Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
By general custom, baseball executives don't make roster moves until after the World Series is over, as they don't want to draw attention away from baseball's "showcase". (Note the quotation marks: for me, and for many people I know, the season is already over.) However, we at Da Box are not bound by such limitations. So here's my idea: let's suppose that you have been put in charge of the Blue Jays. What moves would you make? Assume a budget roughly similar to this year's.

My own choices: I'd keep the offense more or less intact, and give the kids a bit more time to mature down on the farm. Gross, Rios and Quiroz can all use more AAA seasoning, and why bother starting the service clock earlier than you have to? The only hitter on the current roster that is currently on the "sign or not?" bubble is Catalanotto, and he is eager to come back, so why not sign him to a 1-year deal if he'll take one? (One with an option may be the only realistic choice.) Good lefthanded hitters aren't that easy to find. I'd also re-sign Myers, if he'll come back, and possibly even re-sign Wilson, though maybe he should be an NRI at this point.

The only other change I'd make to the offense is to sign a quality glove as backup shortstop (assuming Bordick can't be talked into returning). The Jays will probably have to live with Woody at short next year, as Hill and Adams are at least a year away and probably two. But somebody with a lighter bat but better glove would be a useful late-inning defensive replacement, and could start when Halladay is pitching (Doc gets ground balls, and gives up fewer runs, so the offensive loss would be offset by the defensive gain).

As for pitching: priority #1 is to lock up Halladay. Prime pitching costs money, so most of the Jays' discretionary budget will probably be eaten up by Doc's contract. He'll be worth it. The rest of the money should be used to sign a flotilla of mid-level and NRI-level starting pitchers (such as, say, Hentgen). If the best way to develop pitchers is to sign a whole bunch of them and wait for the cream to rise to the top, the best way to acquire pitchers is to do likewise, no? A couple of them will develop under the protective wings of the Jays' coaching staff (just as Kershner did this year). If the Jays can use the money that went to Lidle to sign a new #2 starter, so much the better, but I think all that money will have to go to Doc.

As for the bullpen: it's actually not in bad shape, assuming that Lopez, Kershner, Miller, and Politte are all healthy. They need to pick up another pitcher or two, but, again, that just involves beating the bushes.

At this point, I wouldn't trade a top prospect to fill a hole.

By 2005, the farm system will be starting to produce quality players. Gross, Rios, Quiroz, McGowan and Bush (the Fab Five) should all be ready by then, so we will start to see J.P.'s team on the field.

What would you do if you were J.P.? | 122 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Mike Wilner - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 10:24 AM EDT (#87501) #
Simple: sign two 15 game winner guys for the rotation, and a proven closer like Urbina.
_sweat - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 10:49 AM EDT (#87502) #
I would try and work out a contract extension for Carlos, that would pay him around 12-14M a year for 2 more after this seasons contract is up. If this couldnt be accomplished I would trade him to Los Angeles(to replace McGriff), a place where he might waive his no-trade claus. I would attempt to get one of their younger pitchers(like Ishii, but they would be more likely give up perez) and also grab either shuey or mota. If there is one thing the Dodgers have its extra pitching, and if there is one thing they are lacking its a big stick like Carlos at first, who might even re-ignite Shawn Green.
Salaray differential is a lot, but the dodgers can afford it, and I believe burnitz is a FA, which is almost 13M off the books, i know that they want to resign him, but at most a guy who batted .240 would get is 4M.
After I finished with that deal, I would look at resigning Myers and Cat. Cat would be the new first baseman/DH, sharing time with phelps at each position. Clearing a little room in the OF. Now it would be Kielty, johnson and werth fighting over the last 2 spots.
I would then give Oakland a call and see if I could pry Ted Lilly out of their hands. I would gladly give Kielty to them strait up, but I imagine that might be a tough sell. If that deal somehow worked, Having a guy like simon pond as the backup OF would discourage Tosca from sharing to much time. Or perhaps a rookie surprises at spring training.
I would probably let Escobar go, offering the arbitration for the compensation. If he accepted a reasonable 2 year deal I would keep him around, but I dont think he will
By doing all of this there would obviously be more than just a little cash left over, and I think that it could be used to sign 1 more starting pitcher, I'm not really sure who that would be. But I would look towards signing Tejada to a 1 year deal. he could probably be had for somewhere in the 7-10M dollar range, which IMO would be a decent deal.
*Additions*
Ishii or odalis perez
shuey or mota
ted lilly
Miguel Tejada
a couple of starters looking for a bounce back season(tenrun sturtze level)
*Resign*
Cat
Myers
*gone*
Escobar
Carlos
Kielty

This obviously a daydream, but its fun to think about it. I would also make a low offer to Vlad, he might want to stay in canada.
Coach - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 11:31 AM EDT (#87503) #
Mike Wilner has said that on the air before, but more eloquently than "two 15 game winner guys," so I suspect this is an impersonation. If so, why? Wouldn't you add more to the discussion by identifying yourself, and telling us whether you agree or disagree with Mike?

Though I have a very high AMWP (agree with Mike Wilner percentage) I think a Proven Closer is the last thing the Jays need. They are very expensive (see Koch, Billy) and every year, new guys step into the role successfully, like Gagne v. 2002 or Borowski v. 2003. Or old guys living in trailers outside minor league parks (Rod Beck) can suddenly recapture their youth. I'd just go with Lopez and wait for one of the kids to develop into the role, or I'd trade for another underrated setup type like Politte and hope he a) stays healthy and b) enjoys the ninth-inning spotlight. If the Jays are surprise contenders at midseason, and a closer is considered the missing element, they can be rented.

One pitcher I'd target is Miguel Batista, cut loose in the D-backs financial purge. In addition to being talented on the mound, the Dominican righty is an admirable man -- a poet and humanitarian who has a special interest in Native Americans and contributed $50,000 toward the construction of a ballpark on tribal land.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 11:45 AM EDT (#87504) #
http://economics.about.com
Hijack.

Did anyone see this Toronto Star article?

Balancing the Books

Cheers,

Mike
_Wildrose - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 11:46 AM EDT (#87505) #
There's also a relationship.. as both Tosca and Patterson(?) were with him(Batista) on the D-Backs.

Wilner just on the fan,plans to have Halliday,Delgado and Wells on the pre-game show this week. Maybe I'll phone in and check on Vernon's weight.
Mike Green - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 11:52 AM EDT (#87506) #
Dave,

There's a reason that this question is usually asked in November or December. It helps fans beat back the dread of winter.

I don't really disagree significantly with your approach. My approach would involve two questions:

1. can the team compete in 2004?
2. if not, what can the team do now to help it compete in 2005?

My answer to the first question is that it is likely that the team will be unable to compete in 2004. The only caveat to this is that the team could compete if they get hot early on, and one or two of McGowan, Bush and Arnold is ready to make a significant contribution prior to the All-Star break. As the schedule is easy in April and May, this is within the realm of possibility, but I wouldn't bet money on it. In fact, I would say that it is more likely that the team will end up with 75 wins than 95 next year.

As far as I am concerned, the main project for next year is creating an environment where young pitchers can succeed. The ballpark works against pitchers, and the pitchers involved (Towers, Hendrickson, McGowan, Bush and Arnold) will depend for their success to a great degree on the defence behind them. The immediate issue is third base. I would try to acquire a third baseman with a better glove, but probably less sock, than Hinske, with an offensive line of .270/.350/.400 ideally.

The secondary project for 2004 is figuring out who will be the 1st baseman in 2005. Can Carlos Delgado be re-signed without blowing the budget? Will Josh Phelps have the defensive ability to play the position (you'll never know unless you give him 40 games in there while letting Carlos rest his knees and DH for 30 of them)? By some chance, might Vito Chiravalloti be ready in 2005 (by taking the same steps in 2004 that Mark Teixeira did in 2002)? Will Eric Hinske hit enough to be a first baseman? Personally, I'd try to trade Hinske over the winter and suss out the Delgado/Phelps/Chiaravalloti options as 2004 goes on.
Gerry - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 11:54 AM EDT (#87507) #
Maybe I'll phone in and check on Vernon's weight.

An excellent Monday morning chuckle.
_Wildrose - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 11:59 AM EDT (#87508) #
Thanks for the link Mike. I really wish we had an accountant in the mix instead of all these lawyers to help explain what "accounting principles " actually means.

I noted in the Roger's recent quarterly report that the broadcasting arm (Sportsnet,Fan radio ) made 12 million for the quarter. I'm sure the team loses money(poor attendance,not owning their own stadium)but I wonder exactly how much?
_Wildrose - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 12:07 PM EDT (#87509) #
Mike Green, I generally agree with your 2004 scenario,I'd keep Hinske however and continue to work on his defence,albeit with an eye to the future as I'd say its 50/50 that he'll ever be strong enough defensively especially with a groundball staff.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#87510) #
http://economics.about.com
Thanks for the link Mike. I really wish we had an accountant in the mix instead of all these lawyers to help explain what "accounting principles " actually means.

I'm not sure either. I would guess that would mean depreciation and stuff like that, but considering they don't own the stadium I'm not sure how much they can write off.

What strikes me as more curious is this:

With a $53 million payroll, said Godfrey, every penny change in the dollar (up or down) represented $400,000 to the Jays.

I'd really like to know where that figure comes from. Like I've said before, I imagine the Jays are doing a lot of currency hedging (or atleast should be) so exchange rate fluctuations shouldn't matter all that much.

If they weren't doing any hedging and the savings came purely from on-field payroll, they should be saving a lot more than $400,000 per 1 cent increase:

CDN-to-US Payroll (CDN) Diff
0.68 $77,941,176 $---
0.69 $76,811,594 $1,129,582
0.7 $75,714,286 $1,097,308
0.71 $74,647,887 $1,066,398
0.72 $73,611,111 $1,036,776
0.73 $72,602,740 $1,008,371
0.74 $71,621,622 $981,118
0.75 $70,666,667 $954,955
0.76 $69,736,842 $929,825

To understand any of this you'd have to be a highly trained forensic accountant with a lot of info at your disposal. Neither applies to me, so I can't figure any of it out.

Mike
Mike Green - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 12:21 PM EDT (#87511) #
Wildrose, I don't know which way "not owning their own stadium" cuts for the Blue Jays financial situation. The Skydome, is, I understand a money pit.

The interesting thing that happened this year was the sale of the Dodgers from a media magnate (Rupert Murdoch) to a non-media magnate. Some have speculated that the sale arose from improvident salary decisions made by the Dodgers. It may also be that the convergence benefits for media and sports team owners are not as great as previously thought.

Anyways, the relationship between Rogers and the Blue Jays is so intertwined that figuring out what the Jays actually made or lost on operations would require a forensic accountant. Take radio revenue, for instance. Telemedia (owned by Rogers) pays the Blue Jays for radio rights to games. Rogers Sportsnet advertises significantly on Telemedia Blue Jay broadcasts. In these circumstances, could anyone be satisfied that the amounts paid for radio rights and advertising on radio from one arm of Rogers to another reflect the market value or rather the amount that makes sense for Rogers as a whole, taking into account such things as income tax considerations?

Baseball fans are generally more interested in cheering "hit it here, Willie" from the bleachers than figuring out how much the team earned or lost. But, when the richest team's payroll is over double the average team's payroll and this is the single most important factor in success, that does tend to draw fans' attention.
Mike D - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 12:23 PM EDT (#87512) #
Mike Green, there's *no way* the '04 Jays are anywhere near 75 wins. JP is a patient man, but not one that enjoys losing; he won't field a team that has no chance to compete next season.

Because (a) this is an important year from a marketing standpoint, and (b) Carlos Delgado will be an '04 Blue Jay, I can guaran-damn-tee you that the Jays won't spend meaningful time south of .500.
Mike Green - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 12:23 PM EDT (#87513) #
Mike M, I swear: I had not seen your prior post when the I wrote the words "forensic accountant" in my post.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 12:30 PM EDT (#87514) #
http://economics.about.com
Mike M, I swear: I had not seen your prior post when the I wrote the words "forensic accountant" in my post.

Hehehehe.. I'm more insulted that you didn't read my post than I would have been had you just plagirized me. :)

Seriously, though.. you're right. There's so many companies involved it's really impossible to know how much anyone is making. I really have no idea if the Jays are losing money. I suspect that they're not (or atleast, they're not losing much), but I can't back that up. Just a hunch.

One thing that I've read a lot that really bugs regarding payroll issues is when people say, "The Yankees win because they have more money". That's completely wrong. Does George Steinbrenner really have that much more money than Ted Rogers? I'd guess that atleast 2/3rds of the ownership groups have more money than the Yankees.

The Yankees spend more money, but that's a whole different can of worms. Having money and spending it are two very, very different things. Just ask Scrooge McDuck.

Mike
Pistol - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#87515) #
One thing that I've read a lot that really bugs regarding payroll issues is when people say, "The Yankees win because they have more money". That's completely wrong. Does George Steinbrenner really have that much more money than Ted Rogers? I'd guess that atleast 2/3rds of the ownership groups have more money than the Yankees.

Personally, yes. But in terms of revenue generated from baseball operations the Yankees dwarf everyone else (and sadly, being a Connecticut resident, I contribute about $24/year myself from cable fees).

----

I'm not sure either. I would guess that would mean depreciation and stuff like that, but considering they don't own the stadium I'm not sure how much they can write off.

You can write off player contracts for a few years (5?) which would be a non-cash expense that's contributing to the bottom line (of course Canadian accounting may differ). So net profit and net cash flow are going to be different.

This is a common stathead argument for teams' cooking their books, but if you're paying more for a franchise because of the players that are on the team (a team with good players is worth more than a team with bad players) you should get to write that portion off. And if the team is ever sold you have to pay capital gain tax on what you wrote off so I don't see what the big deal is. The only gain is the difference between the ordinary tax rate and capital gain tax rate (although again, it may be different in Canada) yet I always see people at Primer go nuts about this.

Visitor #230009 - I always miss the milestones.
Pistol - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#87516) #
. .

Sorry about that....
_Nigel - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:06 PM EDT (#87517) #
I think that the first question to be asked for '04 is: what about Delgado? Because he chews up about $18 million in payroll and has a no trade clause, you must ask the following:

a) do you want to trade him?
b) would he accept a trade?
c) could you trade him?

To which I would answer:

a) yes, as I've posted before, I believe you could spend the money on pitching and be better off (on a net basis because clearly there would be an offensive hit);
b) I have no idea;
c) yes, but you have to have low expectations of your return if you want to save a good chunk of the salary.

Until you sort these questions out you really do not know what salary room you have. If the answer to any of the above is no, then you are left with the appox. $12 million that JP has mentioned that he has to spend. I believe a chunk of that will go to Halladay to sign him for a long term deal. If that is the case then there are only two choices for next year:

a) go through another offseason like '03 and try and strategically plug holes with cheap FA's (likely with '03's mixed success); or
b) trade prospects to fill holes.

JP has publicly said that he is unlikely to do (b) so I think you are looking at an offseason very much like last year. JP is likely to go after 2 or 3 FA pitchers in the Hentgen mold and hope for the best. I think that's about all you can expect with this budget room and almost no front line prospects ready for '04. In sum, I think '04 is a "treading water" kind of year waiting for the talent dam to break in '05 unless:

a) you trade Delgado and option up big budget room;
b) get incredibly lucky with your retread FA pitchers;
c) get the "near ready" prospects to blossom early;or
d) trade prospects for MLB talent.

Any of the above could theoretically happen, but I'm betting on another 85 or so wins next year while we wait for the talent to bloom.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#87518) #
http://economics.about.com
Be Gone Italics!. BE GONE!

Mike
robertdudek - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:12 PM EDT (#87519) #
The most important thing isn't how much money Steinbrenner/Rogers have; it's how much revenue the baseball wing of their empires can generate. That will dictate how much they can spend. Whether they choose to or not is another matter.
_Mick - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:21 PM EDT (#87520) #
Dave, the headline to this post made me immediately suspect you are going to start shilling (as opposed to the D'Backs who start Schilling) little bead-like bracelets with the letters

WWJPD

... on them. The ZLC will no doubt chip in.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:26 PM EDT (#87521) #
http://economics.about.com
The most important thing isn't how much money Steinbrenner/Rogers have; it's how much revenue the baseball wing of their empires can generate. That will dictate how much they can spend.

Is professional sports the only industry that runs in this manner? Does Microsoft say, "Well, we generated $100B in revenue last year. How can we spend $99B of it?". It's a really, really bizarre way to run a company.

A company should invest when the ROI is high enough (e.g. the marginal revenue of the investment exceeds the cost of the investment by "enough"). The amount of revenue the company generates elsewhere should be irrelevant to the conversation. Of course, for some reason, it isn't that way in baseball.

Mike
_Geoff - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:34 PM EDT (#87522) #
If I'm J.P., I assume Carlos is gone after next year...we might be able to afford him in 05, possibly 06 - but unless our budget goes up we don't have sufficient wiggle room in '07...My idea of a perfectly run small market club involves 2 good rookies per year locked up in Wells/Hinske type contracts...The way this works is

2 rookies (300,000)
2 sophmores (500,000)
2 3rd-years (800,000)
2 4th years (3 million)
2 5th years (4.3 million)
2 Free agents to be (5.6 million)

That's 12 players...add to this 11 players (DH, backup hitters, all members of bullpen other than the closer) who can easily be fit in at an average 1 million per year...That's a total of exactly 40 million for 23 players - leaving the remaining 2 slots to be filled with roughly 10 million dollars. Wells and Hinske were the '03 rookies, and I think Phelps and Hudson should be locked up as the '04 rookies.

Obviously, this concept won't come to fruition for the Blue JAys until the last year of the Wells/Hinske years - until that point, we should do our best win while working around this concept. All things considered we have about 11 million to spend if we have 50 total...that makes our offense essentially the same as last year with an MLFA replacing Bordick and Cash replacing Wilson...although I would dump Cat and pick up Valentin if the White Sox drop him...as far as pitchers go, 5-6 on a number 2 guy, 2-3 on a #3 and 1 on a #4, leaving 2 mil for a clsoer type...Miggy, Thomson, Hentgen and Baez could possibly fit that type of a budget
Craig B - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#87523) #
Sometimes it just takes persistence before it pays off.
Mike Green - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:38 PM EDT (#87524) #
Mike D: It's not solely within JP's control. If the budget is $50 million and most of that is taken up by the salaries of Delgado and Halladay next year, JP will not have a lot of maneuvrability.

I said that it was more likely that they would end up with 75 wins than 95. What it would take for them to win 75 in 2004:

a. Halladay is not quite as good in 2004 as he was in 2002-03,
b. the replacement for Escobar is not as successful as Escobar,
c. Josh Towers flops even worse than Tanyon Sturtze did,
d. Greg Myers or whoever replaces him in 2004 produces much less than Greg Myers did in 2003,
e. none of Bush, McGowan or Arnold is ready to be a successful major league pitcher
Each of a. through e. is reasonably possible or even likely, but cumulatively I would say that it is a worst case scenario.

What it would take for them to win 95 in 2004:

a. Halladay is as good or better
b. the replacement for Escobar produces at his level
c. Josh Towers and Mark Hendrickson are average major league pitchers
d. two of Bush, McGowan and Arnold are ready to be successful major league pitchers by July.
The odds on d. particularly are low, but it has happened (see the '85 Royals of Saberhagen and Gubicza).

As you can see, my view is that the offence will be fine, although off a bit from 2003. The pitching could be significantly worse in 2004 than 2003 or much, much better, or anywhere in between, and JP's decisions over the winter will only tell part of the tale in where the pitching ends up.
Gerry - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:56 PM EDT (#87525) #
Some accounting commentary.......

I really wish we had an accountant in the mix instead of all these lawyers to help explain what "accounting principles " actually means.

What accounting principles means is that you have to follow accounting rules for your financial statements. In 2002 the Jays traded Mondesi but agreed to pick up his 2003 salary. Under accounting principles you have to write off that loss in 2002 and you cannot wait until 2003. It would be the same in 2003 for Shannon Stewart's salary. All of the remaining 2003 salary would have to be written off in the month he was traded, so it all hit the latest Rogers financial report. There may be other examples of this. In general, under accounting principles, you record a loss as soon as it is recognized.

There has been some talk this postseason of TV ratings and what it means for Fox. Last year Fox took a big write down of their sports TV rights because the future value was not there. You don't know if there are other similar factors that impact the Jays.

If they weren't doing any hedging and the savings came purely from on-field payroll, they should be saving a lot more than $400,000 per 1 cent increase.

The Jays savings would be on their "net" US exposure. I believe there are some gate sharing exchanges in baseball and the Fox TV, ESPN TV/Radio, merchandising, etc. revenues would come to the Jays in US dollars. So the net impact would be net of everything else. The Jays would also have additional US expenses, travel, minor league coaches, scouts, Keith Law ;-), etc.

You can write off player contracts for a few years (5?) which would be a non-cash expense that's contributing to the bottom line (of course Canadian accounting may differ).

Issues such as the 5 year write-off and capital gains taxes are purely tax related. A company's earnings will be different for tax and for accounting pruposes. In the US there are a number of accelerated tax write-offs available for owners of sports teams. These are generally not available in Canada.
Coach - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#87526) #
My earlier post was interrupted; real life has a way of intruding on blogging. In addition to Batista, I'd be talking to Pat Hentgen. Sure, he'd like to finish his career in his hometown of Detroit, but that team is going to be horrible again next year. One year helping the Jays wouldn't preclude him signing with the Tigers in '05; maybe they could work out a mutual option. There seemed to be considerable interest in John Thomson last winter, and he had another solid year. I thought of all these guys when Keith Law was on the radio the other night, saying their sights were on known commodities, but not big stars.

Apart from two mid-rotation starters and maybe an experienced bullpen arm, the needs are a lefty-swinging catcher who can pinch-hit for Cash and start about 50 games (obviously, Myers fits the bill, so I hope he's back) and a veteran shortstop who can be a late-inning defensive guy and is capable of stepping in as #1 if Woody doesn't cut it; Rey Sanchez, for example. I've also mentioned Julio Lugo, whose 407/484/852 in 27 AB at SkyDome this year is interesting.

I don't think Kielty-for-Lilly is do-able, as the value of lefty starters is substantial, but you can be sure Beane and Ricciardi will be cooking up some ideas at the winter meetings, and if other players (and other teams) get involved, Bobby could end up in Oakland and the Jays could get Lilly, or another useful pitcher. Then, Catalanotto becomes an essential component. I'd be just as happy to trade Cat, if there's any interest, keep Kielty and spend the difference on another pitcher, or a better one.

The only way to trade Delgado will be at the deadline, IF the Jays are out of contention, IF some other contender is desperate for a slugging 1B, IF he would agree to go there, and IF the Jays paid a large chunk of his salary anyway. Seems highly unlikely to me. I have wondered if Carlos would agree to deferring some of his 2004 salary in order to give J.P. more cash to work with. Of course, the Rogers accountants and shareholders might not support that idea, so it may never be proposed. Since this thread is a "what would you do?" fantasy, I'd try to make a run at the brass ring in 2004 by asking Delgado to defer about $6 MM, then instead of looking for a bargain starter, package a couple of prospects to Arizona for Curt Schilling.

If I was J.P., I'd make John Gibbons the bench coach and manager-in-waiting, and bring someone else in to coach at first. I'd encourage Carlos Tosca to be more intuitive with his pitching changes, or at least get Gibby's input. I'd make sure Josh Phelps got 500 AB in 2004 and played first base enough to get comfortable there. And I'd be sure to give Batter's Box another exclusive interview, maybe in January, to discuss all the roster changes and preview the season.
_Jordan - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#87527) #
Priority #1 for the '04 Jays is, of course, pitching. Let's start with the rotation.

Obviously, Roy is your #1, and let's say Mark Hendrickson is your #5. For purposes of this entry, I'll assume (a) Justin Miller doesn't make it all the way back this year, (b) Jason Arnold isn't ready for prime-time till August, and (c) Corey Thurman can't put it all together as a starter. These are three pretty negative assumptions, and at least one of them should turn out to be wrong, but much better to plan for the worst-case scenario.

Of the remaining in-house pitchers, I count Kelvim Escobar, Josh Towers and Pete Walker. I think Walker is best suited to a swing/long-man position and should be counted on to be a starter only in cases of injury. Towers has not convinced me; I think he was largely fortunate to be successful this season in Toronto, and next year he'll be knocked around a lot. He may start as the nominal #4 guy, but to be honest, I don't see him lasting past mid-May.

That leaves Kelvim. His pros and cons are well-established, but I would try to sign him. I'd much prefer a 2-year deal to a 3-year deal; by 2006, he shouldn't be necessary and would only be blocking younger, cheaper pitchers; plus, 2 years is that much less risk that Bad Kelvim will explode back onto the scene. The fewer years, the more money it will take to get him. I'd probably aim for 2 years at $11M, $5.5 a season, about a mil more than Cory Lidle was taking home. I'd go as high as $6M a year, but that's it. If he comes back with 3 years at a lower annual amount -- say $5M flat -- I would consider it, because he could always be dealt in winter 2005. But if the total deal exceeds $15M for 3 or $12M for 2, forget it, and if another team offers him 4 years, adios Kelvim. I really want him on my 2004 staff, but if he returns, it has to be on my terms, not his. This decision affects everything else I do.

If Kelvim comes back, then I need just two more starters, or one if I'm willing to risk Towers in the rotation till Arnold is ready. Kent's suggestion of Batista is an excellent one: in addition to the factors he mentioned, I'll add that Batista is a groundball pitcher (2.04 GB/FB in 2003, 1.64 lifetime), and unlike Lidle, who came over from a pitcher's park, Bank One strongly favours batters. He made just over $3.375M last season, so $4M seems reasonable for 2004.

My other target is John Thomson, who just finished gettting mauled by the American League for the Rangers (13-14, 4.85). Despite his troubles, he threw almost 220 innings, posted a fine BB/K rate (49/136) for the second straight year, and was hurt by his ballpark (park effect +29.5% for hitters) and his bullpen (ranked 18th in Wolverton's list of pitchers let down by their pens); his 2.6 SNWAR ranked just behind Kelvim Escobar (2.8). And he did all this for just $1.3M -- I'm sure he could be had for not much more than $2M, if that.

So there's my suggested rotation: Halladay, Escobar, Batista, Thomson, Hendrickson. Assuming Roy signs a multiyear deal for something in the range of $8M a year, then this entire rotation should run you about $20 million -- and will almost guarantee you 90 wins. That is, if the bullpen is fixed up, too. I'll try to get to this in a later post, but suffice to say that a bit more luck and a few less Tams, Creeks and Sturtzes in 2004, and this should be at least a league-average pen for the same amount of money as in 2003, which is all you'll need.

Oh, yeah -- if I can't sign Kelvim, then I offer Brandon League, John-Ford Griffin and Kevin Cash to the 'Spos for Javier Vazquez.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 02:08 PM EDT (#87528) #
http://economics.about.com
The Jays savings would be on their "net" US exposure. I believe there are some gate sharing exchanges in baseball and the Fox TV, ESPN TV/Radio, merchandising, etc. revenues would come to the Jays in US dollars. So the net impact would be net of everything else. The Jays would also have additional US expenses, travel, minor league coaches, scouts, Keith Law ;-), etc.

Right. It was just because the story included the words "With a $53 million payroll". That seemed to be implying that it was payroll that was making most of the difference. Obviously it can't be, which the figures I posted showed.

The really silly thing is the $400,000 figure would change quite a bit depending on which currency Sporsnet was paying the Jays in. Of course, since they're all in the Rogers family it doesn't matter if they're paying the Jays in Buglarian Lev. It all nets out to be the same thing.

Back on topic.. I don't see Delgado waving his no-trade, so any discussion about freeing up the money is probably purely academic. Then again, so is almost all of our discussions here. :)

Mike
_Ryan01 - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 02:13 PM EDT (#87529) #
I definitely agree that Batista, Thomson, and even Hentgen should and will be targets this offseason. Another name that fits in this category would be Kenny Rogers. We know JP's already tried to acquire him twice in the last 12 months (As a free agent last year and Shannon Stewart deal). He fits the price range, ~2M, very consistent. Not a super-star but should pitch ~200 quality innings.
_Nigel - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#87530) #
I have no idea if Delgado would waive the no-trade or not but one thing that weighs heavily against it is that the two destinations where opportunity and reality meet (i.e. a decent chance to win and the budget to take on a large salary in order to try and win) are L.A. and Seattle (given word that both Edgar and Olerud may retire). Both of those destinations are murder on sluggers. Given this will be Carlos' year to put up huge numbers for his last huge contract, he's unlikely to want to go to a location where his numbers will be deflated.
robertdudek - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#87531) #
It hasn't really been discussed as a possibility, but, assuming a failure to get a contract extention before the end of 2004, the Jays may offer arbitration and Carlos may accept. At that point they could revisit the situation a year later, or work out a new contract without the pressure of impending free-agency. This is what happened with Bret Boone and Barry Bonds 2 off-seasons ago.
Pistol - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#87532) #
As a good ZLC member, I concur with the suggestion of Batista and Thompson. Both should be reasonably priced and moderately effective. I collect draft picks and let Escobar go elsewhere (or keep him for 1 year at the arbitration price).

I also think we'll be surprised at how hard the Jays go after a reliever or two (given the bullpen this year, the Jays paying Escobar $5 million to be in the pen this year, and JP's comments that a good bullpen maybe more important in the AL than the rotation). Who specifically I can't say (out of laziness to see who's available).

Cat is out, Werth or Gross is in. Wilson's out, Cash and Myers stay.
Pistol - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 02:52 PM EDT (#87533) #
a veteran shortstop who can be a late-inning defensive guy and is capable of stepping in as #1 if Woody doesn't cut it; Rey Sanchez, for example. I've also mentioned Julio Lugo, whose 407/484/852 in 27 AB at SkyDome this year is interesting.

From what I've read I don't believe that Lugo is any kind of defensive wizard. There's a reason the Astros have Everett.

Also, given the nature of his exit from Houston I'm not even sure the Jays would consider him.
_Jordan - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 02:57 PM EDT (#87534) #
Just to weigh in on Carlos: he's not going to waive the no-trade clause, because he likes being in Toronto, this team is closer to the top of the success cycle than many others (including LA and Seattle, in fact), and the Jays don't have the wherewithal to pay for him to waive the clause anyway. He's here for 2004, and be glad, too, because he makes this offence click.

After 2004? Too many variables. The team could have improved to contender status far faster than anyone expects, or it could take a giant step backwards. Carlos could have another great year and be the toast of Toronto, or he could struggle and get booed in April and May, souring him on the city again. The market for first basemen could remain high, or it could bottom out. He may love the new uniforms or hate them. I wouldn't worry too much about the post-Delgado era right now, because it might as well be 100 years away, as far as the elements of certainty and predictability are concerned. Provisionally, though, Robert's idea is a good one.
_Nigel - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#87535) #
Robert, while I agree that there is precedent for the arbitration offer, I cannot see that happening with Delgado. Unless I misunderstand the philosophy of JP, I cannot foresee him wanting to commit himself to the $15+ that the arbitration offer would require. I think Delgado can only stay if he signs a long term contract that ties up a smaller portion of the budget. Now, if the budget were to increase for '05, that's a different story. Since we're dreaming ... :)
_Jonny German - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 03:15 PM EDT (#87536) #
Various random thoughts on this thread:

The most intriguing shortstop possibility in my mind is Jose Hernandez. Can he still play solid D at SS after a year spent mostly at 3rd? Will the Mike Barnett school of hitting elevate his offensive game? Does the SkyDome play to his strengths? Can he be had for $1.5M? (These questions are not meant to be rhetorical, I'd like to hear thoughts on them.)

It will be interesting to see if the price of a premium starter (i.e. Millwood, Colon, Pettite) goes up or down. I have no idea, so I don't know if I'd try to sign Halladay before or after these guys sign.

Survey suggestion: Who will be an effective starter in 2004?

a) Hendrickson
b) Towers
c) Both
d) Neither

It seems like most people here are big on one or the other, but not both. I'm in the Towers camp, I think he's got the right makeup to continue to be successful when the competition gets tougher.

Another survey suggestion: What will Hinske's overall contribution (both offense & defense) be in 2004?

a) Worse than 2003
b) About equal to 2003
c) About equal to 2002
d) Better than 2002

While many of you seem ready to ditch Eric for a B pitching prospect in Double-A, I for one am sold on c) and leaning towards d).

Geoff, your two-rookies-a-year plan is intriguing, but can a small market club afford to effectively guarantee it will sign some bad 5-year contracts? If you do this every year without considering the specific player you're signing, sooner or later you sign a Billy Koch or a Homer Bush, who tank before the contract is up. Granted, you probably didn't mean that every player would get $15M like Hinske & Wells did... How much would you give to Hudson & Phelps?

Kenny Rogers. We know JP's already tried to acquire him twice in the last 12 months (As a free agent last year and Shannon Stewart deal).

Really? I don't remember either of those as more than idle speculation in the local tabloids.
_Young - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 03:17 PM EDT (#87537) #
Hi, new reader here. Are we assuming that the money to Mondesi's contract is a sunk cost and we won't be spending that same amount of money again this year? I know that is entirely possible, but if we include that into salary plans, the Jays would probably be looking at 60 instead of 50 million to shell out to the roster.
_Jonny German - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 03:17 PM EDT (#87538) #
Now that's different... I managed to get the italics backwards. Sorry 'bout that.
Dave Till - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 03:26 PM EDT (#87539) #
Robert, while I agree that there is precedent for the arbitration offer, I cannot see that happening with Delgado. Unless I misunderstand the philosophy of JP, I cannot foresee him wanting to commit himself to the $15+ that the arbitration offer would require.

From what I've heard, I think J.P. recognizes that top talent commands a top salary. The available evidence suggests that the best way to spend money is to shell out what it takes to get as many of the very best players you can afford, and then fill in the roster cheaply by dipping into the pool of freely available talent.

The expenditures that kill a franchise are the medium-to-large contracts for mediocre players (such as Derek Bell and, yes, Raul Mondesi).

A one-year arbitration offer isn't a huge risk if Delgado continues to perform in 2004 - his performance isn't likely to fall completely off the table. The question is whether the Jays should want to try to sign him for a longer-term deal - and, if so, at what salary. If Carlos really likes it here - and the evidence suggests that he does - the Jays might be able to sign him long-term for less than the rate he could command from some team with more dollars than common sense (*cough*Baltimore*cough*). Especially if they're willing to toss in another no-trade clause.

For me, the bottom line is this: I don't want the Jays to get rid of Delgado until they've got another player at least as good.
Dave Till - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 03:29 PM EDT (#87540) #
And, while I'm here, answers to Jonny German's potential survey questions:

Who will be an effective starter in 2004?

Neither Hendrickson or Towers, I fear. Josh's HR rates are just too high.

What will Hinske's overall contribution (both offense & defense) be in 2004?

Better than in 2003.
_Young - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#87541) #
I've always wondered about this as well, 'if' the Jays trade away Delgaldo's contract without taking any albatross' back, what would the effect of signing that Kaz Matsui or whatever the SS from Japan's name is to a 8 mil or so contract? I know the guy may suck, but think of all the Japanese revenue, billboard commercials and TV contracts, that's got to be a good gamble, is it not?
_Wildrose - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 03:35 PM EDT (#87542) #
Another name I'll toss out there is Livian Hernandez. After an end of June blowout at the hands of the Jays, Hernandez had a talk with fellow Cuban Carlos Tosca ,who suggested Livian lower his arm angle ala Roy Halliday. After this adjustment he was dynamite down the stretch.(15-10 3.20 era. overall)

Hernandez pitched so well he vested his 6 million dollar option for 2004,( > 217 innings in 2003)and given the usual payroll problems with the Expos may be available for a nominal prospect. Heck I'd even offer his older brother free agent Orlando Hernandez ,coming off shoulder surgery, a minor league deal and turn Toronto into Buena Vista club North.
_Jordan - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 03:53 PM EDT (#87543) #
Are we assuming that the money to Mondesi's contract is a sunk cost and we won't be spending that same amount of money again this year?

IIRC (and that's never a guaranteed thing), I think Mondesi's contract was already off the books in 2003 -- although the Jays were paying $6M of his salary, it wasn't considered to be part of the '03 payroll, for reasons better known to accountants. But feel free to contradict me. And thanks for coming aboard, Young -- new posters are always very, very welcome!

Also, I really don't think Hinske's going anywhere. Aside from the fact that his trade value is very low, coming off a rough season, dealing him now cuts the legs out from under the direction and morale of the organization. Eric and Veron were signed to long-term deals to be part of the foundation in Toronto; Doc will follow this year. To cut one of those foundations loose so soon would cloud everyone's confidence in the front office's leadership and wisdom. Hinske was hurt in 2003 and didn't play it smart; he'll learn from that and be better in '04. And defence is the one thing that everyone, but everyone can get better at with time and practice.
_Nigel - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 04:02 PM EDT (#87544) #
Dave, I'm not sure you've described the organizational philosophy quite right. As I understand it, I would describe it as optimal utilization of funds. In this case it translates into: does the extra (i.e. above the replacement player salary) $13-15 million per year that you would have to pay Delgado in arbitration warrant the approximately 40 runs above internal replacement (Phelps or F-Cat) that Delgado would provide? I think this is the analysis that Oakland went through (on which I assume JP had some views) with Giambi and decided agaist the annual cost. I agree that you have to pay for talent, I just think the bad franchises overpay for talent. As bad as this sounds, I have argued several times that as great as Delgado is, the Jays are overpaying for his talent. What he brings to the table above replacement costs the Jays too much in other areas of their line-up.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 04:19 PM EDT (#87545) #
Would anybody be against a Delgado for 'young stud pitcher making little money' and then JP signing Vlad? I think it's reasonable that Vlad would enjoy Toronto (baseball not in spotlight) and he would be cheaper (I think) then the current Delgado deal.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 04:31 PM EDT (#87546) #
http://economics.about.com
Who on earth is going to take Delgado with his contract? That's the fly in the ointment.

Mike
Craig B - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 04:36 PM EDT (#87547) #
From what I've read I don't believe that Lugo is any kind of defensive wizard

What you read was wrong, at least according to the most sophisticated analysis I've seen. Play-by-play analysis (MGL's "UZR" metric, for one) confirms that Lugo is a very good fielder, one of the three or four best shortstops in baseball. He did not play well (at all) in the field for Houston at the start of this year, but was back to his old tricks in Tampa Bay.

Any measure of defensive play is going to be subject to biases and distortions. But generally, I think that without good contrary evidence, we should assume that Lugo is one of the best defensive shortstops.
_Nigel - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 04:44 PM EDT (#87548) #
Mike M, your very statement proves - by definition - my point. If the market would not look at the deal and try and "purchase" Delgado in a trade, Delgado is overpaid. A problem that should not be compounded by going to arbitration with him. Try and sign him to a long term contract on more reasonable terms - maybe (although I would be against it unless it is a substantial drop in salary) - but do not keep up this cycle of having one player take up so much payroll.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 04:59 PM EDT (#87549) #
http://economics.about.com
Mike M, your very statement proves - by definition - my point.

Nigel, honestly, I don't think you're the only one who thinks he's overpaid. Actually, I defy you to find anyone who thinks he isn't. :)

If the market would not look at the deal and try and "purchase" Delgado in a trade, Delgado is overpaid. A problem that should not be compounded by going to arbitration with him.

I'd worry about that problem when it comes around. Who knows what the market will be like then? Given his salary, the no trade, etc. there really isn't much you can do with him in the 2003 off season.

RE: Lugo. I just can't cheer for the guy, even with the acquittal.

Mike
_Jacko - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 05:03 PM EDT (#87550) #

A one-year arbitration offer isn't a huge risk if Delgado continues to perform in 2004 - his performance isn't likely to fall completely off the table. The question is whether the Jays should want to try to sign him for a longer-term deal - and, if so, at what salary. If Carlos really likes it here - and the evidence suggests that he does - the Jays might be able to sign him long-term for less than the rate he could command from some team with more dollars than common sense (*cough*Baltimore*cough*). Especially if they're willing to toss in another no-trade clause.

It's a tough call. If the Jays don't offer Delgado arbitration and he signs elsewhere, there will be no compensation picks.

On the other hand, if they offer and he decides to accept, they might have a very expensive 1-year deal on their hands. He's got 9 years experience, and he'll be 32 on opening day 2005.

Who does he compare to? Giambi is a little older, and will be making 15.5 MM in 2005. Manny is around the same age, and will be making around 20 MM. Shawn Green is going to make 16 MM. The list is long and distinguished.

If Carlos is serious about coming back for the Toronto "dynasty years" later this decade, the best course of action might be to trade him at the deadline in 2004 for prospects and then sign him back as a free agent. Not only will they get some prospects, but they will also have a longer period of time to negotiate before the 2005 season, and they have to take the risk of Carlos accepting arbitration.

The only flys in the ointment are:

(a) convincing Carlos to relocate for a few months
(b) they might have toi give up draft picks in order to resign him

Brief hijack:

The subject of how weak the Jays system is at 3B came up in an earlier thread, and some wondered why they didn't draft a 3B instead of a SS. Check out who the Yankees took with the 27th pick this year.

Not bad for a player who was drafted out of high school.
_Cristian - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 05:17 PM EDT (#87551) #
On Lugo's shortcomings:
"From what I've read I don't believe that Lugo is any kind of defensive wizard. There's a reason the Astros have Everett."

Probably the same reason that Brad Ausmus played 143 games at catcher and Geoff Blum made Morgan Ensberg sit on the bench most of the season. I don't think we should read too much into who the Astros decide to play on an everyday basis. Force Jimy Williams to play Lugo, Ensberg, and a decent catcher and the Astros win the NL Central.

On Kaz Matsui:
"think of all the Japanese revenue, billboard commercials and TV contracts, that's got to be a good gamble, is it not?"

You would think that eventually the Japanese market would dry up. I don't know how popular Kaz is in Japan but with Seattle's ties to Japan and Hideki Matsui likely to win a WS ring, I would assume that Kaz would be #3 in the hearts of Japanese baseball fans.
_Mike B - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 05:36 PM EDT (#87552) #
The subject of how weak the Jays system is at 3B came up in an earlier thread, and some wondered why they didn't draft a 3B instead of a SS

I think what the Jays did in drafting Aaron Hill was draft a versatile player. Many scouting reports around draft day had suggested that Hill might not be an ideal shortstop and that a move to the hot corner was imminent. I don't know for certain if Hill will make it as a shortstop but I do know that the shift from SS to third is a move that can be handled with relative ease. I'll always support drafting a SS who's capable of playing a solid third rather than drafting a third sacker who might not even be able to handle that position.
Mike D - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 05:41 PM EDT (#87553) #
The most intriguing shortstop possibility in my mind is Jose Hernandez.

Noooo!!!

Josh Phelps is the Jay most criticized for striking out, and he does indeed whiff. But let's compare Phelps to Jose Hernandez for a minute.

We'll only consider months in which the batter recorded more than 60 ABs, so Phelps doesn't count his 326/408/581 June or his 125/192/250 July. Jose gets a mulligan on his 148/254/148 September, with no homers in just under 60 ABs.

Phelps
April 263/360/455, 4 HR, 11 BB, 27 K
May 260/327/406, 3 HR, 6 BB, 34 K
August 333/425/587, 4 HR, 8 BB, 21 K
September 246/350/493, 5 HR, 7 BB, 14 K

Hernandez
April 320/395/460, 3 HR, 13 BB, 31 K as a Rockie
May 196/250/280, 3 HR, 8 BB, 42 K as a Rockie (!)
June 136/230/318, 3 HR, 8 BB, 28 K as a Rockie/Cub
July 244/274/433, 3 HR, 4 BB, 35 K as a Cub/Pirate
August 245/284/353, 1 HR, 6 BB, 18 K as a Pirate

Josh went through some growing pains this year, and suffered through some prolonged slumps. Hernandez, however, is totally overmatched when he's running cold -- a gaping offensive void for weeks at a time. Plus, his bat speed ain't improving any: He turns 35 in July.

Put it this way: Even in some cozy environs, ain't no slump like a Jose slump 'cause a Jose slump don't stop. Check out his 9:1 K:BB in July!
_Mick - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 05:44 PM EDT (#87554) #
and then JP signing Vlad? I think it's reasonable that Vlad would enjoy Toronto (baseball not in spotlight) and he would be cheaper

Do you really want JP in a bidding war with Theo Epstein and Brian Cashman? And isn't he likely to finish third in such a bidding war?

Guerrero is going to get stupid money this winter.
_Jordan - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 06:06 PM EDT (#87555) #
I can't decide which 3-4-5 I like less:

Garciaparra-Guerrero-Ramirez
Williams-Guerrero-Giambi
_Nigel - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 06:09 PM EDT (#87556) #
Seeing as how they're all righthanded batters Tosca only has to use one reliever in Boston instead of the 3 he would use in NY. :)
Mike D - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 06:30 PM EDT (#87557) #
Memo to all National League GMs: SIGN VLADIMIR!

Yours truly,

A Blue Jays fan
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 06:34 PM EDT (#87558) #
http://economics.about.com
Memo to all National League GMs: SIGN VLADIMIR!

Why? The guy is going to seriously get overpaid, and is going to prevent other GMs from signing more financially sound players. That'd be great for the Jays.

Besides, he's going to be an Oriole next spring.

Mike
_Young - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 06:36 PM EDT (#87559) #
Hey, if JP was smart, he might place himself in the bidding war for Vlad and offer the loser between Yanks/BoSox Delgaldo (for oneupsmanship)
The Jays aren't going to contend with the big boys next year anyways, might as well save the 18 mil on delgaldo, be able to pay more on draft prospects (so we could draft those pesky Boras amateur players, not that we would, but opening opportunities is always a good thing, I say
robertdudek - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 06:42 PM EDT (#87560) #
Message to all posters ...

DELGADO HAS A NO-TRADE CLAUSE AND HE'S NOT GOING TO WAIVE IT.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 07:01 PM EDT (#87561) #
http://economics.about.com
But Robert, dear, we're supposed to be on opposite sides of the argument. :)

Impossible (or implausable) trade rumours are a part of the Toronto sports culture. Didn't you know that Calgary is going to trade Jerome Iginla, Denis Gauthier, Chuck Kobasew, Robyn Regehr and a 2nd rounder to the Leafs for Wade Belak, Tie Domi, and Trevor Kidd? It's been on all the sports stations!

Mike
_Jonny German - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 07:32 PM EDT (#87562) #
Mike D, I had a big counter argument ready to go on Jose Hernandez, but it got lost in the Greymatter when I hit "Preview" without having typed my name. The short version: Good D, potentially very good O in a hitters park and with Mike Barnett tutoring (check out his career line compared to Greg Myers), veteran influence, reasonable price tag. If you have BP2003 check out their comments on him, they put a lot of ink towards making fun of the Brewers for over-emphasizing the strikeouts.
Pistol - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 08:17 PM EDT (#87563) #
Message to all posters ...

DELGADO HAS A NO-TRADE CLAUSE AND HE'S NOT GOING TO WAIVE IT.


LOL, no kidding.

As for the questions above - Towers over Hendrickson (although both not more than a 4 starter, and likely a 5), and about equal to 2002 for Hinske.

Regarding Lugo - just thumbing through BP02 Lugo's defense was pretty poor in 2002 and 2000 and average in 2001 (Everett was great in 2002 and I remember reading a Neyer column I believe that was high on his defense this season). Looking at defensive win shares Lugo is a bit above average.
Pistol - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 08:18 PM EDT (#87564) #
I meant BP03 above.
Mike D - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 08:18 PM EDT (#87565) #
I really don't know how the most recklessly undisciplined hitter with two strikes in baseball can be a "veteran influence." The Cubs value "veteran influence" more than any club in baseball...and they promptly traded him away after acquiring him. If you're a 20 HR (as opposed to a 40 HR) guy, you should maybe choke up a bit at the plate with two strikes rather than strike out 180 times. Over the last three years, 18 of his 62 homers have come with two strikes.

On two-strike counts, Hernandez has hit 18 homers and struck out 550 times over the last three seasons. That's a heck of an approach he has at the plate, isn't it?

I know, I know, stathead dogma says strikeouts are just grand, and we should all do with a little more. But a strikeout-prone hitter needs a high BIP average -- i.e., be lucky or very powerful -- to put up respectable numbers with that many K's.

In 2002, Hernandez hit .406 on balls in play to lead the league. Per the work of Voros McCracken, that made him extremely lucky to hit 288/356/478. In 2001, he was 249/300/443, and in 2003 at age 34, he hit 225/287/347. What's he more likely to replicate at age 35? I apologize for my venom, but I really don't find him "intriguing" at all.

BP 2004 won't be as kind to Hernandez. Instead of putting up above-average numbers with a ton of strikeouts, he put up horrible numbers -- despite playing at Coors and Wrigley -- with a ton of strikeouts.

I can't see how playing at the Dome will help him. He'd be good for 20 HR if he reversed his decline (potentially related to age) and if Barnett worked wonders with him. The AstroTurf won't help him a bit, since he never puts the ball in play.
_Wildrose - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 08:25 PM EDT (#87566) #
One interesting clue to the future of Delgado will be the nature of the contracts offered to prospective hurlers. The Jays can afford to improve the pitching staff quite dramatically by back-loading deals until 2005. For instance you could offer Escobar 15 million over 3 years ,but pay him only 3 million the first year, ramping up for the remainder. If Halliday signs his extension for only around 5-6 million for the first year, you'll know Delgado is as good as gone.
_Wildrose - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 08:30 PM EDT (#87567) #
Good as gone in 2005, I don't see him going anywhere in 2004.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 08:38 PM EDT (#87568) #
http://economics.about.com
I know, I know, stathead dogma says strikeouts are just grand, and we should all do with a little more.

And the winner of "DEMAGOGUE OF THE YEAR" goes to...
Mike D - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 08:40 PM EDT (#87569) #
And the winner of "DEMAGOGUE OF THE YEAR" goes to...

I don't recall giving you the authority to give out that award.

Follow me blindly!
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 08:43 PM EDT (#87570) #
http://economics.about.com
I don't recall giving you the authority to give out that award.

Sorry.. in the future, I will respect your authoritah!

_Rich - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 08:51 PM EDT (#87571) #
I think this is the analysis that Oakland went through (on which I assume JP had some views) with Giambi and decided agaist the annual cost.

I don't think that's accurate. I'f I'm not mistaken, the A's offered Giambi a 6-year, $90 million deal, but they wouldn't include a no-trade clause (until it was too late) and THAT was the deal-breaker. He wanted to stay and he would have stayed if they had given him the no-trade, so I don't think you can conclude that Beane and JP would never give out these kinds of contracts.

My guess is that Carlos will be a Blue Jay until at least 2006; if he wanted out he surely would have waived the no-trade long ago, since JP has been in cost-cutting mode for 2 years and certainly could have found a taker by now. As someone said above, Carlos wants to be here. The only question is how much of a hometown discount he's willing to give the club; I suspect it may be considerable, especially if the team ups its win total in 2004.
Mike D - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 09:04 PM EDT (#87572) #
Hey, to all living in the U.S.: Game 6, 1993 is on ESPN Classic both now (9 pm) and repeated at 11 pm.
_Jordan - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 09:59 PM EDT (#87573) #
Okay, I'm back again, with a slightly revised take on the entire roster for 2004. Earlier I suggested signing Miguel Batista and John Thomson as free agents; I've now decided to just sign Batista, for fiscal reasons (I hadn't realized Carlos' salary jumps to $18.5M in 2004. Whoof). So, here's what we've got:

1. Starters
As stated, sign Halladay to a long-term deal (I'm assuming $7M for the first year), try hard to get Kelvim back for $5.5M, and bring in Batista for $4M (he made $3.375 in 2003, and the D-Backs declined their $5M option on him, so $4M seems like a reasonable halfway point). Hendrickson is in the #5 slot at the league minimum ($0.3M), but you could make him Josh Towers if you really wanted to. So who's our #3 or #4 starter?

I'd try acquiring Tomo Ohka from the Expos. His stock could be pretty low right now, after a difficult 10-12, 4.16 season that was far from the 13-8, 3.18 he posted in 2002. His hits allowed were putrid (233 in 199 IP, including 52 doubles and 19 HR, after 194 in 192 in 2002), but his BB/K rate was exactly the same as in '02, 45/118. He gave up more XBH, but part of that could be his troubles at Hiram Bithorn Stadium, where he surrendered 7 HRs in just 32 IP (as opposed to 10 in 77 IP in Montreal and just 7 in 89 IP on the road). Over the entire season, his 3.8 SNWAR ranked him ahead of Dontrelle Willis and Sidney Ponson, and tied him with one Miguel Batista. Basically, I think he just had a tough year, and he should rebound. Best of all, he'll only be 28 next season and he made just $340K last year (assume he'll get $500K this season). All of this means he shouldn't be expected to come cheap from the Expos, who need low-salary players as badly as Toronto does. So I'd be ready to deal Jayson Werth to get him.

So my rotation is Halladay, Escobar, Batista, Ohka and Hendrickson. Total 2004 cost: $17.3M

2. Bullpen
I don't really think getting a Proven Closer (PC) is a feasible idea for the Blue Jays. They're awfully expensive and often don't produce final results markedly different from what a scrap-heap guy could give you. So I think we should forget visions of guys named Foulke, Urbina, Mantei and even Latroy Hawkins, who'll command at least $3.5M next season, if not more. What the Jays need is someone affordable who can also close games dependably, allowing their younger pitchers more time to develop. What they need is a Former Proven Closer (FPC), and the guy I have in mind is Tom Gordon.

Gordon signed a $1.6M contract with the ChiSox last winter following his recovery from shoulder surgery and made the most of it, posting a great season (7-6, 3.16, 12 Sv, 74 IP, 57 H, 31 BB, 91 K) that was largely lost in the Billy Koch debacle and the emergence of Damaso Marte. The Sox are already stuck with Billy, so they'll keep Marte over Gordon at about 1/5 the cost. Gordon made $2.8M his last season with the Cubs in 2002, so he may be signable somewhere in between and higher, say around $2.4M. Another team may outbid me for his services, but there are a lot of closers on the market, and I think the knowledge that most closers aren't really worth $5M a year is rapidly circulating throughout the game.

With Gordon slotted for the closer role, the rest of the pen falls into place pretty easily. Aqulino Lopez returns as a right-handed setup man specializing in tough R-R matchups. Cliff Politte is a bubble guy; he made close to $900K last year, and if Gordon costs more than $2.4M, I may need to cut him to clear salary room. But if I can afford him, I'll bring him back at a slightly lower salary, $700K. After that, it's fill in the blanks with Pete Walker ($500K), Jason Kershner ($300K), Trever Miller ($300K) and the right-handed long man of your choice (I say Vinny Chulk for $300K).

So my bullpen is Gordon, Lopez, Politte, Walker, Kershner, Miller and Chulk. Total cost: $4.8 M

3. Hitters
This is a piece of cake by comparison. Carlos is back at a still-staggering $18.5M. Frank Catalanotto is a toss-up. I think he'll end up indirectly blocking Gabe Gross and cutting into Josh Phelps' PT, but we're going to need the veteran bat in the #2 slot against RH. I give Tosca strict orders for playing time, as set out in my earlier post, and bring back the Cat for $2.5M, a +10% raise that's influenced by a hometown discount. Greg Myers also comes back with a raise, $1.1M (I doubt he'll get much better offers from other teams; nobody else figures he'll repeat his first half of 2003 either). Woodward, Hinske and Wells are all slated, I think, to make about $800K (I may be able to cut Woody's salary back a bit); Dave Berg is on the hook for $700K. I'll give the O-Dog and Phelps each a raise to $600K. Bobby Kielty and Reed Johnson should make around $400K, and Kevin Cash is renewable at the league minimum. That leaves one spot open for Mike Bordick's replacement; I choose Chris Gomez from the Twins and sign him to a $400K deal.

Total cost of the hitters: $27.9M. Total payroll cost: $50.0M. There you go. Any thoughts, criticisms, blatant miscalculations to point out?
_Lefty - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 09:59 PM EDT (#87574) #
Sign Halladay. As mentioned above Kelvim two yr.s 6 per, three for 15 mil or forget it. Sign John Thomson. I think though, this will be tougher than suggested. Thomson was in spite of park factors and bullpen nearly bullet proof for a large part of last season. This in spite of playing in the west. I think there will be plenty of suitors for him when the window opens and the Jays need to be one of them. I expect its going to take 3 million with an option for 05. Thomson looks like a class act to me.

A rotation of Halladay, Escobar, Thompson, Towers and Hendrickson going into April looks pretty good to me. It surely isn't as good as Oakland, Seattle or NY or maybe a couple other teams but I think it gives you enough to contend nicely for the wildcard. Delgado is here for 04 commanding the big bucks. The Jays need to get some bang for those bucks now-not pay them for a 75 win season.

It shouldn't be overlooked that NY's pitching is far from a certainty next season with Clemens retirement, a Boomer bust and Contreras is still so far unproven. There isn't a spring chicken among them. Boston, Pedro is starting to look like an earthling, Wakefield will give whats expected but Lowe wasn't what he was in 2002. I don't think he's a lock next season but, who knows. Boston needs two mid rotation types for sure. Maybe Kims one of them.

I would being closely watching what Boston and NY do in terms of their rotation and if they do not make any significant moves then the Jays better be playing for the post season. They can tinker in mid July if they're in it.
Mike Green - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 10:11 PM EDT (#87575) #
Jordan, if the Jays are able to secure a rotation of Halladay, Escobar, Batista, Ohka and Hendrickson for $17.3 million and Jayson Werth, they will have done very, very well. Unless, they are committed to Halladay for $10 million in 2005 and $7 million to Escobar in 2005, in which case the benefit in 2004 is offset by the overcommitment in 2005.

I do like your choice of pitchers however.
_Jordan - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 10:33 PM EDT (#87576) #
they will have done very, very well. Unless, they are committed to Halladay for $10 million in 2005 and $7 million to Escobar in 2005, in which case the benefit in 2004 is offset by the overcommitment in 2005

Mike, that's true, and you want to be careful of backloading too many of your long-term deals; that's one of the many ways in which the Diamondbacks got into trouble. Nonetheless, Delgado's albatross salary will be off the books by 2005 as well, and that will open up a fair bit of salary room. That's not to say Carlos will be gone; I'd like very much to keep him, but at a much reduced rate. Whether he accepts the lower offer or not, I don't see any way the Jays are paying more than, say, $10M for a first baseman in 2005. With that extra $8.5, you use some to pay for raises to your key players (Halladay, Hinske and Wells chief among them) and use the rest as needed. It might work.

Granted, I may be a little on the conservative side in the starters' salaries. Tell you what, though, if the difference between getting these starters and not getting them is Cat's salary, then Gabe Gross gets a 400-AB debut in 2004.
_Jonny German - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 10:49 PM EDT (#87577) #
I apologize for my venom, but I really don't find him "intriguing" at all.

You don't find it intriguing that a guy can strike out so incredibly often? Alright, 'intriguing' was a poor word choice on my part, and honestly I'm not the President of the Jose Hernandez Fan Club. I just think he's one of the more interesting options available. Who else is out there to give you solid defense at short, at a reasonable price, and upside to be quite good offensively?

You can argue that he doesn't have much offensive upside, of course. Age doesn't do it for me... Bordick (37 at the start of 2003) and Myers (36) just turned in good years, why not Hernandez, a mere 34 to start 2004? Because he's coming off a stinker of a year? Bordick was coming off a pretty poor year too, and Jose is just two years off his career year... doesn't sound like a common career trajectory to me, in the tank for good in the season directly following a career year. Jose's seasonal OPS since 1998: .782, .764, .687, .743, .834, .634. This past year was more of an outlier than the career year.

The Coor's angle doesn't do anything for me, not every hitter gets a huge boost there and Jose only had 142 ABs there. Implying that Wrigley is a hitter's park confuses me, it played to the pitchers this year according to Robert Dudek's park factors.

"Veteran influence" was admittedly over-vague. It's about the defense, Woodward & Hinske already know plenty about offense.

The title "most recklessly undisciplined hitter with two strikes in baseball" is misleading despite it's precision... Hernandez averaged 3.91 pitches per plate appearance, better than notable Blue Jays Greg Myers (3.76), Frank Catalanotto (3.74), and Josh Phelps (3.71).

Sorry if the tone of this is coming off poorly, I really don't feel that strongly about it.
robertdudek - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 11:18 PM EDT (#87578) #
Jordon...

I'm 99% sure that Okha is arb-eligible for the first time this year. He should get a hefty raise - he'll likely earn 2.5-3.0 million in 2004. And that's precisely why I think he, or Livan Hernadez, or both, will be available in trade.
_S.K. - Monday, October 20 2003 @ 11:21 PM EDT (#87579) #
By the way, for what it's worth, McCracken's research indicated that hitters have significantly more impact on BIP average than pitchers. In other words, you can't write off Hernandez's .406 BIP average in 2002 as luck.

Not that I think he's an option; he's 35 and high-strikeout guys are prone to dropping off cliffs (if he hasn't done so already).
_Spicol - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 12:30 AM EDT (#87580) #
Apologies if someone already pointed this out...Colorado declined their option on Steve Reed and he's now a FA. He made a ridiculously low $600K in 2003. If I'm JP, I'm seriously looking into Steve Reed, even if he is going to be 38 on Opening Day.

After a horribly out of whack season, I wonder what Mike Williams would sign for. He too recently had his option declined.

Not for the Jays necessarily, but interesting nonetheless, JT Snow and Brad Fullmer both recently became free agents as well. Ditto for Luke Prokopec.
_Jacko - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 01:07 AM EDT (#87581) #

Apologies if someone already pointed this out...Colorado declined their option on Steve Reed and he's now a FA. He made a ridiculously low $600K in 2003. If I'm JP, I'm seriously looking into Steve Reed, even if he is going to be 38 on Opening Day


I noticed him get cut loose as well.

However, his platoon splits were _ugly_ last year:

vs. RHB: .165/.265/.241 (133 AB)
vs. LHB: .374/.456/.636 (99 AB)

He destroys righties, but is utterly helpless against lefties. Is this a blip or a trend? Check out his 2000-2002 stats:

vs. RHB: .192/.253/.268 (459 AB)
vs. LHB: .338/.432/.547 (234 AB)

What does that make him, a ROOGY?

As good as he is against RHB, his utter uslessness against LHB would make him a poor option for a setup man.
_coliver - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:48 AM EDT (#87582) #
The idea of a bench coach for Tosca is a good one, and Gibbons would fit the bill.

I read in Baseball America that Omar Malave is being sent to Dunedin to manage in 2004. Wouldn't it be a better to finally promote Malave to Toronto where he could be a First Base Coach. He is a solid baseball man and deserves this opportunity.
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 09:06 AM EDT (#87583) #
Spicol and Jacko,

Steve Reed is a great choice for a middle inning reliever. He'd fulfil Jeff Tam's role and do it much better and probably for less.

As for his platoon splits, his overall effectiveness (you have to bear in mind park effects) makes him useful as more than a ROOGY. Jacko, you're right that he probably shouldn't be pitching in the eighth and ninth innings of close games because of his platoon differentials.
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 09:14 AM EDT (#87584) #
Jordan,

I think you're on to the germ of something, although I doubt that the numbers will work exactly. I suspect Escobar will be priced out of the Jays' league, but obtaining Batista and Ohka (along with Steve Reed and Tom Gordon) would be a productive off-season for JP. And, I'm all for giving Gabe Gross 400 ABs in 2004 and letting Cat walk.

But as I said at the beginning, it won't work unless either Hinske improves his defence significantly (to at least his July-Sep 02 level) or a new third baseman is acquired.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 09:19 AM EDT (#87585) #
http://economics.about.com
But as I said at the beginning, it won't work unless either Hinske improves his defence significantly (to at least his July-Sep 02 level) or a new third baseman is acquired.

Why is this so important? Don't the Jays largely have a flyball staff other than Halladay?

Or lets put it this way: How many plays does Hinske *not* make relative to the average third baseman in a week?

Mike
_Jonny German - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 09:31 AM EDT (#87586) #
General note: The three-year player splits on ESPN have been updated, such that when you click on 3-YEAR (2000 - 2002) what you actually get are 2001 - 2003 splits.

In the case of Steve Reed, the conclusion remains that he's murder on righties and helpless against lefties... I extracted his 2001-2002 splits from what Jacko posted and got the following

vs. RHB: .203/.248/.279 (326 AB)
vs. LHB: .312/.415/.482 (135 AB)

I do agree that he is still worth acquiring. That profile fits quite exactly with Tosca's perception of relievers in general. And at any rate, his presence on the market is a good sign, I think there will be a lot of relief talent avaiable in the 1-year-less-than-$1M bin.
_Jacko - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 09:38 AM EDT (#87587) #

I think you're on to the germ of something, although I doubt that the numbers will work exactly. I suspect Escobar will be priced out of the Jays' league, but obtaining Batista and Ohka (along with Steve Reed and Tom Gordon) would be a productive off-season for JP. And, I'm all for giving Gabe Gross 400 ABs in 2004 and letting Cat walk.


I still think Gross is going to spend at least a few months in Syracuse before getting the call. Which leaves you with an outfield of Wells, Kielty, and Werth/Johnson. IMO, that's totally fine. Cat's a great hitter, and it would be nice to have him back, but:

- they need to take an honest look at Jayson Werth
- the 3.0 million is better spent elsewhere

The dearth of reasonably priced free agent pitching is going to push of Batista's price tag, probably out of the reach of the Blue Jays. My guess is he ends up in Boston.
_Spicol - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:04 AM EDT (#87588) #
Re: Steve Reed, As good as he is against RHB, his utter uslessness against LHB would make him a poor option for a setup man.

I think what you mean is that his utter uselessness against LHB would make him a poor option for the traditional setup man role. I ask you this...since when does Tosca use his bullpen in traditional roles? He's all about situational matchups.

It may be that Tosca hasn't used the middle men-setup men-closer setup because he hasn't had the players to do so. But Reed would be much more than serviceable in Carlos' current bullpen management environment. You're right in that he won't be the best choice to pitch critical innings against both RHB and LHB but the Jays probably need more than one arm and Reed would simply be part of a larger plan.
_Jays1fan1 - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#87589) #
What I would do if I were JP:

1. Offer Escobar arbitration and let him go, if he signs elsewhere take the draft picks, if he accepts arbitration fine, keep him for another year.

2. If Escobar leaves, try to trade for/sign a solid #2 pitcher at around the $5 million range. Ted Lilly comes to mind.

3. If AJ Burnett is non-tendered look at giving him a two year deal that is back-loaded. If he wants too much move on.

4. Sign 1 or 2 bullpen pitchers. Spend around $1 million on each and hopefully get one that I think can be a closer. Put Lopez in the set up role.

5. Sign a Shortstop that can platoon with Woodward.

6. Look through the non-tendered list and take a chance on a starting pitcher who could have a decent year. Spend about $1 million.

7. Sign Halladay to a 3 or 4 year contract.
_Spicol - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:19 AM EDT (#87590) #
Re: Jose Hernandez, I just think he's one of the more interesting options available. Who else is out there to give you solid defense at short, at a reasonable price, and upside to be quite good offensively?

I don't disagree with this, depending on the price of course. My thinking, however, is that Hernandez is just an older Tony Batista. Other than Tony being 30 in 2004 instead of 34, their situations are nearly identical and their production will be about the same, minus a few strikeouts.
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:40 AM EDT (#87591) #
Mike M,

The ironic thing is that Halladay was least affected by Hinske's defence. Doc is murderous on right-handed hitters, and against left-handed hitters, he gives up a lot of ground-balls to Hudson.

The two pitchers who were most affected last year by Hinske's defence were Hendrickson (unsurprisingly) and Lidle. Lidle was hit much harder by right-handed hitters than left-handed hitters. The pitchers who I expect will be hurt significantly by Hinske's defence next year are Hendrickson, Towers, Arnold and McGowan (if either gets the call).

While Hendrickson does give up a lot of flyballs (and home runs), the ground balls he gives up are disproportionately to third base and in the hole.

I repeat again. Hinske's defence last year was abysmal, costing his pitchers 20-25 hits over an average third baseman. If you take into account his defence, he had a worse year than Pat Burrell, but you have to look beyond his superficial offensive numbers to see it.
Pistol - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:43 AM EDT (#87592) #
Here's another question to ponder: WHEN do you make your moves? Take Batista - do you go after him hard early, trying to beat the crowd that misses out on Millwood, Pettitte, Maddux, etc.. or do you wait and hope that you like a player that is overlooked and get him at a lower salary?
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:48 AM EDT (#87593) #
http://economics.about.com
I repeat again. Hinske's defence last year was abysmal, costing his pitchers 20-25 hits over an average third baseman. If you take into account his defence, he had a worse year than Pat Burrell, but you have to look beyond his superficial offensive numbers to see it.

That seems really high.. I'd guess closer to 15, but you may be right. Keep in mind the guy played hurt all year.

One way to put those extra hits into context is by taking them out of Hinske's offensive record.

Hinske in his career is a 263/350/461 hitter. In 600AB that translates to 157.8 singles, 49 doubles, 3 triples, 21.3 homers and 80.4 walks.

Now what if we subtract singles off of Hinske's seasonal record. We'd get the following:

ADJUST * AVG / OBP / SLG / OPS
0 * 0.263 / 0.350 / 0.461 / 0.811
-5 * 0.255 / 0.343 / 0.453 / 0.796
-10 * 0.246 / 0.335 / 0.444 / 0.780
-15 * 0.238 / 0.328 / 0.436 / 0.764
-20 * 0.230 / 0.321 / 0.428 / 0.748
-25 * 0.221 / 0.313 / 0.419 / 0.733
-30 * 0.213 / 0.306 / 0.411 / 0.717
-35 * 0.205 / 0.299 / 0.403 / 0.701
-40 * 0.196 / 0.291 / 0.394 / 0.686

So if we take 25 singles off of Hinske's batting line, he's 221/313/419. Definately not great, but you could win a championship with a player of that caliber on your starting nine. Particularly when he's making under 1M.

I think this analysis horribly underrates Hinske, as the guy played hurt for all of 2003. A healthy Hinske is going to have closer to a 900 OPS than an 800 OPS. I also see his D being better.

I don't see Hinske influencing Arnold too much.. both times I've seen Arnold pitch live a typical inning was flyout/strikeout/double in the gap/groundout to second. He doesn't strike me as a guy who gives up a lot of groundballs to third, which is the weakest part of Hinske's game.

Mike
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 11:14 AM EDT (#87594) #
http://economics.about.com
OT. Did anyone else hear that the Blue Jays are Moving to Mexico? :)

Mike
_Chuck Van Den C - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 11:19 AM EDT (#87595) #
Re Steve Reed...

"Hard" righties like Reed (and Politte) can be effective relievers if used correctly, i.e., against a string of RHB when the opposition manager is not especially inclined to pinch-hit with LHB. That can be in the middle innings in relief of a LH starter (who is presumably facing a RH-heavy lineup), against generally RH-heavy lineups (such as Florida's -- yes, I know they are in the NL) or late in the game against clumped RHB's, such as Garciaparra/Ramirez.

Now whether Tosca could maximize a Steve Reed is another question. As the season wore on, he veered away from his 3-pitchers-per-inning strategy, which seemed to be based on his presumption that all relief pitchers have dramatic L/R skews, like Reed's. That he may (thankfully) be abandonning that strategy perhaps works against a Steve Reed being used effectively.
_Jacko - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 11:33 AM EDT (#87596) #

Now whether Tosca could maximize a Steve Reed is another question. As the season wore on, he veered away from his 3-pitchers-per-inning strategy, which seemed to be based on his presumption that all relief pitchers have dramatic L/R skews, like Reed's. That he may (thankfully) be abandonning that strategy perhaps works against a Steve Reed being used effectively.


IMO, the mark of a good manager is getting players to do what they're good at, and not asking them to do things they are bad at.

If Reed is signed, and Tosca sets him up to fail by letting him face tought LHB, then he is a bad manager.

Which brings us back to the idea of a bench coach for Tosca. He was pretty dogmatic about matching L/R splits last year, sometimes to the detriment of the team. I think having a smart "sober second thought" on the bench would be great for Tosca. It would also help if they were statistically inclined -- some guys have no L/R splits, and some guys even have reverse splits. It would help if someone was there to feed Tosca that info during a game.

I wonder how long it will be until managers have NFL style headsets in the dugout...
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 11:41 AM EDT (#87597) #
Chuck,

I think Steve Reed is more valuable than you're giving him credit for as a middle inning guy. Let's take a typical Blue Jay lineup facint him as the opposition:

Reed Johnson
Hinske
Wells
Delgado
Phelps
Kielty
Woodward
Hudson
Cash

If you bring in Steve Reed at the start of say the 6th inning, I would feel comfortable with him with any leadoff hitter except Hinske pitching for an inning (I'd rather have Kershner or Miller going in that event). I'd probably avoid having him pitch to Delgado with runners on in a close game, but otherwise he's much more useable than Creek or Tam.

His overall effectiveness allows you to go the whole inning with him unless he's going to be met with a string of left-handed hitters, or to a dangerous left-handed hitter with runners on.
_Jacko - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 11:43 AM EDT (#87598) #

"Hard" righties like Reed (and Politte) can be effective relievers if used correctly, i.e., against a string of RHB when the opposition manager is not especially inclined to pinch-hit with LHB. That can be in the middle innings in relief of a LH starter (who is presumably facing a RH-heavy lineup), against generally RH-heavy lineups (such as Florida's -- yes, I know they are in the NL) or late in the game against clumped RHB's, such as Garciaparra/Ramirez.


They are useful, but having a LOOGY's and ROOGY's around means you need to expand your bullpen. I'd rather find another guy like Aquilino who's good against righties, but can be trusted against LHB.

Did Lopez make some kind of adjustment in September? His K rate fell off, but he actually became more effective? There's a chance he ran out of gas, but there's also the possibility he's decided he doesn't need to strike everyone out...
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 11:56 AM EDT (#87599) #
Mike M,

I like your analysis. How about calling it "Net OBP", which for a infielder would be a useful tool in measuring overall effectiveness?
Anyways, a third baseman with an OBP of .313 is a millstone.

The other aspect is the confidence of your average pitchers. The confidence of your average pitchers is affected by poor defence behind them (stars like Halladay are less affected because they can succeed in spite of the defence). I am quite sure that this contributed to the sub-par seasons of Lidle and Hendrickson, although there was obviously more to it than simply that.

Let's hope Hinske's defence does improve, because as others have pointed out, the Jays have invested so much confidence in him by signing him to a long-term contract that they are unlikely to reverse field and trade him despite what I or anybody else thinks.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 12:08 PM EDT (#87600) #
http://economics.about.com
Let's hope Hinske's defence does improve, because as others have pointed out, the Jays have invested so much confidence in him by signing him to a long-term contract that they are unlikely to reverse field and trade him despite what I or anybody else thinks.

Agreed. Next year is going to be vital for Hinske. A lot of people are willing to write off one year as an off-year/injury year. But if Hinske puts up the same stats (on both sides of the ball) in 2004, I imagine people will be calling for his head.

I still think he'll be bounce back. I wouldn't be surprised to see him hit .270 with 30 or 35 homers. If he's healthy his D should improve as well, but I'm less confident in that.

Mike
_Jordan - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#87601) #
Did Lopez make some kind of adjustment in September? His K rate fell off, but he actually became more effective? There's a chance he ran out of gas, but there's also the possibility he's decided he doesn't need to strike everyone out...

Quite possibly. Mariano Rivera is a good example of a guy whose K rates fell as he became a better pitcher. Those are pretty rare instances, though. It's too soon to tell if this was the case for Aquilino: more innings next year will help tell the tale. If he ever gets himself an out pitch against lefties, look out.

The arguments in favour of Steve Reed are compelling, but I still can't get too excited about him. His BB/K and K/IP rates aren't so hot and have been falling the past few years. And those splits really are awful; Lopez has the same problem, but is more effective, is 10 years younger and will be cheaper. Unless the long-relief marketplace is utterly dry (unlikely), I'd be interested in Reed as a late-winter signing at a bargain price, but not otherwise. If there was any flaw in JP's machinations last off-season, it was signing journeymen relievers to guaranteed contracts too quickly.
_Jack - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#87602) #

I still think he'll be bounce back. I wouldn't be surprised to see him hit .270 with 30 or 35 homers. If he's healthy his D should improve as well, but I'm less confident in that.


I agree, I think his hitting will be fine.

Even if his defense at 3B is disastrous in 2004, they have the option of moving him to to 1B for 2005. Where he would immediately become one of the best defensive first basemen in the league. He has no problems catching the ball, just throwing it.

As long as he hits, it doesn't matter where he plays. At 3MM/season through 2007, he'll be a tremendous bargain.
_Jacko - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#87603) #

The arguments in favour of Steve Reed are compelling, but I still can't get too excited about him. His BB/K and K/IP rates aren't so hot and have been falling the past few years. And those splits really are awful; Lopez has the same problem, but is more effective, is 10 years younger and will be cheaper. Unless the long-relief marketplace is utterly dry (unlikely), I'd be interested in Reed as a late-winter signing at a bargain price, but not otherwise. If there was any flaw in JP's machinations last off-season, it was signing journeymen relievers to guaranteed contracts too quickly.


Reed is also _old_ -- he's 38 years old or something crazy like that.

I'd much rather roll the dice on 2-3 more Rule 5 picks and see if another one sticks. Maybe Atlanta will leave Buddy Hernandez exposed again.
Pistol - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 01:04 PM EDT (#87604) #
Now what if we subtract singles off of Hinske's seasonal record. We'd get the following

Some of those hits will be down the line for doubles so I suspect that is understating things.
_nelly - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 01:21 PM EDT (#87605) #
my plan:

let cat walk... the money could be better spent on pitching.

give gross a chance to win the RF job next spring... with the fall back being kielty and reed in the corners.

try to sign or acquire a mid range starter (lilly, batista etc.) + bronson arroyo + wilson alverez.

i'd also try to talk the phillies out of ryan madson (why is this guy not a top prospect???)

sign one or two (if politte is NT) righthanded arms for the back end of the bullpen. benitez anyone??

i'd be very reluctant to move a top prospect.

rotation:
halladay
lilly
arroyo
alverez
+ towers/henderickson etc.

pen:
benitez
lopez
kershner
politte
miller
file/walker
rule 5
_dp - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#87606) #
Would it be suicide to try to find a Rey Ordonez type minor leaguer (note- I hate St. Rey, but someone with his skill set could've been an asset to a good offensive club, and he never should've been a $5 million guy) to play SS? Offense is this club's strong suit, and I think they could afford to carry one no-hit, good glove guy. That's why I suggested Sanchez a couple of weeks ago, but there are probably guys out there in the minors who could do a similar job.

I think Hinske's got to have another year as a Jay- his hitting will rebound, and if his defense still sucks on the level it did this year, he can be dealt to a team that is willing to make sacrifice of offense for defense. The Mets would take him, though I'm not sure what they'd give up to get him. I'm always against dealing a player when his value has bottomed out, and I don't think Hinske's will get lower than it is now.

The OF situation needs to be resolved, and that means giving PT to unknown quantities. Kielty has done nothing as a Jay to deserve our conifidence, but it is too early to cut bait. Werth is in the same boat where you need to play him to see what you've got. Keeping Cat at this point is going to take PT away from those guys, so unless the plan is to move him when Gross comes up, I think you let him go. What to do with Chris Woodward? He's shown he shouldn't be an everyday SS, but is cheap and has (had?) some pop, so he's still useful.

The pitching staff is a mystery. There's got to be some way, short of firing Tosca, to do something about the bullpen use. I stay away from getting a proven closer and try this year's approach again.

I'd also try to pry Kim away from Boston- Grady Little seems to not like him, so maybe they'd be willing to move him. The Boston farm system is thin, so maybe they'd accept three lesser prospects to try and recharge.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#87607) #
http://economics.about.com
Some of those hits will be down the line for doubles so I suspect that is understating things.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know if Hinske would give up more doubles than an average third baseman. I'd doubt it, though.

Hinske is actually quite good at lunging to his right and snagging line drives. What he's not good at is cleanly fielding ground balls, and those aren't going to be doubles.

Mike
_Jordan - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 02:38 PM EDT (#87608) #
I'd also try to pry Kim away from Boston - Grady Little seems to not like him, so maybe they'd be willing to move him.

I'd love to see this happen. Unfortunately, Theo Epstein likes Byung-Hyun a lot more than Grady Little does. Theo likes him more than he likes Grady, too, which is a more pressing problem for the manager.
_stathead - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 02:41 PM EDT (#87609) #
Jordan,

No problems with your analysis, but what's your data sourse for MLB salary info ?? To anybody - is there a centralized source available which shows salaries (either all teams or even only the Jays), including multi-year deals such as Wells and Hinske ??
_Jacko - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 02:50 PM EDT (#87610) #
Check out the MLB Contracts site.

It's run by a guy from the UK who has a major hard-on for the Red Sox. It's an unnofficial source, but it's pretty decent.
_Jordan - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 03:33 PM EDT (#87611) #
The UK site is very useful; I just wish he would do more players. I found my salary data on the ESPN player pages (here's F-Cat and Lurch, for example, but you can get the whole team right here), and then guesstimated or researched the expected 2004 salary. It's inexact, but close enough for jazz.
Pistol - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 03:33 PM EDT (#87612) #
Salary information for the current year can be found (at least) on the team pages at ESPN.com.

Historical salaries can be found at the individual player pages at baseball-reference.com.
_Spicol - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 06:50 PM EDT (#87613) #
Would it be suicide to try to find a Rey Ordonez type minor leaguer

Why not suggest they just sign Rey then? He's a free agent and no one will give him big coin for 2004.
_dp - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 09:09 PM EDT (#87614) #
"Why not suggest they just sign Rey then? He's a free agent and no one will give him big coin for 2004."

He isn't as good as he used to be defensively. He's shown no ability to be a "coachable" player- with the Mets, he tried to kill everything, which resulted in a lot of hard swings at balls around his helmet. He never shrunk his strike zone to try to get better pitches, which is something you can try when you're told no matter how bad you hit you'll still be in the lineup. Maybe it was a function of batting before the pitcher, or being in Shea Stadium, but Rey never learned how to do anything of value with the bat. It is remarkable- in almost 3000 AB, his BA, OB% and SLG remained constantly around his career line (pre'03) of .245/.290/.304.

Plus, he'll get at least 1 million from someone. And I think a $300K minor league vet could post those numbers with the bat, maybe a little more, while playing similar defense. Unless you think hitting in a better park and not batting in front of the pitcher will help Ordonez repeat or approach his 117 AB .815 OPS, there's no reason to waste the money...
_Rich - Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 09:32 PM EDT (#87615) #
Cat's a great hitter, and it would be nice to have him back, but:

- they need to take an honest look at Jayson Werth
- the 3.0 million is better spent elsewhere


I completely agree. The team has viable alternatives to Cat; it doesn't have as many compared to having a $3 million pitcher (or 2 quality relievers earning half that). How about a sign-and-trade for Paul Quantrill? (Just kidding, sort of.)
_Spicol - Wednesday, October 22 2003 @ 04:09 PM EDT (#87616) #
Re: Rey, He isn't as good as he used to be defensively.

Win Shares seems to think he was pretty good, relative to the rest of the league.

I don't want anyone to think I actually feel that signing Rey is a good idea. I hate that idea more than brussell sprouts. I'm only saying that if you want a Rey type, hire the Reyest Rey a Rey can be.

If anyone gives him $1MM, consider that GM an absolute moron. I'd be surprised if he gets $500K. Hell, I'd be surprised if he even got a guaranteed contract.
_dp - Wednesday, October 22 2003 @ 07:46 PM EDT (#87617) #
Rey's defensive numbers came in 294 innings. I didn't watch him play SS this year, but his last couple of seasons in NY, he declined- going to his trademark down on one knee backhand way too often. According to BPro, he was 5 defensive runs above average in '01 and 7 above in '02.

I think someone will give him a contract, especially considering that he did hit well this year in his first season outside NY. Let's not forget what the Giants gave Nefi Perez to spot start- though it has been mocked, it still happened.
_jason - Friday, October 24 2003 @ 06:51 PM EDT (#87618) #
What to do? What to do?
1) Wire the phone to the bullpen so that it gives off an electric shock.
2) Sign Delgado. If both the team and Carlos wants to get it done, then I am sure they can. 10m per year with whole whack of incentives is do-able. If he must have a no-trade clause, take a million off. Agents be damned.
3) Get Carlos some down time for his knees. Once a week Vernon Welles and Tie Domi can hog tie him to a chair in the clubhouse where he will be attended by comely looking female who will play relaxing music and bathe his knees in pungent and ancient oils and balms from the east. Mir comes to mind.
4) I know the market will be preposterous for any kind of Competant starter, but J.P. must find at least one for the near future with options for the not so near future. You have to hedge your bets when it comes to pitching prospects.
5) Yes, get some bench help for Tosca, and while we're at it install Coach as first base coach.
6) Seeing as we're all throwing out names, how about Nick Punto. BP has him as a good defender with speed and more than a passing acquaintence with the strike zone. His stats this year look ugly - a rookie who was bounced all over the field under the madness tinged glare of Larry Bowa - but if he can give you good defence, anything plusses (sic)with the bat will be a bonus.
Mike Green - Sunday, October 26 2003 @ 12:10 PM EST (#87619) #
One obvious thing the Jays should do as soon as possible is move the fences back. The Jays' OF of the future- Wells, Rios and Gross- all have very good range and arms. A number of the Jay starters are vulnerable to the home run. It is also a good general rule that more successful teams play in pitcher's parks than hitter's parks.

There is a case to be made that the Jays could attempt to be competitive in 2004 as follows:

(1) attempt to trade Hinske and Kielty to San Diego for Sean Burroughs,
(2) promote Gross and Rios at the start of 2004,
(3) acquire Ohka ($3 million) and Miguel Batista ($4m)and Tom Gordon (2.4m) as above posts from Jordan
(4) sign Halladay to a long-term contract
(5) acquire bottom-feeding back-end relief (Steve Reed types) for $600,000 or less
(6) Quiroz starts in Syracuse, and is promoted in June or July with Bush, Arnold and/or McGowan

The budget

ROTATION
Halladay (7.0), Batista (4.0), Ohka (3.0), Towers (.3), Hendrickson (.3)
RELIEF
Gordon (2.4) Lopez (.3) Kershner (.3) Trever Miller (.3) Walker (.5) Chulk (.3)
TOTAL PITCHING BUDGET 18.4

HITTERS-regulars
Cash (.3), Delgado (18.5), Hudson (.6), Woodward (.8), Burroughs (.5), Wells (.8) Rios (.3), Gross (.3), Phelps (.6)

bench
backup left-handed catcher (.5), Berg (.7), Reed Johnson (.4), Howie Clark (.3) pinch-hitter with pop (.7)

TOTAL HITTERS BUDGET 25.3

Starting Lineup: Rios, Gross, Wells, Delgado, Phelps, Hudson, Burroughs, Woodward, Cash (Hudson moves to 9th against lefties and Burroughs, Woodward and Cash move up; Reed Johnson gets at-bats against tough lefties for Gross)

The plusses:
1. there is room to add personnel and salary if the team is competitive in July.
2. if the team is not competitive in 2004, Rios, Gross and Quiroz will have some experience under their belts and yet still be priced reasonably during 2005-2007 when the team should be competitive.

The obvious minus for this plan is the budget crunch of 2008-2009. But, if the goal is to win it all, rather to be perennially close, there is much merit in getting Gross, Rios and Quiroz some major league experience next year.
Coach - Sunday, October 26 2003 @ 12:32 PM EST (#87620) #
One obvious thing the Jays should do as soon as possible is move the fences back.

How? It would require major renovations on a building they don't own. I suppose if you relocate the bullpens to center field, you could turn some line drive homers into doubles.

(1) attempt to trade Hinske and Kielty to San Diego for Sean Burroughs

If you've given up on Hinske, that makes sense. Many of us haven't.

2) promote Gross and Rios at the start of 2004

If Kielty is traded or Cat is let go, I can see the benefit of having Gross from Day One. There is no reason to rush Rios until he proves he's too good for AAA.

I generally agree with your ideas about the pitching, Mike, but Flash Gordon is always one elbow twinge from the DL so I'm not sure he's the right guy. I'd be pretty happy with Kim if Boston wants to unload him.
Mike D - Sunday, October 26 2003 @ 12:37 PM EST (#87621) #
I've been all about the schadenfreude for Jeff Weaver this year...but now he's certainly about to become an ex-Yankee. Is it worth it to take a chance on a million-dollar airport with a ten-cent control tower?

I'd take either Weaver or Kim. They're too pricey to take such significant risks on both.
Pistol - Sunday, October 26 2003 @ 05:26 PM EST (#87622) #
I'd take either Weaver or Kim. They're too pricey to take such significant risks on both.

I'd be surprised if either the Yanks or Sox would be willing to trade with the Jays at this point.
What would you do if you were J.P.? | 122 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.