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

Alex Anthopoulos first joined us in Da Box last May.  In that interview Alex discussed his job, at that time, how he came to join the Blue Jays, and some specific Jays related issues.  When Alex was promoted to the General manager position I touched base with him but we agreed to wait until 2010 to continue our discussion as Alex was going to be snowed under with his new responsibilities.

So when 2010 rolled around we here at Da Box didn't want to talk about 2010, we know it will be a development year and we assume Alex is optimisitc about all his players.  Alex has laid out a new vision for the Jays and we wanted to drill down on that to get some more details of his longer term plans.  So we discussed the draft, hitter development, evaluating scouts, defensive metrics and statistical analysis.  Alex was his usual honest self.  So in this interview we learn why Alex feels the Jays will do better at hitter development; that the Jays might draft a high school pitcher in the first round; a different angle on what Alex thinks of Vernon's defense; and how the Jays are beefing up their statistical department.

Alex and I started exchanging e-mails a few weeks ago so the Dustin McGowan question looks dated now but it is good to hear that he seems to be continuing to get back to form.

Batters Box thanks Alex for taking some of his valuable time, which is much in demand right now, to answer our questions.



BB: First question relates to pitching.  The Jays have developed a lot of pitching recently which is a tribute to the organization and the minor league development staff.  Do you think pitching development is an area of strength in the organization and if so would it tend to make you more likely to trade pitching for hitting knowing that the organization should be able to develop more pitching?

AA: Pitching has certainly been the strength. That's a credit to J.P. Ricciardi, Tony LaCava, Jon Lalonde, all the amateur scouts from his staffs and certainly Dane Johnson and all of his pitching instructors. Trading pitching for hitting is something we're certainly open to. Though we agree with the statement of "you can never have enough pitching", we also believe that there will be instances where we'll have to look to add some position players and that will result in potentially having to discuss some of our pitchers in trade talks.

BB: With the large number of potential starting pitcher candidates available to you are you at all concerned for 2010 or 2011 that pitchers who are major league ready would have to stay in AAA and whether that would impede their development?

AA: Not at all. That would be a great problem to have. It rarely works out that way though. Every time you feel you have too many pitchers someone either gets hurt or doesn't perform. We've discussed this type of topic many times in the office when we're looking at players we feel might be "blocked" by other organizations. With most teams carrying twelve pitchers on Major League staffs, pitchers are rarely if ever blocked. Every team is always looking for pitching.

BB: With regard to hitting the organization has been unable over the last several years, at this point, to develop high school hitters into top prospects or develop many major league ready hitters other than top draft picks.  Do you think that hitting development needs to be restructured in the organization and what steps have you taken to do so?

AA: It's certainly an area that we're focusing on. We only recently started drafting HS position players and in hindsight, we may have moved those players too aggressively. That being said, under the direction of Tony LaCava, we hired Anthony Iapoce as our Minor League hitting coordinator from the Marlins organization and feel he will have a great impact on our hitting program.

BB: Are you still hopeful that some of the high school hitters drafted in the last few years can contribute at the major league level.  If yes, why?

AA: Absolutely. They're all still relatively young and should play this year as 21 year olds. To put it into perspective, they would be college juniors and most likely playing in the NY Penn league if they were drafted out of college this year.

BB: Given the current price for a 1st or 2nd round draft pick in terms of signing bonuses, do you think signing young Latin American free agents "in bulk" is more economical?

AA: We're always looking to spend our dollars as effectively as we can while also trying to manage our risks. There's no question that at times there's strength in numbers but should the right opportunity present itself player wise, we're open to spending a greater amount on a smaller amount of players.

BB: With so many early picks in the 2010 draft and a desire to rebuild the organization, and given the organizations lack of success to date with high school hitters, are you likely to select more college players in this years draft?

AA: We will continue to take the best players available irrespective of their ages.

BB: Will you consider selecting high school pitchers in the first two or three rounds of the draft?

AA: Absolutely. If we consider a HS pitcher to be the best player on the board at the time we make our selection we certainly won't shy away from him.

BB: Many baseball people admit to there being an element of luck in the drafting and dvelopment process.  That process is a big part of your plan for success.  Does this concept of luck concern you and does it alter your thinking about the job?

AA: There's no question that there's an element of luck in everything that we do, whether it's sports or any other industry. That being said, we're starting to incorporate new systems and a process to everything that we're doing that should only improve our probability for success.

BB: Do you have a system or basis for evaluating your professional scouts?  With so many new scouts in the organization can you hear all their voices and recommendations?

AA: Evaluating scouts is something that I feel is critical- both on the professional and amateur sides. I also believe developing our employees is equally as important. We've begun to implement systems to address both of those issues. With respect to hearing all of their voices, we've set up a system in our Pro Scouting Department, led by Perry Minasian, where we feel communication will be one of the cores of our value system.

BB: You said in an earlier interview that the organization uses first person evaluation for defense rather than the new defensive metrics. Many of our readers saw Vernon Wells miss a lot of balls at the wall that, in our readers opinion, he would have caught in previous years. Did the organization see the same and was it just that there were a lot of close plays in 2010 or did you think that Vernon, because of age and body type, might have lost a step or two?

AA: I think the interview you're referring too may not have captured the meaning of my comments. Principally, we rely on first person evaluations for defense but we do use defensive metrics to either support or dispute what our scouts are seeing with their eyes. We continue to explore defensive metrics and incorporate them into all of our defensive evaluations. In Vernon's case, the metrics did indeed indicate that Vernon did not have a strong defensive season. However, in examining all the criteria and in using all the tools at our disposal, we believe Vernon will have a much stronger year defensively in 2010.

BB: Do the Jays have employees focused on the statistical side of the game?  Is Tom Tango consulting for the organization?

AA: Tom Tango has joined us this season as a statistical consultant and we recently added Matt Olkin in a similar capacity. Our Pro Scouting Coordinator, Harry Einbinder also does some statistical work for us. We continue to explore adding statistical analysts and are currently in the process of building a database which will incorporate every facet of baseball operations.

BB: Has Dustin McGowan thrown off a mound yet?

AA: Yes he has. Dustin has thrown several bullpens to date and is progressing well in his rehab.

BB: How about Jesse Litsch?

AA: Jesse has also begun throwing bullpens and is on schedule for his rehab.

 

As I said at the top our questions related to the longer term vision for the team and I, for one, was happy with Alex's answers.  He appears to be doing a lot of what we hoped he would do and he appears to me to be headed in the right direction.

Thanks again to Alex Anthopoulos and best wishes from Batters Box for a successful 2010, and also for no more pitcher injuries.

An Interview with Alex Anthopoulos - Feb 2010 | 62 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Denoit - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 09:51 AM EST (#211829) #
Awesome, love these Q&A sessions
Flex - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 10:26 AM EST (#211830) #
Good interview. I was glad to see that you didn't shy away from asking a pointed question about Wells's defence, and I was impressed that AA didn't shy away from the answer.

Well done.
baagcur - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 11:12 AM EST (#211831) #
But he hardly pressed him on what factors led AA to believe 2010 would be any better
robertdudek - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 11:14 AM EST (#211832) #
I'm very happy to see that Tangotiger is consulting for the Jays. But it still remains to be seen if the Jays will make meaningful use of his insights.

The answer about pitching depth is spot on - no matter how good your pitching prospects look there is a high probability of something going wrong. Just about every young starting pitching prospect in the Ricciardi era got hurt or failed to develop. The only exception I can think of off-hand is Dave Bush - but he was traded and hasn't been much more than an innings eater (note - I don't mean to belittle the value of that). I still wonder if that was mere bad luck, or there was something in the organisation that was at root.

Matthew E - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 11:35 AM EST (#211833) #

But it still remains to be seen if the Jays will make meaningful use of his insights.

Actually, it remains to be seen if the Jays will make meaningful use of anything. When was the last time that they did?

Pistol - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 11:56 AM EST (#211834) #
But he hardly pressed him on what factors led AA to believe 2010 would be any better

It was an e-mail interview so you're only going to be able to get so much out of it.

Having said that, I think this was primarily blind optimism.  Sure, they'll probably do things that they think will help, but if AA doesn't think Wells will improve he certainly wouldn't say that.

The most revealing part of the answer is that he acknowledged that he didn't have a good defensive season.  That Wells will be back out in CF is likely more a function of not having better overall alternatives.
Pistol - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 12:09 PM EST (#211835) #
Nice work Gerry.

Overall, I'm really pleased with AA so far.  He seems a lot more analytical & flexible than his predecessor.  Unfortunately, whether that translates onto the field is something we probably won't know for a few years.
Gerry - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 12:23 PM EST (#211836) #

What I try and do in these interviews is ask questions where you don't know exactly what answer you are going to get.  The newspapers are full of these interviews after every game and the players and front office personnel are very good at giving non-answers.  So I don't ask those questions if I can avoid them.  If I had asked about Vernon's defense in 2010 I am sure I would have got an answer that combined Vernon's hard work in the off-season with a bit of bad luck for Vernon in 2009 that will reverse in 2010.

On one hand the media, including web sites such as this one, want front office people to be more forthcoming and avoid the cliche's.  Imagine if AA had said that the Jays were very unhappy with Vernon's defense.  Immediately the media would call Vernon and ask what do you think of this comment from your GM.  They would ask his teammates what they thought and they all would say, on the record, that Vernon's defense was great.  Vernon would presumably not be happy so then the media would go back to AA and say Vernon is mad and his teammates say you don't know what you are talking about.  AA would repeat his answer and then Griffin and Elliott would write stories about the Jays resorting to defensive metrics and those metrics are unproven and how could the Jays treat a veteran with such disrespect and non free agents are never going to sign here ever again.  And so on.

AA could have repeated what was printed a few months ago that they were happy.  That would have cost him some points here but we would whine for a while and then it would be forgotten until Vernon missed a ball in the first part of the season.

So AA took an in between path and gave an answer that I was very happy to hear him give, where he acknowledged there was an issue and because he didn't have a "fix" he said everything is going to be OK even though he knows it is a looming issue but today isn't the day to fix it or to get into a media blow up over it.

I think most of the readers here are happy it is on AA's radar, and AA presumably will be happy if it doesn't become an issue in spring training and he will be even happier if Vernon comes into camp 20 pounds lighter.

Gerry - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 12:29 PM EST (#211837) #
Thanks Pistol.  As I said up top I was happy with Alex's answers.  He does seem to be doing all the right things and I think we will see more of them as the year goes on.  I did ask the "luck" question which he acknowledged is an issue but it is a non-controllable one so you just plough ahead and hope for the best.  But so far so good.
Thomas - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 12:30 PM EST (#211838) #
Actually, it remains to be seen if the Jays will make meaningful use of anything.

I am completely unclear as to what this statement means.

mathesond - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 12:51 PM EST (#211839) #
Actually, it remains to be seen if the Jays will make meaningful use of anything.

I am completely unclear as to what this statement means.


Well, since they haven't won a championship in nigh on 20 years, I'm going to assume that it means they haven't made meaningful use of anything - players, coaches, scouts, financial resources, Microsoft Office. Once they start making meaningful use of those, then surely WS trophies will follow
Matthew E - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 01:10 PM EST (#211840) #
Pretty much. I mean, I don't think that a championship is the only mark of success or meaningfulness... but when was the last time the Jays successfully deployed their resources for any result other than spinning their wheels?
92-93 - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 01:23 PM EST (#211841) #
"Actually, it remains to be seen if the Jays will make meaningful use of anything. When was the last time that they did?"

Matthew, do you see why people were a little confused when you made the 80 win team comment last week?
Thomas - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 01:53 PM EST (#211844) #
Pretty much. I mean, I don't think that a championship is the only mark of success or meaningfulness... but when was the last time the Jays successfully deployed their resources for any result other than spinning their wheels?

So, what is it? Playoff appearances? 81+ win seasons? Going past the division series in the playoffs? If that's your mindset, fine, but I'd rather discuss Gerry's fine interview or Alex's responses today than read reminders about how the Jays have had nearly two decades without a playoff appearance.

I'd also argue a team can meaningfully deploy their resources, even if they don't win a World Series (or whatever your criteria happens to be). I don't buy a mindset that says the only team that managed their resources succesfully this year was the Yankees and the only team the year before was Philadelphia.

Now, you could debate whether the team did successfully deploy resources under JP's leadership and under Alex's short tenure so far, to which I'd respond that it happened to some degree with JP and the signs are quite positive since the change. It remains to be seen if it will work, but trying to get a scouting advantage by hiring more scouts is one example. This potentially works by not only having more individuals evaluating a player but also making the organization a more appealing environment to work by having scouts spend less time day-to-day traveling and giving them more off-time during the season.

Matthew E - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 01:57 PM EST (#211845) #

Matthew, do you see why people were a little confused when you made the 80 win team comment last week?

I'm quite a complex fellow. I still think 80 wins is a possibility. But, you know, we've seen that movie before. If you ever see me predicting 95, then you'll know something has changed.

--

I like to see Anthopoulos using the word "irrespective". Probably some of his counterparts on other teams would fall into the "irregardless" trap.

Where he says that it rarely works out that major-league ready pitchers are blocked... yes, true, but there's more to be said about it in this case. First, the Jays have an _unusual_ number of major-league-plausible starting pitchers around this year. Sure, some will get hurt. And it'll be an ongoing process to find five guys who can do the job in the majors this year. But there are just _so many_ of them that there's no way that there won't be some guys in AAA and/or AA who _could_ be in the major leagues. I don't think that anybody who earns a job will be blocked... but there won't be as many opportunities around as there are guys who might be able to take advantage of them. I've never seen a pitching staff so deep. Taller and wider, yes, but not as deep.

John Northey - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 02:23 PM EST (#211846) #
Heh. Read 'taller and wider' and saw Randy Johnson and David Wells in my mind.

This year appears to be largely about shaking the tree and seeing who is strong and who is weak. I suspect AA has a base 5 he hopes to leave spring with, then by the end of May to shift any who fail with guys from AAA who look ready, or at least close enough that it is time to see what they can do in the bigs. Repeat every 10 starts and hope by seasons end you have 5 strong starters (my bets on Marcum, Romero, Rzep, Drabek, Stewart being the survivors but it is more a guess than anything).

Being willing to discuss trading a few pitchers for hitting help is good to see, but I suspect he sees that as the 2011 challenge - finding good hitters for any and all open slots. As to Wells, his statement makes me wonder if there were issues with Wells this past season we didn't know about - might have just been 'GM speak' but it sounds like there was an issue that wasn't public that is resolved now (or at least he hopes is resolved).
Gerry - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 02:44 PM EST (#211847) #

On another topic, one area that fascinates me is scout evaluation.  A system for scout evaluation doesn't put it self together easily and results can take years to reveal themselves.

Let's split this into amateur and professional scouting.

In amateur scouting the local scout covers a territory and he might really like Brett Wallace for example but he is selected by another team before the Jays pick so the Jays go to their next pick.  A good scout might not have any players selected in the draft because other teams who pick higher in the draft pick the players the Jays would have selected.  So for an amateur scout the question is how well did he rank, and assign a value to, the draftable players in his territory.

I imagine you could keep a database of the scouts ratings and compare them initially with the wisdom of crowds, that is how every other team picked in the draft, and longer term versus how that player actually performed.  But sometimes players, especially pitchers, get injured and don't make it as far as they should so you would have to compensate for that.

Once you have a system in place to evaluate local scouts you would have to have a variation for cross checkers and the final decision making.  The scouting director will have five or ten scouts recommending players for various slots on the board.  It can be very hard to distinguish between a 65 rated player in California checked by cross checker A and a 65 rated player in Florida cross checked by cross checker B and a similar player in Ontario cross checked by a third cross checker.  Again it will take time but you need to think of a system to evaluate the cross checkers and do they rank players in the right order and with the right rating.

All of that can take time.  In the short term what happens when the scouts get together to organize the draft list?  Certain scouts might have better debating skills and others might carry more weight because they signed player X, so their opinions might carry more weight.  And what are scouts motivations in the draft room?  While they want the best for the team they also want to sign their players so if their player turns into a star they will always be able to say I signed Joe Bigstar.  The scouting director has to be able to distill these competing inputs and make a selection. 

As Alex has said in the past if he can get two players out of the draft instead of one, then the Jays will do well.  Evaluating scouts and sorting out draft dynamics are two very big jobs.

That leaves professional scouting.  I believe it is easier to evaluate scouts here.  These scouts rate professional prospects, guys already in the minor leagues.  Within a year or two of the scouts rating you can run a Baseball America style evaluation of these guys as long as you set up your internal systems to save the rankings at a point in time as they continually get updated.

This process will take time but it could be one of the most important under Alex's reign.

robertdudek - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 02:51 PM EST (#211848) #
Let me put an end to the controversy: meaningful is defined as net games won/lost at the major league level.

If using Tangotiger increases the Jays wins by at least 1 game at any point between now and the end of time, then this constitutes using his input in a meaningful (and positive)  way.

And before anyone chimes in further, let me say that it may never be possible to quantify his influence. But we may eventually be able to discern, in a qualitative way, whether or not Tangotiger is having an impact.

robertdudek - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 03:08 PM EST (#211849) #
I've never seen a pitching staff so deep. Taller and wider, yes, but not as deep.

I think you are looking upon these guys with too much of a rosy tint.

There are lots of guys here that COULD be good major league starters, but there aren't really any guys like Matusz or even Tillman. Guys who, if they don't get hurt, are virtually guaranteed to be top 15% starters.

The extra "depth" only means that it is less likely that our 4th and 5th starters will be terrible, which given our expectations for 2010 has very little meaning, if any.

What is really important is how things shape up for 2012. I'll assume for the moment that Marcum can remain healthy and be a top 15% starter. I would like to find at least 2 other guys that can reach that level. It could be Rzep, maybe Drabek, or Cecil as a long shot, but I don't like the chances for anyone else. Romero looks to be at best a top 30-40% guy, which is valuable, but is really only a 4th starter on a serious pennant contending team.

This team is roughly where Oakland was two years ago. Over the last two years, Oakland has seemingly developed enough young talent to be on the verge of pushing them towards the 90 win mark this season. My feeling is that if Sheets and Duchscherrer come back strong and they find one more bat (like Carter or Taylor) they will push the Angels to the wire.
Thomas - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 03:19 PM EST (#211850) #
Let me put an end to the controversy: meaningful is defined as net games won/lost at the major league level.

I would agree with this or something very similar, which is why, for example, I would argue the Jays have meaningfully deployed their coaches in the last few years. They had one off the best major league pitching coaches, in my opinion, on their staff for most of the past decade and still have one of the best defensive infield instructors. I'm convinced Butterfield meaningfully improved the defence of several Toronto infielders and that Arnsberg displayed a very good ability to discern who would be able to contribute at the majors and who wouldn't (for example, I was convinced they rushed Litsch to the majors and he made the transition seamlessly).

On another topic, one area that fascinates me is scout evaluation.

Gerry, I think that's a great post about the variables and difficulties in evaluating scouts. Another complication might be that scouts could well have strengths and weaknesses, just like individual players. Some scouts may be far better at evaluating hitting talent than pitching and vice-versa. An evaluation system has to incorporate that and, consequently, may be able to better deploy scouts to suit their individual strengths. Hypothetically, if one scout had signed Hill and Lind and a couple of other hitters but kept consistently missing on pitchers, it may be worth focusing on his evaluation of hitters and having someone else double-check his pitchers.

Another issue is how to incorporate injuries. For example, Bobby Bradley was a highly rated pitching prospect for the early 00's Pirates, but he blew out his arm in the low minors. He never really came back from the injury and was never close to making the majors. (IIRC, he had a curveball reminiscent of peak Zito, but once he hurt his arm he basically lost it and never gained it back.) That player never made the majors, or even Triple-A, but seemed on track to be an impact major leaguer before injuries. How do you evaluate a scout based on that pick? Do you give him a miss? An injury mulligan? A positive with caveats?

Matthew E - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 03:41 PM EST (#211851) #

The extra "depth" only means that it is less likely that our 4th and 5th starters will be terrible, which given our expectations for 2010 has very little meaning, if any.

You mean it doesn't affect net games won/lost at the major league level?

robertdudek - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 03:45 PM EST (#211852) #
You mean it doesn't affect net games won/lost at the major league level?

It does, except that this year's wins and losses will be a lot less meaningful than those in 2012.

It won't mean much, but it will not be meaningless.
Matthew E - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 04:11 PM EST (#211853) #

Our definition of "meaningful" seems to be drifting, then; how can one season be more meaningful than another? Which is splitting hairs, but I do it because I want to remain conscious of how tricky a discussion like this can be. But that's where I disagree with most here: I don't think this organization can bring its resources to bear to make 2012, or any other year for that matter, any more hopeful than 2010 is.

I still like having this depth - and I agree that not all these guys are great prospects; it's just that (as Bill James said about the Syracuse pitchers about twenty years ago) at least they are prospects, and there are a lot of them - because it means that there won't be any mid-season panicking when Ricky Romero gets spiked at first base. You can just call up Mills or whoever; you don't have to try to talk Steve Parris out of retirement. Keeps things orderly.

Did you forget Zach Stewart when listing potential top starters, or are you not as optimistic as others about him?

Jdog - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 06:07 PM EST (#211855) #

Oakland A's just need an extra bat? I dont see a single bat on that team.  They have the makings of a good rotation, but their line-up has to be the worst in the american league.  They have some nice hitting prospects in the minors but absolutely nothing on their MLB roster as of now.  An outfield of Crisp/Davis/Sweeney and an infield of Barton/Ellis/Pennington/Kouz/Suzuki

A couple prospects should crack the lineup this year in Taylor and Carter. Give them 3 years and they might be ready to compete...this year they should be in the AL west basement

brent - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 06:09 PM EST (#211856) #

The next time we get questions answered, could we find out what the expected payroll levels (2011 and going forward) are projected to be?

Is 120 million every season even enough to keep the Jays competitive with the Yanks and Sox?

jmoney - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 06:19 PM EST (#211857) #
Thanks to Gerry for getting this interview and for Alex taking the time to oblige. I appreciated it.
robertdudek - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 06:21 PM EST (#211858) #
how can one season be more meaningful than another?

It isn't that hard to figure out. The Jays are not contending this year, so if they lose 90 games instead of 95, that's not a very meaningful difference. But if they win 95 versus 90 games in 2012, that COULD be a very meaningful difference.


robertdudek - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 06:24 PM EST (#211859) #
A couple prospects should crack the lineup this year in Taylor and Carter. Give them 3 years and they might be ready to compete...this year they should be in the AL west basement

I'll give you 2 to 1 that they don't finish in the AL West basement (I'll put up $50 to your $25).


Mick Doherty - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 06:59 PM EST (#211860) #
Robert, if I wasn't dirt poor, I'd take a piece of that action. Real question: who do you see them finishing ahead of? LAA is down, but still will contend. TEX, as noted elsewhere, is the sexy bandwagon pick in the AL (maybe in all of MLB) and while I don't think they're THAT good, they are good. SEA, maybe? I think they have the makings of a solid .500+ team ... OAK is clearly the projected bottom-dweller. Seriously, correct me where I am mistaken here!
VBF - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 07:10 PM EST (#211861) #
All of that can take time.  In the short term what happens when the scouts get together to organize the draft list?  Certain scouts might have better debating skills and others might carry more weight because they signed player X, so their opinions might carry more weight.

For this average fan, my exposure to what happens behind the scenes really only comes through books like Moneyball. And in Moneyball there's a scene where the dynamics of the draft room played into what players were selected and what players weren't. It makes sense that less worked scouts are able to see more players in smaller regions which allows the crosscheckers to do their job better, etc, etc. But I can only imagine what having up to 30 additional opinions around can do, positively and negatively. Some of the most successful companies today are those that were able to maintain lean management, have firm control, and make smart, stealthy decisions.
ayjackson - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 08:25 PM EST (#211862) #

How'd such a great interview turn into such a "meaningless" discussion?

Mylegacy - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 08:45 PM EST (#211864) #
Gerry - excellent work, excellent questions, excellent responses from AA.

On our so-called excess pitching: I think to START the season we'd see Marcum, Romero, Rzep, Cecil and Morrow. With Stewart, Drabek, Purcey, Tallet, Mills, McGowan and possibly Litsch "threatening" later in the year. In addition we've Jenkins - who I'm SUPER high on and others in years to come. SO - I think we should seriously consider Stewart to be trained as a "closer" unless he looks to be ready to start, and start well - almost immediately. The way the team is now I don't see our long tern "closer" unless it is Zack and do see a plethora of good to very good starters. Just thinkin'.
greenfrog - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 09:03 PM EST (#211865) #
Nice interview, Gerry. Quite the scoop to get the GM on Da Box. So far, I'm very impressed with AA. Not only did he engineer a decent trade for Doc, but he's also been very professional and respectful in his comments to the media. In a lot of ways Alex has a great opportunity with the Jays. The organization is ready to rebuild, Rogers seems willing to spend on young talent (and scouting), and the team has some promising young players to build around.
Dave Till - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 10:38 PM EST (#211866) #
but when was the last time the Jays successfully deployed their resources for any result other than spinning their wheels?

I was thinking about this the other day, and I think that J.P. deserves some credit for building the 2008 Jays. Sure, it didn't work out, but considering:
  • They lost Aaron Hill to a season-ending injury early in the year;
  • They lost Vernon Wells - who hit .300 with power that year - to two separate injuries;
  • They lost large portions of their starting rotation;
  • They woefully underperformed their Pythagorean projection;
  • They played in a division with three other very strong teams;
it's pretty impressive that
  • They still managed to win 86 games anyway.
That would have been a successful deployment of resources if the Jays had had anything other than buzzard luck. As I've said over and over again, J.P.'s biggest fault as a GM was that he just wasn't lucky enough.

Compounding his woes in 2008 was the Rays' unexpected emergence, which required a fair bit of good fortune. (I am almost compelled to weep every time I see the Rays' games started by pitchers totals for that year. What could Toronto have done with a rotation of Halladay, Burnett, McGowan, Marcum and Litsch if all of them had stayed healthy?) It was the Rays' success that doomed J.P., I think.

I'm not that much of a believer in the Jays' pitching, at least right now. They have a bunch of Grade C and Grade D starters (with only Marcum and Romero having immediate upside greater than that - and Marcum is recovering from injury, and the league may be catching up to Romero). The chances are that most of these guys are going to get stomped, and that some of them are going to get hurt.

But one or two might survive and become reliable starters on the Jays' next contending team (which will probably be in 2012 or so). Young pitchers need a year or so to get used to what major league hitting is really like; since the Jays have no hope of contending this year, they might as well get as many young pitchers as possible through this rite of passage.

John Northey - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 11:03 PM EST (#211867) #
There is a lot of value in having a lot of #4/5 starters actually. I checked a few times and keep seeing that the last 33 starts tend to be had by guys with a group ERA of over 6. Shifting that down to 5 would equal a net savings of 33 runs or about 3 wins in the standings.

For example, 2006 the Jays won 87 games. If we assign 32 starts to each of the 5 slots (33 for #1/#2 starter to get to 162) we get the following rotation...
#1: Halladay (32 starts 3.19 ERA) & 1 Tallet start ERA 3.81)
#2: Burnett (21 starts 3.98 ERA) & Downs (5 starts ERA 4.09) & Lilly (7 starts 4.31 ERA)
#3: Lilly (25 starts 4.31 ERA) & Taubenheim (7 starts 4.89 ERA)
#4: Chacin (17 starts 5.05 ERA) & Marcum (14 starts 5.06 ERA) & Janssen (1 start 5.07 ERA) ERA+ group = 90
#5: Janssen (16 starts 5.07 ERA) & Rosario (1 start 6.65) & McGowan (3 starts 7.24 ERA) & Towers (12 starts 8.42 ERA)

That last group was ugggggly. Imagine if the #4/5 starters were replaced by guys with ERA's just under 5. An easy 3-5 more wins would emerge, if not more which would put the Jays that season over 90 wins and in eyeshot of the playoffs (93 wins would've made it). Just 6 more wins. Imagine if you took out Towers 12 starts or Janssen's 17 or some combo of those and McGowan & Rosario's and replaced them with guys who had a 4.50 or 5.00 ERA. Major difference and with some luck a playoff appearance.

Yes, aces are very, very, very nice. However, without depth you never get into the playoffs (at least in the East). If the Jays can develop some high end arms it would be great but a rotation of guys who can go 7 with an ERA of 4.50 (roughly a 100 ERA+) would be very good to have, especially if you find one ace to mix in.
TamRa - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 11:12 PM EST (#211868) #
Not that Alex would have really been able to answer but I don't think I could have resisted asking if we were REALLY going to have to endure Bautista (or god-forbid Gathright) leading off against RHP this year...



westcoast dude - Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 11:53 PM EST (#211869) #
Considering how well the Blue Jays played in September with not much pitching and Scott Richmond hurting, I'm quietly optimistic that this will be an entertaining, even exciting season. One thing I don't get is the dissing of Jose Bautista. There seems to be a fixation on BA and a disregard for OBP and making the opposing pitcher run up his count.  I take small consolation that I also felt like a voice crying in the wilderness defending Marco Scutaro, so I'm at peace with the world.
christaylor - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 01:53 AM EST (#211870) #
If you don't like Morrow's chances of being a top 15% guy then we've watched different pitchers.
robertdudek - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 01:58 AM EST (#211871) #
Robert, if I wasn't dirt poor, I'd take a piece of that action. Real question: who do you see them finishing ahead of? LAA is down, but still will contend. TEX, as noted elsewhere, is the sexy bandwagon pick in the AL (maybe in all of MLB) and while I don't think they're THAT good, they are good. SEA, maybe? I think they have the makings of a solid .500+ team ... OAK is clearly the projected bottom-dweller. Seriously, correct me where I am mistaken here!

I think the Rangers are overrated. Their hitters always look good because of the park, and their starting rotation doesn't look as good as any of their division rivals.

Conversely, the A's park makes the hitters look worse than they are. Suzuki is an all-star in terms of all-around play (really, which catcher other than Wieters in the A.L would you rather have, given V-Mart is half a catcher right now and Posada is approaching 40). After their initial struggles in the bigs, I like Sweeney and Barton to take a step forward. Ellis is solid and I think that with Gross and Fox and newcomer Kouzmanoff, the offense won't be very far below par (though the park will make them look worse). If you spot me 35 runs for park adjustments, I'll take the A's to outscore the Jays this season. And I love the A's bullpen.

I make the A's just a shade below the Mariners, maybe 2 games in the standings in terms of expectation, with the Angels, greatly weakened, about 4 games in front of the Mariners.
christaylor - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 02:02 AM EST (#211872) #
It depends on when the team loses the bulk of those 90-95 games. A team 20 games out at the ASB is quite different from one that is tied for 1st in June. For the casual fan the perception that the team could win (see 2009) is as important as the underlying true talent (whatever that is). To look like and 80 win team and lose the last 10 games, that's a different ball game from looking like a 95 loss team for most of the season and winning the last 10 ballgames.

It is always ridiculous to say that wins at the ML level don't matter (especially in the fickle Toronto baseball market) because that's what drives the gate, unless you believe (I don't) that attendances hovering around 10,000 can be sustained for 1/2 a season (or more) without negative effects by this organization.

Oh wait... there's a whole new threat on this idea. I think I'll stay out of it because the original statement is so laughable.
92-93 - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 03:25 AM EST (#211876) #
Suzuki is an all-star in terms of all-around play (really, which catcher other than Wieters in the A.L would you rather have, given V-Mart is half a catcher right now and Posada is approaching 40).

Somebody is forgetting about a guy named Joe Mauer. VMart and Posada's bats easily make up for any supposed defensive shortcomings they may have, and even guys like Napoli and Pierzysnki are just as solid of a bet to post a valuable season. I consider Suzuki to be in that average to above average group of catchers.
Pistol - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 10:44 AM EST (#211885) #
Congrats on being a 'Wangdoodle'!

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/2419/wednesday-wangdoodles-42

robertdudek - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 11:58 AM EST (#211889) #
If you don't like Morrow's chances of being a top 15% guy then we've watched different pitcher

Don't think he will succeed as a starter - the bullpen is the place for him.
robertdudek - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 12:05 PM EST (#211890) #
If you don't like Morrow's chances of being a top 15% guy then we've watched different pitcher

I forgot about Mauer, mea culpa.

But I don't rate Napoli as as good defensively, and he is a low-average power hitter who is much slower on the base paths than Suzuki.
joeblow - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 12:51 PM EST (#211892) #
Romero looks to be at best a top 30-40% guy, which is valuable, but is really only a 4th starter

I'm confused about this, partly not understanding the terms or definitions. If a guy is top 30-40%, doesn't that put him in the top half of your rotation (ie 2 or 3)?

Regarding Romero specifically,isn't he either a 1-2 or nothing? He has a bulldog mentality. If he can develop the endurance to go with it, he will succeed and become a guy you want out there in a big game. If not, he has little value in a rotation. Maybe a stretch, but if he can't develop to be a top starter, could he be a late inning guy down the road?

Speculation is fun...
robertdudek - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 01:02 PM EST (#211895) #
I'm confused about this, partly not understanding the terms or definitions. If a guy is top 30-40%, doesn't that put him in the top half of your rotation (ie 2 or 3)?

I was talking about a serious contending team built around pitching (which the Jays are going to be if they are to succeed). Typically such a team has 2 or 3 starters in the top 15% out of the population of all major league starting pitchers.

As an illustration, take all AL starters with at least 10 starts made in 2009. Calculate their FIP (a good indication of the quality of their performance). The best teams will have a higher concentration among the top 15% than the bottom teams (obviously).
Matthew E - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 01:19 PM EST (#211897) #

Interesting. So you don't think that a successful Jays team could have, for instance, decently above-average pitching and excellent hitting? It has to be excellent pitching first and foremost?

That may be the _cheapest_ way to do it, now that I think about it...

robertdudek - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 01:31 PM EST (#211899) #
Interesting. So you don't think that a successful Jays team could have, for instance, decently above-average pitching and excellent hitting? It has to be excellent pitching first and foremost?

That may be the _cheapest_ way to do it, now that I think about it...

Yes, I think that, based on the current composition of talent in the organisation, it is far more likely that a Jays pennant contender will have superior pitching than superior hitting. These are not your mid-90s Cleveland Indians here.

Matthew E - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 01:49 PM EST (#211901) #
Right, right, but I mean ever. Never mind what's in the organization now; if the Jays were starting from scratch, would they have to emphasize pitching over hitting? Or would it really matter which way they went as long as they did it well enough?
ramone - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 02:24 PM EST (#211903) #
Does anyone know if the Jays would loose their draft compensation for Barajas if he signs the minor legue deal offered by the mets?
robertdudek - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 03:16 PM EST (#211906) #
Right, right, but I mean ever. Never mind what's in the organization now; if the Jays were starting from scratch, would they have to emphasize pitching over hitting? Or would it really matter which way they went as long as they did it well enough?

I think there are some studies floating around that suggest it is easier to build a great pitching and defense team than a great offense. I don't know, but my comment was made in the context of the Jays chances, so obviously I'm looking at the talent in the organisation at the present time.
Richard S.S. - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 03:17 PM EST (#211907) #
ramone - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 02:24 PM EST (#211903) # Does anyone know if the Jays would loose their draft compensation for Barajas if he signs the minor legue deal offered by the mets?   YES.
Matthew E - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 03:48 PM EST (#211909) #

I had the idea once that the Jays should do everything they could to turn SkyDome into as much of a pitcher's park as possible. This would have two effects:

1. It would be easier to develop young pitchers, as they'd gain confidence more easily and wouldn't be overworked having to face more batters.

2. It would be easier to retain young hitters, as their depressed hitting statistics wouldn't command as much money in salary.

Of course, you'd have to be quite conscious about not allowing your own analysis to be skewed by the effects of your ballpark...

vw_fan17 - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 05:12 PM EST (#211911) #
I had the idea once that the Jays should do everything they could to turn SkyDome into as much of a pitcher's park as possible.

I'm assuming you mean mostly by expanding the fences (and maybe foul area)? I can see that it would depress hitter's stats, and make arbitration easier on that front.

Presumably, since it would INFLATE pitcher's stats, one would constantly bring up younger pitchers and trade away what look like ace pitchers for a good haul on the open market just as they're hitting arbitration, only to have them fail to repeat their results for other clubs. It could work for a while, but eventually, I think people would catch on. For example, people already talk about "outside of Coors stadium" for hitters, and I think Petco is starting to develop the opposite reputation (i.e. how well can he pitch outside of Petco?).

If you can't trade away your stud (at least, apparently so) pitchers for good value, it won't work that well in the long run, since your pitchers will all look like Roy Halladay and will get that kind of money in arbitration. Unless you non-tender them and just bring up more fresh arms.

I guess the real question is: what is there a surplus of? Average pitchers willing to take a cheaper contract to pitch in a pitcher's park? Average hitters willing to let their stats suffer and thus earn less? Who is more desperate for a break and willing to play in an extreme stadium? Pitchers or hitters?
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 05:18 PM EST (#211912) #

 think Petco is starting to develop the opposite reputation (i.e. how well can he pitch outside of Petco?).

True dat. I am personally anxious to see just how much Jake Peavy can do for the "outside Petco" White Sox. I know he will have that built-in "still recovering from injury" excuse, but I do wonder how much we will find his dominance was inflated by his home park as a Padre.

ramone - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 05:40 PM EST (#211913) #

ramone - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 02:24 PM EST (#211903) # Does anyone know if the Jays would loose their draft compensation for Barajas if he signs the minor legue deal offered by the mets?   YES.

Thanks Richard, that really sucks for the Jays, they'd be  better off bringing him back then not be compensated, I just heard an interview on XM from a KC beat reporter talking about how bad a defensive duo Buck and Olivo were for KC last year.

Brent S - Wednesday, February 17 2010 @ 09:55 PM EST (#211923) #
There's still hope that Barajas might sign a major league offer. Earlier in the offseason, Texas offered Barajas a minor league deal, which he declined.

Injuries happen -- it might be wise for him to wait a few more weeks to sign.

Brent S - Thursday, February 18 2010 @ 10:51 AM EST (#211939) #
Barajas had to go and make me look bad. He's close to signing a minor league deal with the Mets, according to Heyman.
John Northey - Thursday, February 18 2010 @ 01:23 PM EST (#211948) #
As I understand it, if Barajas reaches the majors before the draft the Jays get the pick. If not, then the Jays don't get it.
Richard S.S. - Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:10 AM EST (#211959) #

John:

According to Mike Axisa of http://riveraveblues.com/2010-draft-order/ (near the bottom of article), Toronto get a Supplemental 1st round pick only if when Barajas signs a minor deal, he agrees to a Major League deal by opening day.   Of course I prefer your understanding of this matter.

John Northey - Friday, February 19 2010 @ 11:06 AM EST (#211964) #
Interesting one. As I understand it, if a free agent doesn't sign until, say, May 10th then the team losing him still gets a pick so it doesn't make sense that signing a guy to a AAA deal then not having him on the opening day roster would allow a team to avoid compensation.
1 Blue Jays Way - Sunday, February 21 2010 @ 12:35 AM EST (#211991) #
Just giving your team a hat tip.  I linked to your site in one of my posts @ 1bluejaysway.blogspot.com


An Interview with Alex Anthopoulos - Feb 2010 | 62 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.