Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
How, oh how, did everyone get so carried away?


Tuesday July 7

The Rosenthal column,." titled "Jays'-Halladay-all-but-gone-in-Toronto"

In which he reports Ricciardi as saying "We have to see what's out there..."I'm not saying we're going to shop him. But if something makes sense, we at least have to listen. We're (leaning) more toward listening than we've ever been." Ricciardi, says Rosenthal:

 says the Jays will not trade Halladay if they do not receive the right offer, knowing that the team's best chance of competing next season is with the pitcher at the top of the rotation.


Fair enough, but does Rosenthal actually believe that? No.

C'mon.

Once this process starts, it's almost impossible to stop. Rest assured, the Jays are assembling prospect lists and preparing to assign their scouts to investigate rival farm systems. Halladay is a goner. It's just a matter of when and where.


Bastian summed up the Jays' position:

The Blue Jays are not shopping Roy Halladay. That is one thing general manager J.P. Ricciardi wanted to make clear on Tuesday afternoon. What Ricciardi is willing to do is answer his phone and entertain any trade proposals for Toronto's ace.


Wednesday July 8

Buster Olney writes that Ricciardi has spoken to Halladay about the possibility that he will be presented with trade possiibilities over the next few weeks. Ricciardi says "We're not inclined to move him, but we're going to see what's out there."

Jon Heyman at SI talks about what Toronto is going to want in return:

The Jays will want one MLB-ready position player, one top pitching prospect who'll be ready by next year and at least a third top-of-the-line prospect, one competing executive said he heard. Whatever the requirements, the package will have to be huge in terms of talent

The same day, Keith Law offers his perspective.

It’s completely ridiculous. All that Ricciardi said—this is not his fault, I think he was pretty clear—if somebody calls, we’re going to listen. And if we get a great offer that knocks us over we’ll go to Doc, who has a blanket no-trade clause, and talk to him about it. That’s all he said. He never said ‘we’re going to trade him’, he never said ‘he’s available’... Settle down, kids. He’s not going anywhere right now. Halladay loves pitching in Toronto. He loves the organization, really likes Ricciardi—they’ve got a great relationship—likes working with Arnsberg, the pitching coach, so… from his perspective he’s certainly got no desire to go pitch somewhere else at this point.

Okay, did anyone out there expect Keith Law, and Keith Law alone to get it right?

Tuesday July 14

The Boston Globe reports that the Blue Jays will not allow potential trading partners an opportunity to negotiate with Halladay prior to a deal. By now, Ricciardi is already citing the Erik Bedard deal, saying essentially that if Baltimore got all that for Erik Bedard, we ought to get a whole lot more for Roy Halladay.

Wednesday July 15

Brian Eller talks with assistant GM Alex Anthopolous:

"... everyone assumes that something is going to happen with Roy. We haven't said that at all. It's really the point that [general manager] J.P. [Ricciardi] made. If someone calls and asks about Roy Halladay, we'll listen to what they have to say. It doesn't mean we want to trade him, or we're looking to trade him. We can't emphasize that enough."

I finally comment on the whole business. Alas, all I can do is explain my own confusion:

As far as I can tell, the impetus to make the trade does not seem to be coming from the player. And the organization's position going forward has been for some time that 2009 would be a year to retool and 2010 was the targeted year to make a run for the roses. It's hard to see how trading Halladay helps the team contend in 2010, and it's hard to see how not contending in 2009
and 2010 helps the GM continue in his position. Wouldn't he be better off keeping Halladay and trying to win something in 2010? Unless he's under the impression that he can trade Halladay, finish fourth or fifth this year and the next,and still have his job in 2011.

Tuesday July 21

Ricciardi describes the proposed trade of Halladay as "unlikely"

We've got to be highly motivated to move him, so we haven't been highly motivated yet.

Thursday July 23

Ricciardi notes that Halladay had indicated that he wasn't interested at the moment in signing an extension to his current deal, and professes his surprise that no one else seemed to have that particular information. Although Ricciardi himself actually says:

if we went to him with an extension, he'd probably say, 'I'd rather take a chance to see what free agency is.

He'd probably say? It doesn't even sound like they actually had asked him. They probably had, of course, and who among us (save the lawyers!) is always perfectly precise  with how we express ourselves? Especially on live radio. Still - probably not the wisest PR move for the GM. Richard Griffin, naturally, pounces. Ricciardi is promptly accused of laying the groundwork to blame Halladay for whatever happens next.

Friday July 24

After getting pilloried by the local press for his remarks of the previous day, Ricciardi engages in a bit of damage control:

Roy Halladay has not demanded a trade.. We know what he wants and he knows what he wants. He hasn’t given us a list of teams. We’ve run teams by him to see if he has any interest in going there – yes or no. There is no secret, hidden agenda. We’re not playing divide and conquer … and, again, my gut tells me that I just don’t see anything happening.



Saturday July 25

By now the Phillies have emerged as most likely trading partner - the Yankees took themselves out of the discussions almost immediately, Milwaukee and St. Louis are believed to have kicked the tires a little, and Boston is following the proceedings with interest. Ricciardi is reported to have asked the Phillies to part with Kyle Drabek, J.A. Happ, and Dominic Brown in exchange for Halladay. That proves to be too rich for Ruben Amaro's blood.

Sunday July 26

Philadelphia offers J.A. Happ, and three other prospects - outfielder Michael Taylor, pitcher Carlos Carrasco and shortstop Jason Donald. Not good enough. No deal. The Giants deny that they've made inquiries - Brian Sabean says he needs to hold on to his prospects.

Tuesday July 28

Texas steps up to take a run at making a deal. Initial speculation is that Texas will have to sacrifice at least three top prospects - first names mentioned are Neftali Feliz, Derek Holland and Justin Smoak - and because Texas has serious money problems, they'd either like to dump one of their bad contracts on the Jays, or see Toronto pick up some of Halladay's money.

Later that day, Ricciardi is reported to have asked Texas for Holland, Smoak, and Julio Borbon.

Wednesday July 29

Philadelphia sends a lesser package to Cleveland for the reigning Cy Young winner, taking them out of the picture. Ricciardi is quoted as saying:

Nothing is close. Nothing is happening.

Thursday July 30

Boston and the Dodgers are still talking, and Nolan Ryan says that Texas is still making overtures. But Ricciardi isn't budging as far as the Rangers go - his price is now reported to be Holland, Smoak, and two more prospects, probably because the Rangers still want Toronto to pick up some money (the $4.75 million going to Halladay in 2009.)


Friday July 31

T.R Sullivan reports that Halladay himself vetoed the possibility of a trade with Texas.

The Angels make a late bid - the Jays reportedly ask for Erick Aybar, Brandon Wood and one of their rotation starters (Joe Saunders or Jered Weaver)and a "premium prospect," most likely Trevor Reckling. The Angels won't bite that bullet.

Tuesday August 4 (how did I miss this?)

Tom Verducci of SI notes that the Blue Jays came out of the trading deadline with the best pitcher in baseball for the rest of this year and the next, which makes the media conclusion that the Blue Jays were deadline "losers" a little hard to fathom:

Why? Because the media pundits were made to expect a trade of Roy Halladay, so their days of speculation went for naught?
So what did people expect? That the Blue Jays should lower their asking price on the best pitcher in baseball when they didn't have to move him in the first place? Would compromising when they didn't have to do so put them in the "winners" category?
The Halladay Trade Saga | 32 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Chuck - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 12:30 PM EDT (#204289) #

Thankfully we can be temporarily distracted by the equally painful Rios waivers saga.

What, he was placed on waivers? Yes, him and almost literally everyone else. What, someone made a waiver claim? Yes, someone did. Someone probably also made waiver claims on Lincecum and Pujols.

Parker - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 12:59 PM EDT (#204290) #

Sure, everyone gets placed on waivers after the trade deadline.  But why is Rios the only one the media has bothered to cover?  Surely there were bigger-name players signed to questionable contracts claimed on waivers.  If this whole thing is just a media-fabricated story, why Rios specifically?  Does the media have something against Toronto?  Or JP Ricciardi?  Or is it possible Ricciard "leaked" the info himself to drum up interest?

Someone mentioned that after JP is fired from the Jays, he'll likely be able to sign on with ESPN as an analyst.  With that in mind, is it possible that both the Rios and the Halladay media circus were engineered by Ricciardi himself to get his face and name out there more prominently in case he needs to look for a job in the offseason?

Maybe I'm being a little too conspiracy theory-ish.  On the other hand, nobody is ever going to confuse Ricciardi with an honest staight shooter and this hypothesis, while outlandish, isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.

Magpie - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#204291) #
But why is Rios the only one the media has bothered to cover?

Because someone leaked it and it wasn't Ricciardi. You put everyopne on waivers just to see what kind of interest there is in the player. But he's obviously not trying to drum up additional trade interest - the only team he can talk trade with is the one that claimed him.
Parker - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 01:33 PM EDT (#204292) #

Because someone leaked it and it wasn't Ricciardi. You put everyopne on waivers just to see what kind of interest there is in the player. But he's obviously not trying to drum up additional trade interest - the only team he can talk trade with is the one that claimed him.

I'm aware of how revokable waivers work.

Did you stop reading my post after the sentence you quoted?  I never said anything about drumming up additional trade interest, I hypothesized it could be a publicity stunt by Ricciardi himself.  And again, if it's just a simple leak as you say, why Rios, and why only Rios?  I'd really prefer to hear theories on that than a lecture on how waivers work.

Magpie - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 01:50 PM EDT (#204293) #
Did you stop reading my post after the sentence you quoted?

No, I just thought it was too conspiracy-theory-ish to continue with. The theory seems like "If his lips are moving, he's lying." I think that's only true sometimes. And I do think that after eight years as a big league GM, in the AL East, Ricciardi is more than visible enough to interest ESPN, if that's what interests him.

You said "is it possible Ricciard "leaked" the info himself to drum up interest?" That's what I didn't understand. How does the leak drum up interest? All the GMs have seen the waiver wire. (Unless you meant interest in Ricciardi - I assumed you mean interest in Rios.)

Anyway, I do have a theory! Wrote it up the other day:

...someone who was disappointed at not being able to land Halladay for a bucket of used baseballs informed some reporter who was likewise disappointed at not being able to cover the Big Trade he had already assured the world was certain to happen, despite everything the Toronto GM was actually saying. I freely admit that this is a little conspiracy-theorish!
Pistol - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 01:52 PM EDT (#204294) #
But why is Rios the only one the media has bothered to cover?  Surely there were bigger-name players signed to questionable contracts claimed on waivers.

You think so?  What players with $60 million or more left on their contracts do you think were both put on waivers, and claimed by a team that are generally considered (correctly or not) to be overpaid?

That's the story - some team out there put in a waiver claim on a player that most people feel is wildly overpaid. 

If Rios was a free agent at the end of the year the chance that he'd get a 6 year contract are close to zero.  This past year Sabathia and Teixeira were the only players getting contracts over 5 years (and Burnett was the only player that got 5 years).  And even the year before the only free agent getting more than 5 years was A-Rod (think they want a re-do on that?).  Sabathia, Teixeira, Burnett, and Lowe were the only players getting in excess of $60 million (and in excess of $52 million for that matter).  Alex Rios is not in that class.  Yet some team is willing to absorb that enormous contract in this economic environment for Alex Rios, a player who occasionally plays like an All Star and more often plays like someone that shouldn't come close to an All Star game.

You can say he's having a down year & will bounce back, he adds a lot of value with defense, and he can add more value if he's in CF, but it all comes back to 6 years, and $60 million.  No one in Rios' class is getting that many years or that many dollars, particularly the years.


Moe - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#204295) #
Someone mentioned that after JP is fired from the Jays, he'll likely be able to sign on with ESPN as an analyst.  With that in mind, is it possible that both the Rios and the Halladay media circus were engineered by Ricciardi himself to get his face and name out there more prominently in case he needs to look for a job in the offseason?

I know everyone seems to think JP will be gone at the end of the season, but I don't believe that's necessarily true. Maybe Rogers decides to lower the payroll and start over. In that case JP is likely out. Not because he did a horrible job, but because Rogers will need a scapegoat. However, it may not be a given that Rogers decides to go that route, maybe they buy into "we will try and win next year". For example: look at the RedSox and NYY rotation, and the Yankees are getting older etc.You could make a case for 2010 and if Rogers figures it makes sense (i.e. makes money), they could go for it. Btw, the same people that claim JP is gone are the ones who said Halladay is gone.

Also, I think JPs reputation as a GM is not as bad as you may think. I could easily see him getting a new job rather sooner than later if he gets canned.

TamRa - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#204296) #
Rios has five years remaining on his contract after this year. The sixth year is an option.


Here's a THT article on Rios' value and the money quote:

Add all of that up and Rios, who is right in the middle of his prime, is projected to be worth 31.5 runs above replacement. A three-win player like Rios on the free agent market would command somewhere between $12-$15 million per year in the short-term. Did I mention that Rios is making an average of $11.7 million over the next 5 years, and the Blue Jays hold a 2015 option for $13.5 million? In other words, Alex Rios is a bargain. The Blue Jays shouldn't be looking to dump his salary on the waiver wire. They should be looking to build around this guy for the duration of his valuable contract.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/why-should-i-care-about-alex-rios/

Magpie - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 02:07 PM EDT (#204297) #
Yet some team is willing to absorb that enormous contract in this economic environment for Alex Rios

That's only if Toronto effectively gives Rios away for nothing. Which is indeed the gamble that someone (the White Sox??) is taking, but that outcome simply doesn't seem likely. In which case, it's a negotiation. We'll take Rios and you'll kick in some money. Or you'll get this bad contract. And so on and so forth. Until nothing happens. Or something happens.
Jays2010 - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 02:08 PM EDT (#204298) #

JP: Ok Kenny - We know you want a CF...how about Wells?

KW: Hmmm...how much money are you willing to eat?

JP: We'll eat enough money to make him the same price as Rios. $10 million a year...and just for the hell of it, we'll take Josh Fields and Brian Anderson back. So you get a gold glove (ha!) CF with 30 HR power who is hitting like a beast on the road for $57 million over the next 5 years. And what the hell - we'll eat most of Wells' money through the end of the year as well.

KW: Done!

Signed,

A hopeful Blue Jays fan

uglyone - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#204299) #

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=222306&hubname=mlb

''I'd say the same thing if someone was to ask about (ace Roy) Halladay. We'd listen to see if it makes us say, `wow,''' said Ricciardi.

 

That was what JP said back in..........2007.

Still haven't seen him once say anything different this year than he said way back then.

Chuck - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 02:39 PM EDT (#204300) #
we'll take Josh Fields and Brian Anderson back.

Brian Anderson is on the Red Sox.
Jim - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#204301) #
Is the reason I keep seeing Josh Fields here because the Argos need a quarterback?

That guy is terrible. 

brent - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 06:29 PM EDT (#204303) #
I think looking back at Rios' past is a mistake compared to focusing on what he will be doing for the next five years.  Let's just say the contract is the exact value for Rios (some say he's a bargain, others practically a sunk hole). I think you would want to reallocate that money to the infield when the team will have 3 outfielders anyway. With the free agent market probably depressed, payroll flexibility could be an outstanding opportunity for this team. Making sure you have money for those first 5 as of yet unsigned draft picks is a good reason too.  
TamRa - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 07:13 PM EDT (#204304) #
I think looking back at Rios' past is a mistake compared to focusing on what he will be doing for the next five years.  Let's just say the contract is the exact value for Rios (some say he's a bargain, others practically a sunk hole).

Wait and See what Crawford gets as a Free Agent - that will be a good sign what Rios is worth on the market.


 I think you would want to reallocate that money to the infield when the team will have 3 outfielders anyway. With the free agent market probably depressed, payroll flexibility could be an outstanding opportunity for this team.

Not a bad point but two things muat be said -
1. IF he's worth it, then simply reallocating the money is not a good enough reason to give away a guy who's worth that price. Wait until the off-season and trade him for players with value. For instance, just pulling something out of the air - trade him and a pitcher for JJ Hardy and Brett Lawrie. (The Brewers will need a replacement for Cameron and always need pitching, Hardy has only a year left but it off-sets some of Rios' pay in 2010 and they have a replacement ready - not saying I'm dying to have Hardy here, it's an example)
Or trade him with EE to the White Sox for Ramirez.

Point is, if he has value, you don't have to give him away in order to reallocate the funds.

2. the free agent market for the sort of infielders (or catchers) we need this offseason is ABYSMAL. Having money to reallocate does little good if there's nothing of value to buy.


Making sure you have money for those first 5 as of yet unsigned draft picks is a good reason too. 


There's not the remotest chance the Jays won't sign those guys, IMO. MAYBE paxton gets a bit pissy because he's a Boras man but that's not because the Jays lack money.

Heck, if it were remotely close the Jays would have acted in other ways to save money already this year. It's not like it's going to take vast amounts.
Dave Till - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 07:30 PM EDT (#204305) #
The common thread between the Halladay and Rios stories is that there seems to be an assumption that the Jays are desperate to shed salary, preferably right away.

Ken Rosenthal predicted as far back in April that the Jays would have to trade Halladay to save money; the link is here.

If Rogers actually wants to implement a severely reduced budget, dumping Rios via waivers is an obvious way to do it. I don't honestly think they're going to do that, but you never know.
Dewey - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 07:32 PM EDT (#204306) #
Off topic a tad, I suppose.  On the other hand, I see my comments here as related to the Halladay circus.

I went to the dome today (yes, I do call it that, still) for the first time in several years.   I had been offered splendid seats in Section 122,  right behind home plate.  The good guys prevailed;  and Doc got his 12th win;  and I was handed a Tom Henke figurine that I don't know what to do with.  I saw two quite unusual things:  Marco Scutaro made an error, and Kevin Millar went 3 for 4, with a homer.   Also saw lots of really fat/obese people, and a goodly collection of the truly strange people you often see around a ballpark.  The roof was both fully closed, and then fully open.  All in all,  enough to remind me why I used to have seasons' tickets for many years.

But there's still way too much noise of a manufactured sort, too many mindless 'contests', and countless tawdry efforts to squeeze money from unwary visitors.  I really pity a family coming to the ballpark.  It's all about selling.  A vast concession area, with a playing-field attached.  Why do we have to do this to everything we have that's half-way good?  There's a 36 page catalog of the items for sale in The Jays Shop!  A plastic bottle of coke was $4.50.  A “large” beer  was $10.00.  (Keith's was the only beer I  could find other than Bud and Bud Light [ie., coloured water], which latter were being hawked as “domestic” at some counters.)  So there was also, unfortunately, more than enough to remind me why I gave up my seasons' tickets, for good.   I might try a minor league game again sometime,  to see if they still have more of the feel of a ball game about them, and that I'm not just an item in a business transaction.
Spifficus - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 08:08 PM EDT (#204307) #

Point is, if he has value, you don't have to give him away in order to reallocate the funds.

Further to that, the free agent rarely produces bargains, and you often have to overpay to get what you want. Heck, even the oft-bandied bargain of Bobby Abreu was actually market value for his 2008 (fangraphs had it as $5.6M). Given he was a 35 year old "OF" with declining offensive skills, this was the right valuation. He's had a nice bounceback that's just in time to have some other team overpay for him this winter. Think Frank Thomas.

Anyway, if a SS coming off major back surgery can get $40M/4y, and Manny can get $45M/2y with only one team bidding against itself in March, a 36 year old pitcher got $60M/4y in mid January (aka when everyone knew the market was screwed), Bradley's $30M/3y at the beginning of January, and so on, and so on. These were all the 'bottom of the market' contracts.

The free market overpays. Rios is being paid for expected performance going forward, not for past performances (like the market likes to do). If he ends up getting put in centre like he should, his value will finally be maximized by the team.

Spifficus - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 08:13 PM EDT (#204308) #
Dewey, your vendor experience would have been much improved if only you had found the ones with Stella.
Mike Green - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 08:49 PM EDT (#204309) #

Dewey, your vendor experience would have been much improved if only you had found the ones with Stella.

Word.  Now, if they only let us bring food in, like the old days.

MatO - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 10:02 PM EDT (#204310) #

Is the reason I keep seeing Josh Fields here because the Argos need a quarterback?

That guy is terrible

Wow.  I finally agree with Jim on something.

VBF - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 10:05 PM EDT (#204311) #
You can definitely bring in your own food. Dewey, check out the seasons pass. 100 bucks for all home games, make some friends with ushers downstairs, done and done. And put your Henke figuring on your mantlepiece.



Ozzieball - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 10:31 PM EDT (#204312) #
You think so?  What players with $60 million or more left on their contracts do you think were both put on waiver

The Yankees would claim Andruw Jones off of waivers almost every year. Or at least that's what the media would report. Since these things are supposed to be confidential you never really know.
subculture - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 11:15 PM EDT (#204313) #
Rios gives me a headache as much as the next guy (ambling down to 1st base on double-plays, loss of focus way too often on defense), but he has so much talent that he still has plus value, with a very reasonable contract imo.  If you trade him, we'd probably end up paying almost as much to some FA who might have better baseball instincts but less of an impact.  How many good right-fielders are likely to be available at a lower cost than him?

I'm more ready to give up on Wells, b/c he's being paid franchise money and is nowhere near that kind of player.  I'd keep him at Rios money, and since that ship has sailed, think that it would actually be easier to find a speedy CF type of player to replace him vs a good RF.

Snyder and Lind are obviously keepers, but at LF and DH, unless Snyder can surprise us at RF?  In which case I'd support shifting Rios to CF but have trouble believing that even with Wells declining range, we wouldn't be losing a lot with Snyder instead of Wells in the OF.

TamRa - Sunday, August 09 2009 @ 11:46 PM EDT (#204314) #
Ken Rosenthal predicted as far back in April that the Jays would have to trade Halladay to save money; the link is here.

And Rosey is writing again today that the only smart thing for the Jays to do is let Rios go for nothing.

He might not be smart but he's persistant. he never let's being wrong once stop him from going out and being wrong again - at least when it comes to the Jays.


92-93 - Monday, August 10 2009 @ 12:16 AM EDT (#204315) #
Word.  Now, if they only let us bring food in, like the old days.

This is a common misconception among Jays fans, not sure why. From Rogers themselves -

"Can I bring food to the event?

ARAMARK, Rogers Centre's concessionaire, has put together menus that appeal to all tastes. Rogers Centre does allow guests to bring food in as long as the items are wrapped, bagged or left inside a container to avoid spillage."
#2JBrumfield - Monday, August 10 2009 @ 12:41 AM EDT (#204317) #
The big problem is people sneaking in booze!  Security is so lax! 
ramone - Monday, August 10 2009 @ 01:00 AM EDT (#204318) #

In a non food related comment I just found this regarding the Alex Rios situation from Baseball Prospectus and their weekend wrap up report:

"MLB Rumors and Rumblings: The Blue Jays are considering allowing the White Sox to take outfielder Alex Rios and the $59 million left on his contract on a straight waiver claim if they are unable to work out a trade."

I believe this would be a big mistake for Jays and show that Rogers has definelty asked to reduce payroll, I can't imagine the money being re-invested in the team next year if they let Rios go for nothing. 

Jim - Monday, August 10 2009 @ 08:20 AM EDT (#204320) #
I don't think they are reducing payroll.  They need to shed a ton of money just to hold the payroll steady.  They can't field a roster at $80 million when you have $70 million tied up in 7 players. 

If they let Rios go on this claim they have more leverage when they try and trade Halladay. 

FranklyScarlet - Monday, August 10 2009 @ 09:36 AM EDT (#204324) #
Don't be suprised when the Jays let Rios go and bring up Snider.
Maybe then they can negotiate to resign Scutaro.
Rob Bradford of Boston's WEEI reported :

According to a report in the Boston Herald, the Red Sox made "a big play" in an effort to acquire Blue Jays shortstop Marco Scutaro prior to the July 31 deadline for making trades that did not require waivers. But, according to the report (which cited a major-league source), the Jays decided to keep their team relatively intact and pulled Scutaro off the market once they determined that they would not trade Roy Halladay.

And the sox just made a claim on Christian Guzman.



Forkball - Monday, August 10 2009 @ 10:07 AM EDT (#204325) #
It sounds like the Jays won't give up Rios for nothing.  From Olney http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4388244&name=olney_buster:
The Jays have little more than 24 hours to decide whether to move outfielder Alex Rios, and every talent evaluator I've spoken with thinks that the Jays would crazy to let this opportunity pass, and that one way or the other, they should make sure they dump Rios's contract. But this should be noted: There was a National League team that called about Rios before the trade deadline and expressed interest in trading for the outfielder, so long as the Jays ate a pretty good portion of the contract, and that team was told in no uncertain terms that not only would the Jays not eat money, but the interested team should be prepared to give up major prospects for him. And that was only a couple of weeks ago.
I guess we'll see what happens when push comes to shove tomorrow.  I still think we'll see a Rios for a lower level prospect trade with the Jays eating no money.
uglyone - Monday, August 10 2009 @ 12:30 PM EDT (#204328) #
not surprised that the Sox made a big play for Scutaro - he plugs the hole in their infield and the hole in their leadoff spot pretty much perfectly.
The Halladay Trade Saga | 32 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.