What reason do the Twins have for NOT acquiring Roy Halladay?

by joeiscool12 on Jul 21, 2009 2:10 PM EDT Comment 36 comments

Took this from my blog. Thought it would get more views here, haha. Obviously, it's a little bit ranty, but it's a change of pace from the Freddy Sanchez/middle infielder posts. Am I the only one who would just love to see the Twins make a splash and get THE big trade target?
---

What reason do the Twins have for NOT acquiring Roy Halladay?

We were promised "five aces" entering the 2009 season, but no one has emerged as even one clear ace this year. Nick Blackburn had given the illusion of ace-hood for a few months, but last night proved that not even he is really a stopper.

Kevin Slowey and Glen Perkins have struggled with injures. Francisco Liriano and Scott Baker have been nothing short of disappointing. And Anthony Swarzak is not the answer.

Last year, Milwaukee proved that a mid-market team like ourselves can go out and make a move that's aggressive and make it work when they acquired C.C. Sabathia from the Indians. Certainly, the end result did not finish in their favor, but they not only made their fans excited about last season but also excited over future deals like it should the opportunity arise.

As Twins fans, we go into each season knowing there won't be a big move to make the team better. We know that we are, essentially, stuck with the team we start the season with - what's the fun in that to those of us who follow the hot stove league? And more importantly, to those fans who would like to see another championship?

Halladay has said he wants to play in a quiet environment (check) with a spring training complex in Florida (check). We, undoubtedly, have the pieces to make the move, as noted in this Star Tribune "Your Voices" piece by Doogie Woofson. We also have been down in payroll the past two seasons and are moving into a fresh new stadium that will bring in even more revenue, so we should have the money.

What's stopping the Twins?

Is it the constant need to "win later?" The core players aren't getting any younger, and at least one of them - Joe Mauer - is only signed this year and next and would (apparently) like to see the front office make a move for once before re-signing with the team. Why "win later" when you can "win now?"

We're not going to be completely drained of prospects if we make this move. Additionally, if we let him walk after next year, we get two draft picks or, if things don't work, we can probably swap him out again next year to a contender (though I don't see that happening with Halladay on the team).

I haven't included any numbers in this blog because there's really no point to it. They speak for themselves. Halladay is a clear cut ace. The Twins don't have one. The Central is a winnable division this year, and, with Halladay, next year as well.

This shouldn't be a crazy notion. It shouldn't be an unfathomable option. But the front office has led us to expect less. And that's just wrong.

So, why not, Bill Smith? Why NOT acquire Roy Halladay?

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Halladay going to Phils

The Twins don’t have enough player talent to leverage a trade for Halladay nor do they have the money most likely.

FYI out of market fans, MLB Extra Innings free preview this week on Comcast*****

by PhilliesPhanatic on Jul 21, 2009 2:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I would love it, but I doubt it.

I am still MUCH more interested in Sanchez. And the news that he turned down the teams offer is giving me a bit of (unrealistic) hope.

Baseball is the soundtrack to my summer.

by FoulJack on Jul 21, 2009 2:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you ask exactly the right question

we as fans should expect more. Halladay…the problem is I don’t think the Twins have the pieces the Jays want. They really want a SS prospect, which the Twins don’t have.

But I applaud you for bringing this up. There’s no reason the Twins shouldn’t be aggressive.

by Eric in Madison on Jul 21, 2009 2:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

if they are hell bent on getting a SS prospect

could always try to put something together with a 3rd team.

by guinness junky on Jul 21, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's the bottom line: the Twins don't have the pieces to put together a package.

And that’s the end of the story. Any deal for Doc would take at least one of our current starters, and then at least two or three top flight prospects…and ones that are at double-A or above. Minnesota can’t pull that off.

And let’s not pretend that getting a guy like Halladay would solve all of our problems. Half of our lineup is still producing at below-average levels. There are a lot of holes to fill, and for a team that’s barely above .500 I’m not about to trade the farm even for Halladay.

by Jesse on Jul 21, 2009 2:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Still

it may be harder, but a multiple team deal is possible. No single player will solve all of this teams problems, but having a true ace for the next 1.5 seasons would really help stabilize the rotation.

by guinness junky on Jul 21, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it would do that, if the Twins had the pieces to make it work.

by Jesse on Jul 21, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The reason to me?

The Twins don’t have the pieces. He is either going to Philadelphia in my opinion, or going nowhere.

by Twins Territory on Jul 21, 2009 9:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Reality Check

We hear rumors like this every year, we’re interested in so-and-so, we’ve inquired about what’s-his-face. And at the trade deadline, nothing happens, nothing ever happens. Unless we are sellers. The reason? We want to be winners in the future. Being “next year’s team” has a strange yet familiar feeling to it. me being a viking fan and all.

It’s a little sickening if you ask me. I just have one question for the Twins organization,
When is the future going to come?

Whew! that felt good, I just needed to do a little venting, especially after last night.
Thanks!

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get. ~Homer Simpson

by thewild_viking_twins on Jul 21, 2009 10:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

To play the devils advocate though

I do have to admit that I LOVE being a fan of a team that seems to always be in the mix. I honestly do not know what I would prefer-8 years of suck and then 2 years of great ball, 8 years of suck, 2 years of great ball, ect, versus always being close. I really value the entertainment and excitement this team provides each and every summer, even when they are not slinging blockbuster trades. I do not know if I am explaining this right. Its a weird argument, I will admit.

Baseball is the soundtrack to my summer.

by FoulJack on Jul 21, 2009 11:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

no mon

if they can afford to get halladay they could have kept santana all along

by texanfortwins on Jul 22, 2009 12:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ol' Roy ain't dumb...

…he wants to pitch in the NL.

Are the Twins in the NL?

Bloggin' the bloggers since 1938.

by Johnny Safron on Jul 22, 2009 12:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Halladay Makes Us a Contender

Getting Roy Halladay would not only be enough to make it to the playoffs, it would put us in the position to contend for a WS. You can’t win championships without a true ace. The Twins don’t have one, and that is why they are only playoffs contenders instead of World Series contenders.

I don’t think the issue is whether the Twins have enough prospects to pull this off. After all, it didn’t take that much for the Mets to get Johan from us, did it? The bigger issue for me is would the Twins be willing to pay Roy Halladay what the market says he is worth. Past history (Santana) tells me the answer is a definitive no.

by Sheldon on Jul 22, 2009 8:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pay is not the issue

The bigger issue for me is would the Twins be willing to pay Roy Halladay what the market says he is worth. Past history (Santana) tells me the answer is a definitive no.

The only market involved here is the trade market. Halladay is under contract for next year at a fairly reasonable rate ($15 million), and I don’t think anyone expects the Twins to sign him to an extension. It’s not the need to pay Halladay that’s the problem – it’s the need to “pay” the Jays in order to get him in the first place.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Jul 22, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But money is an issue

If the asking price for Halladay is really as high as everyone seems to think it is, money is a BIG issue. If the Twins give up high level prospects for this guy, along with some major league talent like Perkins or Slowey, we better have Halladay for more than 1 season and 2 months! And guess what? He is going to want to be paid like Johan Santana. In addition, even though $15 million sounds like a reasonable figure to us as fans, the Twins front office shudders at the notion of paying a starting pitcher that kind of money.

by Sheldon on Jul 22, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, to a point

I will agree that the Twins can’t spend willy-nilly like they’re the Yankees or something, but I don’t know that paying Halladay $15 million next year is necessarily out of line – there’s the anticipated revenue bump from Target Field, and there’s no big new expenditure other than hopefully a contract extension for Mauer erasing the last year of his current deal.

If the Twins trade for Halladay, I have no expectation that they’d re-sign him – he’ll command Santana money, or greater, in the open market, and I don’t think revenues will have gone up that much. The prospect of it being a rental (albeit a 1.5-season rental instead of the usual half season) is a large part of why a Halladay acquisition is controversial – if I were a Yankees fan, I’d say “give them the prospects they want” and take the established talent, because since there’s a realistic chance to re-sign him, there’s more long-term value in the trade.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Jul 23, 2009 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

this is totally wrong as the Mets have found out

Santana is the ace of the Mets staff. They thought that by getting him they would have 2 WS rings by now. Reality! You need more than just an ace…

by 33MorneauMVP on Jul 22, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're misreading that a bit

Sheldon isn’t saying that you only need an ace to make noise in the playoffs – if that were the case, Halladay wouldn’t be on the block in the first place, because he’s an ace, and the Jays would be contenders. He’s saying that you can’t win in the playoffs without a bona fide ace, although I’d take issue with that too…

The only time in the last decade that the Twins got out of the first round of the playoffs was in 2002, when their “ace” was either Brad Radke or Rick Reed. Obviously, an ace helps, but I think that if you have 3-4 solid starters, you don’t necessarily have to have a Cy Young-type ace.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Jul 22, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clarification

Obviously, a team needs more than just an ace to win a WS. However, look at the World Champions of the past several years.

2008: Phillies had Cole Hamels
2007: Red Sox had Beckett and Dice-K
2006: Cardinals had Carpenter
2005: White Sox had Buerhle and Garland (who had a career year)
2004: Red Sox had Schilling and Pedro
2003: Marlins had Beckett
2002: Angels had Lackey (who actually wasn’t even their ace at the time, but I can’t remember who was)
2001: D-Backs had Schilling and Randy Johnson
2000-1998: Yankees had Clemens and Pettite

I’ll stop there since I’m too young to remember back much further. Keep in mind that we are trying to compete with teams like Boston and New York who not only have one ace but two most years. Who is the Twins ace? The very fact that you had to stop and think about that question proves my point that we need to get one.

by Sheldon on Jul 22, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The reason is

The asking price is more than the Twins are able to pay. Rumor has it, two young starters and three other top prospects.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jul 22, 2009 9:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think my main point here...

Isn’t about Roy Halladay necessarily. Sure, that’s the ideal situation, but he’s really just an example.

The real issue here is that the Twins are NEVER willing to go out and get the top tier player, and it’s starting to become very frustrating. I understand the need to keep a strong farm system as a small market team, but at some point, shouldn’t it be time to “win now,” too?

Some people touched on this.

Check out my blog:
http://joeiscool.tumblr.com/
Sports, Humor, Authorship, and more!

by joeiscool12 on Jul 22, 2009 12:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, yes, and yes

by Eric in Madison on Jul 22, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't say they would never do it, they're just really reluctant

Maybe 2010 is the year that changes, as they will have more margin for error in the new park. I don’t know.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jul 22, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Our Starting Pitchers are Overrated

Right now 3 of our starters (Baker, Liriano, and Perkins) have ERAs over 5.00 and Slowey has an ERA of 4.86 (higher than I remember it being, but he did have some atrocious starts before he went on the DL). Our only really solid pitcher is Blackburn, and he is coming off a start in which he was shelled.

by Sheldon on Jul 22, 2009 4:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Because

we don’t have good enough prospects to get him?

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Jul 22, 2009 11:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Becuase if we brought in Halladay

You can say GOODBYE to Mr. Joe Mauer

in about 12 months or so……

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jul 23, 2009 2:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why?

by Eric in Madison on Jul 23, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe he means...

$$$.

But I don’t see it.

Check out my blog:
http://joeiscool.tumblr.com/
Sports, Humor, Authorship, and more!

by joeiscool12 on Jul 23, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily

Halladay is signed through next year… just like Mauer. Signing one may preclude signing the other, since they’d be the two most expensive players on the market in ‘10, but there’s no reason that they couldn’t re-sign Mauer and let Halladay walk. The only way it becomes a problem in relation to Mauer is if the Twins want to front-load a contract extension in the ’10 season and the expense of Halladay makes that impossible to do.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Jul 23, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

whatever

sometimes you just have to go for it. or in the Twins front office mindset sometimes you don’t.

Doofenschmirtz Evil, INC.
Phineas and Ferb

by doofus on Jul 23, 2009 3:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We can't really break the bank for Halladay

^ in both terms of prospects and $$$

when we need to $ pay $ Mr. Joe Mauer.

I just don’t see it happening at all.

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jul 23, 2009 5:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

huh?

I agree to a degree w/r/t prospects, but cash certainly shouldn’t be an issue. halladay’s only under contract for the next season and a half, with what? about $22 million left on his deal? the twins should have relatively few qualms with that money for halladay (type) skills. and i don’t see how trading for halladay in anyway precludes our signing joe to an extension. even if we signed joe to an extension that involves a hefty salary increase, it would only overlap with halladay for a year. i would think rather than precluding our signing joe, it could help the twins at the bargaining table. “hey, look, we are committed to winning NOW and we are willing to make splashy trades to win a championship. don’t you want to play with us?”

by dctwin on Jul 23, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what would we send Toronto that they'd want?

Sabathia was sent to Milwaukee because he was in his last year, the Indians weren’t going to be able to afford to resign him, the Indians were out of it & they were going to lose him for nothing otherwise.

Halladay is signed for another year. He has value to Toronto next year. They’re going to want more than the Indians got.

by BD57 on Jul 25, 2009 9:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs