Manny vs Holliday vs Burrell

I threw in my 2 cents on Johnny's Manny vs Holliday, but I'll expand my thoughts over here. Realistically, I don't think trading for Holliday is reasonable without giving up 2-3 of our big prospects or current major leaguers, and by that I mean any of: Marcum, McGowan, Snider, Lind, Cecil, JP Arencibia. If you think I'm making this up, check out this article by Jayson Stark:

• Happy Hollidays: Clubs that have felt out the Rockies about Matt Holliday's availability say that if they do decide to dangle their biggest star, they are not using last July's Mark Teixeira deal as their blueprint. Instead, the Rockies are telling other teams that:

Holliday

(A) They don't need quantity. Since their young core group is basically in place virtually all over the diamond and their farm system is in good shape, they don't need to rebuild their system with one trade, as Texas did.

(B) They would want "impact" back, but aren't asking for a specific number of impact players. They could settle for a two-player package if it's the right two. They could even, conceivably, take one player back -- assuming the one player was in the Jay Bruce/Evan Longoria/Cameron Maybin mega-impact category.

(C) They wouldn't even necessarily ask for young players. The only condition would be getting back someone they could control longer than Holliday, who can be a free agent after 2009.

(D) If they move any bats at all, they would be in a mode to trade Holliday or Garrett Atkins, but not both. All of this, by the way, is contingent on the Rockies finding themselves clearly and hopelessly out of contention next month. And there are no signs at the moment they've even remotely considered themselves done.

Well, the Rockies did find themselves out of the race, and are currently 9 games back. So had they gotten a deal for "impact" type players, one would assume Holliday would be gone. And like I said earlier, unless you're willing to deal the impact type prospects for Holliday, you might as well kiss that theory goodbye.

Sorry Johnny - Holliday's a terrific player, and exactly what this team needs, but Dowd wants the top guys in the system, not Cecil and filler. Which is too bad, because Holliday would make a great fit in TO.

As for Manny - there's another important reason why I don't want to sign him - again, I'll take some quotes from another article by Jayson Stark:

"It really bothers me," one GM said this week of the Manny-mania lovefest that has unfolded in L.A. "What he did in Boston was criminal. Now he goes there, and everything's OK? No, sir. It doesn't change the fact that how he got there was criminal."

....

If Manny Ramirez wanders into the free-agent market this winter and gets anything close to the four years and $100 million he believes he'll get, think about the message that would send, the precedent that would set. It would, in effect, be an open invitation to every selfish superstar in baseball to pull a Manny. Act up. Stop hustling. Stop trying. Refuse to play. Make up an injury. Whatever you have to do to get back out there on the free-agent market. It's all worth it. Why not? If bad behavior winds up delivering a $100 million reward for Manny Ramirez, why wouldn't two or three, or 50 or 100, other great players think, "Heck, it worked for him. Why not me?"

Normally I wouldn't care about about stuff that can't be quantified - if it can't be put into a statistic I'll ignore it. But they bring up a good point - if Manny can do what he did and get paid, then others are going to do the exact same thing. And I don't want the Jays to be the ones to 'reward' him for what he did in Boston.

As for Burrell - he's a free agent after the season, and I hope the Jays are smart enough to make him a fair offer (probably in the 16-20 million range over several years). He'll be a type A free agent, but hopefully AJ will be one too so in the end we should break even.

Burrell's known to be a poor defender, but he ranks quite high on ZR for LF with enough playing time. He's fourth on the list with 885. I assume he must have quite the arm because he leads qualifying LF with 12 outfield assists. It's possible he could even play LF over Lind, but I'd have to watch how he does in order to really compare the two. Otherwise, he'd be an excellent DH.

Fun facts:

• He's currently hitting 264/388/546 (934 OPS, 138 OPS+).
• Over the past 3 years (05-07) he hit 266/392/503 (895 OPS).
• Since 05 his lowest OPS+ is 122
• Since 05 he's hit between 29-32 HR's a season.
• During the 05-07 split he hit lefties to the tune of 294/434/552 (986 OPS) and against righties he hit 257/374/483 (857 OPS).
• This year his vs RHP/LHP splits are nearly identical - 932 vs RHP and 942 against LHP.

So why is Burrell the better option?

Holliday is the better hitter, and maybe even a better fielder. But there's no chance we acquire him without giving up several of our top young players. And I don't know if that's something we're really willing to give up. I don't see it happening, to be honest.

Manny - He's a terrific hitter, but he shouldn't be rewarded for the crap he pulled in Boston. I realize how lame it is, and that Ramirez has a 149 OPS+ between Boston and LA. But if you're not willing to sign Bonds because of the crap he pulled, I find it hard to make an argument to sign Ramirez for that bullshit.

And yes, I know this is the type of lame argument that gets laughed off by FJM.

Burrell - He's not on the same level of Manny or Holliday, but he's a terrific hitter nonetheless. He clogs the bases, he takes his walks, and he's a pretty safe bet to hit 30 HR's a year. He hits righties, and he crushes lefties. And while some would argue that his home park in Philly helps his production, if he came to TO he'd still be in a pretty good hitters park so you wouldn't need to worry about a drop off in production.

Burrell is exactly what the Jays need right now. Git-R-Done.

Edit: I'll be out of town for the next week, so I hope all of you have a nice end to the summer.

Twitchy.

Manny v. Holliday?

In addition to being a cyborg sent back from the future to kill John Connor while hitting .340 for the Rockies on a yearly basis, Matt Holliday is a Big Scary Bat that's probably going to be on the trading block this winter as our confrere at DJF, Parkes, so kindly brought to our attention the other day.

We've got the ball rolling about on off-season roster moves and you the fans want to talk about this, so let's talk about this...

Some factoids, in bullet points:

* Holliday is under contract for 2009 at the modest price of $13.5 million, which might not even be enough to bring in one of the "B" DHs like Jim Thome or Jason Giambi this offseason

* Scott Boras is Holliday's agent and they will be looking for a "franchise player"-type deal the Jays cannot afford (because of Vernon Wells...), so it's one and out if he is acquired via trade

* Holliday, 29 to start next season, has been OPS-ing well over .900 on the road this year for those who dismiss him as a Coors' Field creation. His cumulative OPS+, park neutral, is about 150 over the past three years. That translates into Canadian.

* He's also probably the most slam dunk Type A potential free agent you can imagine, and if he walks at the end of 2009, there will be sweet compensatory draft picks. Sweeter than the caramel at the centre of a Skor bar.

* Travis Snider might be ready for spring 2009, but will almost certainly be a more polished hitter after a full year at AAA, pencilled in for full-time ML duties in 2010

Do you see where I'm going with this? While it's "only cash" to sign a free agent DH, you do end up giving up a compensatory draft pick along with laying your money on the table. And let's not forget that the sum you pay out for a free agent is going to be millions in excess of the cost of Holliday... for an inferior hitter who can't play defense, but that's another argument. So you do lose "something" by going with a free agent rather than trade.

If you do trade for Holliday instead you don't lose the pick in addition to gaining another one when he walks at the end of the year. You do lose prospects in the trade package that brings him in, but you'd at least be setting yourself up nicely to bring in equivilant talent in the next draft.

What would the Rockies be looking for as a trade package? Reasonable expectations would probably be something along the lines of what Pirates' GM Neal Huntington got in return for Jason Bay at the deadline. I know Bay's not the same calibre of hitter as Holliday, but he was controllable for 1 years + 2 months at the time of the deal whereas it's only one year for Holliday. Those prospects who went to Steeltown again? Craig Hansen, Brandon Moss, Andy Laroche, and Bryan Morris.

Laroche was/is a blue chipper who became the Buc's starting third baseman, Hansen is a non-descript reliever who has shown little of note in 2+ partial seasons in the bigs, Brandon Moss is looking like a more-than-serviceable 4th OF (no offense there, you get plenty of ABs in that role in the NL), and Morris is a 21-year-old reliever in A ball whose a long way off. Essentially what you're talking about here is a 4 for 1 prospect package made up of one "A" level talent and 3 guys you'd be charitable to call Bs.

The Rox will be impolitely rebuffed if they ask for Travis Snider, so there's no point even mentioning him here. I think I'd also assume the Lind is off table as well after earning himself a permament spot on the 25-man roster.

The Rox greatest need for 2009 is, of course, pitching, while they'd probably also like to upgrade at 2B and would likely be interested in an OF to take Holliday's place. I would also note that their only reliable lefty in the pen, Brian Fuentes, is likely to depart via free agency. A guy like Brian Tallet would not be useless to them.

I'd reckon that if they really want to seriously enter into negotiations with the Rockies on Holliday, the Jays have to be willing to entertain a package centred around either Scott Campbell or Brett Cecil. Those are real, legitimate blue chippers and you're not going to reel in an elite talent like Holliday without sacrificing one of them. The other 3 names you add on are interchangeable, but we could live without arms like Davis Romero, Brad Mills, or pretty much any other pitcher in the system. Major leaguers Jason Frasor and Brian Tallet are not useless, though they're going to be redundant here in 2009.

You might be thinking that Cecil or Campbell + is just too much to stomach for one year of Matt Holliday, and if that's your opinion you're entitled to it. I disagree. But keep in mind that Manny might well prove cost prohibitive (and he's 37 going into next year) and also ask yourself whether *declining, high-injury risk* sluggers like Giambi or Thome would even entertain the idea of coming to Toronto after what happened to Frank Thomas. Hell, the Mariners might even throw a wack of cash at Raul Ibanez to stick around, taking JP's favourite C-lister off the market.

Basically what I'm saying is that it's a big assumption that the most coveted free agent DHs are even signable and trade might be the only means of getting the bat that makes the Jays really and truly competive in 2009. Or you can just batten down the hatchs and wait for 2010. That's not a horrible idea, either.

Looking at the big picture, I'm not at all averse to making a major push for Holliday and would probably prefer that to seeking a FA solution. Personally, I think the risk/cost of going after one of the elderly free agent DHs is probably greater than that of selling off one of the organizations top 3 prospects and add-ons (who can be replaced with compensatory picks) for a year of Matt Holliday. The 60 point OPS+ boost out of the DH hole you get from a player of Holliday's calibre gives this offense a pulse and I don't feel as confident predicting the same level of production from Manny even, much less Thome or Giambi. And Holliday is cheaper, too, which leaves a bit of cash left over to splash out on a SS.

Also, we'd get a year of JaysTalk callers referring to Roy Holliday and Matt Halladay.

He who dares, wins, fellas.

-- Johnny Was