http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spbase054136186feb05,0,7971363.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines
Mags is set to join the Tigers for 5yrs/75 mil. The contract can be voided if Mags has knee problems.

Isn't that the same figure Vladdy got last off-season?

The prior 2 off-seasons salaries were coming down in terms of money and length of contract given to FA's but everything has gone back to normal this off-season. I feel sorry for teams with a small payroll because the market dictates number 3 starters are worth 7-8.5 mil a season, and power bats are worth at least 10+ mil a season, even if you have injury problems (Glaus, Sexson, Mags).

What's amazing is that the salaries have skyrockted in a flooded market. You would think with so many quality FA's this year the market wouldn't be that high because it comes down to supply and demand, and the supply was very high.

I expect it get worse next off-season because there's very little to choose from. The top tier and middle tier guys are going to go for huge dollars. And the Red Sox and Yanks have a lot of contracts running out, and I expect both to be serious players for all the top players again.

I'll make my prediction right now if Berkman has a good season some team will give him at least a 5yr/85mil contract.

On one hand I want the small market/middle market owners to put their foot down after this CBA expires and fight tooth and nail for a luxury tax system that isn't a complete joke and put in something like a dollar for dollar tax after a threshold of let's say 75 mil. But on the other hand, with all these salaries given out (even by a small market team like the Reds with Milton), it appears MLB is very healthy because owners wouldn't give out these contracts unless they had money to pay for it.

The Rockies are talking about trading C Charles Johnson to the Devil Rays. Sounds like bad news for Kevin Cash.

Unless Kevin Cash is part of the package going the other way, in which case it could be great news for KC. Well, for his batting stats, at least.

Unless Kevin Cash is part of the package going the other way, in which case it could be great news for KC. Well, for his batting stats, at least.
Except for the fact that Colorado has J.D. Closser and Todd Greene along with Tom Wilson on a minor league deal already. Plus they were looking to pick up Hammock from Arizona.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MLB/Toronto/2005/02/05/921604.html
COMN for an article titled "$70M not enough for Blue Jays"

Pretty much the only negative article I have read so far about the news from Thursday.

Interestingly enough, there is no author attributed to the article. Any guesses?

Interestingly enough, there is no author attributed to the article. Any guesses?

I'm guessing it's Bob Elliott finally chiming in. He's the only one there with that big of an axe to grind.

http://me.woot.net
From the article Blue in SK linked:

The only way the 2005 Jays have a shot at making the playoffs, is if they start playing in Triple A. With the Yankees, Red Sox and Orioles all having improved, it looks like they will once-again be fighting the Devil Rays for the AL East cellar.

Never mind that the unmentioned author provides no evidence that those three teams have improved (I'll buy it in some cases, but not in others, and never without evidence), and implies that 2004's Vernon Wells, Roy Halladay, and Carlos Delgado are superior to 2005's copies of Vernon Wells, Roy Halladay, Corey Koskie, and Shea Hillenbrand.

The basic premise of the article is "The 2005 Jays will not make the playoffs," which is, I think, pretty well accepted around baseball. What the increased payroll does is give the Jays a chance of attracting fans, building a sustainable business out of the franchise. Asking for more this season, especially since the money was given after most of the free-agent market was decided, is wrongheaded.

I'd argue that the Yankee's are better with just the addition of perhaps the best pitcher in baseball in RJ, never mind their other moves. Baltimore is better with the addition of Kline and Sosa for sure. Boston I'm not so sure about, minus Pedro and Lowe replaced by Benson and Wells. Middle infield is pretty much a wash, but resinging Varitek is a positive.

At best Boston has treaded water this season but that they are still light years ahead of the Jays - on paper.

Tampa has made no substantive improvement. But none-the-less will be exciting on the field. Its going to be a race between them and the Jays for fourth. I'd give the Jays a 5-8 game edge. On the basis of pitching alone.

However, I really don't think the author really needed to provide evidence. That would have taken away at least two column inches from what is generally acknowledged as a given.

I think part of the reason teams are spending more on free agents this season is because of the returns on large investments last season, guerero won the mvp, and pudge had arguably his best season. I think many of the large investments this year will fizzle; and there are many such possibilities with sexson, glaus, delgado, ortiz, wright, and even lieber.

The tigers signing a guy with declining ops, and a slew of injuries, to a 5 year $15 million deal is insanity. They could regret this decision, big time, and the rest of the league is going to take notice.

Anyone know if matsui is a free agent next season ... he signed a three year deal.

I would argue every team in the AL East has improved except for the Jays.

- The Yanks added the Big Unit nuff said. The bullpen is improved and Giambi might actually produce this season.

- The Red Sox pitching staff has improved imo. Clement and Wells are both good pitchers. Wade Miller was a signing that flew under the radar. Basically swapping SS's with the Cards is an upgrade. Having Nixon healthy will help too.

- The O's didn't lose any major players while getting Kline and Sosa.

- The D-Rays should improve just because their team is full of young guys and they should improve simply with more experience. They've also added a lot of veterans to hopefully help guide the younsters. This team didn't lose any impact players over the off-season.

- I'm leaning towards saying the Jays are not an improved team after losing Delgado. But I'm sure others could point out the Jays will be improved because Doc and Cat will be healthy and the Jays won't suffer from all the injuries they had last season. And also Adams, League, Quiroz, and Rios will help the club.

One thing I wanted to add to my last post is that I'm suprised the Jays don't have any kind of fan fest like the A's, White Sox, M's, D-Rays, Cubs, etc...

I think it's a great way of building fan interest by having a couple of QnA sessions with the players/coaches, autograph sessions, and let the kids run around the bases and take some BP. There's no negative in having a fan fest where families can come out and enjoy a cheap day out.

Not to nit pick here, at least I hope not, but when we let the team off the hook for the budget increase after the free agents have been all scooped I think this is at least questionable.

I think this needs to be questioned because it is said that Rogers could not make the payroll investment until he had all the other ducks in a row. Primarily the ComDome deal being signed and sealed. But how could Rogers make a multimillion dollar investments in turf, video screens and sound without the same being true?

And if that is true, perhaps we'll never know for sure, but say the above proposition has merit. Does this say anything at all about upper management meddling in re-building the team over the GM's head? Or more directly could their be a confidence issue from above?

I don't know, but all of this does cross my mind.

Never-the-less, let the rebuilding begin.

Speaking of any potential sustained attack of Yankee-supremacy by the Jays in the coming future, perhaps new shirts are in order?

Here's a clever little site I stumbled upon - naturally a product of Boston...

www.yankee-hater.com

(and yes, they sell shirts in Blue Jays colours)

http://me.woot.net
But how could Rogers make a multimillion dollar investments in turf, video screens and sound without the same being true?

The SkyDome purchase was not a sure thing, but it was pretty close to sure. In order to make the Rogers Centre ready for opening day, they had to start renovations right away. In doing that, they spent about $8-10 million. That's a far cry from $210 million over 3 years, or $60 million extra. Add to that probable clauses for cancellation (with some penalty) of the purchase contract, and you've got your explanation.

I think part of the reason teams are spending more on free agents this season is because of the returns on large investments last season

I think there could be something to that (and on the other hand, no obvious examples of expensive FAs falling on their face.)

And also a kind of contraction/expansion effect - the price of FAs had fallen a bit since Rodriguez and Delgado signed their huge deals. This winter, the air went back into the balloon.

One thing I wanted to add to my last post is that I'm suprised the Jays don't have any kind of fan fest like the A's, White Sox, M's, D-Rays, Cubs, etc...

I think they had something the day before Opening Day 2003, and they usually do something for season ticket holders. It would be nice to have something for everyone else though. I considered joining the Fan Club because I think they do something before the season too, but I didn't know if it was an old lady thing. Is anybody here a member who could fill me in?

I think the Jays have improved while the Yankees have got worse, and the Red Sox tread water. That in no ways means the Jays are competitive with those teams, but to think the 2005 Jays are worse than the 2004 Jays is a mistake. Injuries and unexpectedly poor performances mean that the 2004 Jays were not as strong as merely listing their starters would be. Hillenbrand has a good shot at replacing the Jays offense from 1st last year (regardless of if he plays DH or 1b), becuase they didn't have a full season of Delgado. Similar things with the pitching staff. A healthy Halladay will be worlds better than the Jays best pitcher last year which way only partially Halladay (when healthy) and other pitchers (when not).

I'm guessing Mags is gonna go from having knee problems to having thigh problems. "Coach, I can't play i have a sore kn... i mean thigh."

The 2005 Jays are likely to be healthier than the 2004 Jays. (How could they not be?) And some of their young players could very well take a step forward or two. Delgado's loss hurts them big-time, but they now have enough depth at the outfield and first base to keep them from having to play the equivalent of Dave Berg in right field and Chris Gomez at first base (both of which regularly happened last year).

The Orioles have added Sosa and Kline, but their starting pitching is awful. And Sosa is in decline.

Right now, I'd pick the Jays to finish third, behind Boston and New York. But the Sox and Yanks are old teams, and either could collapse at any moment; recall what happened to Seattle and Arizona recently.

I am by no way a pessimist for the 2005 season but despite the fact that Delgado was injured he still hit 30 homeruns and nearly 100 rbi. I understand he also did some DH, but even by taking away some of those home runs, we'd still need to account for the first basemen when he did not play first base. I didn't check the official stats but the 2004 Blue Jays' first basemen must've hit in total at least 35 homeruns, 120 rbi. I can't see the 2005 Blue Jays first basemen accomplishing this. But that doesn't mean overall home run production will go down. Keep in mind that the increase in homeruns and rbi from 3rd base will help to account for the loss at first base.

Interestingly enough, there is no author attributed to the article. Any guesses?

The article was written by Jon Cook according to Slam!. Anyone ever heard of him? Sounds alot like Elliot

But how could Rogers make a multimillion dollar investments in turf, video screens and sound without the same being true?

Sportsco had planned to replace the JumboTron and make other improvements anyways. So if the deal hadn't gone through, I imagine the JumboTron bill would've gone to Sportsco and the turf bill, which Sportsco was adamant that they wouldn't foot, would go to the Jays.

I don't see any kind of smoking gun here.

Baltimore, TB and our Jays have the TOUGHEST schedules in basball. While NY plays Bos 19 times the three of us play NY and Bos 38 times. These 38 games put us at a HUGE disadvantage in the wildcard race.

Realistically, until there are two wildcard teams we don't stand a reasonable chance of making the playoffs.

Sigh!

Now the good news; our homegrown/homegroging pitching JUST MIGHT be good enough for us to spend the 70 mil on a few mashers that might put us over the top.

Halliday till 07
Lily till 06
Bush till 09
League till 10
Chacin till 10
Rosario till 10
McGowan till 11
Banks till 11
Vermilyea
Perkins
Purcey
Jackson
and at least 5 or 10 others...

Baltimore, TB and our Jays have the TOUGHEST schedules in basball. While NY plays Bos 19 times the three of us play NY and Bos 38 times. These 38 games put us at a HUGE disadvantage in the wildcard race.

The Mariners have a much tougher schedule, for one.

The Mariners have a much tougher schedule, for one.

Not sure I buy that. Maybe the Angels are as good as NY/Bos, but I don't see next year's Oakland or Texas teams being that good. In past years I think you can make that point about Seattle, but I'm not sure about next year.

Regardless, the point about unbalanced schedules is a good one. I don't what the solution is, but I'd like to see baseball try to address it.

And also a kind of contraction/expansion effect - the price of FAs had fallen a bit since Rodriguez and Delgado signed their huge deals. This winter, the air went back into the balloon

Well, there is the argument the silly economists make that a business would generally set its payroll based on revenues. Smarter people -- like those who believe Gary Bettman -- know that economists have it backwards, and it is actually rising player salaries that CAUSE higher ticket prices, not the other way around.

Pretending the economists are right, with every indication that baseball is back on an upswing (including the direct cash received from the satellite radio contract), wouldn't it be reasonable for many teams to think that their revenues will increase over the next few years? If so, why not up the payroll?

(I think there's every reason for Ted Rogers to think that Blue Jays revenues will increase -- the NHL lockout and the Raptors reeling certainly helps -- and think that certainly was a factor in the increase in the BJ payroll).

While I'll admit that this never occurred to me at the beginning of the off-season, I think it is (in retrospect) reasonable to think that teams would be willing to pay more for FAs this off-season than in the recent past. I don't "blame" the Jays (or the O's, or any other team) for not seeing the spending coming, but I don't think we should really be surprised by it, either.

Anyone ever been in a roto league where "inflation" was rampant? I was, a few years ago -- some teams noticed that there was too much money and not enough talent going into the auction, and "over-spent" accordingly. Some teams didn't notice, and ended up either finishing the auction with tons of cash left over, or paying $10-$15 for $2-3 players at he end of the auction. The Jays and O's are kind of like the latter teams, this off-season. Luckily for the Jays, it seems they do get to carry over the "extra" money that they didn't spend...

I've posted this before (last December, before the Koskie signing) but in the meantime I've learned how to make tidy HTML tables, I like to show off, and the data is relevant to today's discussion:

POS	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	TB	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS
C	161	567	65	138	36	0	10	204	63	51	129	1	2	.243	.318	.360	.678
1b	161	588	87	160	30	0	33	289	116	77	129	2	1	.272	.361	.491	.853
2b	161	608	90	158	37	8	18	265	73	70	122	7	4	.260	.339	.436	.775
SS	161	584	62	154	27	8	6	215	59	43	85	3	4	.264	.317	.368	.685
3B	161	606	74	146	24	3	14	218	70	59	117	11	8	.241	.310	.360	.669
LF	161	620	76	173	39	1	11	247	80	43	110	1	3	.279	.329	.398	.728
CF	161	661	97	184	40	2	26	306	86	53	102	12	2	.278	.337	.463	.800
RF	161	635	80	176	32	9	6	244	56	45	119	18	4	.277	.331	.384	.716
DH	152	557	74	130	23	3	17	210	66	56	138	1	2	.233	.316	.377	.693

There is no way on earth that Hillenbrand can provide the production the Jays got out of 1B last year. But that's OK, it's not his job anyway. Koskie will do that - well, not quite, but close enough.

Hillenbrand just has to be better than the DHs.

Which shouldn't be too hard.

I don't see any kind of smoking gun here.

What did the GM know, and when did he know it?

Dr Prison Fence's piece implied (didn't actually say) that Ricciardi did not know about the increased budget two weeks before the announcement, and did know about it at least five days before.

It is obvious that the 1b production in 2005 will not be equal to what we got in 2004, but its not unrealistic to predict that most, if not all, of the other positions' production should go up.

Do you have a tidy little HTML table that shows the 5 starting pitching slots? I realize that will be tough b/c the rotation was all over the map last year.

I beleive that the Blue Jays can play .500 ball and finish 3rd in the division, ahead of Baltimore. We won't have Hengten pitching and we won't have Phelphs hitting 5th, that alone makes us a MUCH better team.

Not sure I buy that. Maybe the Angels are as good as NY/Bos, but I don't see next year's Oakland or Texas teams being that good. In past years I think you can make that point about Seattle, but I'm not sure about next year.

The Jays don't just play 38 games against the Yankees and the Red Sox. They play 38 games against the Orioles and the D-Rays as well, and they're both pretty lousy teams.

The Mariners don't have *any* games against weak divisional opponents. The Jays have as many games against weak opponents as they do against strong ones.

The strength of a division is determined by all the teams in it, not just the top 1 or 2.

Interesting Line there is @nd base ...third on the team in obp and slg....better than the DH and corner outfield's .....I think that tells you more about the latter positions than it does about 2nd base

Do you have a tidy little HTML table that shows the 5 starting pitching slots?

Not at the moment, but I'll see what I can do!

Regardless, the point about unbalanced schedules is a good one. I don't what the solution is

A balanced schedule?

I'm not sure the Jays would want a balanced schedule. You would think a balanced schedule would help the the Jays make the playoffs but at the same time you would lose revunue by not hosting the Red Sox and Yanks as much. Of course I'm speaking from a business perspective here.

By having more divisional games you know for sure how many times you will see the Sox and Yanks, whereas you don't know if your club will make the playoffs each season.

Can't really do the same thing for the pitchers that you can do for the hitters - number 3 starter isn't a position the same way third base is a position. However, the Jays are bringing back the same five guys for the rotation. Here's what happened last year:

Starter	GS	W	L	IP	H	R	ER	K	BB	HR	ERA
Halladay	21	8	8	133.0	140	66	62	95	39	13	4.20
Lilly	32	12	10	197.1	171	92	89	168	89	26	4.06
Batista	31	10	12	190.0	197	111	103	97	92	20	4.88
Bush	16	5	4	97.7	95	47	40	64	25	11	3.69
Towers	21	9	9	116.1	148	70	66	51	26	16	5.11
OTHERS	40	7	17	197.1	224	149	142	106	103	36	6.48

The real problem was the guys who filled in while Halladay was out, before Bush came up: mainly Pat Hentgen and Justin Miller.

Clearly, the Jays need to upgrade their sixth starter!

Another interesting Tidbit! MLB.com fantasy player preview ranks Dave Bush ahead of pitchers such as Dontrelle Willis, Jaret Wright, Al Leiter, Kris Benson , Millwood and Lowe.....thats about right...It will be nice to have good cheap young pitching in Toronto the next few years!

Slam must have added in the author tag later in the day, because it definitely was not there when I posted the link.

Jon Cook? Haven't seen his name mentioned before. Wonder if he is a new columnist.

Mags is set to join the Tigers for 5yrs/75 mil.

I just told Liam about the Magglio deal, and he said "Since when does Scott Boras have the power to cloud men's minds?"

I'm not sure the Jays would want a balanced schedule. You would think a balanced schedule would help the the Jays make the playoffs but at the same time you would lose revunue by not hosting the Red Sox and Yanks as much. Of course I'm speaking from a business perspective here.

By having more divisional games you know for sure how many times you will see the Sox and Yanks, whereas you don't know if your club will make the playoffs each season.

Is that neccesarily true? Logically, if with fewer games against those two the Jays would do better, we'd likely see an upturn in attendance anyway. Back in the days of the competitive Jays before the strike we'd see attendance even higher than what we have nowadays during Yankees/Sox games.

Do recall that a lot of that supposed "extra attendance" from Sox and Yankees games are actual Americans - while it's still good for the national economy it really does little for the team in any sort of long run.

15 mill a season??

Who thought he'd be the 2nd highest paid player this off season.

The Mariners have a much tougher schedule, for one.

Actually, they were having this discussion a few weeks ago on Primer. Somebody ran the numbers, and as I recall ,generally, American league East teams had a slightly harder schedule than A.L. West teams, although it was very close.

Individually however the Jays might have had a slightly softer schedule given their games against the Expos.

I know a lot of writers and fans grumble when Scott Boras is mentioned, but he truly gets top dollars for his clients. While the Tigers have an out clause, I'm once again amazed Boras was able to land Mags a 5yr/75 mil contract especially coming off a season in which he missed a ton of games.

Heck Boras fleeced JP with Schoenewis.

If I was ever a ball player, I want Boras as my agent.

Here's some attendance data for everyone:

10 Boston games - 240,777 (avg. 24,078)

10 New York games - 399,604 (avg. 39,960)

61 other games - 1,259,660 (avg. 20,650)

81 TOTAL - 1,900,014 (avg. 23,457)

If I was ever a ball player, I want Boras as my agent.

Chan Ho? Is that you?

In the last season the balanced schedule was used (2000), the Blue Jays had six home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox. For comparison purposes, using Magpie's numbers with a balanced schedule:

6 Boston games: 144,468 (24,078)
6 New York games: 239,760 (39,960)
69 other games: 1,424,850 (20,650)

Total: 1,809,078 (new average of 22,334)

So basically the Blue Jays would lose roughly 90,000 spectators during the season, everything else being equal. A realistic shot at the postseason could potentially make up for that at the gate.

I heard a bit about collusion in the years leading up to this off-season, and I don't know how legitimate the claims were (since they were after all coming from the MLBPA)

Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough, but it seems like there should have been more talk of higher salaries being a product of the elimination of collusion this year...

I'm more asking than anything, I have no idea...was there something I missed that refuted collusion as existing the last few years?

Or is the whole collusion thing just player propoganda?

A realistic shot at the postseason could potentially make up for that at the gate.

Ignore this comment from my previous post. It could be accurate, but there's several things wrong with it. If that makes any sense.

Jon Cook was writing an internet only column for the Sun for awhile.

As to the Jays, shift 10 starts from '6th starter' to 2004 Halladay and you shift from 4.9 IP allowing 3.55 earned runs to 6.3 IP and 2.96 ER per start = additional 14.06 IP and 5.92 runs saved plus the runs the pen would've allowed in those 14.06 innings = 7.94 runs (ugh the pen was horrid last year - worst pen ERA in the AL at 5.08) totalling 13.86 runs saved. Round off to 14 and you have 1.4 more wins (10 run shift=1 win is a normal assumption). Plus the pen would be more relaxed (better rested) and might be more effective for all others.

Of course, that also points out how paying $7-8 million for the #3 starters this winter might make sense. Halladay last year was at about the level the 3rd starters that went for $7-8 mil would be expected to perform at (4.2 ERA, 6 1/3 IP per game). This would state that they'd add about 3 times what Halladay's extra 10 starts would do, or 4.2 more wins vs what the drek the Jays used last year did. If each win is worth $2 million they are good deals as it would work out to $1.9 million per win at $8 million per season. Maybe JP just quit too soon on the bidding, which I'd never have guessed until doing these figures.

I know, bad form to follow your own post. But, I just thought, if the Jays pen is better then the assumptions change, plus if you assume JP has better #6 starters it changes too. Any improvement in those areas would cut the value of that 3rd starter. If you assume the pen improves to a 4.50 ERA then the value is $7.8 million. If you assume the #6 starters improve to a 6.00 ERA from a 6.48 as well then it moves to $6.2 million per season. If you assume Towers will have a 5.00 ERA in place of whoever would've signed, and averages 6 IP per start with a pen that has a 5.00 ERA then the value of the #3 starter is just $3.4 million above what the Jays pay Towers. If you make the #3 starter have a 3.8 ERA and 7 IP per start (big assumptions imo) then it shifts again to $5.6 million.

Hmm. It all depends on what you think the Jays pen will do and what the replacement pitcher would do. $6 million a season was probably the most JP should've spent since he must assume his pen will do better this year, as if it doesn't then a top flight #3 starter is irrelevant and odds are Towers would continue to be a 4.9 to 5.1 ERA starter too at close to the minimum.

So, admittedly this is a rosey projection, because although we will be unlikely to be as uninjured as last year, we will still have injuries and backups playing games, but lets go quick and dirty position for position on offense 2004 numbers versus 2005 projected:

Catcher:
2004 OPS .678
Zaun PECOTA projected OPS .706
Quiroz PECOTA projected OPS .767
Avg projected OPS .737
Net difference +.059

First Base:
2004 OPS .853
Hinske PECOTA projected OPS .780
Net difference -.073

Second Base:
2004 OPS .775
Hudson PECOTA projected OPS .753
Net difference -.022

Third Base:
2004 OPS .669
Koskie PECOTA projected OPS .860
Net difference +.191

Shortstop:
2004 OPS .685
Adams PECOTA projected OPS .734
Net difference +.049

Left field:
2004 OPS .728
Catalanotto PECOTA projected OPS .750
Gross PECOTA projected OPS .794
Avg PECOTA projected OPS .772
Net difference +.044

Center field:
2004 OPS .800
Wells PECOTA projected OPS .841
Net difference +.041

Right field:
2004 OPS .716
Johnson PECOTA projected OPS .710
Rios PECOTA projected OPS .721
Avg PECOTA projected OPS .716
Net difference -.000

Designated hitter:
2004 OPS .693
Hillenbrand PECOTA projected OPS .773
Crozier PECOTA projected OPS .825
Avg PECOTA projected OPS .799
Net difference +.106

Overall:
3B +.191
DH +.106
C +.059
SS +.049
LF +.044
CF +.041
RF -.000
2B -.022
1B -.073

Total +.395

Total/9 = +.044

Last year the Jays were 22nd overall with a .732 team OPS. Give them a .776 team OPS and they become 14th overall right around Atlanta, Baltimore, Oakland, and Anaheim.

Still not enough to be competitive, but the idea that the 2005 Jays are worse is laughable.

""Last year the Jays were 22nd overall with a .732 team OPS. Give them a .776 team OPS and they become 14th overall right around Atlanta, Baltimore, Oakland, and Anaheim.

Still not enough to be competitive, but the idea that the 2005 Jays are worse is laughable.""

Atlanta, Oakland and Anaheim seem fairly competative.

Competative if not competitive... One or the other would be better than last year.

Legendary overstater Tim Kurkjian makes the case for Sammy Sosa as the greatest Cub ever. Uh, Tim? There's a Mr. Banks on line 1 for you.

Mick, I think a lot of people would agree with Kurkjian. As does Rob Neyer, incidentally - in his Lineups book, he lists Sosa as the No. 1 All-time Cub.

I think Miner Brown is better than either of then, and Ryne Sandberg distinctly better than both.

If you don't need a long career, like Sandberg's, then I'd also offer that Hack Wilson was as good as Banks or Sosa while a Cub - but it was only six years.

From Magpie's chart:

1b 161 588 87 160 30 0 33 289 116 77 129 2 1 .272 .361 .491 .853

The bold is the home run total. Carlos Delgado hit 32 home runs. In the 33 games in which Carlos Delgado did not play first base, the first basemen hit one homerun. Even with Hinske and Hillenbrand, the impact of not having King Carlos on first will be less than most think.

Delgado hit 32 yes, but not all as a first baseman. Ignore the totals Elliott had a week or so back where he counted Delgado's home runs both as a DH and as a 1b, to show that Koskie and Hillebrand don't make up.... Didn't Clark himself hit two homeruns as a first baseman?

Delgado actually played 120 games at 1b and 8 games at Dh, and he hit 4 HRs as the DH.

As a first baseman, his line was:

120 430 69 116 25 0 28 225 92 63 101 0 0 .270 .371 .523

Which leaves:

41 158 18 44 5 0 5 64 24 14 28 2 1 .278 .337 .405

Which was mostly Gomez, Phelps, and Clark.

Excellent work Magpie, I was just commenting that the Other first baseman had to hit more than one homer.

The Hrs were Clark (2), Phelps (1), and Crozier (2 in 12 AB)

Let's try the quick and dirty 2004 versus PECOTA 2005 for the pitching staff.

2004
Pitcher	    IP     R    RA
Halladay   133.0   66  4.47
Lilly	   197.1   92  4.20
Batista	   190.0  111  5.26
Bush	    97.2   47  4.33
Towers	   116.1   70  5.42
OTHERS	   197.1  149  6.80
Relievers  489.1  288  5.30

Total     1421.0  823  5.21

2005 PECOTA
Pitcher         IP    ERA   ER
Halladay       162.1  3.94  71
Lilly          138.2  4.82  74
Bush           133.0  4.64  69
Batista        129.0  5.21  75
Towers         103.2  5.38  62
Schoeneweis    103.0  5.24  60
Downs           94.2  5.55  58
McGowan         92.2  4.95  51
Chacin          83.0  5.28  49
Miller          80.1  5.40  48
Gaudin          64.0  5.04  36
Frasor          57.0  4.52  29
Speier          54.0  4.79  29
Arnold          53.0  5.24  31
Chulk           52.0  5.09  29
Lightenberg     49.2  4.98  27
League          47.1  4.95  26
Koch            43.0  5.12  24
Frederick       29.2  5.14  17
de los Santos   27.1  5.96  18

assuming the same rate of errors and R from ER:
                IP    ERA   ER  R   RA
Totals        1597.1  4.98 883 934 5.26 
Scaled totals 1421.0  4.98 786 831 5.26

So unlike in the hitting where an improvement is nearly guarenteed, PECOTA is cautious for the pitching and projects about the same results as last year, maybe a few more runs (8 expected more runs). Obviously there is a lot of upside risk as if Halladay, Lilly, and Bush are healthy and can pitch more IP then the numbers above look much better.

That seems very cautious. League, Lilly and Bush's numbers all seem a tad high. And Halladay's IP seems low.

Obviously that's a Blue Jay fan talking. In fairness, Halladay was injured, Lilly had a career year, League's a rookie, and Bush probably over performed as a rookie.

Those are some absolutely disgusting ERAs.

And I hope Lilly can go more than 138.2 innings as well. McGowan-92 innings? I sort of doubt that too.

As well, Michael, the bottom two guys on that list, De Los Santos and Frederick, no longer play for the Jays (IIRC both were released), and you can rule out McGowan pitching in anything above AAA this year.

I'd also be surprised if the combination of Downs, Miller, Gaudin, Chacin and Arnold (perhaps even League if they're going to start him) gets more than 110IP in the majors this year, to mention nothing of the limited role of Schoeneweis not starting (my guess, 73IP).

A lot of those shaved off innings are going to go to the front four of the rotation, who are far better combined than a 4.98 ERA. Lilly's numbers look especially bleak by Pecota's predictions; it wouldn't surprise me to see 180IP and a 4.35ERA from him this year.

I gotta ask, why hasn't Arnold been tried in the 'pen yet? I'm rootin for the guy, he's definitely a favourite of mine; hopefully he can help the Jays out in some way with his injuries out of the way.

I'd also love to hear what Halladay, Batista, and League have to say about the new fieldturf once they get a chance to use it. Having a slower playing surface, and a better infield, should help their causes a lot.

Mr. PECOTA (May I call you Bill?) where's the love for Spike Lundberg?

Those are some absolutely disgusting ERAs.

Schoeneweis 103.0 5.24 60

If Schoeneweis can't keep his ERA under 5.00 out of the bullpen, and he actually gets 100 innings of work in 2005, I'm going to scream. Does PECOTA have him slotted in as the #6 starter, or do they figure he'll just get used a ton even if he can't get the job done simply because he gets paid so much?

I believe PECOTA is fairly dumb with respect to IP for some pitchers as IIRC it is what they project the pitchers to pitch based on past results alone. Not based on if the Jays are planning to have him relieve or start (Shoeneweis) and not readjusted if a player has been injured (Halladay). The theory on the injured players is that they are a risk to be reinjured. Also, with a lot of starting pitchers you may see them pitch 160-220 IP if laregly healthy and effective. But 25% of the time they pitch <50 IP because of big injury risk to pitchers. So if a "normal uninjured" pitcher gets 190 +/- 30 IP, he'd still project as only a expected 150 IP guy. And some of that may influence the starters as well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/players/splits?statsId=6171&type=pitching&year=2003
Frankly I'm getting a little tired of all the reflexive Schoeneweis bashing that goes on here.

He was not signed to be a starter. If you look at his numbers in this role he's been horrible. He's been brought here, for lack of a better term, as a one inning loogy. In other words ,if your facing the Red-Sox, and Ortiz, Millar, and Varitek are up, he gets the call. He crushes lefties and if not over-exposed (which happens to him as a starter)he does fine against right handed hitter.

Comm for his splits in a relief role where he was used exclusively in 2003. His numbers are all quite solid, low HR's allowed, good strike-out ratio, OPS vs. lefthanded hitters, outstanding, .571, solid vs ,.703,... what's not to like here?

The market for this type of left-hander(unlike Hammond/Myers who struggle with righties and are limited to one batter), who is also reasonable against righties has been set. Steve Kline got $5.5 million over 2 years, Rheal Cormier got $5.25 over 2, Schoenenweis is getting $5.2 over 2 years, a reasonable valuation.

The Jay's actually wanted Kline for this role, but despite offering more money he signed with the Nationals. I would argue that a "moneyball" G.M. , should use the numbers to look for under appreciated performance, this is what J.P. did with Schoeneweis. He's paying a premium for this performance, but now especially with an $80 million dollar payroll , I think this is a good risk.

Damn, I wish grey matter had an appropriate edit feature, it should read " solid vs righties,.703 OPS".

Actually, my batting order example was poor, Schoeneweis is best used to get at 2 lefties split up by a righty( which is a common batting order), such as Palemerio,Matos and Bigbie.

Thanks for the corrective on Schoeneweis, Wildrose. The piling on, especially when the guy hasn't thrown a pitch for us, gets old.

Schoeneweis is only horrible as a starter if you look at his final numbers. He was having a decent season until he tried to pitch through an injury. His numbers skyrocketed and eventually the injury cost him two months of the season. Hmmmm...unwisely playing through an injury and hurting the team...he'll fit right in on the Jays.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Schoeneweis used as a spot starter--if he's healthy.

POH, I couldn't make up my mind on who to cheer for in the Superbowl, until I read that Donovan Mcnabb is married to a Hamilton girl, and Mike Labingo # 59, for the Eagles is the only Canadian playing. Go Philly!

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Schoeneweis used as a spot starter--if he's healthy.

Cristian, when Schoenenweis was signed, Ricciardi was very explicit in stating he would not start.

The strength of a division is determined by all the teams in it, not just the top 1 or 2.

True, but I'm not sure that those teams are as good as they appear. I think they're hurt by being in the East.

On the other hand, I thought last year's Jays were ready to compete for the wildcard.

As for the balanced schedule, my understanding was that it's impossible as long as there's interleague play. So I don't know how you solve that, since I don't think interleague play is about to be eliminated.

Yes that is true, BUT if a starter or two goes down with an injury, at least we do have a possible spot starter in Schoeneweis.

G GS W L SV CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB K ERA WHIP BAA
April 4 4 2 1 0 0 0 24.2 26 15 12 2 13 11 4.38 1.58 .274
May 6 6 3 1 0 0 0 39.2 35 14 14 4 14 27 3.18 1.24 .238
June 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 24.1 33 17 17 4 11 16 6.29 1.81 .340
July 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 21.2 23 18 17 6 9 14 7.06 1.48 .271
August 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1.1 9 9 9 1 1 1 60.75 7.50 .692
October 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 3 1 1 0 1 0 9.00 4.00 .500

I'm not Magpie so I don't have the patience to put this into a proper html table but here is his month by month stats.

Started well going 5-2 in April/May has a starter with a ERA around 4.

Reminds me of Batista's season.

Cristian, when Schoenenweis was signed, Ricciardi was very explicit in stating he would not start.

Thanks for the chart backing up my argument Braby21. If there are injuries to the staff, or if we are facing a lefty heavy club, starting Schoeneweis is not such a bad idea. I know JP said Schoeneweis will only be a reliever but imagine the reaction if JP left open the possibility of Schoeneweis starting. First of all, the fishwrap would go on and on about JP signing a horrible starter. Secondly, Schoeneweis is known to complain about coming out of the pen. JP solves two problems by insisting that Schoeneweis will only relieve. However, the season is long and who knows what will happen.

If anyone is wondering where my Schoeneweis fandom comes from, in the BBFL last year I picked him off the waiver wire and he carried my squad for two months. Note to self: draft better pitchers this year.

I'm not Magpie so I don't have the patience to put this into a proper html table

If you use a [pre] tag before and a [/pre] tag after, your chart will look exactly the same posted as it does when you're typing it in the comment box. I.e. the pre tags give you ASCII font.

        G GS W L SV CG SHO IP  H  R  ER HR BB K   ERA  WHIP  BAA 
April   4  4 2 1  0  0  0 24.2 26 15 12  2 13 11  4.38 1.58 .274 
May     6  6 3 1  0  0  0 39.2 35 14 14  4 14 27  3.18 1.24 .238 
June    4  4 0 4  0  0  0 24.1 33 17 17  4 11 16  6.29 1.81 .340 
July    4  4 1 2  0  0  0 21.2 23 18 17  6  9 14  7.06 1.48 .271 
August  1  1 0 1  0  0  0  1.1  9  9  9  1  1  1 60.75 7.50 .692 
October 1  0 0 0  0  0  0  1.0  3  1  1  0  1  0  9.00 4.00 .500 

Aight there ya go...Thanks Jonny G

From Rotoworld...pretty funny stuff...

In an effort to make voiding deals easier in the future, the Yankees have added Jason Giambi and Kevin Brown clauses to their contracts in the offseason.

Problems caused by or related to the abuse, misuse or use of steroids or inflicting injury upon oneself can now result in a Yankee's contract being voided, assuming the player is making more than he's worth, of course.

Next year, expect a Tony Womack clause giving the Yankees the ability to void any deals that were just plain stupid right from the beginning.

Batista made a strong statement today. He is a starter.
Pitched six and one third strong innings. By the third inning his change up was perfect ( lows 70's) , looking exactly as his slider ( high 80's ), together wit a low 90's fastball. By the seven inning he started to throw a 96 miles four seamer and god knows what else and voila, he became hittable, three hits and one run and out of the game. Do not have his line but it was something like 5 SO, 4 hits and no BB's

If you use a [pre] tag before and a [/pre] tag after, your chart will look exactly the same posted as it does when you're typing it in the comment box. I.e. the pre tags give you ASCII font.

Really? Woo-hoo! (Beats hell out of all those HTML tags you need to make a table.)

Whoa, I created a monster.

I wasn't slagging Schoeneweis, exactly... just freaking out over his projected numbers, which of course (as Michael astutely pointed out) do not take into consideration the fact that Toronto management has no intention of using him as a starter this season. My point was simply that if he's that ineffective as a reliever, he has no business being given 100 innings of work. I doubt the Jays have much use for a $3M/season mopup guy. They already have Ligtenberg. ;)

Hey, if there's one positive thing about this extended Schoeneweis discussion, it's that by the time we're done, everyone will be able to spell his name without looking it up. :D

A $ 3M/season mopup guy is not a good investment for this team ... isn't this what gordon and quantril make for the yankees ?

I would rather use this money for large bonuses to high school players in later rounds and have chacin do mopup duty. This signing looks like a way to meet the payroll, and the multi-year part of it is counterproductive. The money could go toward a proven closer next year

My point was simply that if he's that ineffective as a reliever, he has no business being given 100 innings of work

The point is , that he is indeed very effective utilized in high leverage situations, and that this indeed is the market value for such a player. Facing a collection primarily of tough lefties late in the game is NOT mop-up duty!

"isn't this what gordon and quantril make for the yankees"

Quantrill had a 1.75 ERA in 77.0 IPs with the Dodgers in 2003, he was signed with the intention of being the set-up guy for Rivera.

With injuries he didn't have a very successful season.

Gordon is an overpaid mop up guy? I can only hope SS has a 2.21 ERA in 89 IPs next year. If he does, I will be singing his praises and take back all the bad things I've said about him.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=rotowire-urnetteaningowardest&prov=rotowire&type=lgns
COMN for a hopeful free agent to be next summer, or maybe a trade deadline acquisition? Maybe I won't cheer for King Carlos's new team in the NL after all.

On a day where baseball will be dwarfed by the Super Bowl... (sigh)... Jose Canseco decides to jump into the spotlight again...

Jose Canseco just "outed" a bunch of players, McGwire, Giambi, Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, Rafael Palmeiro in a book that is supposedly coming out in late February.

Now, the question follows; Is Jose Canseco someone to be believed?

Personally, I agree with Giambi's agent and feel that Canseco is looking to make "a quick buck". But his accusations still will generate interest and further controversey.

What does everyone else think?

Click here to read the article for yourself.

On a societal commentary note; is anyone else here hoping something wacky happens during the Superbowl Halftime Show? I.e., something that will make Brent Bozell's head explode?

Wow.... that's two controversial subjects that I've brought up... The Cabal (There is no Cabal) will surely put me on the dreaded list (there is no list).

Tinkers to Evers to Chance,
Ken Kosowan

AJ gives up a lot of walks... which is the one thing that worries me. Especially with the league change we could see Batista part deux.

We'll see how he does next year though, it seems like he got his walks down a touch, but if he hits 80+ I'd say no thanks.

Canseco has lost all crediblity with me.

After the stunt he was pulling when he was under house arrest "pay 2 grand to hang out with Jose for the day" or something to that affect.

The guy keeps getting himself into trouble with the law, and its pretty clear he NEEDs the money to keep his lifestyle going.

I for one, think it's sad that Canseco has fallen so far.

Never a stranger to controversey, I always held his abilities in awe. I remember watching the 88, 89 and 90 championships, simply waiting for him to come to the plate. And I doubt any Toronto fan would be able to forget his 500 level homer. In my memory, it was far more impressive than any of the other shots to the Upper Deck.

As power hitters go, Canseco was one of the elte sluggers of the late 1980s, and one of baseball's most enigmatic superstars.

In addition to his legal troubles, steroid issues and marital strife; he was known as the man who dabbled with Madonna, the man who was larger than life. He was a Bash Brother, and his post-career failures, unfortunately mirror the player he was; a selfish and attention-driven man.

As you can see; I have mixed feelings about Canseco...... but find it interesting that many of the heroes of the 1980s have gone through such difficulties.... Canseco, Strawberry, Gooden, Puckett, Vince Coleman, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire; who else from our 1988 Donruss baseball cards have gone through so much?

Tinkers to Evers to Chance,
Ken Kosowan

Braby good point, I think Burnett is a guy the Jays will go extremely hard after in 2006 depending on the development of their young hurlers. He and new Jay pitching coach Brad Arnett, are said to be extremely close.

In terms of Canseco,I wonder if any tell all book will touch on his time with Toronto, daliances with Shania Twain, juicing with Shawn Green ,driving fast down the Don Valley, that sort of thing.

Off-course the new Jay's pitching coach is Brad Arnsberger, not Arnett, too many Oiler references around here lately.

The point is , that he is indeed very effective utilized in high leverage situations, and that this indeed is the market value for such a player. Facing a collection primarily of tough lefties late in the game is NOT mop-up duty!

Wildrose, I understand Schoeneweis' role coming into 2005. Just for argument's sake, if he gets inserted into those situations where he supposed to be effective, and struggles to the tune of a 5.50 ERA, do you think he's going to continue to be used for those situations throughout the entire season? That was the point I was trying to make. My belief is that Schoeneweis will do fairly well in Toronto provided he stays happy with his role. I won't be surprised at all if he posts an ERA around 4.00.

The mopup comment was intended to illustrate that a specialty reliever with a 5+ ERA wouldn't last long in that specialty role, unless the rest of the relief corps is even more incompetent. I don't think this'll be the case with Schoeneweis; he has already shown himself to be very effective in the right situations.

CaramonLS

I meant to criticize the schoenweis signing by showing two extremely good relievers, much better than him, making about the same, on the team with the highest payroll in baseball

http://tampabay.devilrays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tb/news/tb_news.jsp?ymd=20050206&content_id=939949&vkey=news_tb&fext=.jsp
Jose Cruz Jr. to Arizona. COMN

Point taken Parker. He's always been a guy who wants to be a starter, (who can blame him given the astronomical salaries starters have been getting)and with the strongest agent in baseball in his corner, he usually got his way. Hopefully the Jay's use him correctly.

Actually it's neither Arnett or Arnsberger....it's Arnsberg. The D-rays also signed Travis Lee and DFA'd Matt Diaz, who would be an interesting waiver claim if the Rays can't trade him first.

Jose Cruz Jr. to Arizona.

well, the exciting news in this story for Jays fans is that Casey Fossum is going to Tampa. Fossum, should be great for Jays hitters having an ERA of 6.65 and being a finesse lefty.

the Jays as a team had a .776/.713 OPS split: vs LHP/vs RHP

and a .811/.711 OPS split: vs Finesse/Vs Power

this from ESPN.com's stats

Anyone have a scouting report on Matt Diaz?

"Fossum is expected to join the competition for the Rays' rotation with Mark Hendrickson, Dewon Brazelton, Scott Kazmir, Doug Waechter, Rob Bell, Seth McClung and recent free agent signee Hideo Nomo, Denny Neagle."

Can you pick 1-5?

If Burnett stays healthy, keeps his walks down, etc the Jays couldn't afford him even with the payroll increase. I think Toronto will have to out bid every one by a good margin, kind of like Detroit, to land the top FAs...

What about trading for him at the deadline and then signing him to an extension during the season?

well, the exciting news in this story for Jays fans is that Casey Fossum is going to Tampa. Fossum, should be great for Jays hitters having an ERA of 6.65 and being a finesse lefty.

Well, Phelps was the Designated Finesse Lefty Killer last year...not sure who will take that job over this year. Fossum has a 6.59 ERA over the last three years vs. Toronto (27 IP), which is remarkably consistent with that 6.65.

I thought Fossum was the Mark McLemore of the mound, but he hasn't killed the Jays. Maybe Joe Kennedy was the guy who always pitched well against Toronto. There was some replacement-level AL East pitcher who was a Jay killer, but I can't remember who it was.

Speaking of McLemore, his ESPN.com picture has him wearing an Orioles hat. He signed with Baltimore two days ago (minor league deal) and hasn't played for them since 1994. I don't know when the picture was taken. There's no way a minor league signee from Friday gets his picture taken with his new team by Sunday.

OK. Who do you trade?? Yanks and Red Sox will probably be interested. They may not have the top prospects the Jays have, but they'll trade what they do. How much of an extension?? Burnett's better than Pavano, Wright, Milton, Lieber etc. $10 mil per???

McLemore signed with the Orioles before last season, he got injured in Spring Training and was then traded to the A's. That'nll be where the picture comes from.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits3?statsId=6171&type=pitching
COMN for Schoeneweis' 3 year splits. He's been very good against lefties and totally ineffective against righties. If ever there was a LOOGY, that's him. With Ortiz, Ramirez and Varitek coming up in a close game, he only would face Ortiz if I were pulling the strings. Ramirez' expected OPS against him would be something Bonds-like, with the most likely outcome being a walk, and I wouldn't want Varitek who switch-hits coming up against him with a runner on.

He benefited from a home-park advantage in Anaheim, and the park will be working against him here. Here are his career numbers. As a starter, he's a poorer option than Towers or Chacin, and by mid-season, with any luck, one or two others.

Those splits are really something else. I wonder what will happen when he comes in to face LHBs and RHBs in the same inning. Will he be a true LOOGY, getting the out (hopefully) against the LHB, only to be pulled in favour of Speier, Ligtenberg, Frasor or League when a RHB comes up? Or will Gibbons be tempted to try for an extra out or two against RHBs?

Having an effective--if pricey--LOOGY would be nice. Hopefully SS will rise to the occasion.

I'd take Schowy ahead of former Lefty bullpen guys such as:

Kershner, de le Santos and Maurer

I don't know... I think Kershner's got some good baseball in him.

OK. Who do you trade?? Yanks and Red Sox will probably be interested. They may not have the top prospects the Jays have, but they'll trade what they do. How much of an extension?? Burnett's better than Pavano, Wright, Milton, Lieber etc. $10 mil per???

I beleive that Burnett was asking for 21 over 3 years, not too sure who you'd give up, I'm sure enough but they say young pitchers are almost impossible to predict, so I'd say that it would be worth it to give up a prospect or two.

Hmm

No one seems to be addressing my collusion concerns...
perhaps you are all involved and are covering up the collusion of 2002-2003...

Or perhaps this just isn't an interesting topic

Seriously though, does anyone know of anywhere I can find some kind of info on this?...whether anyone with any credibility thinks it was actually going on or had any influence on the salaries being lower the last few years, then shooting up this year?

McLemore signed with the Orioles before last season, he got injured in Spring Training and was then traded to the A's. That'll be where the picture comes from.

My mistake: The story I read said "2/4/2004." When I saw it the first time, I assumed it was Feb. 4 of this year instead of last year, and didn't give it a second look. The McLemore signing in the article I saw is the same as the "injured in Spring Training" McLemore signing.

So, never mind. Mark McLemore has not signed with any team for the 2005 season and is retired.

too many Oiler references around here lately.

Impossible

Seriously though, does anyone know of anywhere I can find some kind of info on this?...whether anyone with any credibility thinks it was actually going on or had any influence on the salaries being lower the last few years, then shooting up this year

What, the idea that baseball's success over the past couple years has owners expecting higher revenues and, hence, increasing their payrolls is too off-the-wall of an idea?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/players/splits?statsId=6171&type=pitching&year=2003
Mike with all due respect your missing the point. You've mixed Schoeneweis's L/R splits up together as both a starter and reliever skewing the data unfairly.

Schoeneweis should not start. As a starter he simply lacks the pitching repetoire to get righties out the second/third time through a line-up, this certainly showed in 2004 where essentially used exclusively as a starter, he was hammered by righties, .885 OPS vs RH ,and .584 OPS vs. LH. Off-course as a starter opposing managers were aware of this and he faced a stacked righty lineup ( 86 left handed hitters vs. 357 right handed hitters.)

Generally I like to utilize 3 year splits to get a handle on a player, doing this however with a guy who both relieves and starts (and struggles starting), may corrupt your data.

What happens when Schoeneweis is used exclusively as a reliever? Fortunately we have a fairly large sample size, as in 2003 he was used out off the bull-pen the entire season.(comm) As a reliever who faces the same right-handed batter only once per game , he fairs much better. His L/R splits are solid, .571/.703, he seems to have enough stuff out of the pen to get righties out in this limited environment.

I'm not sure why you used a Ortiz, Ramirez, Varitek line-up as your arguement to oppose Schoeneweis. I wouldn't use him to face this trio either. If you read my post carefully , I had Millar not Ramirez as one of the opposing batters, and then I ammended my post immediately afterwords (realizing a switch hitting Varitek was a poor example) utilizing a Palmerio, Matos, Bigbie example of how I think Schoeneweis should be utilized, in other words, as a reliever who can face 2/3 left handed hitters in a given inning, and still be relatively effective, ( as the data clearly shows) against a righty he may have to face to bridge to the second lefty.

Mike, I'm also a little perplexed as to why you would include Anaheim home park data as an arguement, when he's pitched for the White Sox the past year and a half?

At any rate I'd love to see what his L/R splits indicated as a starter from years 2000/2001, and if his numbers against rigth handed batters climbed as the game went on. We don't have the data, but I bet that the Blue-Jays do, and that is perhaps why they signed this fellow.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
For the record(comm), Cellular field was a slightly better hitting park than skydome in 2004, so Schoeneweis should benefit in his new home.

Mike's point about taking a players home field into consideration when analyzing a transaction is a good one. Frankly, I had no idea that Roger's Centre was actually the second best hitters park in the A.L. in 2004, boy are offence has a long ways to go.

2nd best hitters park? Really.

Maybe the new turf will help that, and/or the better defense, healthy pitchers, etc.

Also maybe the Blue Jays pitching had something to do with that as well, or is that already calculated into the park factors?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/parkadjust.shtml
Also maybe the Blue Jays pitching had something to do with that as well, or is that already calculated into the park factors?

Skydome park factors (batting, then pitching. >100 = good for batters)

2004 : 106 / 105
2003 : 105 / 104
2002 : 99 / 100
2001 : 107 / 106

There's a complex mathematical formula that adjusts for team performance (by looking at road numbers, and by taking into account the stadium's performance over 3 years). Baseball-reference has the full formula, if you're interested, COMN.

And to summarize, the quality of your pitching staff and/or your offense does not effect your park factor. Similarly the quality of your opponents offense and pitching staffs do not effect your park factor. So the Blue Jays lack of great pitching last year, was not, the cause of the park factor numbers.

As an aside, the Jays pitching wasn't terrible last year, unadjusted they allowed 823 runs which was T-8th in the AL, which is more middle of the road than bad. When you adjust for the hitters park which is skydome very middle of the pack. The offense, on the other hand, was the 13th of the 14 AL teams with only 719 runs (Tampa, with 714 runs, was second). So when you adjust for park the Jays offense was the worst in the league last year.

Which is probably why it isn't surprising that the Jays project to have a much better offense this year while projecting to tread water in the pitching department.

Let's try the quick and dirty 2004 versus PECOTA 2005 for the pitching staff.

I'm not sure who/what PECOTA is, but if that's what they're projecting, I am confident they haven't a clue what they are talking about...

What happens when Schoeneweis is used exclusively as a reliever?

I'm also in the 'Schoeneweis isn't a LOOGY, give him a chance before bashing the guy' camp.

Schoeneweis from 2002-2004:

Role	        K/9	BB/9	HR/9	Innings	ERA
Starter	        5.0	3.9	1.3	202	5.48
Reliever	7.4	2.8	0.8	93.3	3.95

What relievers put up these comparable lines last year?

Role	        K/9	BB/9	HR/9
Reliever A	7.9	3.4	0.7	
Reliever B	8.0	2.7	0.8
Reliever C	7.9	2.8	0.6
Reliever D	7.7	3.0	0.9
Reliever E      7.2	3.0	0.9
Reliever F      7.2	2.4	1.0
Reliever G      7.1	3.3	0.8

A. G Mota - 3.07 ERA
B. A Benitez - 1.29
C. T Miller - 3.12
D. D Williams - 4.42
E. S Takatsu - 2.31
F. D Borowski - 5.14
G. E Yan - 3.83

Interesting table Pistol. I note quite a variance in ERA. I have a tendency to over-use this number(ERA) when looking at a reliever, which is probably a poor thing to do.

Yeah, I prefer the rate stats for relievers (and starters for that matter). For what it's worth the average ERA of the above was 3.31.

If you want one number FIP at Hardball Times is pretty good (essentially expected ERA based on HR, BB, and K).

Interestingly, Ligtenberg had a better FIP than Speier this season.

Schoeneweis also has a really crazy day/night split, in case nobody noticed. I'm going to be biting my nails this year every time he faces a righty in a night game.

Lee PECOTA is the baseball prospectus projection system. And past results suggest that they are one of the more accurate projections of pitching performances.