Given the state of the AL East, I'd put my life savings on the field at 1:60. Which, ignoring the juice, would probably result in a profit of about $5.

The Red Sox got Hermdia for what looks at first glace to be nothing. 

By ESPN.com news services The Red Sox acquired outfielder Jeremy Hermida from the Florida Marlins Thursday in exchange for left-handed pitchers Hunter Jones and Jose Alvarez.

Jones is barely worth a 40 roster spot.  Alvarez had a good year in the NYPL as a starter at age 20 then was used as a reliever in the Carolina League for a dozen games.  According to soxprospects.com he's a smallish lefty that throws 88-91 and a change in the low 70's. 

I guess if you are Florida it's better then a non-tender, but you know Boston wanted to acquire Hermida badly.

Hmm, not much really for Hermida at all, I was hoping AA would snag him.  Perhaps AA has better plans for a right fielder, but if Jose Bautista is the starting right fielder come next season this will definelty look like a missed opportunity. 

It's too bad Vegas bets aren't tradeable. When Halladay is traded, we'll drop to the 75:1/ 100:1 category, which would theoretically allow one to sell a tradeable Vegas bet at a profit.

I think they're being generous - though the team that will hit the field on Opening Day remains so uncertain, that it's hard to nail a number down. 60:1 strikes me as being in the right peer group, though.

If the teams were all equal they would be 30:1.  60:1 is a joke, as are the vast majority of the odds.  Toronto should probably be something like 500:1. 

I am almost sure that the club will not be attempting to compete in 2010, at the outset.  In which case, 60-1 is ridiculous.  FWIW, Baltimore might reasonably try to compete in 2010.  If so, their odds might be 50-1 or so. 

But remember, these odds don't represent the teams' actual chances of winning. They represent what the bookies figure the gamblers will imagine are the teams' actual chances of winning.

Does this mean the Baldelli experiment is over and the Hermida experiment begins?

But remember, these odds don't represent the teams' actual chances of winning. They represent what the bookies figure the gamblers will imagine are the teams' actual chances of winning.

Exactly. The odds are set to allow action on both sides to be about even. Sure, 500:1 might be more realistic for some of the long shots, but then no one would bet against the teams. At 60:1, a bet against the Jays would clear a tidy 1.7% profit (give or take) over the course of 12 months. Not terrible, actually, given the state of the stock market in the past two years, but at the outskirts of what you can make on bank deposits anyway. But of course, you might lose it all (again, the stock market and bak deposits...). And it's better to hold off until April when the same odds will apply hopeful spring training stories drive the odds to 45:1 as fans bet, and you make the same total in only 6 months.

I'd imagine that a lot of professional gamblers make money off the long odds teams every year. There are 15-20 NBA teams with no realistic shot at all, and probably 10-15 MLB teams (although before free agents sign, you can't be sure). Throw a bunch of money against the bad teams, and cash in a small profit every spring and fall. The NHL and NFL would be a lot harder to be so confident in before the season starts. I wonder if Vegas lets you combine bets against teams for better odds...a teaser of the Royals, Pirates and NAtionals seems pretty secure...

Where are you allowed to bet against these odds?  I do not know of anywhere in the world you can do that. 

Buster Olney today.....

Heard this: You are probably not going to see the Blue Jays openly shop Roy Halladay, as we did before the trade deadline in the summer. Rather, the conversations will grow organically, naturally, from the talks that occur between all teams this time of year -- and everybody knows the parameters: Halladay is going to be a free agent after the 2010 season, he wants to play for a winner, and any team interested in acquiring him must be prepared to part with good young players. Presumably, the asking price for Halladay would be less than it was before the deadline, when the Jays organization seemed to still be wrestling with the notion of whether it wanted to move Halladay at all. Now, with Halladay's free agency not far away, it appears fairly clear he will be with some other team a year from now, and probably before then.

Seems obvious to me.  The Jays are heading for rebuilding and moving Roy will be the first move.  Roy wants to play in the playoffs and there is little chance of that happening with the Jays for the next year or two.

It makes perfect sense to trade Halladay, sadly enough, if the price is right.  He is a near Cy Young guy last year and is expected to be for the next year or two.  An ideal guy to have if you are playoff bound as the Yankees and Phillies showed (having an ace makes a major difference vs a team with 5 solid but not spectacular starters) as have many other teams over the years (the Twins in 87 were an extreme example). 

Get a top quality (All-Star level expected) young SS and/or CA plus a few solid league average or slightly below guys (ie: that is the level they are expected to be at) and you have to go for it I think.  The Expos trade of Gary Carter for a young potential star pitcher/solid catcher/star 3B-SS/4th outfielder is a good example of what to look for (even if that star pitcher never quite developed).

The problem is that the Indians set the market with Lee and your package above is light years ahead of what they got.

I'd rather the Jays take the draft picks than accept an insufficient trade for Halladay. Why reward people for lowballing you? Plus it'd let us watch Halladay finish the season in Toronto, and that has some value of its own.

I think the Mets could be a player for Halladay.

They have some attractive prospects finally.  Jennri Mejia and Fernando Martinez could headline an attractive package from the Mets.

'Setting the market' and what the market will deliver are two totally different things.  Cleveland was desperate (for whatever reason) to dump Lee mid-season.  Toronto should not be to dump Halladay. 

Sometimes you trade for quantity, sometimes for quality.  The Jays should be in the 'quality' area right now.  Positions with a clear issue are SS and CA.  Ones with not as obvious (to Joe Fan) are 3B and CF.  At short and catcher you can always sign a guy who is defense only (ala McDonald or Chavez) and get away with it for the short term.  Third and CF have guys there who may or may not be worthwhile.  Ideally we'd upgrade at both but the situation isn't one where the Jays have a half dozen holes with no one to fill them.  With no trades they will have a competitive team (ie: one that can play 500) even if Scutaro and Barajas bolt by just acquiring cheap free agents. 

If they trade Halladay they better get a high potential shortstop or something high level at another position as they'll deeply regret it later if they don't.  This is AA's big test this winter - trade Halladay for various 'league average' guys and we can expect another decade of frustration with a 500 team.  Trade him for a high level prospect/ML ready guy and there is hope.  Keep him and there is still hope for the future, depending on other moves.

Focussing in on a team with a great SS prospect would significantly reduce the market for Halladay.  I would not recommend that.  Unless you could provide some decent examples.  These close to the majors, good bat, good defence shortstops don't grow on trees and are very difficult to pry away in a trade.

Yet Minnesota got Hardy for Carlos Gomez.

Hardy's a prospect?

Nothing has lost more value then highly compensated players who don't have time left to be under team control.  Lee is only a half a tick below Halladay but had a less expensive contract so they were pretty much equal assets last summer. 

The only team that really lines up really well with Toronto for a Halladay trade is Boston right now.  Teams like Texas and the Dodgers don't have the money.  Teams like the Mets don't have the players to trade.  Plus Halladay is only going someplace he is convinced they have a shot to win. 

It's a pretty narrow market since about 2/3rds of baseball can't add 8 million dollar salaries.  So few partners means that the Jays are going to have an extremely difficult time getting anything close to Halladay's value.  Holding him is fine I guess, but it extends the rebuild and makes 2011-2012 that much uglier.

Where would he think he could win?
New York (they now just wait for players to become free agents, a very wise shift)
Boston (I'd say easily the best fit - and 2nd most annoying fit)
Detroit? - no way can they afford
Chicago WS? - they would have to move a lot of money around
Anaheim - This is probably the second best fit
Texas - Can't make a move like that until ownership is fixed
Mets - Have very little in farm system, I guess if they wanted to cash what they do have could work
Phillies - Funny
Atlanta - looking to move $ not add
Cubs? If you squint hard enough maybe they could move enough money around? 
LA - they are going to be handcuffed
SF - I'd say they are probably the 4th best fit - don't know if Roy would consider them close enough
Col - They would have the parts but probably not the $

So maybe the market is: Boston, Anaheim, Mets, SF...

Hardy will still be 27 next July 1st.  He had a good bat at one point and according to the numbers might be a top 2-3 defensive SS.  Sorry he's not technically a 'prospect'.
 
The Jays are not in any position to be rigid about what they get back in deals. 

I agree Jim that the Jays shouldn't be rigid.  You take the best package or keep him.  Obviously it would be nice if that included a 22 stud SS at AAA, but that's a long shot.

Does a 22 year old AAA stud shortstop even exist in any organization? 

There is a pretty severe dearth of middle infield prospects, I think Kevin Goldstein wrote a lot about it last year.

Andrus/Beckham/Escobar all look great, they are also all locked into their organizations now.

Was there ever a year the Jays should sign a type A free agent?  Potentially, they wouldn't lose any of their top 5 picks.  There first round pick would be protected.  Paxton compo pick would be prior to the forfeited second rounder, as would the potential three compo picks for Scutaro and Barajas.  And they'd have the Eliopolis pick shortly after the forfeited second rounder.

So, for argument sakes, if Boston signed Scutaro and Olivo was preferred to Barajas, the Jays could sign Cabrera as a one or two year stop-gap at short and not lose any of their top 5 picks.

[Enter joke about Jays not signing any of them anyway here.]

Twins get J.J. Hardy for the equivalent of Travis Snider.   I'd make that deal.   White Sox get (soon to be non-tendered) Mark Teahen for two 26 year-old infield rookies.   I`d make a deal here.   Red Sox take a chance on Jeremy Hermida for the equivalent of Brad Mills and an A-level minor league LHP.   I`d make that deal.   All player have two years of arbitration left.   Three cheap inexpensive deals, while not being the answer, will fill some holes.   So the question I`m asking is: ``Why did AA miss this, or, has he got something better in mind``.

guess he wants to go younger. I'm looking forward to knowing his plans. Any day now I hope.

The tea leaves seem to be saying 'younger, younger, younger' and 'rebuild'.  But given Rogers need for programming that would be a big risk as the bean counters would want an increase in TV ratings.

So, how best to do both 'getting younger' and being 'in contention'? 

If Halladay is traded it has to be for close to the majors guys who could play in 2010.  The only positions that should be looked at are CF/SS/CA and maybe 3B.  Starting pitching is a strength in numbers but do we have high quality?  If some team is out there with a stud but no horses around him a deal could be made but I don't see it.  More 2B/1B/LF/RF/DH prospects are not something we need at the moment unless it is a potential HOF level talent as we have Hill/Lind/Snider/Overbay/etc. and these are the positions you can normally find someone to fill (and yes, I know what was used in DH/1B this year).

Trading Halladay for 'best package' could just lead to more resources in one area and not enough elsewhere.  Best talent for low minors/draft makes sense as they are a few years away but for majors/AAA you need focus or you get caught playing Garth Iorg at 2B all year (brrr... 1987).

Twins get J.J. Hardy for the equivalent of Travis Snider.   I'd make that deal.


To clarify: you would trade Snider for J.J. Hardy?

And Gomez has been something of a disappointment...his bat was always going to be a question mark, but he had a disastrous campaign last year, posting his third straight OBP under .300 and spending a good portion of the year on the bench. He's still a guy with a fair amount of value, but I wouldn't place him in the same category at Snider at this point. Nor would I even consider trading Snider for Hardy.

I'm going to throw some hyperbole out there.  If AA traded Snider straight up for Hardy, I would call for AA to be fired on the spot.  I don't think there's a GM in the league who makes that deal.  I would like to have Hardy, but he's rapidly becoming expensive and didn't hit for much last year.

The teams active in the Roy Halladay Sweepstakes should be Boston Red Sox, New York Mets, Los Angeles Dodgers, Chicago Cubs.   Long-shots would be Milwaukee Brewers, Los Angeles Angels, Atlanta Braves.   What main components should we ask for of the main four: Boston - Clay Buchholtz, Daniel Bard plus ???; L.A.D. - Chad Billingsly or Clayton Kershaw, Matt Kemp or Andre Ethier or Russel Martin plus ???; NYM - Jose Reyes, plus???;  CHC - ???????   We need one long term needed piece - SS or C - plus another hole filled, if only two years, plus a top prospect, w/wo another prospect or two.

The Jays have out-righted Kyle Phillips, Davis Romero and Bill Murphy to AAA thereby taking them off the 40 man roster and exposing them to a claim from any other team.  Murphy had already been announced.  These moves leave the team with 38 players on the 40 man.

The Dodgers aren't going to be able to make moves where they pick up 8 figure salaries with the McCourts going through a messy divorce.

Snider for Hardy might be the worst trade proposal I've ever seen here and that is saying something.