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.

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.

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?”

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?