Tigers remain on periphery of trade deadline action

It was just a matter of time before things started to pick-up ahead of the trade deadline. The Tigers are still on the sidelines, as are their main competitors in the AL Central. Dave Dombrowski has said he’s having quite a few conversations, but things are still quiet and Danny Knobler tells The Cutoff Man that there are some front office disagreements about the Tigers biggest needs.

Even with things quiet in the Tigers front office, some of the moves today could impact the Tigers, Twins, and White Sox.

  • The Pirates move Ian Snell and Jack Wilson to the Mariners. The Tigers have been involved in Jack Wilson rumors for the last 2 years. To see him go somewhere else is, well, weird. The impact though is that this either means the Mariners are buyers,  or they could be preparing to move Jarrod Washburn. Washburn is a possible Tigers target as they look to bolster their rotation in the short term and the Mariners have had interest in Jeff Larish in the past (it would almost certainly take more than Larish).
  • Freddy Sanchez goes to the Giants. The Twins have been looking for a middle infielder, and have been attached to Sanchez, Marco Scutaro, and Orlando Cabrera. Brian Sabean gave up a pretty good pitching prospect in Tim Alderson. It’s something that the Twins probably wouldn’t want to beat, but you wonder if the Giants may have se the market unnecessarily high for middle infield help.
  • Cliff Lee goes to the Phillies. The immediate impact is that the Tigers will no longer face Lee this weekend. The broader implication is that the Indians are rebuilding again. The more interesting implication is that the Roy Halladay talks have stalled.
  • Halladay is still a Blue Jay. The Blue Jays have been waiting to see if Halladay goes anywhere before they start to unload other pieces, one of those being Scutaro. The Twins are interested, and I’d like the Tigers to be interested as well given Brandon Inge’s balky knees. But with Halladay’s main suitor now sated by Lee, it’s not a sure thing that Doc goes anywhere.
  • The Yankees are interested in Josh Anderson.  Ironically Anderson was in part responsible for 2 of the Yankees victories over the Tigers this year as balls scooted through his legs leading to runs. If the Tigers trade him, it will be for a C level prospect. Really not much to see here.

As always, the best way to stay on top of this stuff is to keep hitting refesh on MLB Trade Rumors.

53 Comments

  1. John B

    July 30, 2009 at 12:07 am

    The Giants might have overpaid for Sanchez, but they’re leading the wild card with the 2nd fewest runs scored in the NL and the fewest runs scored against. They might as well take a shot at it.

  2. Ron

    July 30, 2009 at 12:45 am

    If the Tigers are able to deal Anderson to the yankees as they need a speedy outfielder for brett gardner out with a broken thumb, who do you think the Tigers will be asking for? Maybe Ramiro Pena the good glove utility infielder who played third while Arod was out.

  3. Mark in Chicago

    July 30, 2009 at 9:15 am

    I know he’s not a gold glover over there, but is there any reason we can’t bring up Larish to play third? He’s got to be better defensively than Raburn, he’s a lefty bat, and he’s had a nice year at Toledo. This costs us nothing.

    • Joel in Seattle

      July 30, 2009 at 12:44 pm

      Unfortunately, he had a very “not nice” appearance in the bigs earlier this year. 25 Strikeouts in 74 ABs. And he doesn’t have anywhere near the defensive versatility that Raburn has, which is important when you’ve got as many moving parts in the OF as we do.

  4. scotsw

    July 30, 2009 at 9:30 am

    There are two really sensible bats that I can see the Tigers should go after: Luke Scott, who is a reasonably-priced corner outfielder with some pop and solid defensive skills. He’s a genuine major-leaguer on both sides of the ball, and while he’s not a HOFer or anything, he nails down one of those positions, and allows the Tigers to give less playing time to proven back-ups like Raburn and Thomas.

    The other guy they might go for — and the more I think about this the more I like it — is Mark Teahen from the Royals. They would have to deal one of their AAAA bullpen arms, like Rapada or Ni I suppose. But the Royals aren’t going anywhere, and need future pitching help. Teahen can play 3B, 1B and the OF, making him a great option as the Tigers face an Inge-ury.

    If they are looking at starters, they should look at Zach Miner or Jeremy Bonderman. I also think it’s possible that Nate Robertson will again be a factor as a starter for Detroit this year — the masses in his elbow may well explain his decreasing effectiveness. And no, I’m not kiddin’. Going out to get pitching doesn’t make much sense to me, unless they go get Halladay.

  5. Ken in Vegas

    July 30, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    Why don’t we ever talk about acquiring V-Mart? That seems like the most glaring offensive hole that we have. Laird would make a much better back-up than starter. I’m guessing that the price might be too high, but I’d be shocked if we weren’t making inquiries. I honestly hope that we don’t trade for another corner infielder. I like Thames playing as often as possible. Hell, he has the second highest BA on our team and continues to hit for power. If we can’t acquire someone who provides more offense then Thames, then there shouldn’t be a deal. I have no problem with that player taking time from Ordonez, Thomas, and Raburn, but Thames always seems to get the short end.

    • Joel in Seattle

      July 30, 2009 at 12:37 pm

      Biggest reason – no way Martinez gets traded inside the division.

    • Andre in Chi

      July 30, 2009 at 1:08 pm

      V-Mart is no longer an every day catcher, he’s been splitting time with Shoppach at C and playing 1B. The Tigers aren’t going to trade for a part-time catcher making $6mil, with a $7 mil club option next year.

      Also, believe it or not, Laird has been out-hitting the Mart for the last two months.

  6. Skip

    July 30, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    Bye-bye Josh Anderson

    to the Royals (trading within the division…)

    • Joel in Seattle

      July 30, 2009 at 1:01 pm

      I think the return was a ham sandwich. Or at least the $ required to purchase one.

      • Skip

        July 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm

        I doubt that much…

        Anyway, news is Mark Teahen is out of the starting line-up…
        Doubt he goes to Detroit for Anderson!
        That’s waaay to wishful of thinking!!

        • Anson

          July 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm

          I don’t know the ham sandwich was pretty expensive in terms of salary and prospects. Although the rate of production between Mr. Anderson and ham sandwich was nearly equivalent in my mind. Note: My mind does not take into account any statistics in it’s evaluation. Instead it is merely based on my frustration level coupled with the likability of the player’s nickname.

          Anyway guys I’m relocated to my new house which is about a 5 minute walk from Camden Yards so hopefully when I get reconnected to the internet next week the Tigers will be on a nice 6 game win streak. And curses for them not coming to Baltimore anymore this year.

          • Dave T.

            July 30, 2009 at 4:07 pm

            Who did we trade for Anderson?

          • Andre in Chi

            July 30, 2009 at 4:11 pm

            Hopefully, many Ben Franklins

          • Joel in Seattle

            July 30, 2009 at 4:21 pm

            Dave T.

            If you mean who did we send to Atlanta in the offseason to get Anderson, the answer is Rudy Darrow. He’s a 25-year old reliever who has struggled in the low minors this year.

          • Andre in Chi

            July 30, 2009 at 4:24 pm

            I need to learn to read gooder, I’m an idiot. Joel, thanks for correctly answering Dave.

    • Keith (Mr. X)

      July 30, 2009 at 5:19 pm

      Nothing wrong with trading a whipping boy to a division rival.

  7. AJ

    July 30, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    That would be nice but its not going to happen

  8. Mat

    July 30, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    “Toronto asked for Rick Porcello, Ryan Perry and elite prospect Casey Crosby, a proposal Detroit declined.” – DetNews

    This seems like a mistake to me. Asking for essentially our 3 top young pitchers is steep but I’d do it. Especially if you can counter offer to keep Perry by inserting a SS like Iorg instead, or even a guy like Ramirez. The bottom line is that prospects usually don’t pan out (Sanchez and Miller don’t look so great now) and getting a guy like Halladay is an AMAZING opportunity.

    I realize offense is a big need for this team also but the bats available aren’t major improvements over Guillen/Ordonez/Thames/Thomas/Raburn. If anything, given Inge’s health, 3B would be the best place to upgrade the lineup.

    With the uncertainty in the starting staff beyond our two aces, Halladay delivers the biggest impact. This is a team that can obviously make the playoffs. And with a playoff rotation of Halladay, Verlander and Jackson, anything could happen if we get there. The window is open now. I know the team is probably losing a lot of money but that changes with a World Series run. Do the deal. Get Halladay. Whatever it takes.

    • Joel in Seattle

      July 30, 2009 at 2:57 pm

      If this offense can’t start scoring more than 2-3 runs per game consistently, it doesn’t matter if we run Halladay, Koufax or Cy Young out there. I’m not sure Halladay is worth getting without an offensive upgrade. Yes I saw what happened yesterday, but I also saw what’s happened the last few months.

      • Mat

        July 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm

        Halladay will win many 2-3 run games, but regardless, the names being thrown out there won’t change the offense dramatically. If you acquire Dunn to DH thats an upgrade, but then Guillen is tossed away. If you acquire Willingham/Scott type hitters thats no real gain over whoever is shifted out of the OF rotation. This team won’t be an offensive powerhouse either way. If they win it will be because of pitching.

        If you’re going to give up prospects there need to be tangible returns.

    • KW

      July 30, 2009 at 3:25 pm

      Our top three young pitchers for a 32-year-old when we already have two legitimate aces? We don’t need three aces. I’m glad they turned this down.

      If we get any kind of pitcher, we should get someone who can eat some innings and give us a shot (think a middle-to-end-of-rotation guy like Nate circa ’06). Halladay is not necessary.

      • Mat

        July 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm

        I don’t think you can ever have too much quality pitching. Its not as though Halladay will take innings away from Verlander. He replaces innings pitched by people like French, Minor, and ’09 Nate. Thats a HUGE difference.

        • Andre in Chi

          July 30, 2009 at 3:43 pm

          Another HUGE difference would be the salary owed to the various players involved. The Tigers are already 3rd best in the AL in runs allowed and 2nd best in team-ERA. Halladay (32 yrs old) is making $14.25mil this year and $15.75mil next year. With Verlander and Jackson due some serious raises, there’s not much chance of the Tigers adding that kind of money to improve what’s already one of the AL’s better pitching staffs. Especially not when you have to give up one of the most promising pitching prospects (Porcello – 20 yrs old) to come through the system in a while, one who’s under club control through 2012 for under $2 mil / year.

          For a fraction of the prospect costs, the Tigers could probably address the offensive needs that an injured Inge / unproductive Everett present.

          • Mat

            July 30, 2009 at 5:51 pm

            I’d say that being 2nd or whatever rank we have really doesn’t matter. This isn’t a roto fantasy league, obviously. What matters is how many runs they give up, and Hallady provides the biggest impact. You’re replacing the 5th starter with Halladay. Thats a bigger run differential (and win probability increase, especially come playoff time) than whatever marginal gain is being rumored via positional acquisitions.

            That said, you’re concerns about money are legitimate. I don’t mean to ignore that, but if the Tigers are willing to acquire Halladay (and that they’d listen to an offer indicates they maybe are) the hangup shouldn’t be the prospects they’re giving up. Plus, if you find a way to avoid paying Ordonez’s option, Halladay’s salary is covered.

            As for age, who cares? The time to win is now. Verlander, Jackson, Cabrera are peaking and may never be this good again. Polanco, Guillen, Ordonez, Rodney – probably gone soon or in rapid decline already. Granderson is the only impact player that projects to be better than he is now in a couple seasons.

          • Jeff Molby

            July 30, 2009 at 6:11 pm

            I don’t know… a rotation that includes JV, JAX and Doc stands a very good chance of making the playoffs in the AL Central this year and next, even with a weak offense. And if any of the injured guys bounce back, you could just go ahead and book it.

            Teams make millions off of every single playoff game, nevermind the attendance boost for the stretch-run.

            And can you imagine going into the playoffs with a top-7 AL pitcher (by ERA) starting every game? I don’t care what the offense does, that team would hang around long enough to earn some playoff money.

            And don’t forget, if we don’t extend Doc’s contract, we’ll get two solid draft picks in return.

            I hope they’re still looking for a way to make it happen.

          • Andre in Chi

            July 30, 2009 at 6:19 pm

            “As for age, who cares? The time to win is now. Verlander, Jackson, Cabrera are peaking and may never be this good again.”

            And yet, the man you want to mortgage the future for, is 32? Doesn’t make too much sense to claim that a group of mid-twenties players have peaked, if the guy you’re so desperate to get is six years older.

            “Thats a bigger run differential (and win probability increase, especially come playoff time) than whatever marginal gain is being rumored via positional acquisitions.”

            There are two sides to the run differential you mention; and scoring more runs does just as much to improve it. I wouldn’t mind seeing the projections on what Halladay brings vs. position players. My point in mentioning the Tigers ranks in pitching was to emphasize that it might be better (and cheaper) to look into shoring up our bottom-half offense. I think its a case of diminishing returns when you look at improving something that’s already good (Tiger’s pitching) versus something that’s below average (Tiger’s hitting).

            Adding Halladay also reduces the chance of keeping that core you mentioned (JV, EJ, MC) together. I agree that he would make a good staff great (or great staff fantastic depending on your demeanor), but I’m not so sure adding Halladay immediately makes the Tigers WS contenders.

            I also think you’re undervaluing the crop of players the Jays are (rightfully) asking for in return. Given that I don’t think that Halladay puts us over the top for a WS bid, it doesn’t make sense (again, to me) to trade all those years of young, presumably improving, pitching that the Tiger’s currently have under contract at favorable amounts.

          • Andre in Chi

            July 30, 2009 at 6:30 pm

            Jeff,

            I don’t think anyone’s arguing that adding “Doc” hurts the Tigers chances of making the playoffs. But let’s not forget that this current rotation, featuring French, stands a very good chance of making the playoffs as is. The question is: at what cost do you add Halladay? There are plenty of other teams out there with deeper pockets and more prospects than the Tigers that haven’t pulled the trigger yet.

            Like I said before, instead of mortgaging the future to make a “good” staff “great”, it might be cheaper and just as effective in terms of win %, to elevate the Tiger’s offense from “below average” to “average” by shoring up the offense @ 3B / SS.

      • Keith (Mr. X)

        July 30, 2009 at 6:15 pm

        I totally agree with that. We don’t need Halladay. I’d go after Doug Davis. Arizona is trying to trade him to somebody, so why not us. We just need someone who can eat innings like Bonderman and Robertson use to be able to do.

        • Mat

          July 30, 2009 at 8:29 pm

          “Doesn’t make too much sense to claim that a group of mid-twenties players have peaked, if the guy you’re so desperate to get is six years older.”

          It makes perfect sense. I’m not saying Halladay is going to get better either. These are all good players NOW. Some may still be in a few years, but its nearly certain they ALL won’t be. The point is that NOW is the time to win.

          “There are two sides to the run differential you mention; and scoring more runs does just as much to improve it…It might be better (and cheaper) to look into shoring up our bottom-half offense.””

          I just don’t see a bat out there that provides a significant impact over what we have. Halladay, as compared to our 5th starter IS a huge impact, right? The bats available trading aren’t far above what they would potentially replace (Raburn/Ordonez/Guillen/Thames/Thomas). If we were talking about an A-Rod level bat, it’d be different. We ARE talking about an A-Rod level pitcher.

          “its a case of diminishing returns when you look at improving something that’s already good (Tiger’s pitching) versus something that’s below average (Tiger’s hitting).”

          How is it diminishing returns? Again, you’re replacing Lucas French or Zach Minor with Roy Halladay. In basketball you can have too many scorers or rebounders but with baseball an inning pitched is an inning pitched.

          “Adding Halladay also reduces the chance of keeping that core you mentioned (JV, EJ, MC) together.”

          I don’t see why it reduces the chances of the core staying together any more or less than other moves (like retaining Polanco or Rodney). Halladay takes on SP spot. There are 4 others.

          “I’m not so sure adding Halladay immediately makes the Tigers WS contenders.”

          The Tigers are WS contenders already. They’ll probably lose if they make the playoffs but anyone who makes it is a contender. And in the playoffs a top 3 of Halladay/JV/EJ is A LOT more likely to shut down the Yankees/Angels/Red Sox than starting Galarraga or a fading Porcello twice in a series.

          “I also think you’re undervaluing the crop of players the Jays are (rightfully) asking for in return.”

          Maybe. They’re (essentially) prospects and prospects have a low probability of panning out. I’ll take one sure ace for a playoff run over 3 rolls of the dice during seasons where the Tigers may or may not be competitive.

          Obviously the Tigers agree that the value of these prospects is too high to give up, but I believe in taking a shot at championships when they are within reach.

          • Andre in Chi

            July 30, 2009 at 9:41 pm

            “How is it diminishing returns? Again, you’re replacing Lucas French or Zach Minor with Roy Halladay.”

            Its diminishing returns in the sense that you have to pay exponentially more to improve what’s already good compared to what’s sub-par. The cost of improving the pitching (Halladay) is much more than the cost of say, upgrading at SS (Scutaro). Given Everett’s performance vs. that of Scutaro, you’re seeing a nice upgrade for way less cost.

            In terms of the playoffs, we wouldn’t be replacing French with Halladay either, because of the presumed 4-man rotation. Its more like Porcello or Gallaraga being replaced. Again, I’m not saying Halladay wouldn’t be an upgrade. Just that the upgrade isn’t worth what the Jays seem to be asking for.

            “I don’t see why it reduces the chances of the core staying together any more or less than other moves (like retaining Polanco or Rodney). Halladay takes on SP spot. There are 4 others.”

            Its not a roster issue, its a financial issue. Take a look at how much Verlander and Jackson are making now, vs. what you think their market value is. They’re going to get raises and they’re getting them next year, just in time for the added $15+ mil from Halladay. Its just econ man.

            “The point is that NOW is the time to win.”

            I guess this is where we differ, ultimately – I’m not willing to give up lots of FUTURE for a little NOW. There’s nothing about the Tigers this year that screams “this is our best shot for the foreseeable future”. In fact, this might be one of the worst years for them with all the bad contracts they have. I’m surprised they’re in contention at all, and I would guess that with the core that’s signed long-term, their odds of winning a WS only increase from hear on out, assuming management doesn’t do what you’re proposing.

          • Mat

            July 30, 2009 at 10:54 pm

            I don’t think diminishing returns means what you think it means. Its a different concept than maximizing returns. I could say a middling pitcher would be cheaper than acquiring a star hitter and that would be equally as true. Or give up nothing and your return is infinite.

            The upgrade from French/Minor to Halladay is way bigger than the Scutaro from Everett upgrade. Halladay is better player so you have to give up more, obviously.

            I understand what you’re trying to say but I don’t think the concept applies here. You can’t evaluate pitching in baseball the same way you would evaluate positions in team sports because pitching is to some degree a solo endeavor. Adding Ben Gordon isn’t as valuable when you already have a scoring SG and adding another WR to a potent trio isn’t asset-maximizing. But replacing the #85 ranked tennis player in the world with the #6 ranked player is an upgrade.

            As for playoffs, you’re right. In the regular season Halladay replaces French and in the playoffs he replaces the #3 starter (because he could start twice per series) and pushes the #3 to the #4 spot (where he would only pitch one game). It also makes Porcello available to pitch out of the pen a la David Price last year.

            I understand Halladay costs $, but this isn’t a zero sum game. His cost doesn’t threaten EJ or JV it threatens Polanco, Rodney or a future acquisition. I’m comfortable with that, as it doesn’t touch the core.

            My argument is that we aren’t necessarily giving up that much future. We’re giving up a shot at some future. And me personally, I’ll take a grand right now over a handful of 2013 lottery tickets.

            “There’s nothing about the Tigers this year that screams “this is our best shot for the foreseeable future”. In fact, this might be one of the worst years for them with all the bad contracts they have.”

            Well now thats a WHOLE OTHER topic worthy of its own conversation. I’ll just say I strongly disagree. There are bad contracts but there will be in the future as well. And those bad contracts don’t make the team any worse on the field. There are also GREAT contracts. Granderson, Perry, EJ, JV are bargains. As you yourself mention, soon they won’t be. Economics will drive Ordonez, Guillen, Polanco (underperforming but still solid players) away soon. Rodney is probably gone next year. This team won’t be nearly as good as last season. Plus, with injuries, you just never know. When you have the shot you take it.

            I don’t think this years roster is missing Sanchez or Miller much. Today’s prospect is usually tomorrows journeyman.

          • Andre in Chi

            July 31, 2009 at 12:24 am

            “I don’t think diminishing returns means what you think it means. Its a different concept than maximizing returns.”

            This isn’t the Princess Bride, I’m not Sicilian, and I’m not throwing the word “inconceivable” around.

            From wiki, and do pay special attention to the last bit — ‘diminishing returns’: “refers to how the marginal contribution of a factor of production usually decreases as more of the factor is used. According to this relationship, in a production system with fixed and variable inputs (say factory size and labor), beyond some point, each additional unit of the variable input yields smaller and smaller increases in output. Conversely, producing one more unit of output costs more and more in variable inputs.”

            In terms of cost, it means that taking the Tigers from a good –> to a very good pitching staff is much more expensive than the cost of taking the Tigers hitting from not good –> to just ok. It’s the difference between spending $15mil on Halladay or spending $2.5mil on Scott (since you don’t like Scutaro @ $1mil). The players are not on the same level in terms of their individual value, but that’s not my point. Since it’s the Tigers offense that seems to be struggling, whereas the pitching has been very good, what I’m saying is that the relative upgrade is more significant in the case of Scott.

            Given that the Tigers are 1st in the AL with good pitching + not good hitting, if I was on a budget (which the Tigers are), and I had to choose what area to invest in, it wouldn’t be to go out and trade tons of cheap, high level prospects for someone who will add $15mil to one of the worst payrolls in the league. Your mileage may differ on this, but I suspect that management is thinking what I’m thinking.

            Instead of asking if I know what diminishing returns means, maybe you should take a look at the Tiger’s contracts and payroll, and see if you can tell me what “dead-weight” and “un-movable” mean, in terms of contracts.

          • Mat

            July 31, 2009 at 1:41 am

            Looks like looking up the definition didn’t help you get what I’m telling you. The benefit of Halladay doesn’t change if you have zero, one, or two other aces. He’s pitching every 5th day either way. SO, the “some point” in the definition’s “beyond some point” would be three ace-caliber starters at its low end, and five at the high end.

            What you’re talking about when pointing to salaries is a different concept. Not to say its invalid, just that its different.

            “it means that taking the Tigers from a good –> to a very good pitching staff is much more expensive than the cost of taking the Tigers hitting from not good –> to just ok.”

            The assumption here is that adding a 1M player makes the lineup OK, which I don’t agree with. You’re also assuming an equivalent gain from adding a 1M player to a 12M player which implies that major league GMs have no clue what they are doing and that paying Halladay 12M a year is a reckless waste of money. I don’t agree. If anything Halladay is underpaid for his value. I’m pretty surprised anyone would make the case that a player like Scutaro or Scott is going to have more of an impact than Halladay.

            Look at it another way. Would Halladay be more valuable if the rotation was 4 guys with 4.00 ERAs and a French as your 5th starter, or 4 guys with 1.00 ERAs and French as your 5th starter. You seem to be arguing he’s more valuable in the former case, but the reality is those players operate entirely independently of Halladay (at least in the regular season), so all that matters for a starting pitcher is who he is replacing. In this case its the Tiger’s 5th starter which is not a team strength.

            Bad contracts are sunk costs. You accept them and move on. The Tigers have a lot to gain financially from a WS run and Halladay is our best opportunity to facilitate getting there.

            Furthermore, nothing prevents the Tigers from trading Halladay in the offseason or next trade deadline and getting significant return back (maybe even better than the guys they’re giving up).

          • Andre in Chi

            July 31, 2009 at 2:15 am

            “Looks like looking up the definition didn’t help you get what I’m telling you. The benefit of Halladay doesn’t change if you have zero, one, or two other aces. He’s pitching every 5th day either way. SO, the “some point” in the definition’s “beyond some point” would be three ace-caliber starters at its low end, and five at the high end.”

            Well why stop at three “Aces” then? Those bad contracts are just sunk costs anyways, and payroll is of no importance. The Tigers should have grabbed Lee when they have a chance, and Washburn too. They could have fought it out for the fourth spot of a playoff rotation with the loser going to the pen.

            “Would Halladay be more valuable if the rotation was 4 guys with 4.00 ERAs and a French as your 5th starter, or 4 guys with 1.00 ERAs and French as your 5th starter. You seem to be arguing he’s more valuable in the former case, but the reality is those players operate entirely independently of Halladay (at least in the regular season), so all that matters for a starting pitcher is who he is replacing.”

            I think this is why we’re talking past each other, I see a difference in situations. It would seem to be more important for a team with questionable pitching to get Halladay than the Tigers. It would undoubtedly make us a better team, but pitching isn’t a large enough concern (at least not to me) to warrant the cost.

            Given all the factors involved, I think that Halladay is too expensive. Would the Tigers stand a better chance this year with Halladay, absolutely. Are there financial benefits to long playoff runs, absolutely. Could the Tigers recoup the lost prospects down the road, possibly.

            I look at the Tigers and think they already have two starters that scare a lot of lineups, and possibly have enough quality in Galarraga or Porcello to “get by”. On the other hand, Wednesday’s game aside, they have a lineup that scares nobody of late. Would they be better off adding some everyday bats for a fraction cost in order to ensure scoring some runs of their own? Maybe, I guess we’ll see.

            Part of me hopes this trade still happens, just as a “what if?”

          • Mat

            July 31, 2009 at 12:43 pm

            To me the “we have enough pitching” argument is a like arguing after taking the first two of a three game series that “we already won this series”. Sure, it may feel somehow like the third game is less important, but the reality is that win is just as important in that game as it is in the next series.

            What JV and EJ do is irrelevant to what RH is trying to do. You go out and try to win game 3 just as hard, regardless of what happened the rest of the series.

            I guess thats ultimately where we differ. You’re comfortable saying essentially we we do good enough in games 1 and 2, so 3 is somehow less important.

          • Andre in Chi

            July 31, 2009 at 12:54 pm

            First, let me say that you were right about my poor choice of using the term “diminishing returns”, I was just too drunk last night to back down, this is about being cost-effective.

            I still think that paying that high a price to improve the pitching is a bad move. Lets use the Yankees series (three loses: 5-3, 2-1, 2-1) as an example. Say Halladay pitches game one (incidentally French went 5in gave up just 1er), he still has to allow less than 3 runs for the Tigers to win that game (do-able, but no sure thing). Meanwhile, the Tigers still lose the next two because the offense couldn’t put up more than 2 runs. I know we’re talking a small sample size with this example. My point though, is that it would make more sense to improve the sub-par offense with bats that will produce everyday. Especially if the cost would presumably be much less than what it would take to get Halladay.

            Like somebody else said, Halladay can lose 2-1 like the best of them.

            Edit: “I guess thats ultimately where we differ. You’re comfortable saying essentially we we do good enough in games 1 and 2, so 3 is somehow less important.”

            That’s actually not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that in the Tigers case, its much cheaper, and possibly just as effective in winning the 3rd game, to go out and get better batting. I’m all for winning as many games as possible, I just think that Halladay isn’t as cost effective as other options.

  9. Anson

    July 30, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    As unexciting as it might seem, I feel like cash considerations is all we are going to add before the deadline.

  10. Ken in Vegas

    July 30, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    Right on point there, Andre. I think that’s exactly what went through DD’s head when he turned it down. Just dollars and cents.

  11. Skip

    July 30, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Quick question:
    How are negotiations going with Jacob Turner and Andy Oliver (both Scott Boras clients; No. 1 and No. 2 draft picks)?

    • billfer

      July 30, 2009 at 11:05 pm

      It will likely stay quiet for at least another week.

  12. Keith (Mr. X)

    July 30, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    I sure am glad DD has been patient. Except for Inge, Leyland will have most of our hitters healthy for the stretch run, so we don’t really need another bat. I wouldn’t mind having another starting pitcher though just in case Porcello and French don’t start pitching better.
    If Granderson, Cabrera, Thames, and Guillen keep hitting like they have lately, then we should have no problem scoring more runs. If Polanco and Ordonez start hitting, things will be looking really good offensive wise. We have a few if’s and maybe’s, but I’d rather hang my hat on those players that have good track records with our team, than hinge on any newcomers that might cause some roster flexibility issue’s.

  13. Keith (Mr. X)

    July 30, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    The more I look at Doug Davis, the more I want the Tigers to get him. A lefty starter like him would be huge for us down the stretch, especially in games vs Minnesota. We play the Twins 10 more games. It would be nice to have a new lefty pitch in 2 or 3 of those games.

  14. Ken in Vegas

    July 30, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    At this point I just want to see something happen, anything, that we can cheer, debate, languish over, etc. I’m tired of sitting on the sidelines while other teams make moves. Sometimes the best move is no move, but not according to my addiction to change.

  15. Andrew

    July 30, 2009 at 7:55 pm

    Sitting on the sidelines? The Tigers have been one of the more active teams on the trading market the last few years.

  16. Keith (Mr. X)

    July 30, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    We sold Anderson for cash. Tigers have been sellers so far. LOL.

    I was listening to some local talk radio and a few people were crying for a fire sale. I heard some ridiculous stuff. Some of it was off the charts stupid, like wanting to trade Granderson and Jackson for prospects. I can’t believe that some Tiger fans actually want to throw away a season when we are currently in 1st place and are likely to make the play-offs.

    • Jeff Molby

      July 30, 2009 at 8:44 pm

      Let’s be realistic. We have the inside track in a weak division, we aren’t “likely” to do anything right now. The team is fragile enough that the script could easily flip. I don’t think anything short of an additional front-line starter would change that.

    • RPS

      July 30, 2009 at 8:49 pm

      Correction: An amount of legal tender backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government was obtained in exchange for the professional rights to terrible outfielder/Ken Burns’ Civil War extra Josh Anderson. Pretty sweet, I’d say.

      Also, where in the [string of unnecessary profanity] is (are) our new corner outfielder(s)? If I don’t see Willie Harris and Cody Ross or their equivalents in the lineup tomorrow, I’ll be very sad. It’s not hard to upgrade on Maggs/Raburn/Thomas. Upgrading those positions to average makes sweet playoffs monies so much more likely. And it doesn’t cost too much. Has to happen, right?

      Right?

      • scotsw

        July 30, 2009 at 10:24 pm

        Agreed, RPS.

  17. Brenden

    July 30, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    Zumaya is apparently out for the season…not surprised….Man, that guy is frustrating…

    • Chris

      July 30, 2009 at 10:05 pm

      Forget about Zumaya… He had his day in 2006, and now that sun is set… If he comes back, I hope it is as a different pitcher with a different approach. How about less heat and more of the ‘art of pitching.’ Perhaps that would preserve his health much better.

  18. Chris

    July 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    Hey Bilfer, Thanx for reinstating me. Sorry I did the mean name calling…

    But too bad you didn’t reinstate me yesterday. I had all kinds of good things to say about Miggy Cabrera’s meaningless 3-run digger last night.

    • billfer

      July 30, 2009 at 11:06 pm

      It was a 1 week suspension. Suspension is up now.