Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

Baseball America reports that former Orioles and Rays first round pick Wade "Pete" Townsend has agreed to a minor league contract with Toronto and so has organizational soldier Howie Clark.



 

Wade Townsend, flanked by Jeff Niemann to his left and Phillip Humber to his right.


Townsend, a 6-foot-4, 230-pound righty from Rice, was taken by Baltimore with the eighth pick in the 2004 amateur draft but did not sign a deal.  Due to the fact he had an agent represent him, he could not go back to Rice.  However, he was taken eighth overall in 2005 by Tampa Bay.  Townsend has been ineffective in the minors with a lifetime record of 7-21 with a 5.58 ERA.  His career WHIP is 1.547 and his walks per nine innings is 5.8.

Townsend missed the 2006 campaign with Tommy John surgery on his right elbow and shoulder problems caused him to miss part of 2008 and most of 2009.  The highest level he reached was Double-A Montgomery in 2008 but he struggled to a 1-2 mark with a 7.66 ERA in 13 appearances.

That's a far cry from the impressive numbers he put up in 2004 with Rice when he was a perfect 12-0 with a 1.80 ERA with two saves.  He was part of the celebrated Rice troika of pitchers in which fellow righties Phillip Humber and Jeff Niemann were taken in the top eight picks of the 2004 draft.  The Austin, Texas native will turn 27 on February 22.

Howie Clark with John McDonald.


Howie Clark is back for another kick at the can in the Jays organization.  Clark, who turns 36 on February 13th, batted .313 with six homers and 50 runs batted in with Triple-A Las Vegas in 2009.  The San Diego native spent parts of 2003, 2004 and 2007 with Toronto and hit .357 in 38 games with the Jays in 2003.

Jays Sign Townsend & Catch Last Train To Clarksville | 22 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mike Green - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 09:24 AM EST (#211576) #
Another ex-first-rounder.  Miguel Negron, all is forgiven.
Richard S.S. - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 09:40 AM EST (#211577) #
But he can't pitch!
Mike Green - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 10:26 AM EST (#211583) #
Nah, they are all signed to be cheerleaders. They get to wear T-shirts with the year of their draft and get to do a funky dance with music from the year of their signing during the 7th inning stretch. Townsend's songs are Hey Ya (2004) and (of course) Hollaback Girl (2005).
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 11:17 AM EST (#211586) #
#2J, the Box's Kangaroo Court is meeting to decide how much to fine you for grouping together the greatness of The Who with The Monkees in you headline. How DARE you, sir?
Mike Green - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 11:23 AM EST (#211587) #
C'mon, Mick, everyone needs to be a believer this year!  I think you guys ought to chip in on some cuttlefish sushi for #2JB...
Ducey - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 12:23 PM EST (#211589) #

The RogersCentre is going with a new playing surface.  Fieldturf is ah, turfed and in comes Astroturf.  Sounds like someone figured they could make more money on non-Jays related activties.

owen - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 01:11 PM EST (#211593) #
C'mon, Mick, everyone needs to be a believer this year!

A believer, yes.  But a daydream believer?
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 01:17 PM EST (#211595) #
"Cheer up sleepy Cito ..."
Parker - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 02:26 PM EST (#211599) #
Switching back to Astroturf should ensure the Jays are never again in the running for high-profile position player free agents.  Well done, Rogers.
Matthew E - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 02:29 PM EST (#211600) #
I don't know... the idea I got from the article was that this is the new super-deluxe Astroturf, and that it might be comparable to FieldTurf in most ways. I am eager to be corrected about this if I'm wrong.
Denoit - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 07:04 PM EST (#211602) #

The AstroTurf will be comparable, its just the manufacturer that is different. Saying that because they are putting in a brand new playing surface that is going to improve the quality of the diamond will hinder the ability to attract free agents doesn't make much sense now does it? If a player was questioning whether he wanted to play on turf and they put new stuff in to improve the conditions I would think it would be the exact opposite?

andrewkw - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 07:44 PM EST (#211603) #
Can we at least get a dirt infield? 
VBF - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 08:56 PM EST (#211606) #
The AstroTurf will be comparable, its just the manufacturer that is different. Saying that because they are putting in a brand new playing surface that is going to improve the quality of the diamond will hinder the ability to attract free agents doesn't make much sense now does it?

The article gave me a very strong impression that the goal with this new turf is to minimize the turnover rate from baseball games to other events, and after that, to have the best possible field for the players. I'm probably in favour of that philosophy too, if it means that the extra revenue the Rogers Centre creates through its other events gets funneled back into the Blue Jays payroll. Granted, there's no clear reason to assume that.

On the other hand, I will never understand why Rogers has provided payrolls upwards of 100 million dollars without spending a small percentage of that money on giving the players the best possible surface (full dirt infield at the very least) or investing in the technology to have the best surface and still be a premium entertainment value. You have to wonder about the relationship between Vernon's defensive decline and the role of the astro/fieldturf, and how what is probably a relatively small amount of money could provide better return on investment through other players (Glaus injuries, next 4 years of Snider in LF).
Parker - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 08:59 PM EST (#211607) #

The AstroTurf will be comparable, its just the manufacturer that is different. Saying that because they are putting in a brand new playing surface that is going to improve the quality of the diamond will hinder the ability to attract free agents doesn't make much sense now does it? If a player was questioning whether he wanted to play on turf and they put new stuff in to improve the conditions I would think it would be the exact opposite?

Actually I would expect the opposite reaction only if the Jays were to eschew all artificial surfaces and install a grass field. Artificial turf might not be as bad as it was in the 60's but it is still responsible for a lot of lower body injuries and I would wager that any professional baseball player, if given the choice, would prefer to sign with a team that plays on grass.  Replacing the FieldTurf with a "better" artificial surface isn't going to make it any easier to attract free agents as I doubt most baseball players differentiate between the two.

With all the advances in horticulture and botany, why can't Rogers Centre have real grass?  Minneapolis has a colder climate and shorter growing season than does Toronto, yet Target Field has a natural grass surface. I guess the Twins don't have to share their shiny new stadium with the despicable Argonauts though.

Thanks for trying so hard to not sound pedantic and condescending, Denoit.  I suppose if I wanted to take that route I'd mention that AstroTurf is a registered trademark and therefore it is very doubtful that another company is manufacturing it. I believe you were actually referring to "astroturf".

Matthew E - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 09:23 PM EST (#211608) #
I think the reason why Rogers Centre can't have real grass is that there's no way to irrigate it. That's not just dirt underneath the field; there are like basements and electrical systems (not to mention the hydraulics for the pitcher's mound) and stuff. Never mind the problems with a) sunlight and b) the multipurpose nature of the facility.
ComebyDeanChance - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 09:45 PM EST (#211609) #
I think the reason why Rogers Centre can't have real grass is that there's no way to irrigate it. That's not just dirt underneath the field; there are like basements and electrical systems

That's exactly the case. In addition, all of the ventilation system, the heating and cooling pipes, all of it and more runs underneath the floor of the field. There's no decision to be made now about the field other than what brand of artificial turf to install, the other decisions were made 25 years ago.

Those of us old enough, remember that when the facility was being planned in the 1980's, there was one Toronto sportswriter who initiated a campaign for natural grass. Of course, the much smarter and hipper artificial turf fans of the 1980's knew that Bob Elliot was pretty passe and dumb.
Spifficus - Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 10:47 PM EST (#211611) #

Bob Elliot was pretty passe and dumb.

Good to see that times haven't changed. :)

Semi-seriously, though, there's no use lamenting over 20 years ago (though not being informed of that era, I'm not trying to be dismissive of the information from the time). The thing about retro is you never know when it's going to come back and rear its frequently ugly head. I'm just glad the Beehive hasn't come back into fashion. I wasn't around for the first incarnation, and I don't see how a second could possibly benefit humanity, or allow me to maintain sanity.

Mike Green - Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 08:59 AM EST (#211618) #
CBDC, after the Exhibition Stadium experience, many fans, traditional and sabermetrically inclined, favoured natural grass.  Bill James was a supporter.
John Northey - Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 09:07 AM EST (#211619) #
Actually, as I recall, the problem always has been what to do with the grass when other events are going on. The cost of proper storage, that would allow the grass to stay green, would be very high especially if you mix in the ability to keep it safe for players. Namely, the issue with seams right now would have to exist and be just as bad except instead of plastic it would be dirt and grass falling between the cracks thus upping the cost of maintenance of the stadium significantly.

Back in '89 I recall everyone pretty much wanting grass but the reality was it couldn't be done unless the stadium was a sports only stadium. Given the cost of it (and of land in general downtown) it just didn't make any sense. Since then some stadiums have found ways to grow the grass indoors but I wonder how many nightmares they have to deal with when it comes to having other events in their stadiums.
Mike Green - Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 09:27 AM EST (#211620) #
Right.  My aging memory is hardly reliable, but I remember discussion about various sites including one in Downsview (was it the airfield?)  Land there was probably cheap enough, but it wouldn't have been as accessible as the RC is. 


Denoit - Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 10:04 AM EST (#211621) #

Thanks for trying so hard to not sound pedantic and condescending, Denoit.  I suppose if I wanted to take that route I'd mention that AstroTurf is a registered trademark and therefore it is very doubtful that another company is manufacturing it. I believe you were actually referring to "astroturf".

Actually no I meant AstroTurf since that is the manufacturer Rogers is buying the new field from. Thats why I mentioned it was a different manufacturer than FieldTurf, but the playing surface should be comparable minus all the seams and worn out patches.

I actually had the chance to play a game on the old FeildTurf in 2007. I could definatly see how the seams and the condition of the field could be a problem, but as for it being a hard surface that is going to cause injuries I think that card is being over played. It was quite soft, the biggest difference is that your cleats don't dig in like on a dirt field.

92-93 - Saturday, February 06 2010 @ 04:12 PM EST (#211668) #
Dana Eveland? This is getting comical...
Jays Sign Townsend & Catch Last Train To Clarksville | 22 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.