Discuss as:

The Phillies don't need Roy Halladay

I promise that this is my last Roy Halladay post of the day. Unless I'm inspired to write another, anyway. Anyway:

Peter Gammons: "Phillies must make trade for Halladay"

This would be the same Phillies team that is now 6.5 games up? I mean sure, he'd be nice to have around, but do you really mortgage the future for a marginal improvement in a race you already stand an excellent chance of winning easily? Gammons says in the article that "One player does make a huge difference," with the implication that in the postseason, having that ace could mean the difference between a championship or going home empty handed. History, however, doesn't bear that out.

The Brewers may have made the postseason because of CC Sabathia, but he didn't get them anywhere in the playoffs. Same with the Cubs and Rich Harden. Go back further and the story repeats itself with the 1987 Detroit Tigers and Doyle Alexander. Same goes for just about every team to trade for an arm at the deadline in recent history, because in the past 30 years, the only starting pitcher acquired midseason to win a World Series game was St. Louis' Jeff Weaver in 2006, and he was a salary dump. [CORRECTION: I forgot Joe Blanton last year, but I don't know that that changes anything]. Weigh all that against the guys who were traded away for those putative final pieces of the puzzle: John Smoltz, Jeff Bagwell, Derek Lowe, Jason Varitek. The list goes on and on.

Sure, Halladay is a special talent. And yes, maybe it's a different calculus if the Phillies and Mets were locked in an epic battle for first place. But they're not. The Phillies, in all probability, are not going to have any trouble making the playoffs. Once they get there, fate will play a greater role in determining whether they repeat as champions than any one player's fastball.

It would be nice to have Roy Halladay. If the Jays decide to sell him at a bargan price you certainly make the deal. They are not, however, in a "must" situation with this, and to the extent Gammons or anyone else argues that they are, they're mistaken.