I am fully aware of the limitations of this, Chris. This is just a starting point to begin the discussion. Of course the Twins were built by Ryan (as I meant that he was a top GM).

Let's start with the first question- who should be fired?

I was having this conversation on BTF yesterday oddly enough

I can see a lot of criticisms of JP, but him not getting the wins he should out of his payroll isn't one of them

2008: 7th in payroll, 7th in wins
2007: 8th in payroll, 7th in wins
2006: 8th in payroll, 7th in wins
2005: 11th in payroll, 8th in wins
2004: 10th in payroll, 12th in wins
2003: 8th in payroll, tied for 6th in wins

That looks like a guy who is slightly above average in the win-$$ ratio department.  Only 2004 was a negative value.

With all due respect, Brent, I think these (subjective) rankings hit a bit closer to the mark.

Most people believe Ken Williams' was mostly due to luck.

See, this makes me mad.  As difficult as it can be to admit, there is a huge difference between "success smart people did not predict" and "luck."

And as overblown as invocations of Moneyball can get, I really do think there is a lingering bias against Kenny because of his portrayal as a hapless rube on draft day in the book -- a GM every bit as wrongheaded in his approach to the draft as Beane was visionary.  Of course, a few years later, prior to Beane taking the (wise and necessary) step to gut his big league roster for prospects, Oakland's farm system was much, much worse than that of the White Sox.

Heck, the Pierzynski trade wasn't even that bad at the time of the trade, and it still wouldn't have been particularly bad if the Giants had decided to resign Pierzynski. Bonser is a mediocre-at-best pitcher who seems to have a future in long relief, Nathan is only a closer, and Liriano's arm is made out of lime jello. Nathan might even be considered a negative for the Twins, since he now takes up so much of the payroll that even BJ Ryan blushes at the thought of his contract.

Nathan is "only a closer"?

From 2004-08
Player A: 350 IP, 1.83 ERA, 199 SV, 5.89 H/9, 11.03 K/9, 2.52 BB/9, 0.51 HR/9
Player B: 374 IP, 1.93 ERA, 199 SV, 6.86 H/9,  8.47 K/9, 1.61 BB/9, 0.39 HR/9

Player A is Joe Nathan and Player B is Mariano Rivera. That's not only "only a closer". That's elite level at his position. A straight Nathan/AJP swap would have been a steal for Minnesota. Add Liriano and it's highway robbery.

Ryan is far from perfect, but his teams have averaged nearly 89 wins over the last eight seasons and that includes four playoff appearances and four 90+ win seasons. He took a while to get there, but he got there. Although I do agree releasing Ortiz has to be the worst decision in baseball over the last 10+ years, if not one of the worst of all-time.

"Just because they jays saw perfectly good plans (Thaomas and Stairs) inexplicably fall apart"

You can claim it was a perfectly good plan that inexplicably fell apart, but both Thomas and Stairs were entering their age 40 season. I recall lots of grumbling about these two guys being who we were placing all our bets on. JP did and lost hard. It was what I would call a medium sized mistake on its own that he compounded it into a HUGE mistake by attempting to replace their production with Mench and Wilkerson. Shannon Stewart was a bad signing from day 1 - you can cite his 1 year performance at age 33 (101 OPS+) to decide how you build teams and say his decline was unexpected, but I'll take the previous 3 years and use that in making my decision (OPS+ of 88, 89, 101). Lots and lots of people thought that was a bad signing from day 1, and it was. And finally - Hinske was 29 when he was signed by the Rays. That's in the middle of his prime. Carlos Pena was 28. Cliff Floyd was 34 - clearly the old man of the group, but at least his prior 3 year performance looked like this: 126, 88, 102.

And I strongly disagree with the notion that if you asked every GM in baseball prior to the season who would they rather have, Thomas and Stairs or Hinske and Floyd, and that everyone single one without question would take Thomas and Stairs. There is nothing to suggest this is the case - why would every single team in baseball want 2 DH's for a combined 12+ million over 2 more versatile players that cost only 3.5 million? In the name of good and honest debate, I challenge that this statement is without any real evidence. I could just as easily make the exact opposite claim.

And finally, why do we have to assign a blanket assessment to all of these moves? Why does every single one have to be labled as either lucky or astute? That's poor logic, IMO. Unforunately and as cumbersome as it is, each and every move has to be evaluated on its own, or in consideration with another corresponding/complimentary move. But to just say "every move made of this nature was luck" or every move of this nature was brilliant, is just plain wrong.

It doesn't matter how good a closer is, a closer is still just a closer. 70 innings a season when the team already has the lead. Every pitcher who is a closer is always "only a closer," because the closer is not only far less valuable than any position player or starting pitcher, because of how they are used they are arguably the least valuable pitcher in the bullpen. Yes, "only a closer."

Pierzynski on the other hand filled the hardest-to-fill position in baseball, and hit well for that position. At the time of the trade, AJ was coming off of back-to-back 100 OPS+ seasons. As a catcher. And at 26 was just entering his prime. That is very valuable. Much more valuable than a pitcher who throws 70 innings a season. No matter how good those innings are.

I realize there are still some out there who view closers as "overrated" or "easily replaceable", even though stat-oriented GM's like Beane and Epstein have long accepted the importance of a closer after previously dismissing them, but it's clear that a relief ace is needed for any team to win. Nathan and Rivera have been very similar the past five seasons (as the stats indicated). Are you implying that Rivera's importance to the Yankees is not as great as an above average position player's? You would be hard pressed to find one person who agrees with that. A mediocre closer vs. an above average position player clearly favors the latter, but when you are dealing with elite level closers, it's more complicated than "he only throws 70 innings". Finding a reliever who can be dominating for more than one season is not easy.

I never said Pierzynski was a bad player. However, let's face facts: 1) He was blocking Joe Mauer and 2) he was about to get expensive. Trading him for a relief ace and a potential #1 starter (even though the latter was a bit of a surprise) is only a bad deal if you REALLY like AJP or are related to him in some way. Seriously, how can anyone trash that move knowing how it turned out?

I honestly don't know what you are arguing. Would you have preferred that Ryan keep Pierzynski, block Joe Mauer, and not have Nathan/Liriano/Bonser? Or are you saying that Ryan made a bad deal that looks better in hindsight, and he should have held out for more? I disagree with both scenarios as I doubt AJP would have netted any more than what he did, despite his good numbers pre-trade, and clearly Mauer was the better player so blocking him would have been ridiculous. If anything, Ryan should be praised for selling high on AJP and maximizing his value when he had a better replacement in-house already. If only Ricciardi were "dumb enough" to realize that with Wells and Rios.

I wish I could access the adjusted pythags from more than just the past year, but last year provides good enough evidence. The Angels won 100 games, but had a strength of schedule adjusted pythag of 84 wins. The Twins had 88 wins and a strength of schedule adjusted pythag of 82 wins.

So why even have the playoffs or divisional formats? Just give the trophy to the team with best pythag. If the Jays won 100 games in 2009, but their "adjusted pythag" was 83, are you seriously going to complain about it? At what point does actually making the playoffs take greater importance than an artificial number? The Twins won 90+ every time they made it. It wasn't like they won 82 and got in. Maybe they wouldn't have won if they were in the AL East, but reality is, they were not in the AL East. They shouldn't be penalized for that.

We've had this discussion before, Leigh.  If you look at any one decision, results are relatively unimportant.  But, if you look at a cumulative record over a period of time, the results (in context) do matter in the evaluation. 

Yeah but what's the period of time to evaluate a GM.  I think it's closer to 15 years than 5.  I think luck plays a huge role in the outcome of a trade, draft pick or free agent signing.  The logic of a decision may not always be agreable, but for most GMs, most of the time, it is defensible.  And whether one player develops and one doesn't, or one gets injured and another doesn't, is usually a product of luck in the near term and, in my opinion, it's only over a very long term that you begin to get a sense of most GMs' competance.

JP Riccardi didn't need to sign any of those potential guys for LF last year. He should have just put Lind out there to mash against RHP and Johnson to mash against LHP and to spell occasionally in CF/RF for Rios/Wells.  I never liked the Stewart signing from day 1. I came around to it after much well laid out reasoning was provided, but all off season I was harping about how the Jays should be giving Lind a chance. Would he have been their savior? Certainly not, but his output was significantly better then what we got out of LF.

Riccardi doesn't seem to ever have faith in kids until he is literally forced to put one in and see if he sinks or swims. He almost always, without fail, would rather give opportunity to a "proven-vet". I think Ohka, Zambrano, Stewart, Wilkerson, and Mench, just from the last 2 years, when he had viable in house candidates which were younger, indicate this preference pretty clearly. 

At least this year he's singing the right tune... 

After looking back at some of Riccardis earlier years, maybe his veteran fetish is a more recent phenomenon. And to start 2008 I realize that the Jays had Thomas slated in as DH and Stairs needed to play somewhere, but at the very least when they did release Thomas, Lind should have been given the full time job at that time (approx April 19th).

Lind should have been given the full time job at that time (approx April 19th).

If you suffer from masochistic tendencies, you can dig into the archives and wade through the innumerable "Free Adam Lind" threads from last season. Let's hope that this off-season's sluggish news cycles don't serve as a reason for all of us to head down that old path again. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before we find something new to obsess about and flog to death. Maybe Ricciardi can sign another retread for the AAA roster.

why was CF a problem in NY?

Because after DiMaggio, Mantle, Murcer and B. Williams (not to mention Rickey for two years), the expectations for a CF in the Bronx are preternaturally high.

"That's 11 playoff appearances and 3 WS wins in 27 years, all for teams other than the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers. Remarkable."

  So Greenfrog , does this not beg a question ?  a topic ?  ...  HOF yes ?  HOF no ? ... my apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere previously but I don't recall it being so ...

Glevin I really don't think you can call picking up Glaus for a good 2B and an extremely average pitcher a bad trade. Sure, it's not highway robbery, but that was a great trade for the Jays. Both Batista and Hudson were redundant and expendable players for the Jays.

The trade allowed them to plug one position with an elite level player - Glaus has appeared in 4 AS games, won 2 silver sluggers and has a career OPS+ of 121.  With Hill in the wings ready to take 2B Hudson was very expendable.  Infact it's exactly the kind of trade a lot of posters on here say would never happen - "You can't just add in quantity and expect to get a quality player", when in reality that is what this trade really was. Hudson (I will bet my life savings) will never have another season as good as any as he's already had whereas Hill has already posted one season as good as Hudson's career year, and at a considerably younger age to boot. You could have done much, much, worse then that. Calling that trade "medicore" is really selling that one short.

And WillRain: In evaluating GM's you talked about how Friedman shouldn't get credit for doing what he should have done and gotten a good player in return for Young. I disagree with this, just because often times just DOING the right thing is the hardest part - many GM's could have been in that position and done nothing at all and held onto Young.  Taking that risk and "doing" the right thing deserves credit just for being done.  There is no guarentee that either player would pan out, but Friedman definitely took a gamble and it paid off.

I've always maintained - semi-facetiously - that J.P.'s greatest weakness as a general manager is that he just isn't lucky enough. The 2008 Jays were actually a pretty good team, when all is said and done: despite all the injuries, the bad luck, and the sudden (though not surprising) aging of Thomas and Stairs, they won 86 games. And should have won more, if Pythagoras is to be believed. And, had they won or come very close, they might have drawn enough extra fans to pay for A.J.'s return, or to sign somebody to fill his spot. But that didn't happen.

The 2008 Blue Jays, IMO, had above average injury luck, not below average. Sure Marcum and McGowan missed some games, but their impact will be felt far more in 2009 than 2008. The top 6 (or even 7) starters for the Jays made virtually all of their starts, and Purcey was allowed to dominate in AAA before having to step into the rotation full time. Even when injuries hit, they came in decent spots where we had depth some of the time which minimizes the impact. Hill missed the year, but Inglett filled in admirably. Accardo gets hurt and Carlson (though he's LH) stepped in and pitched well. Sure Wells only played 108 games, but at least AJ was healthy. So was BJ. Jannsen gets hurt in spring training and it gives Litsch the stronghold on the fifth starter job. Rolen missed some time but Scutaro wasn't horrible over there. As a whole, I think we were luckier than other teams for once.

Now I've already gone over how the Jays were actually a top 8 MLB team (they simply play in the AL East in which 4 of the top 8 teams in 2008 resided) and, of course, they had an excellent run differential (much more of a product of a good GM than actual W-L record, IMO). But to say we had bad injury luck is kind of an exaggeration. Frankly, we need this kind of luck going forward.

And this "best JP move(s)" game is obviously going to make JP look like just about the worst GM in the league. If we played the "worst JP move(s)" game, JP would look like around the best GM in the league because his mistakes are never that bad. He is basically a lazy (i.e. he is ridiculously inactive in terms of transactions that could make a significant impact), stubborn GM who learned on the job to become fairly competent but he has far too much belief in himself and the moves he made when he was a poor GM (specifically in the way he defends his early drafting). I'd keep him for another year, because I think we are close to becoming a contending club, but the years of futility are starting to wear on me....

Speaking of GM'ing and taking crazy risks...

So apparently the Yankees are interested in Hudson. David Pinto speculates that maybe they might be gearing up to try and package Cano with someone and try to get a true CFer.

Now, all this hedges on what you think of Cano and whether or not you think he just lost it or whether or not you think last year was just a fluke and he's a pure hitter that is about to enter his prime.

Do you think the Jays would be better off trading V Wells for R Cano straight up? You would shift Rios into CF and shift Hill to SS. Use the money that is going to be saved on Wells to sign Dunn/Abreu/Rameriz (Ok.. maybe Rameriz is out of the Jays price range) to DH. Lind in LF and Snider in left.

The infield defence is weaker. Maybe just DH Cano and keep Scutaro/Hill as your middle infield? Or no - don't ever do a deal like this, it's horrible? I'm curious. I don't know if I'd have the fortitude to make a move like this, given the PR aspect and the fact that well, if Cano doesn't return to form, then you're getting fired within a year or two.  But I thought I'd ask this question in here, given the debate about GM's and making great moves/risky moves.

It's not just the effect of getting Cano and losing Wells that you have to consider, but what you can do with the money you save. The defence is worse - are the gains in offence worth it? Would the Yankees even consider this? We know realistically that the Jays never would, but, let's just pretend for a minute...

Will, it's obvious you think out your posts and take them seriously, they are good for the debate.  But I will question things I don't agree with (you happen to post a lot so you expose yourself more often :P )...

But if we are going to assume Crawford bounces back then we have to assume the same for Rolen? Really? Crawford is 27. Rolen is 33 - this is significant.  And I don't understand the cutting slack for Longoria and Wells. What does this mean? V Dub and Longoria simply aren't in the same category as hitters. Longoria posted a 125 OPS+. If we cut him some slack for his injury, what does that mean? He might post a 140 OPS+ this year? He very well might. If we cut slack for Vernon's injury, what could we reasonable expect for a full season, a 125 OPS+? I don't think that's unrealistic or low-balling him.

I will agree though, I think Rios bounces back in a huge way. Sadly, I do think Upton does as well. The one aspect of your debate against the Rays you are failing to consider is the ages of the respective starters for both teams.

Age of the Rays first, Jays second by C, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, LF, CF, RF, DH and then the 5 expected SP's. I just took whatever their seasonal age was in 2008 and added 1 to show what their age wil be during 2009. From Baseball-reference.com

C   - 25 versus 33
1B - 31 versus 32
2B - 30 versus 27
SS - 29 versus 33
3B - 23 versus 34
LF - 27 versus 25
CF - 24 versus 30
RF - 29 versus 28

SP (Shields, Garza,Kazmir,Sonnastine,Price) 27, 25, 25, 26, 23
SP (Doc, Listch, McGowan, Purcey, Richmond, Jannsen), 32, 24, 27, 27, 29, 27

AVERAGES: of starting lineups: 27.7 versus 29.2
AVERAGES: of rotation: 25.2 versus 27.8
ALL starters: 26.8 versus 28.1

The Rays have older players at 2B (definitely the Jays advantage here), LF (definitely the Rays advantage here - Crawford is simply superior to Lind), and RF (Definitely Jays advantage here with Rios versus Gross). However, I just remembered the Rays picked up Matthew Joyce who will probably play more RF then Gross, and he's only entering his age 24 season, which negates the Jays age advantage here, although I do think that Rios is pretty clearly a better player then Joyce, the gulf is not as great as Rios > Gross.

Calling Price unproven is silly. Yes, yes, small sample size alert and all that, but more than half of his limited (19+) big league innings have come in the post-season. Overall, combining his regular season and playoff stats, the guy has put up this big league line:

10 games (1 start), 19.1 IP, 1-0, 1/1 saves, 1.88 ERA, 8BB, 20K

Criminey, Balfour shouldn't close, he should be setting up Price! I know, Price is -- and should be -- bound for the rotation eventually, but right now at 22-going-on-23, he's positively Eck-esque.

he's positively Eck-esque.

8BB in 19IP?  I think Eck would beg to differ.

Price certainly didn't blow them away in the minors so I think he needs some time in AAA or long relief in the majors.  He reminds me a lot of Andrew Miller.  Big lefty with a great fastball but inconsistent breaking stuff and Miller was pretty awful in a pitcher's park in Florida in 2008.

" I don't remember the last time a player of his calibre and age dropped off this quickly. "

Maybe his age really isn't his age? Otherwise I'm baffled too.

I know it sounds ridiculous to say so but the entire AL East save for Baltimore will annihilate pitchers.
Toronto will likewise be a force...

While any post that promotes the possibility of Andruw Jones batting cleanup is one that betrays an unabashed optimism that we iconoclasts have little appetite for, I wish to comment on the claims of batting prowess in the AL East.

Last year's runs per game:  Bos 5.2, NY 4.9, Bal 4.9, TB 4.8, Tor 4.4. League average: 4.8.

The Yankees have added Teixeira and Swisher and lost Giambi and Abreu. Cano figures to improve. Nady and Jeter figure to regress. All of this looks like a wash at best. The wildcard is Posada. If he can't play or can't hit well, pitcher annihilation is not clearly forthcoming from this team and they could well be middle of the pack, as they were last year.

TB could well move beyond league average this year. But annihilation may be a ways off.

I see Toronto's offensive ceiling as league average, and I'd consider that a decent 2009.

It's funny that the one team that won't annihilate pitchers, Baltimore, ranked tied for second in runs last year and their major castoffs have been players with OPS+s in the 80s.

Our run preventation from last year, that is.

I think people are underestimating how difficult it will be for for the Jays to replace the 372 innings of 114 ERA+ ball that Marcum and Burnett threw last year. (I took a weighted average of each of their innings thrown to calculate the combined ERA+).

What combination of pitchers is going to step up and deliver us 375 innings of pitching this good? Purcey, Richmond, Jannsen? Is that realistic at all? No. Purcey is not an established MLB pitcher, and we would be DAMN thankful if he gave us 150 innings of average ball. Same with Richmond. Actually, if we got 300 average innings out of Purcey and Richmond I think everyone here would be thrilled.  But still 300 average innings from those guys still represents a significant step back from the quality of the innings Marcum and Burnett gave us. This means our runs allowed will go up, all else being equal. And what if Litsch regresses, even just a little bit? He could improve - it is very possible given his young age. However, he could just as easily regress to being a league average pitcher given his peripheral statistics.

Look, I am as optimistic as they come as a rule of nature. However, Tampa Bay has improved their team. NYY have improved their team. Boston has improved their team. Heck, even Baltimore has improved their team. The Jays have for all intents and purposes stood still, while losing their 2nd best starter from last year (Marcum), and a guy who gave them 221 innings of slightly above average ball (which I think is selling him short - he was unbelievably good in the 2nd half but his 'average' numbers are skewed by how bad he would be in some starts which doesn't matter as much - losing is losing). How can you reasonably expect their run prevenation to be as good as last year?

...funny, I'd call the people who are optimistic about the Jays the iconoclasts - it seems that those who are pessimistic about the Jays chances are those who hold their beliefs with religious fervor who follow a prophet filled with folly named Richard Griffin.

What you call pessimism I call skepticism (which is not the same as cynicism, for those inclined to interchange the two).

To refer to oneself as an iconoclast is not "praise" (nor is it the opposite). And one can go through life considering oneself to be an iconoclast without necessarily opposing every single traditional viewpoint on absolutely everything. That's what a contrarian would do.

As for the context of my remark, there is much fanboyism at this site masquerading as critical thinking.

Optimism isn't the prevailing sentiment in these parts???

Perhaps we need a poll forecasting the team's number of wins this year. I may be misreading the general concensus, but I don't read the prevalent mood as non-optimistic, at least if the ratio of words-by-poster to sentiment is employed.

Chuck, the vast majority of Bauxites who have expressed opinions on the 2009 season have clearly said that the Jays have little chance of contending.   This is obviously the conventional wisdom here.  (It doesn't matter how many words are posted by WillRain -- he is just one person, and he's clearly in the minority on this site.)   The point remains:  you can't call yourself an "iconoclast" if you are expressing a majority view.   It's very nice that you consider yourself an iconoclast, or a skeptic, or whatever -- but the true iconoclasts (by the dictionary definition) are those who express an unpopular minority view.  

 A poll would be a good way to prove the point, but I read the Box every day and only three or four people have suggested that the Jays have a serious chance of contending for the playoffs in 2009.   They are the real iconoclasts.    It doesn't take any courage at all to predict that the Jays will finish 4th.  It's a boring, conventional viewpoint.  I'm much more interested in the scenarios that suggest the Jays might have a chance.

It doesn't take any courage at all to predict that the Jays will finish 4th.

Predicting anything other than a 4th place finish takes courage? Really? Courage?

Juan Pierre will win the homerun title. Am I courageous now?

Perhaps we need a poll forecasting the team's number of wins this year.

Good idea. But as I noted in the Alomar/Kent thread, for some reason, post-a-poll is not working for me right now. Maybe one of the other intrepid Bauxite roosters will have better luck.

Juan Pierre will win the homerun title. Am I courageous now?

Are you saying the odds for each are generally equal?

I would disagree with that in the strongest terms.

Are you saying the odds for each are generally equal? I would disagree with that in the strongest terms.

Insofar as I didn't say that, you can safely infer that I didn't say that. No need for the whole straw man thing.

WillRain: Do you mean Feb 6, 2008? Going into last season?  I'm a huge McGowan fan and after his strong finish to the season in 2007, I thought he was going to emerge as the true #2 on this team and eliminate the need to worry about Burnett opting out. Heh, good thing I don't bet on these things .  So I would have pegged him for around 175 high quality innings and then Marcum/Litsch providing 200 average innings certainly doesn't seem crazy. Marcum's success didn't surprise me, but Litsch's did. 

Say it was Feb 07, I don't think it was nearly as bad as you describe Chris. It was during that off season that McGowan figured out he had diabetes and that he was finally at a proper weight and his conditioning was good as a result of adjusting his diet accordingly. There was a lot of hope and optimism around him, but it was carefully guarded because of how often he had failed to live upto expectations before.

My assessment of Marcum then? Actually, this is kind of funny. I was a fan of Marcum because of Mike Green's undying assessment that he is/will be a good pitcher which he has been saying for years on this site. One good start the year before is selling him short. There was potential there. Litsch was the true wildcard, and what we need is someone from the group of Richmond/Cecil/Mills/Romero to go all Jesse Litsch on the league in 2009. In other words, one of the guys that is really under the radar to break out (and not that Cecil is under the radar, but he's still so young and fragile, relatively speaking). And then we NEED Purcey to be average for a good number of innings and McGowan to finally emerge, in late May, as our true #2.  This is what our rotation needs, and I do agree it is not an insane proposition, there are just a lot of things that have to break right.

All that being said there were fans who did like and predicted success for Marcum and McGowan, if not Litsch, in Feb 2007. McGowan was not yet a failed prospect, and Marcum was on more than just one persons radar.

If he were not coming off an injury he'd be the "sexy pick" among most fans i expect.

Agreed, but the surgery changes everything.

I think you'd have found a full Janssen bandwagon on the heels of his superb 2007 season. But the man is returning from surgery for a torn labrum. That's pretty serious and that is causing many to temper their expectations for Janssen in 2009. It's not a shot against him or his potential. It's simply the recognition of the uphill battle that he faces to re-establish himself. I'm sure we'd all be nervous about what to expect from Halladay a year removed from that same surgery.

Chuck: Exactly. Will: I would love to be wrong! Trust me... and it's mostly because of the different circumstances. Jannsen was a guy who quickly became a favorite of mine with his driving leg kick and aggressive "go get em" pitching style. But he's coming back from a major surgery - i'm tempering my expectations. Maybe this is the double standard I'm guilty of - continually having high expectations for McGowan despite his injury riddled past and tempering expectations for Jannsen because of his surgery.

I just think the upside of M&M was higher before they become established as MLB regulars then what I thought the upside of Jannsen/Purcey is. I've always thought McGowan could be an ace, and therefore have high expectations for him every year. I think Janssen/Marcum/Purcey all have similiar potential upsides - best case scenario for all of these guys would be good #3 pitchers. Worst case scenario is they flame out and the success any of them has already achieved is their MLB career.

I think a lot of the success for 1992 Jays had to do with 6 starters who had these OPS+: 137, 129, 126, 124, 119, and 109.

1993's top 6? 186, 143, 141, 115, 112, 108.

Carter was the 119 in 1992 and the 112 in 1993.

Those are a couple of elite offensive teams.

The 2008 Red Sox (2nd in AL in runs) top 6 from starters looked like this: 143, 137, 136, 123, 122, 103.
The 2007 Rockies  (2nd in the NL in runs, first in numerous categories): 150, 133, 129, 112, 111, 108
The 2008 Cubs (1st in runs in NL, first in other categories like OBP/SLG): 136, 128, 121, 120, 118, 110

I'm not sure what my point is... other than when you have 6 above average hitters in your lineup, it probably doesn't matter how you order them. As long as they are grouped together they are going to score a pile of runs.

Just of note... that Cubs offence in 2008 is ridiculous. After those 6 guys you have Fontenot on the bench who posted a 131 OPS+ over 243 AB's, and the 3 other players who got the bulk of playing time were Reed Johnson, Theriot, and Fukudome who posted OPS+'s of 99, 93, and 90 respectively. Not a single "black hole". The lowest OBP of any of the 10 guys who played the most for them was Soriano at .344. Fortunately, he slugged .532 to make up for not pulling his OBP weight.  What an offence. A quick look at the pitching staff makes you really appreciate the beauty of the 7 game series, and just how random it is.