried to convince him to stay.

I'm not denying it would have been hard to compete in 2010. I've been preaching for years that Ricciardi's drafting and overall player acquisitions left a lot to be desired (which many here have disagreed with for some reason). What I am saying is no attempt was even made to compete even when JP was out of the picture. They were willing to spend $23 million on Chapman and spent $10M on Hech, but couldn't put any of that money into improving the big league club short-term? Couldn't they have started the rebuild after 2010 if their short-term contending goal failed?

The term "scorched earth" comes to mind when thinking about the organizational strength that we'd have at that point. Beyond removing a couple major league assets and the young acquisitions, you'd have to think that they would have further depleted our farm system acquiring the help necessary to make this pipe dream slightly less unlikely. Sure, we could start building then...but we'd be looking at 2015 or 2016 at earliest to compete, rather than 2012 or 2013.

[Randle McMurphy]

It should be no surprise which side I fall on this particular argument. In my mind, it's a load of **** for anybody to tell me that Roy Halladay's departure was inevitable. We're not talking about a guy who cares about money, media attention, or playing in a major United States market (like, say, Chris Bosh). We're talking about a guy who loved playing in this city and would have stayed had the team spent the money to put a contender behind him. The fact of the matter, though, is that they didn't. It's not just that they weren't willing to spend money in 2009 and 2010 as Michael Bradley said (and they weren't), it's that they weren't willing to go further in 2006-2008. In years that they were supposed to be contending, they only had an above-average payroll in one of those years (2008; and they were only 12th in the majors). The lack of ownership commitment, of course, didn't stop the Jays from being a very good team (perhaps a top 5 team in baseball over that stretch), but it wasn't anywhere near good enough to compete with the Yankees or the Red Sox. If Rogers was actually determined to build a consistent winner during those years, they would have put more money into the team. They certainly have the financial wherewithal to do it....the Jays are only one operation among their many profitable assets. Even if they had to take a small loss to get things started (on the track to something hugely profitable), it's not like Rogers would be severely impacted from a higher baseball payroll. But they never even decided to take on that risk (if you even call it a risk), deciding on maintaining profitable mediocrity for their shareholders. It's quite clear...Halladay stays if there's a more committed owner during those three years and Toronto shows itself to be serious about winning.

Of course, Rogers also could have continued the facade from 2006-2008 in 2009 as well, and that might also have kept Halladay as a Jay. Instead, they began talking about 2009 as a bridge year (which, unsurprisingly, was more Paul Beeston BS) and the only goal that season became slashing payroll. At that point, of course, there was no chance of keeping Halladay and trading him was the right decision. But it never needed to even get to that point.

Even if the Jays become a winner after this rebuild (and they actually spend money like they say they're going to), I don't think I'll ever fully forgive them for letting the best pitcher of this era get away.

[Randle McMurphy]

Bautista and Halladay are the two WAR leaders in baseball. I can't really envision a scenario in which the Jays could have had both of them at this level right now (the Jays keep Rios if they're trying to be a contender), but it certainly would have been fun.

[Schad]

Of course, Rogers also could have continued the facade from 2006-2008 in 2009 as well, and that might also have kept Halladay as a Jay. Instead, they began talking about 2009 as a bridge year (which, unsurprisingly, was more Paul Beeston BS) and the only goal that season became slashing payroll. At that point, of course, there was no chance of keeping Halladay and trading him was the right decision. But it never needed to even get to that point.

Insofar as we're talking 2006-2008, I agree. However, by 2009 it simply wasn't going to happen. With only one-and-a-half major league-quality starters (Halladay and an erratic Romero) thanks to injury and a very average offense, we were quite a distance from competitiveness, and I doubt that Halladay was going to be willing to sign away the rest of his prime on the basis of "hey, we won 85 games again! It's right over the horizon, we swear!"

[Randle McMurphy]

Of course, Rogers also could have continued the facade from 2006-2008 in 2009 as well, and that might also have kept Halladay as a Jay. Instead, they began talking about 2009 as a bridge year (which, unsurprisingly, was more Paul Beeston BS) and the only goal that season became slashing payroll. At that point, of course, there was no chance of keeping Halladay and trading him was the right decision. But it never needed to even get to that point.

Insofar as we're talking 2006-2008, I agree. However, by 2009 it simply wasn't going to happen. With only one-and-a-half major league-quality starters (Halladay and an erratic Romero) thanks to injury and a very average offense, we were quite a distance from competitiveness, and I doubt that Halladay was going to be willing to sign away the rest of his prime on the basis of "hey, we won 85 games again! It's right over the horizon, we swear!"

JP Ricciardi was a bit of a snake-oil salesman and sold Halladay the facade of contending twice. He might have been able to do it again. Of course, even if Roy Halladay would have stayed, one could argue that maintaining that same track wouldn't have been ultimately beneficial for the organization anyway (which is what I believe you're saying). After all, I think we'd all rather win without Halladay then wallow in mediocrity with him.

So yeah, it comes back to 2006-2008 for me, and it's the reason why I don't have much faith in ownership in the years to come.

[Schad]

And the reverse; I'd rather see Halladay win elsewhere than wallow in mediocrity here.

On convincing him to stay, I think that age played a major part in it. He might have been willing to stick around in his late 20s, but at 32 it would have been a nearly impossible sell; Halladay couldn't really sign a speculative contract if he wanted to have a shot at a Series or two during his prime.

[Michael Bradley]

Not if they felt Scutaro overachieved, which I think everyone and their mother agreed on. While Scutaro was better in 2009, Gonzalez's WAR was better in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and ultimately 2010 (he missed all of 2008). It was a case of signing a better defensive player with more power at a cheaper price. The Red Sox had Gonzalez twice, and they were going for it every year. He wasn't exactly a rebuilding SS option only. Even in a year where they were going for it, Gonzalez + 2 picks beats Scutaro coming off a season he had no chance of repeating.

And then Boston dumped Gonzalez in favour of Scutaro, suggesting that not quite everyone and their mother agreed on valuation.

Another what-if, though...if we're trying to compete, do we use Gonzalez to buy low on Escobar? It was undoubtedly the right move, but it's bloody hard to pull the trigger and trade a guy with a 112 OPS+ on the year for one struggling to top 70 at that point.

And Boston was wrong.

Yes, the Jays probably keep Gonzalez if they are in the race, so that would be one strike against it.

Or, given that in this scenario we're trying to make the playoffs, I'd imagine we'd have gotten a veteran or two; no team hoping to play in October starts Tallet or Eveland.

As for Morrow, patience doesn't begin to cover it; through 10 starts (almost a third of the season) his numbers were awful; some of his peripherals weren't, but overall it was pretty ugly. He was walking nearly 6 batters per 9, his ERA was approaching 7, and he completed six innings only once in his preceding five starts. I can't fathom that you would have preached patience in such a circumstance...no one would.

Depends on the options available, I guess. Hard to say without knowing the other things (who else did they sign, etc).

I said nothing about them contributing on the major league level yet. What I'm referring to in that regard is the state of affairs if we'd attempted to get into the playoffs and failed...we'd have a rough analogue of this roster (without Drabek and Encarnacion, and probably Gonzalez rather than Escobar) and a considerably weaker minor league system. We wouldn't just be screwed presently; we'd have little base on which to build. As it stands, we have the depth of talent in the minors to start making some big moves to give us a multi-year window in which to compete, rather than shooting our wad in 2010 hoping that we somehow succeeded and kept Halladay.

I agree, but then losing Halladay, Rolen (assuming we kept him), Downs, etc, via free agency gives the team a ton of draft picks to replenish the farm system in what appears to be a strong 2011 draft. So yes, short-term the minor league system would have been shot, but if the team was in a multi-year rebuild, then it really wouldn't have made much of a difference. Most of the current top prospects are 20-year old raw talent anyway.

You think that they didn't try to convince them? C'mon now.

Sure, but why cave in? What benefit did the club gain from trading a good player for 50 cents on the dollar?

With a below-average hitter manning a premium position in our most important season in a decade and a half, I'm guessing that they wouldn't have been sticking with him, no.

Much like with Morrow, it depends on the situation (what is the alternative). Obviously if they kept Rios and Rolen, then Bautista is a bench player (unless they put him in LF). If Rolen is kept and Rios is gone, then any number of things could have happened since essentially RF and LF would have been available. If Rolen and Rios were both gone (as it actually happened) then RF, LF, and 3B are all available, so even if the club was going for it, if they were truly as high on Bautista as they appeared to be he probably could have found a spot on the team in a starting role. Maybe stick Bautista in RF and use $10M to sign Beltre to play 3B (put EE on the bench). That is just one example.

Again...you think that they didn't? The Halladay situation played out over the course of a year; I'm fairly sure at some point in there they tried to convince him to stay.

Even if Rolen says "sorry I still want to go", what is stopping the Jays from telling him "we will only trade you for the right deal...if we don't get that we will keep you"? Unless Rolen held a gun to Ricciardi's head, he wasn't in the driver's seat in that scenario.

The term "scorched earth" comes to mind when thinking about the organizational strength that we'd have at that point. Beyond removing a couple major league assets and the young acquisitions, you'd have to think that they would have further depleted our farm system acquiring the help necessary to make this pipe dream slightly less unlikely. Sure, we could start building then...but we'd be looking at 2015 or 2016 at earliest to compete, rather than 2012 or 2013.

I was not a JP fan, but I think if given the opportunity he would have made enough small moves in 2009 to give the team a chance at 82-85 wins before going for it in 2010 once Marcum and all came back (assuming Beeston was being truthful in his "bridge to 2010" talk....which obviously was a farce). Ricciardi was not the type to trade top prospects for help. I think the closest he came was Bush for Overbay, and that was still a minor move. If AA took over in 2010 with the intention to win, then he may have traded prospects for immediate help, but again it really depends on what was available.

If the club put everything into trying to win in 2009 and 2010 and came up short, I would have been fine with that. Instead they punted those two years, convinced the fanbase that Halladay had to be traded for the betterment of the team (despite not allowing JP to make a single MLB signing in 2009 to at least try to build a competitive team) and are now starting the whole cycle again of "spending when the time is right".

I trusted ownership when Godfrey was there. As much of a meddler he seemed to be, he (as well as Ted) at least seemed to care about the on-field product. Once Paul left and Ted died, I don't trust a single member of the current ownership group. Forcing out the best pitcher of this era because the team was too cheap to spend money to build around him the final two years he was under contract was an embarrassment, IMO. The chances of developing another Halladay are slim and none.