Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
During the 6-minute segment, J.P. discusses budget constraints, Roy Halladay and Vernon Wells.

Not a lot we don't already know. J.P. hints that he's going to have about 11 million to work with in the off-season (Stewart and Lidle's contracts added together), versus the 5 million he had last off-season. J.P. added that he turned the 5 million into Sturtze, Cat, Myers, Bordick, and "without mentioning names 3 out of the 4 worked out good for us".

I would have liked the hosts to ask about what plans he had to address the bullpen and how many starters from this year were likely to return to the rotation (Escobar, Towers, Hendrickson?).

Go the Official site's front page and click on the audio link to listen.

J.P. Ricciardi on MLB Radio | 36 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Andrew Edwards - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#91632) #
he's going to have about 11 million to work with in the off-season (Stewart and Lidle's contracts added together)

I'm assuming this means that Mondesi's money is going to re-up Doc.

Sounds right to me.

$11 million should get you a good pitcher and some decent filler. Should. We'll see where JP thinks the money is needed.
Dave Till - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 04:55 PM EDT (#91633) #
J.P. added that he turned the 5 million into Sturtze, Cat, Myers, Bordick, and "without mentioning names 3 out of the 4 worked out good for us".

Gee, I wonder which one he thinks didn't work out? :-)
_R Billie - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 04:56 PM EDT (#91634) #
Mondesi's money is already gone. Rogers wrote it off as part of 2002 and it didn't figure into the 2003 budget at all. So there won't be an "extra" $6 million to work with in 2004.
robertdudek - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 05:28 PM EDT (#91635) #
The line I quoted earned a chuckle from one of the hosts.
Mike Green - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 06:08 PM EDT (#91636) #
JP was tooting his own horn a little, don't you think? Last year, he spent 5.35 on Lidle, 2.2 on the Cat, 1.0 on Bordick, 1.0 on Sturtze, .8 on Myers, .7 on Creek and .6 on Tam. Three out of the seven (the position players) worked out.

This year he'll have that money to play with, along with Escobar's 3.9 and Stewart's 6.2. So he has roughly 21.6 to play with, out of which at least 5-6 goes on an increase for Doc, .3-.5 goes for Kielty, and Wells, Hinske and Delgado have mandated contract increases. That might indeed leave roughly $11 million. If you're trying to get 2 or 3 pitchers for that money, plus a catcher and a backup infielder, it's pretty much assured that the pitchers will be a complete crapshoot.

On the other hand, Curt Schilling says that he wants to come to Toronto. If he'd accept $9 million on a one year contract (he's currently making $10 million, and truthfully, he's a bargain at that-check out his stats and remember to park-adjust), I think you'd have to look seriously at that. I'm not holding my breath.
_BJ Birdy - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 06:13 PM EDT (#91637) #
Schilling has said that? What's your source on that? I don't doubt you; I just must have totally missed it.
Craig B - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 06:37 PM EDT (#91638) #
It was Jeff Blair in the Globe and Mail.

This link will take you to the article.

Schilling became close to Gil Patterson, as I understand it, when Patterson was his pitching coach (briefly?) in Arizona. Tosca was also bench coach there. I think Schilling's cerebral-but-combative style would be a good fit in the Jays organization.
robertdudek - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 06:46 PM EDT (#91639) #
From a Jeff Blair column (Globe and Mail, June 18):

"Now, according to ESPN's Peter Gammons, Schilling has contacted Toronto Blue Jays coaches and has expressed an interest in having them express an interest in trading for him."

Further down ...

"What about this Schilling stuff? Blue Jays manager Carlos Tosca was a popular member of Arizona manager Buck Showalter's staff from 1998 to 2000. The same goes for third base coach Brian Butterfield, who had the same job with the Diamondbacks in those three years. And it is known that Schilling, who has been known to exchange e-mails with favoured reporters, called Butterfield a few weeks ago. Tosca told reporters in Cincinnati a couple weeks ago that Butterfield handed him the phone and that he had a personal conversation with Schilling."

Of course it's Gammons and we don't know what those conversations were about. That was when the Jays were in the pennant race, and the hypothetical acquisition of Schilling was ostensibly to help the Jays in their playoff push in 2003.

According to the article, Schilling is to make $12 million in 2004. I think that's a bit too rich for Toronto's blood at the moment, although if Schilling is willing to sign for 8-9 million in 2005, that might be more doable.

I definitely wouldn't discount the idea of Schilling's desire to play for Toronto. He has the personal connections to Butterfield and Tosca, and has talked to Doc about pitching during 2002.
robertdudek - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 06:48 PM EDT (#91640) #
Whoops, Craig beat me to it.
_Cristian - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 06:49 PM EDT (#91641) #
Schilling is signed for next year if I'm not mistaken. However, Arizona is trying to dump salary and trying to find some offence so a Arizona/Toronto trade makes some sense.
robertdudek - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 06:53 PM EDT (#91642) #
Cristian has hit the nail on the head.

Perhaps in exchange for a couple of decent prospects, Toronto can pick up about half of the 12 million and Schilling can be a Jay in 2004. It's not completely out of the realm of possibility.
Coach - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 07:05 PM EDT (#91643) #
The friendship between Schilling and Halladay that Robert mentioned could be another positive factor. Doc picked Curt's brain the last time the teams met in Interleague play, and would love to have him as a mentor for a year.

Of course, if a contender like Philadelphia throws a huge four-year deal on the table, you can't blame the guy for accepting it. Until that happens, Jays fans can dream...
_Cristian - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 07:07 PM EDT (#91644) #
"Cristian has hit the nail on the head"

Thanks Robert. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. Here's a link describing Arizona's money woes. Before we start stitching Schilling on the backs of those spiffy new uniforms we need to consider the possibility that Philadelphia will try to reobtain him. This makes more sense if the Phillies cannot resign Millwood. They'll need an ace moving into their new ballpark and if Millwood leaves money won't be an issue.
Gitz - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 07:28 PM EDT (#91645) #
Schilling. Halladay. Anybody wanna face those two fellas in a short series? Or a long series? Or the company softball outing?
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 07:35 PM EDT (#91646) #
http://economics.about.com
Schilling. Halladay. Anybody wanna face those two fellas in a short series? Or a long series? Or the company softball outing?

Oh, please. I can get on base against Halladay. He doesn't throw *that* hard... I just have to really lean into one. Plus if Cash isn't catching, I might not get thrown out at second. :)

Mike
_Ryan - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 08:50 PM EDT (#91647) #
Schilling later denied ever having made any comments about wanting to come to Toronto (as you would expect). Ricciardi was asked about a possible trade for him at the time those comments came out and he said the team simply couldn't afford the contract.

Schilling also reportedly did a similar song and dance routine for Philadelphia earlier in the season.
_Jonny German - Saturday, September 20 2003 @ 04:04 PM EDT (#91648) #
Philadelphia could figure prominently any way you look at it...

Behind Millwood in the Philly rotation this year were Randy Wolf, Vicente Padilla, and Brett Myers. That has to be the best 2-3-4 in baseball this year, and better than most team's 1-2-3. Oh, and they average 25.4 years old and total $3,100,000 in salary. Ed Wade takes a lot of flak, but I must stop and drool at that.

Now, for J.P. to take advantage of this embarassment of riches... If Philly adds Schilling or re-signs Millwood, it sounds like a prime time to snag Brandon Duckworth. He's struggled a lot this year, but I'd rather have him than any Toronto pitcher not named Halladay or Escobar.
Pistol - Saturday, September 20 2003 @ 04:49 PM EDT (#91649) #
I agree, except I'd rather have Lopez. Of course that just shows the state of the pitching staff. I was expecting Duckworth to have a #3 starter type year for the Phillies this year in March.

He'd be worth acquiring, if it was for the #4 spot. I'm not sure you could reasonably expect more. There's probably better guys that you could trade for (although granted I can't give you any off the top of my head).
_Jonny German - Saturday, September 20 2003 @ 05:40 PM EDT (#91650) #
I think you'd have a very hard time finding a better guy to trade for without eating a large contract or giving up a top prospect or solid major leaguer. Duckworth's selling points:

a) Fairly young - turns 28 in January.
b) 4 years to free agency
c) Safe bet as a #4, quite possibly a real solid #3 or... does he remind you of this guy a bit as a starter?
d) Strong minor league stats
e) Undervalued by current club. Besides the fact that they're deep in starting pitching, the Phillies have yanked Duckworth around this year, sending him to the minors twice and not giving him a steady spot in the rotation.

Finding a fit could be difficult... Philly's biggest weakness appears to be the bullpen.
Gitz - Saturday, September 20 2003 @ 11:17 PM EDT (#91651) #
More than Eric Gagne, Duckworth strikes me as being Jimmy Haynes or Bruce Ruffin or Jason Grimsley or many guys with solid arms and tremendous minor-league numbers: you keep taking chances on them because they have great arms, and mabye they'll have that one breakout year, but for whatever reason it doesn't work out. Bill James was Ruffin's biggest fan, I seem to recall, and I remember him citing examples of pitchers with Ruffin's profile (I forget exactly who) turning their careers around when they hit 30. It didn't work for Ruffin, and if I was ever motivated enough to do some research on it, I'd discover that the number of Brandon Duckworths who go on to have productive careers as starters is dwarfed by the number who continue to be Bruce Ruffin, Jimmy Haynes, and Jason Grimsley (who has been effective, moderately, as a reliever). Having said all that, it's too soon to give up on Duckworth, obviously. I agree with Pistol that he would make an excellent #4 (Duckworth that is, and not Pistol, though my scouting report on the latter is incomplete), assuming the three guys in front of him are "proven" commodities.

On a completely unrelated note, the Portland Trail Blazers used to have a gangly seven-foot-tall center named Kevin Duckworth, also something of an underachiever. Well, the first time I saw Brandon Duckworth, I was shocked that he was white, obviously stuck with the image of Kevin Duckworth, who was black. The same thing happened to me, in reverse, when I saw Homer Bush and discovered he was black; at least with my Duckworth confusion there's a plausible explanation. With Bush I confess I have no idea why I assumed he was white. Homer Simpson? Maybe, but it's funny how your mind develops pictures of certain people for whatever reason.
_Jonny German - Sunday, September 21 2003 @ 12:17 AM EDT (#91652) #
Good point Gitz, there are a good number of pitchers with a Duckworth-type resume who never manage to make it happen. But what sets Gagne apart? Was there any way to predict his success and say that Duckworth could not follow a similar path?

I originally made the Gagne-Duckworth comparison off the cuff, but running the numbers shows remarkable similarity:

IP ERA WHIP K/BB K/9 BB/9 HR/9
Gagne 1999-2001 283 5.09 1.37 1.98 7.60 3.85 1.49
Duck 2001-2003 321 4.88 1.43 1.94 7.65 3.95 1.09

I can think of two important factors that don't show up in these numbers: Gagne is only 16 days older than Duckworth, and L.A. is more of a pitcher's park than Philadelphia. The age discrepancy is obviously a bigger deal and works against Duckworth, but I don't think he needs to turn in historically good relief seasons in order to be considered a success.
Pistol - Sunday, September 21 2003 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#91653) #
I agree with Pistol that he would make an excellent #4 (Duckworth that is, and not Pistol, though my scouting report on the latter is incomplete)

Well, I had an erratic Little League career pitching. I was the #2 starter on an average team. I threw reasonably hard (more so than our #1 starter), but didn't have a whole lot of control and only threw a fastball.

My K rate was pretty good, my HR rate was excellent, but the walks always killed me.

And our corner OFs never helped me out too much. No power and poor fielding. We needed to trade for some older veterans (some solid 12 year olds to replace those 9 year olds with the ground balls going between their legs) but the team couldn't take on the payroll (extra ice cream after the game).
_Ben NS - Sunday, September 21 2003 @ 08:13 PM EDT (#91654) #
Let's take Freddy Garcia off of the hands of the Mariners for a handful of B prospects. That's assuming, of course, that the M's will be paying him most of his generous contract.
Pistol - Sunday, September 21 2003 @ 11:53 PM EDT (#91655) #
http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?2538
Let's take Freddy Garcia off of the hands of the Mariners for a handful of B prospects. That's assuming, of course, that the M's will be paying him most of his generous contract.

Garcia seems like Escobar lite to me. If you're going to keep a head case it might as well be Escobar. I suspect the Mariners will non-tender him this off season.

I'd have my sights set on a different Mariner pitcher: Rafael Soriano (click on my name for stats). It might be unrealistic to expect the Mariners to trade him, but I wonder if they might start listening if you offered a Soriano for Hinske trade. That'd give Seattle a productive 3B at a reasonable price and it'd give Toronto a Johan Santana-esque pitcher.

So the questions I pose are:

Do you think the Mariners would be interested (I have the least feel for that)?

Do you think the Jays would be interested?

Would you want the Jays to do this?

I'd vote: Maybe, yes, and yes.
Pistol - Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 02:58 PM EDT (#91656) #
http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?2254
Ok, here's the pitcher that may be a good target:

Odalis Perez (click on my name for stats).

He's been mentioned in trade talks before, he's apparently available, he doesn't make too much money ($3.4 MM this year), and he's had an off year so his value isn't as high as it was a year ago.

The downside is that he gives up a lot of HRs, especially with Dodger Stadium as his homepark.
_Spicol - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 02:41 PM EDT (#91657) #
According to the article, Schilling is to make $12 million in 2004. I think that's a bit too rich for Toronto's blood at the moment, although if Schilling is willing to sign for 8-9 million in 2005, that might be more doable.

Did some investigating and found out Schilling is set to earn $12MM in 2004 but $6MM is deferred. Kind of makes you go hmmm, doesn't it?

According to Gammons, (and this isn't a detailed trade rumour per se so he's likely right) Jerry Colangelo is really looking to ditch some payroll from Arizona this offseason. I think Junior Spivey is eligible for arbitration and due quite a raise from his current $4xx,000, which is why he's a target for trade. Junior Spivey is a 2B but only because Alex Cintron was Arizona's "SS of the future" when they were in AAA together. Spivey would be a more than adequate defensive SS for the Blue Jays and has a bat to boot. Chris Woodward could be non-tendered very easily. More hmmmm...

If JP has $11MM worth of room after raises and such, Schilling and Spivey would be what, $8.5MM of that? Maybe $9MM? A John Thomson wouldn't cost much more than $2MM. As I've detailed before, there are few other FA options. A trade is the only way to really improve the pitching.

I've been a big advocate of sticking to the long term plan and not sacrificing 2005-2008 for short term gains. But there will be so much payroll flexibility in those years that taking on some deferred money now wouldn't be a terrible risk.

Suppose JP were willing to take on Spivey and Schilling without asking for money as well. What kind of package of kids do you think would get a deal done?
Craig B - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 02:55 PM EDT (#91658) #
I'd say Spivey is due for an arbitration award of $2-3 million, yes.

I think it depends on what sort of market is out there for (1) starting pitchers and (2) middle-class players.

If Arizona have a salary budget, they're going to need to get those salaries off before opening day, which is the best possible scenario. If you combine that with an offer to take on the immediate $6 million, *and* the $6 million deferred, and ask for Spivey, I think you could get away with offering an A prospect and two C guys, or maybe three Bs. They might be willing to go after some older guys, like Hanson for example.

Would they be willing, I wonder, to accept Woodward? I'd love to keep Woody around in the role he was born to play... i.e. Dave Berg with power... but if Arizona wanted him around in case Matt Kata turned back into a pumpkin (which he's doing) then you could maybe knock a C prospect off the deal and save a bit of dough too.
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 03:29 PM EDT (#91659) #
Spicol, as you know, one of the Jays major issues over the last few years has been currency differentials. Richard Gwyn in today's Star suggests that the Canadian dollar may approach the $1.00 US mark in the near future, due to the significant American economic problems (huge budget deficits, inadequate savings ratios...). This would definitely help the economics for the Jays, and perhaps a .500 plus record will start to put more bums in seats.

As for Spivey, I don't quite understand what the problem is with Woodward. As it appears from his statistics and from my own observation of him, he is a modestly below average defensive shortstop and a modestly above average offensive shortstop. Basically, Bill Russell or maybe a little below him.
_Jonny German - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 03:57 PM EDT (#91660) #
As a fan, I'd love to see Schilling in Toronto. But the question that has to be asked is, What do you really accomplish by having Schilling around in 2004? The team would be more competitive, which may put more fannies in the seats. But that's about it. He wouldn't be enough to make a serious playoff push, and he wouldn't be easily dealt mid-season unless Toronto pays the 6M deferred money. In that case, you're dealing prospects and 9M for different prospects. Lots of payroll flexibility post-Delgado or no, that sounds like a blatant waste of money. Same story if you keep him all year and he signs elsewhere, and if he re-signs in TDot you have to wonder why you bothered getting him a year early. Maybe Spivey makes it all more reasonable, but then you should probably just go after Spivey alone and let Philly pay for Schilling... and then steal Duckworth from Philly! Yes!
_Spicol - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#91661) #
As for Spivey, I don't quite understand what the problem is with Woodward.

I could go on at length. Choose your "weapon" (OPS, EQA, Win Shares, RARP, anecdotes, $/production, acting ability, anything else...I can spin them all to describe how poor his performance was this year relative to the league). As Craig said, his best role would be Dave Berg with power, and I too would love for him to stick around in that kind of job. But I'm not convinced he deserves a starting job and I don't think JP is convinced anymore either.

But it's not just dissatisfaction with Woodward that makes me look to Spivey...taking two salaries off of the D-Back's hands would lubricate a deal whereas asking for Schilling alone might not.
Pistol - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 04:07 PM EDT (#91662) #
If the Jays wanted Schilling and were willing to pay all of his salary I can't imagine another team being able to offer a better package for him.

Obviously just guessing, but the Snakes would want prospects that are close to being ready. Maybe an OF and a pitcher among Werth, Gross, Bush and McGowan?
Craig B - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 04:20 PM EDT (#91663) #
No, I think Bush and McGowan are too much. If they want a Gross or even a Werth, I think you could get away with a couple of lesser pitching prospects.
robertdudek - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#91664) #
I agree, I wouldn't trade:

Bush, McGowan, Rios, Quiroz, A Hill:

Everyone else is fair game if we could upgrade at starting pitcher.
_Spicol - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 05:30 PM EDT (#91665) #
As a fan, I'd love to see Schilling in Toronto. But the question that has to be asked is, What do you really accomplish by having Schilling around in 2004?

Simply replacing Lidle with Schilling and you win 6 more games than you should have in 2003, at least. I'll explain in detail.

Lidle has given up 121 earned runs in 184.66 IP. Were Schilling to pitch those innings for Toronto instead of Lidle, at his 2003 level of performance, he only gives up 61 earned runs. That's a huge difference. 60 runs! Suppose all other things are equal and you can subtract those 60 runs from Toronto's Runs Allowed total...the team would have given up 747 runs to this point instead of 807. The team has scored 867 runs. Plug those totals into James' Pythagorean theorem: Runs scored [squared] / (Runs scored [squared] + runs allowed [squared]). We're now talking 93 wins over 162 games, instead of the 87 that was expected this season, based on the team's actual run differential.

So, that's 6 wins. But the improvement is likely greater than that with my proposal. A healthy Schilling would pitch anywhere from 40 to 70 more innings more than Lidle has this season. That's 40 to 70 more innings that the Dan Reicherts and Tanyon Sturtzes of the world don't have to pitch. That could mean 1 or 2 more wins. Replacing Woodward with Spivey means further improvement. Conservatively, if we estimate Spivey will create 5 more runs than Woodward and save 5 with his glove, that's 1 more win (Spivey is much better than that offensively but I'm being conservative so I don't overstate my case).

Simply replacing Lidle and Woodward with Schilling and Spivey could mean the difference between 87 and 96 wins, even with 4th and 5th starters pitching as horribly as they did in 2003. Surely 96 wins is a 2004 contender.

Now, of course, this isn't a perfect scenario. It supposes that everyone else on the team performs at a similar level in 2004. Is that realistic? Also, it assumes that Thomson or another replacement can be found to supplant Escobar's 4.36 ERA in 173 IP. And Pythag is imperfect. But I think it's clear that this wouldn't only mean a slight improvement.

(Wow, I surprised myself. Even I didn't think it would look this good before I got my calculator out.)
_Jordan - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 05:31 PM EDT (#91666) #
Schilling in Toronto next year doesn't look too likely:

Curt Schilling isn't likely to accept an offseason trade to help the team lower its payroll in 2004, the East Valley Tribune reported Sept. 24. "I would say no, just offhand," Schilling told the newspaper. "I would imagine I'll play my final year here and become a free agent." Schilling, who will make $12 million (half deferred) next season, has a full no-trade clause in his contract and would prefer not to uproot his family. "Where I open up the first day of spring training I will finish the season," Schilling said. "I'm not going to up and move next year. I'm not going to be away from my family for an extended period of time."

I also agree with the line of thinking that asks whether Schilling would be a good investment right now. If this were 2005 and the team were one big stud away from a kick-ass rotation, then I'd say take the plunge; as it stands, though, we may have to resign ourselves to 2004 being another year in the continuing process of building towards a championship. Unless a Kevin Millwood falls from the sky like it did for the Phillies, then I don't see that it makes organizational or strategic sense to try and bring in a #1-A or #2 guy next spring.

I agree, I wouldn't trade: Bush, McGowan, Rios, Quiroz, A Hill.

I think you've nailed the club's untouchables, though JP sure likes John-Ford Griffin, too.
_Matthew Elmslie - Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 06:14 PM EDT (#91667) #
I'd trade anybody if I thought the deal was good enough.
J.P. Ricciardi on MLB Radio | 36 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.