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

Breaking news just now, via Twitter, is that the Jays have declined their options on Kevin Gregg thereby making him a free agent.

Also via Twitter from Ken Rosenthal comes news that the Jays are trying to lure Don Wakamatsu here to be the bench coach.  The Orioles are also vying for him.

Also burning up the Twitter-verse is the news that the Jays have acquired Miguel Olivo for a player to be named or cash. 



CMore to come.... including I assume a quote or two from the GM.

The acquisition of Olivo leaves the Jays with a three way competition at catcher, Arencibia, Molina and Olivo.  Both Olivo and Molina are good handlers of pitchers but weak at the plate.  Could there be another shoe to drop?

Thursday evening/Fridan morning UDATE: As you are all surely aware by now, the Jays have declined Olivo's option and will pay him his $500,000 buyout.

Assuming Olivo doesn't accept arbitration (unlikely but not impossible) and another team signs him (he hit .269/.315/.449 with the Rockies last year, perfectly servicable) the Jays will pick up a sandwich pick in the first round of this years draft, probably in the mid to late 40s overall. There is no trading of draft picks in baseball, so it's not immediately evident what the empirical "worth" of the 45th pick is, but even if it's less than $500,000 (and whatever flotsam the Jays give the Rockies) this is a strong, out of the box move from Alex Anthopoulos. The Jays management is clearly recognizing that the best way for them to build going forward is through the draft, which is by far the cheapest way to acquire talent. Even if this pick turns out to be a complete bust or a huge success, one has to like the process, and the creative and aggressive attempt to build a better club. It's still early, and the Jays haven't won anything yet, but Anthopolous is already showing himself to be one of the best GMs in the history of the franchise (ok, there haven't been that many) and one of baseball's rising young executives.

Blue Jays Decline Options on Kevin Gregg, Acquire Miguel Olivo | 141 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
TamRa - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 09:20 PM EDT (#224945) #
More tweets:

elliottbaseball Jays hitting coach Dwayne Murphy will return for 2011

Ken_Rosenthal #BlueJays making hard push for Wakamatsu to be John Farrell's bench coach. Interviewed him today.

Jonny German - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 09:23 PM EDT (#224946) #
"Gone but not forgotten", eh?

I like it. Regardless if the Jays are able to find a better closer or if a better one emerges next year, Gregg is no long-term solution and this'll add to the interesting possibilities for the offseason.
Mylegacy - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 09:40 PM EDT (#224947) #
I LIKE IT!

Either AA is thinking competing in 2011 is so not gonna happen so just give me my five draft picks, please. OR - he's got a plan to rebuild the pen from the top down. Trades await - AA has already said he prefers that way to the FA way. I can't wait to see what our little Greek Salad has planned for this winter.

Time for a scotch - no question!

TamRa - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 09:58 PM EDT (#224949) #
I've always been in the "collect the pick" camp, even when Gregg turned out to accumulate a respectable stat line.

There are plenty of options.


Richard S.S. - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:09 PM EDT (#224950) #

Now the off-season gets interesting.  

Jeff Blair, on the Bob McCown segment  of the Fan 590, said, he would trade Shaun Marcum to Boston Red Sox for Jonathan Papelbon in a heartbeat (because of Marcum's delivery - a risk of going on the D.L.).   He'd also sign Javier Vazquez if we traded Marcum.   Jeff Blair said Kerry Wood can be a fit as he can flat out close.   Wow!   ( I regularly PVR the 3 hour Bob McCown segment.)

I expect Alex Anthopoulos to look outside for a Top Closer.   We don't, as yet, have anyone good enough to close that well.   I'd like to think anyone we go after is worth keeping 2-3+ year, giving this team some continuity at this position they've been missing.   Why?   We might make the post-season in 2011.

Do we go after a trade?   Who?

Do we go after a Free Agent?   Who?

Richard S.S. - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:23 PM EDT (#224951) #

Wow!   Didn't see this coming.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/11/blue-jays-acquire-miguel-olivo.html

What happens to J.P. Arencibia?   He must be wanted in a trade.

Matthew E - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:28 PM EDT (#224952) #
This has got to be insurance against Arencibia not being able to carry the ball. Olivo doesn't exactly fit into Anthopoulos's superstar-at-every-position ambitions.

I checked out Olivo on bb-ref. Three of his ten most-comparable players? Rod Barajas, John Buck, Greg Myers. I really hope Arencibia claims the job. Cornelius Robinson said it best when he said, "Keep moving forward!"

Thomas - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:28 PM EDT (#224953) #
I want no part of Jonathan Papelbon. Particularly at the expense of Marcum.
Jonny German - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:28 PM EDT (#224954) #
...and I was all alone on my little "Don't bring back Jose Molina" bandwagon. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about, there are always better options than J. Molina.
Richard S.S. - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:36 PM EDT (#224955) #

Olivo is a Type B.

A.A. can pick up $2.5 MM option, or pay the $500K buyout and take the pick.

Dr B - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:39 PM EDT (#224956) #
Miguel Olivo's lifetime OPS is 710 against Molina's 617. Most of that "damage" has come against left handers, since Olivo also has quite a big platoon split over his  career, viz., Left/Right 821/664. That OPS against left handers is more than respectable. He's not "the answer" but as Jonny German points out, it looks like a simple upgrade. (defensive abilities aside).
Chuck - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:46 PM EDT (#224957) #
AA sure has a thing for those 2009 KC catchers.
Forkball - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:50 PM EDT (#224958) #

Olivo is a Type B.  A.A. can pick up $2.5 MM option, or pay the $500K buyout and take the pick.

It sounds like to me AA is buying a compensation round pick for a half million.

Jonny German - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 10:59 PM EDT (#224959) #
I suppose it's possible that AA just wants the pick, but that strikes me as a very big gamble. Does the average supplemental round pick produce $500K in value? Without seeing supporting evidence I've got my doubts, tho I don't doubt I'll get beat up for suggesting it. At any rate, it's not simply $500K - the Jays also owe the Rox cash or a PTBNL.
Jdog - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 11:01 PM EDT (#224960) #
that and the million dollar bonus the pick will get.
Richard S.S. - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 11:17 PM EDT (#224961) #
Chances are, Scott Downs and Jason Frasor will earn second or third round picks and supplemental first round picks from the teams they sign with.   Olivo's pick could be needed if Toronto needs to sign a Type A Free Agent.
92-93 - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 11:18 PM EDT (#224962) #
Victor Wang's research suggests a supplemental round draft pick has a surplus value north of 2m (and that's with his signing bonus.)
Geoff - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 11:43 PM EDT (#224963) #
Is the John Buck Era over in Toronto? Can't imagine the Jays paying that much for Olivo's services when they have just picked up Molina's option.

Rockies also declined an option on Jeff Francis.





Mylegacy - Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 11:44 PM EDT (#224964) #
OFF TOPIC - but very interesting.

John Sickels over at minorleagueball.com has a high opinion of Eric Thames - and so do the "fans" who have responded to John's comments.

codyla - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 12:00 AM EDT (#224965) #
It is confirmed that the Jays have declined the option on Olivo, and paid him his 500K buyout, and Olivo is now a free agent.  It appears that the Jays have just bought themselves a 1st round pick. Unbelievable move by AA.
Mike Forbes - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 12:12 AM EDT (#224966) #

Is AA the most creative GM in baseball, or is that just me?

TamRa - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 01:02 AM EDT (#224968) #
this move is, to repeat an overbaked internet meme, FULL OF WIN!

Debate if you want the relative dollar value of a draft pick, AA just found a way to game the rules by trading for a draft pick. it's not getting the pick that charges me up, it's the creative thinking. I can't wait to see what his next trick is.


Richard S.S. - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 02:25 AM EDT (#224969) #

And someone said the off-season was boring.  http://www.battersbox.ca/users.php?mode=profile&uid=13566

Scott Downs,Type A, will reject arbitration, wanting a 2-3 year contract.   It is highly unlikely we will gain a first round pick, as he will be a 'protected pick' signing or someone second Type A signing.   (Supplemental First Round Pick + 2nd or 3rd Round Pick.)   Jason Frasor, Type A, will most likely accept arbitration, as it's unlikely he gets an offer as a Type A.   Toronto will not offer arbitration.   John Buck, Type B, will reject arbitration, wanting a 2-3+ year contract.   (Supplemental First Round Pick.)   Kevin Gregg, Type B, will reject arbitration for a 2-3 year contract.   (Supplemental First Round Pick.)   Miguel Olivo, Type B, will reject arbitration for a 2-3 year contract.   (Supplemental First Round Pick.)  

I might be wrong about Downs, Frasor, Gregg or Olivo, but I don't think A.A. would.   Having four Supplemental First round picks and an additional 2ND or 3RD round pick make the 2011 draft look very good.   A.A. has been speaking with all the other GMs about their off-season plans.   If he's found the player(s) he's looking for - too much - not available, he might have to sign (a) Type A Free Agent(s) to fill his voids.   Having an extra Supplemental First round pick might compensate for a loss of the 21st pick, with possibly the 2nd round pick as well.

Rejecting Kevin Gregg's option(s) was easy, so is not wanting Downs and Frasor back.   Toronto's Bullpen ranked 10th out of 14 AL teams.   We have too many relievers without options.    I believe the PTBNL will be one of those relievers.   I future believe 2-3 relievers will be non-tendered and 1-3 more being traded.   This off-season is about making this Team better, starting with the bullpen.   Bringing back too many current relievers defeats the purpose.

DaveB - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 02:40 AM EDT (#224970) #
It's also a potential win for the Rockies. We don't know the parameters of the PTBNL, but the trade could easily be a win-win for both teams, with more risk (and more upside) on the Jays' end of it. AA is unafraid to take that risk, which is a good thing and typical of his style. He gives himself an extra chance to hit a home run in what is purported to be a strong draft. Another consideration is that the Jays have added a low A level farm team that will be filled with draft picks. The more picks he has, the better to fill out the minor league rosters, or offset the compensatory picks he would lose for re-signing free agents he deems necessary to keep around.

Greg - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 05:57 AM EDT (#224971) #

Of course, there is the possibility Olivo accepts arbitration.  In which case the Jays have a decent catcher on a reasonable one year deal.

So either way, not too bad.

Richard S.S. - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 06:59 AM EDT (#224972) #

A.A. is amazing.   If Olivo accepts arbitration to be a backup catcher, so be it.   J.P. Arencibia plays, possibly Starter or 50/50; Jose Molina plays in AAA or is released in Spring Training for minimal cost.

I'm glad Hitting Coach Dwayne Murphy is returning.   Don Wakamatsu is an interesting choice for Bench Coach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Wakamatsu.   I wonder where Nick Leyva goes; AA said everyone had a job in 2011.

scottt - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 07:18 AM EDT (#224973) #
Does the average supplemental round pick produce $500K in value?

I'll just say that 2 of the starting pitchers that brought the Rangers to the World Series were supplemental picks.

I think Frasor will be back somehow. I wouldn't mind that, he could still be a type B next year.


ayjackson - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 08:07 AM EDT (#224974) #
The Jays will offer Frasor arbitration. Having him back at $3m for a season isn't a bad deal.
TJ Caino - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 08:23 AM EDT (#224975) #

I think Frasor will be back somehow. I wouldn't mind that, he could still be a type B next year.

Frasor accepting arbitration and becomming a Type B next off-season is a pretty likely scenario.

He's a Type A largely by virtue of his '09 campaign, in which he had a 1.02 WHIP and a 2.50 ERA; that is his best year so far, and significantly better than his career 1.30 WHIP and 3.76 ERA. He also had a 7-3 record with 11 saves that year.

Loosing that 09 season should place him squarely in the Type B group, significantly increasing the teams that would be interested in signing him. However, he's 33: so perhaps he takes the gamble and goes for the long term deal now.

Forkball - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 08:42 AM EDT (#224976) #
Of course, there is the possibility Olivo accepts arbitration.  In which case the Jays have a decent catcher on a reasonable one year deal.

Olivo is essentially a Barajas type player?  Low OBP with a little pop?

I think the only way that Olivo would accept arbitration is if he's getting no interest as a free agent and that's his only choice for getting $2MM next year (there's no disincentive for a team to not sign him since he's a B).  Not sure what teams need catchers and what the catcher market is going to be this off-season.  But the Rockies and Jays don't think he's worth $2.5 million, and if any team did presumably they would have traded for him.

There's some risk to the Jays here, but not as much as the potential reward of the pick is.  But it makes me less crazy about picking up Molina's option.

Overall I like the move.
Forkball - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 08:51 AM EDT (#224977) #
I was a little surprised with Gregg.  The Jays are likely to get a comp pick for him now, but I would have thought another team would have been willing to trade a B prospect for him (which is essentially what a comp pick is, except they're years away and cost $1MM); the options were relatively reasonable.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Gregg get a better contract in free agency than he had in his options.
Jonny German - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 09:12 AM EDT (#224978) #

Victor Wang's research suggests a supplemental round draft pick has a surplus value north of 2m (and that's with his signing bonus.)

Thanks for pointing me to Wang's research - for others that are interested, here are links:

Part 1

Part 2

I think I was over-excited about the possibility of Olivo instead of Molina, that comment I made about the value of a supplemental pick didn't make a lot of sense regardless of "research". Each supplemental pick has the potential to turn into a homegrown star, and homegrown stars is the way to build a championship team.

I stand by my point that the availability of Olivo is an example of why Molina's option should not have been picked up.

Mike Green - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 09:22 AM EDT (#224980) #
Marcum for Papelbon?  No thanks.  If the club is truly concerned about Marcum's arm health over the next few years, they ought to consider leveraging his talent by moving him back into the ace reliever role he had in college and in Auburn.  Personally, I am not worried about it. 
Dave Till - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 09:23 AM EDT (#224981) #
The Gregg decision surprised me a bit. Who is going to close? I don't see any in-house options, since I assume that Downs is gone too. I don't think Frasor can close, and he might be gone too. Is AA building from the ground up - and thus doesn't care what happens in 2011 - or are the Jays going to acquire a closer?

I guess there's no risk in acquiring Olivo - if he accepts arbitration, he and Arencibia become the 2011 catching duo, and Molina walks the plank.

TJ Caino - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 09:41 AM EDT (#224983) #

I am not necessarily against dealing Marcum.

But to suggest trading a starting pitcher of Marcum’s calibre, with two years of control, for a reliever with one year of control... doesn’t reflect very well on Blair's competence IMHO.

I was thinking that AA would be looking for what he is always looking for: young high ceiling guys with significant team control.

Matthew E - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 09:47 AM EDT (#224984) #
The Gregg decision surprised me a bit. Who is going to close? I don't see any in-house options, since I assume that Downs is gone too. I don't think Frasor can close, and he might be gone too.

I for one am hoping that Purcey claims the job. In almost all cases I'd rather see my team build their own closer from available parts than expend resources trying to get somebody else's.

There are probably other options. Like last year: the Mariners figured that they'd take one of their failed prospects and swap it for a promising young fireballer that Toronto didn't seem to know what to do with. Now, it didn't work, as League didn't conquer the world the way Seattle must have hoped he was going to, and Morrow turned out to be a lot more useful than they thought he was, but even though the results were disappointing and the premises were faulty, the base concept was sound.
Morty - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 09:54 AM EDT (#224985) #

Very interesting and impressive move by A.A.

I think the only thing that would make it better would be the conditions of the PTBNL / cash. If this is the arrangement, I'll be blown away:

Olivo accepts arbitration = PTBNL is Jose Molina

Olivo declines arbitration = $2 million cash.

Now that would be genius!

Mike Green - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:01 AM EDT (#224986) #
I am all for developing ace relievers from within, but there is nothing wrong with acquiring an effective reliever presently used in a lower leverage role and converting him.  If there is another Joe Nathan out there, that would be OK. 
Matthew E - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:11 AM EDT (#224988) #
Right. That's what I was trying to get at with the League example.
China fan - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:13 AM EDT (#224989) #

.....The Jays will offer Frasor arbitration. Having him back at $3m for a season isn't a bad deal....

Since the Jays have already decided that Kevin Gregg is not worth $3.5-million (his 2011 option, minus the buy-out), why would they offer $3-million to Frasor?  Gregg and Frasor competed head-to-head for the closer's job in 2010, and Frasor lost the competition pretty badly. 

Mike Green - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:18 AM EDT (#224990) #
Despite having magic closer dust all over him, Gregg is not a better pitcher than Frasor at this stage in their careers.  And the compensation consequences of declining Gregg's option and offering Frasor arbitration are very, very different.
China fan - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:26 AM EDT (#224991) #

.....Gregg is not a better pitcher than Frasor at this stage in their careers....

And the converse is equally true: Frasor is not a clearly better pitcher than Gregg.   The point stands:  why would AA assess that Frasor is worth $3-million, after dumping another similar pitcher at roughly the same price?

As for arbitration:  I'm sure the technicalities are different, but the Jays don't get a compensation pich for Frasor unless they offer him arbitration.  And if they offer him arbitration, he'll probably be awarded around $3-million and he'll accept it.   If there's another scenario, please outline it.

Spifficus - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:26 AM EDT (#224992) #

Since the Jays have already decided that Kevin Gregg is not worth $3.5-million (his 2011 option, minus the buy-out), why would they offer $3-million to Frasor?

They just dealt for a player solely to decline his option and get the pick; Gregg options and Frasor arb decisions can't be evaluated without factoring that in (... VERY heavily). In all likelihood, they simply value the probability of getting a pick more than they like a guarantee of Gregg at $3.5M, and more than the risk that one of the free agents will accept arbitration.

China fan - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:28 AM EDT (#224993) #
Despite being used in lower-leverage situations, Frasor's WHIP and ERA in 2010 were almost identical to those of Kevin Gregg.
BalzacChieftain - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:30 AM EDT (#224994) #
The offseason is shaping up to be a bit of an exodus of the current bullpen - which I think makes sense considering we'll probably see Zep, Hill, Drabek, Richmond, Hill, and Mills all get decent shots at a slot in the rotation.  The losers can take the pen, though I don't see them putting Drabek in that role at this point.
TJ Caino - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:30 AM EDT (#224995) #

Since the Jays have already decided that Kevin Gregg is not worth $3.5-million

ya, what Mike said.

Put differently, they didn't deem that his services weren't worth that amount. ($4.5M, I thought.) But that they wanted to get the draft pick as compensation.

Both Frasor and Gregg will be offered arbitration. It's just that Frasor appears more likely to accept, as he is a Type A.

Frasor is not being offered $3M. That's just the approx downside risk of offering arb. While the upside would be 2 draft picks. (Well worth the gamble, IMO)

China fan - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:35 AM EDT (#224996) #

....Frasor is not being offered $3M. That's just the approx downside risk of offering arb.....

It amounts to the exact same thing -- offering him $3-million -- unless they are pretty certain that he will accept a free-agent deal somewhere else.   That's where AA will need very good antennae, to know which teams are considering an offer to Frasor and whether anyone would offer him a multi-year deal.  Because, barring a multi-year free-agent offer for big bucks, Frasor would probably accept the $3-million.

Spifficus - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:40 AM EDT (#224997) #
Considering the 'downside' is getting a solid pitcher like Frasor, at cost, I don't know what attuned antennae are necessary - if the cash is in the budget, you take that risk.
Flex - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:46 AM EDT (#224998) #
Given that Frasor is a Type A and therefore less likely to get an offer from another team that would entice him to decline arbitration, what about the possibility that the Jays simply decide in his case not to offer?

They risk not getting the faintly possible two picks and ensure themselves not having to pay $3 million for his services.

If AA were worried about money he might take that. But somehow I think he's not all that worried about $3 million here or there.
Mike Green - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:46 AM EDT (#224999) #
Here is Jack Moore's take on the moves.

Catching depth is a little different than for other positions.  It is not a bad idea to have 3-4 catchers around (1-2 in triple A) each of whom one is comfortable with being thrust into major league action quickly.  So far, the catchers who conceivably could that description and who are still in the organization would be Arencibia, Buck, Olivo, Molina and Jeroloman.  It is almost a sure thing that at least one of those players will not be with the organization when the bell rings next spring.  It would not surprise me at all if three of them aren't. 
Matthew E - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:49 AM EDT (#225000) #
Besides, Frasor isn't necessarily going to go to arbitration, even if he accepts it; the Jays can still try to sign him to a more favourable contract before the arb hearing. Like, I don't know, 5 mil over two years instead of the anticipated 3 mil for one year. Pocket change for the Jays anyway.
TJ Caino - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:56 AM EDT (#225001) #

Given that Frasor is a Type A and therefore less likely to get an offer from another team that would entice him to decline arbitration, what about the possibility that the Jays simply decide in his case not to offer?

 

I think they’d have to be pretty happy with Frasor on a one year deal at a reasonable rate, with a solid probability of draft pick compensation the following year.

Wildrose - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:58 AM EDT (#225002) #
This young AA is a pretty hard working and smart young fellow. In a recent Shi David he was bemoaning the fact that he wasn't aggressive enough last year ( not going to the mat for Chapman?) and intends to make amends in this off-season. You can't beat the Yankees if your not willing to take some chances.

Having guys potentially accept arbitration is something you have to live with. With Olivio if he were to accept arbitration ( I don't think he will), it wouldn't be the end of the world if he was the starting catcher coming out of spring training, catchers always get hurt ( see Russell Martin) and can probably be flipped mid season for a good return.

TJ Caino - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 11:10 AM EDT (#225003) #

I disagree with the ‘value of a draft pick’ rational. Not to undermine Wang’s research, I just question its applicability to AA’s decision making process.

 

The pick isn’t “worth that amount” to the Blue Jays per se. The pick has an underlying potential value that on average is worth the amounts that Wang quotes. However, I have to presume that AA isn’t fixated on that average: he’s buying lottery tickets and hoping for a big payout.

 

I also hate the font I get when pasting comments from word.

Vic Parker - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 11:17 AM EDT (#225004) #
In other news... Baseball America released it's Blue Jays top 10 list.
Wildrose - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#225007) #
I think comparing it to buying into a select lottery is a good way to put it. I would say the Jays feel draft  choices have even more value to their organization given their willingness to go over slot and the substantial scouting resources they can apply to this event.

I wonder, as Moore puts it, could the Jay's game the system with Jason Frasor ? Could they induce a team in the top half of the draft to sign Frasor if money and a PBNL were proffered ? Depending on the assets offered would it be worth it for someone to give up a second-rounder?

Forkball - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#225010) #
The pick isn’t “worth that amount” to the Blue Jays per se. The pick has an underlying potential value that on average is worth the amounts that Wang quotes. However, I have to presume that AA isn’t fixated on that average: he’s buying lottery tickets and hoping for a big payout.

Probably - I think they're looking for high quality through quantity.  That is, make enough 'high upside' picks and some percentage will work out. 

But even if it's not a 'big payout' move (say you end up with a player that's an average reliever), it's still worth pursuing even if the benefit is just a little greater than the cost.
bpoz - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#225011) #
What is the percent guaranteed on an arbitration contract if the player is cut in ST?

People have said that long term contracts can be a big bird. Turkey or some thing.

I strongly felt AA would, this off season build up the farm talent and also improve the ML team. I also feel $ will factor into this and he will restrict himself somehow. He always says if the length & $ amount of the contract makes sense then he will do it.

I feel that some of his bench & Bullpen parts can come from ST Non Roster Invitee list. The 40 man lists for everyone have a Dec 2nd deadline. That should be interesting. Someone with no minor league options left has to break camp with the ML team, we have 2 that I know of JoJo and Purcey. But if we had too many, I think ST would only confirm a teams evaluation not upgrade it drastically. But with pitching anything can happen. So teams will inquire about this. So if AA or any other GM has a little interest in someones unprotected player, you can make a small deal rather than hope that guy is available when your turn came in Rule 5 and he can stay in the minors.

I can see AA doing stuff like that. S Camp I believe played 2007 for TB (bad team then), went to Syracuse for 7 games and then joined the Jays in 2008. I don't know if he was on the 40. Tallet probably works a deal with someone, and starts 2011 off anyones 40 man and from AAA gets to the ML, of course I am guessing on Tallet. S Hill is a better example but for 2010.

All kinds of cheap non guaranteed moves are possible. For more expensive options NYY are research area.
Forkball - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 12:23 PM EDT (#225012) #
The point stands:  why would AA assess that Frasor is worth $3-million, after dumping another similar pitcher at roughly the same price?

Because of the value of the likely receipt of a draft pick if he signs elsewhere.

If you pick up Gregg's option you're paying him market price (I'm assuming he's worth about that much).  If you collect a draft pick from him signing elsewhere you're getting a $2MM value for nothing.  Presumably you can go out and sign a reliever of Gregg's quality for what you would have paid Gregg with the option..... and if you do that you get the valuable draft pick on top. 

Said another way, the value of Gregg's option would have to be below market by the amount of the value of the compensation pick you'd get in return.  So in this case he'd have to be worth $6MM to the Jays for it to be worth picking up an option at $4MM (since we're assuming the pick is worth $2MM in present day value).

Worst case you're paying Gregg for market rates for 1 year if he accepts arbitration.  Given his season you'd think he could get 2 years guaranteed somewhere.

Frasor's situation is a little different.  If he accepts arbitration (which is likely since his A status will hurt him in FA, unlike for Gregg as he's a B and probably a little better pitcher) you're paying him market value for one year (or maybe a little more).  In the event another team picks him up you pocket 2 picks which could have value between $3-5MM (or so... the pick could be 1st, 2nd or 3rd on top of the comp pick).

If you don't offer Frasor arbitration there's no potential to collect on the picks.  Worst case you're paying the arbitration award (and could always walk away from the arbitration amount for 1/6th if I remember correctly).
John Northey - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#225015) #
Of course, what could happen with Frasor is a team that is signing 2 other type A free agents (Yankees always a threat there) decides they need a middle man and sign him thus losing only a 3rd round pick which isn't as big a deal.

In fact, that might be an idea for the Yankees - sign Downs & Frasor plus someone else since their pen was viewed as a weakness this year. Lose low 2nd & 3rd round picks for the two relievers and a low 1st rounder for someone else.
DaveB - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#225016) #
Olivo is essentially a Barajas type player?  Low OBP with a little pop?

I think the only way that Olivo would accept arbitration is if he's getting no interest as a free agent and that's his only choice for getting $2MM next year (there's no disincentive for a team to not sign him since he's a B).  Not sure what teams need catchers and what the catcher market is going to be this off-season.  But the Rockies and Jays don't think he's worth $2.5 million, and if any team did presumably they would have traded for him.

Olivo is a Barajas/Buck type hitter with similar pop. Overall, he might be a better catcher right now than either of them. He has one of the stronger throwing arms in the Majors, he's a pretty good athlete who can run a bit and makes a lot of plays around home plate on bunts and ground balls, but he has also led his league in passed balls four of the past five years and has a high wild pitch rate. At 31 he could be a starting catcher for another 2-3 years.

I'm not sure it's a case of teams feeling he's not worth $2.5 million next year so much as it is letting the process play out and someone eventually paying him close to that. The Rockies seem to be committed to playing Chris Ianetta, the Jays are just increasing their options at catcher and netting a draft pick if they don't want Olivo. There are undoubtedly a lot of teams that would be interested in Olivo, but knowing he was not going to be tendered they could wait for him to be a free agent and not give up anything.

I think this is a low-risk, brilliant move by AA that gives him temporary control of another asset, while at the same time making the Jays catching situation even tougher for us to figure out. AA may have no interest in Olivo and made the trade simply to acquire a draft pick, which would be fine, but it also gives him more time and more options at catcher. If he's not sure Arencibia can be the future full-time catcher for whatever reason, and doesn't want to pay market value to keep Buck, then he has first crack at a cheap veteran who might be better than either of them next year, and can dangle Arencibia as a pretty attractive trading piece. If he likes Arencibia, he can let Olivo go to free agency and get the draft pick. If he likes Olivo, they can both ignore arbitration and work out a deal that makes him the caretaker for the two-three years it may take for one of D'Arnaud, Perez and Jimenez to emerge. If Olivo doesn't like the Jays, then nothing is going to happen and the Jays will get a draft pick. The PTBNL or cash going to the Rockies probably depends on whether the Jays sign Olivo. I would guess they give up a player if they do sign him, cash if they don't.
China fan - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 01:16 PM EDT (#225017) #

.....Given his season you'd think he could get 2 years guaranteed somewhere.....

Forkball, thanks for the interesting points and details, but I don't think it's necessarily true that Gregg would get a better offer on the free-agent market.  Even Bauxite analysts have been unimpressed with Gregg's season, since we know that the number of saves is not the best metric for measuring a reliever.  I'm sure MLB managers will be even less impressed.  He didn't attract much attention on the free-agent market a year ago and had to settle for a mediocre offer from the Jays with only a single year guaranteed for a couple million.  Since then, he's a year older, and not much improved.  Arbitration might be attractive for him -- it would presumably give him $3 to $4 million next year, which is pretty close to the option that the Jays declined.

The permutations are extremely complicated, but it seems to me that Gregg and Frasor are both at risk of accepting an arbitration offer from the Jays if it's offered to them.  Frasor, of course, is more likely to accept, given his A status, but Gregg too might accept.

The real question is:  how many veterans does Anthopolous want to keep in the bullpen?  Is it a wholesale rebuild of the bullpen, or just some tweaking?  I guess we'll find out soon.

Chuck - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#225023) #
MLB Trade Rumors has a Blue Jays Facebook page.
TamRa - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 02:18 PM EDT (#225024) #
RE Blair's rather goofy idea - if i was going to offer Marcum for a closer (not sure I would in any case) it would be Soria.

~TamRa

92-93 - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#225025) #
China Fan, you are seriously discounting the probability of the Jays releasing Gregg or Frasor if they accept arbitration, something the players themselves have to consider. Does Frasor want to win 3m in arbitration from the Jays and potentially only earn 1-1.5m? Because if the Jays release him like they did Reed Johnson he only makes 500k of that plus whatever FA contract he can get in the middle of spring training, which isn't an easy task. Both players can secure themselves two year deals on the open market for a much larger guarantee than arbitration gives them and would be fools to not do so. As I've been saying all year - Rodney, Valverde, and Lyon should have put to rest this past offseason the notion that there's no market for dependable, slightly above average relievers on multi-year deals.

The C market is an interesting one, and I'm not particularly worried about Olivo accepting arbitration - he'd be worth his contract anyway and there's quite a few teams that should be shopping for a C this winter, making the acceptance unlikely. My count has SD, HOU, MIL, CIN, WSH, FLA, NYM, TEX, KC, DET, CHW, BOS, and NYY as teams that should be in the market.
Mike Green - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 02:26 PM EDT (#225026) #
Here's the latest from Anthopoulos on the current Gregg situation.
ComebyDeanChance - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 02:37 PM EDT (#225027) #
I think I've read that the 2011 draft class is supposed to be a strong one, perhaps like the 2002 one. If that's the case, I imagine that teams are going to be reluctant to forego picks, and it makes Jason Frasor seem iffy as a Type A. Ricciardi's public comments perhaps didn't help in that regard, either.

92-93's points are good ones though, and I hadn't thought of the possibility he raised of releasing him. i suspect though, that that kind of payout is something they'd rather avoid.
DaveB - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 05:23 PM EDT (#225032) #
Thanks for that link, Mike. Some interesting news there on Olivo, who the Jays almost signed last year instead of Buck.

AA: "Miguel Olivo is someone that's a viable alternative for us if we can't come to terms with John Buck and depending what may present itself from a trade standpoint. We would love to have John Buck back … but it seems the market for John Buck is going to be incredibly strong, and rightfully so.

"I really don't think we can afford to be left naked at that position. We need to continue to have our options and alternatives."

That's pretty much what I thought. The Jays could stay out of the Buck sweepstakes, trade Arencibia, and have Olivo as their starter next year. Lots of possibilities.




Jdog - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 06:32 PM EDT (#225036) #
His comments dont make a lot of sense. Once they declined the option they lost their control of Olivo, so even if they fail to sign Buck, the Olivo trade doesn't keep them clothed at the position. Sure they could still sign Olivo but they could have anyways. But I love the move, could be a great 2011 draft. Lets cross our fingers and hope all these FA's decline and sign
Mick in Ithaca - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 06:49 PM EDT (#225037) #
If the Jays don't offer Frasor arbitration, then he'll sign elsewhere, since no team will be giving up a pick to get him, and he's a serviceable reliever. I don't see why it's a foregone conclusion that he won't be signed even if the Jays do offer him arb. A team with a protected pick might be quite willing to sign him if he answers a need, giving up a 2nd round pick rather than a 1st rounder. And that team might very well feel that it has compensated itself for the loss of the 2nd round pick by offering arb to one of its own type-B free agents who is likely to sign elsewhere.

Even if Frasor accepts arbitration, he's a useful arm that won't cost much above what he cost this season, and will generate a supplemental pick after 2011. I'm sure he'll be offered arbitration.

Thomas - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 06:57 PM EDT (#225038) #
I think I've read that the 2011 draft class is supposed to be a strong one, perhaps like the 2002 one.

The 2011 draft class is expected to be quite strong, indeed. You are correct.

Petey Baseball - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 08:55 PM EDT (#225042) #
I tend to agree with Mr. Blair. Would anyone be surprised if the Jays are making a run at Papelbon? I don’t think there’s any question they should be. Given what AA has shown us in just over a year on the job, and his recent comments suggesting an increased willingness to part with prospects, I have no doubt they are. Do they have enough to make a serious offer to Boston? That’s the real question.
Dave Rutt - Friday, November 05 2010 @ 11:12 PM EDT (#225048) #
I don't understand the interest in Papelbon. His performance has declined for three years in a row (2007 WHIP: 0.771, 2008: 0.952, 2009: 1.147, 2010: 1.269), he'll be 30 this month, he's only under control for one more year, and he'll cost over 10 million dollars.
TheBunk - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 12:08 AM EDT (#225049) #
That's not the real question, Papelbon is a possible non tender with declining numbers and increasing salary with only one year left on his contract, he wouldn't be difficult to acquire.
Thomas - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 09:57 AM EDT (#225050) #
That's not the real question

Why is it not the real question as to why you want to acquire a closer for a cost of player(s) in a trade with an eight figure salary whose performance has been declining for years?

TheBunk - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 11:28 AM EDT (#225051) #
"Do they have enough to make a serious offer to Boston? That’s the real question."

Clearly they have enough, I didn't bring up whether picking up Papelbon was smart or not, just that he clearly would not cost much.
TJ Caino - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 11:29 AM EDT (#225052) #
I believe the 'real question' TheBunk is referring to is the one posed by Petey Baseball:

"I tend to agree with Mr. Blair. Would anyone be surprised if the Jays are making a run at Papelbon? I don’t think there’s any question they should be. Given what AA has shown us in just over a year on the job, and his recent comments suggesting an increased willingness to part with prospects, I have no doubt they are. Do they have enough to make a serious offer to Boston? That’s the real question. "
bpoz - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 11:38 AM EDT (#225053) #
I agree that the real question IS THE dilemma.

I feel quite strongly about the following pathways to solve this complicated problem of acquiring Papelbon.
1) AA knows how to get his man. But will BOS trade with a rival? I believe yes. If Papelbon is not their answer then he cannot stay along with his replacement. D Bard & he can share, but Bard blew 7 of 10 Sv opportunities.
2) AA... You can only use 25 players at a time. So he is willing to trade prospects for the 25 man.
3) If we are a contender then AA will over pay and do other moves that help the present at some cost to both the future and present. Which meas IMO 1) No long term, locked in commitments. But expensive $ 1 yr is probably OK. 2) There are many ways to get talented prospects. So d'Arnaud and other 2-3 years away can go but JPA is now, so if he goes Molina still needs a partner.
4) How fast can AA rebuild his ML team HIS way. Some of his ? marks were SS,1st,C,3rd,Bpen. So far 1St,pen and 3rd remain. He could not do it immediately as 2010 has proved. Since he is no longer locked in at 2009's 1st,3rd & Closer, IMO a huge obstacle is out of his way. If the pieces are fitted Mid Jan then we contend in 2011. But AA...relievers are volatile and many examples exist. The closer solution is never permanently fixed unless you have someone like M Rivera. But B Koch and many others succeed for a short time. My choice is the next short term unknown E Gagne.

Short term 1 Yr or cheaper 1-2 Yr commitments, incentive laden deals are a good, lower risk option. EE somehow and he does have something to prove. Of course EE will choose the best offer he gets but IMO AA will compete with...if it makes sense in years & $ we will consider it.
Forkball - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 12:51 PM EDT (#225054) #
When AA says he's willing to trade prospects for major league players, he's looking for players that will be here for the long haul not a short term rental.

There's no chance that the Jays will even consider Papelbon.  Papelbon is beyond his prime, declining, and expensive. 



China fan - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#225055) #

On the Jays catching situation:  Richard Griffin is predicting, based on the Anthopolous conference call on Friday, that the Jays will definitely keep Buck or Olivo as the team's starting catcher in 2011.  If this is true, there are two obvious implications:  first, the Jays assess that JPA is not ready to be the starting catcher in 2011.  (And it wouldn't have mattered whether JPA was given 20 starts in September or 2 starts, since AA had already made this decision.)  Second:  Anthopolous might be obsessed with collecting draft picks, but that obsession is not at the exclusion of any other consideration.  If he lets Buck and Olivo both go to free agency, he could collect two draft picks, but instead he will keep one of them.  So he is sacrificing one potential draft pick in order to keep a veteran catcher as his starter in 2011.  Of course Griffin could be wrong, but I find it a plausible theory, and it appears to be bolstered by Griffin's interpretation of AA's comments on Friday.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/article/886706--blue-jays-bolster-backstop-options

Chuck - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#225056) #

If Papelbon is not their answer then he cannot stay along with his replacement.

Their answer to what? If money were no issue, Epstein would prefer to have both Papelbon and Bard rather than just Bard. The question he must answer is whether the team is better off spending the $12M (or whatever) on Papelbon or elsewhere, like on a catcher or third baseman.

Bard blew 7 of 10 Sv opportunities

I can't be bothered to investigate the specifics of Bard's blown saves, but it should be noted that save opportunities are generally meaningless for non-closers. If a middle reliever succeeds (in a game the team is winning) he gets a hold. If he fails, he gets a blown save (which is silly because he wasn't going to stay in the game long enough to earn the save in the first place).

So while Bard did function in a closer's capacity on several occasions, there's every chance some or all of his blown saves were really blown holds. This ratio of saves to save opportunities is even worse for true middle relievers, who frequently "blow" saves in the 6th or 7th inning but rarely close games (Camp was 2/4, Downs was 0/2, Padres' Gregerson was 2/7 but with 40 holds).

Chuck - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:18 PM EDT (#225057) #
If he lets Buck and Olivo both go to free agency

Am I missing something? Olivo's option wasn't picked up and there were no options on Buck. Both are free agents. AA can offer each of them arbitration or pursue them as free agents, but he can't make either of them return (a term I use loosely in Olivo's case)  if they don't want to.
Magpie - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:36 PM EDT (#225059) #
So while Bard did function in a closer's capacity on several occasions, there's every chance some or all of his blown saves were really blown holds.

This is exactly correct- Bard had 32 holds, 3 saves, and 7 Blown Saves/Holds. Of those 7 Blown opportunities, three times he entered the game in the 7th inning, 3 times in the 8th, and just once in the ninth. Three times he inherited the tying run in scoring position with less than two outs.
Mylegacy - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#225060) #
Now - (with apologies to Lewis Carroll) - the time has come to talk of many things: of shoes - and - ships - and sealing wax - of cabbages - and kings...

Or, at least of catchers, and Paps and his Stare. AA is correct: JPA is NOT a first string catcher until he actually PROVES he is a first string catcher. Buck won't stay - he isn't prepared to let JPA play enough to become the number uno guy. Almost for sure Oliva will be the first string catcher with JPA being given every chance to take the job and hold it.

As to Paps and his Dreaded Stare - three years of decline, millions and millions of precious Canadian Loonies, not to mention there is only one guy I hate more in the whole wide world (Paps tiny teammate: the little rat faced, whirling dervish, 2nd baseman, as*hole) SO - as you might surmise - I don't want him. However, IF we do get him - I can't wait until he shuts down the Red Sox in the game that eliminates them from the Wild Card race and puts us into the play-offs. THAT - would be worth anything!

Time for a Saturday morning scotch (still morning here in Lotus Land).

ayjackson - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:45 PM EDT (#225061) #
Blown hold, blown save....it's all the same thing....which is why we  shouldn't be talking about them when evaluating relievers.
ayjackson - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:51 PM EDT (#225062) #
It makes me ill that we are even talking about Papelbon.
China fan - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:56 PM EDT (#225063) #

......he can't make either of them return.....

Of course not.  But he has a negotiating window with both of them, and can offer arbitration or a contract deal at this early stage.  And Buck, at least, wants to return, if the Jays are willing to pay the market price.  It's pretty clear that AA has the edge in signing both of them if he wants them.  This was the point of the Griffin article:  that Anthopolous can begin talking to the agents for both Buck and Olivo immediately, rather than waiting 72 hours until Sunday night, and this gives him a big advantage in signing Olivo if he wants.  Of course he's already been in a lot of contact with Buck and his agent.  So, as I see it, Anthopolous has the edge in signing either of Buck or Olivo if he is willing to pay something close to the market rate.

Paul D - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 02:07 PM EDT (#225064) #
Or, at least of catchers, and Paps and his Stare. AA is correct: JPA is NOT a first string catcher until he actually PROVES he is a first string catcher. Buck won't stay - he isn't prepared to let JPA play enough to become the number uno guy

I'm sorry, but what could this possibly mean?   How can he prove he's a starting catcher if he doesn't get an opportunity to start?  How does any player?  Eventually teams roll the dice and let young players start.  JP doesn't have anything left to prove in AAA
Chuck - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 02:11 PM EDT (#225065) #
Blown hold, blown save....it's all the same thing....which is why we  shouldn't be talking about them when evaluating relievers.

Agreed, except that if these dubious metrics must exist at all, then at least some internal consistency should be required. Otherwise, Bard's 3-for-10 save rate will be presented by too many fans and media types as evidence of his inability to assume the team's closer role.
Mylegacy - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 05:01 PM EDT (#225067) #
PaulD... is we is or is we ain't contenders? IF we is... then NO WAY can we enter 2011 DEPENDING on a kid who MIGHT be a real good catcher, or might just be over matched and bomb. You cannot contend in the AL East without a very good catcher - 'specially when we've got so many VERY YOUNG - but VERY GOOD pitchers - all of whom need gentle care and their diapers changed by a pro.

Whether JPA has anything left to prove in AAA or not - is only of interest to him, his mother and agent - but otherwise is a mere moot point. Not that I make it a habit of sneering at moots - pointed or otherwise.

Thomas - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#225069) #
then NO WAY can we enter 2011 DEPENDING on a kid who MIGHT be a real good catcher, or might just be over matched and bomb

Yes, I know they weren't "depending" on him and, yes, I know he's a better prospect than Arencibia, but the San Francisco Giants would disagree about the fact there's "no way" you can contend with a rookie catcher.

DaveB - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 05:57 PM EDT (#225070) #
Actually, I think the evaluation of Arencibia has little to do with whether or not the Jays are contenders, in my opinion. It's more a question of how he fits into team construction. The Jays have a bunch of young starting pitchers who benefit from a veteran catcher, and there are enough power bats to offset what JPA might bring to the table. The Jays are deeper in catcher prospects than perhaps any other ML team, most of them being better defensively than JPA.

For another team that needs a power bat, that has a more veteran pitching staff, that has few Minor League prospects, JPA would be very attractive. The best way for a catcher to bring value to his team, according to metrics, is to bring a big bat to the position. Buck is a mediocre catcher, but he was an all-star because he had a good hitting year and that's what is going to earn him a multi-year deal that probably overpays his real talent level. I doubt the Jays have much interest in signing Buck if they can get a guy better than him defensively, and similar offensively, for half the price.

I agree with Griffin that Olivo seems like the front-runner for the starting job next year. JPA is not necessarily out of the picture. If AA can't get value for him in a trade, he might be considered a better back up (playing 40-50 games and a DH possibility) than Molina. As China Fan mentioned, AA has probably made it clear to Olivo's agent that he has interest in his services, that he's probably prepared to match any other offers for him, or give him a longer deal. That gives them both time to let the market determine value and if it doesn't work out, then AA could go back to Buck and overpay for him, and come out of the whole process with a veteran catcher familiar with the staff and an extra draft pick.

Thanks CF for the link to the Griffin story on the catcher situation. It is complicated in the sense that there are still any number of ways for things to turn out, but it does explain how AA is protecting the team and in particular the pitching staff. I don't see it as a criticism of JPA's potential to be a valuable starting catcher in the Majors, just not with the Jays.



Chuck - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 05:58 PM EDT (#225071) #

all of whom need gentle care and their diapers changed by a pro.

I wonder if too much is made of all that. TB started the season with Navarro floundering and pressed Jaso into action. Jaso surprised all with a solid offensive season and the team won 96 games with an inexperienced catcher having to mesh, on the fly, with a young rotation.

Neither Posada nor Victor Martinez have ever been anyone's idea of strong defensive catchers. And when Varitek was the main man in Boston in 2008 and the first half of 2009, he provided veteran leadership (if his rep means anything) but didn't hit.

I wonder if this treatment of catchers as neurosurgeons/babysitters isn't overexaggerating their responsibilities.

Matthew E - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 05:59 PM EDT (#225072) #
We is ain't.
Mick Doherty - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 06:14 PM EDT (#225073) #

the San Francisco Giants would disagree about the fact there's "no way" you can contend with a rookie catcher.

Agreed, but to be fair on that point, the Giants didn't really fully entrust the catching position to Posey until July when they traded Molina to the Rangers.

Chuck - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 06:19 PM EDT (#225074) #
the Giants didn't really fully entrust the catching position to Posey until July when they traded Molina to the Rangers.

How much of that was service clock shenanigans?
Mylegacy - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 06:32 PM EDT (#225075) #
Of course you CAN contend with a rookie catcher - that's not my point - my point is you can't contend with a LOUSY rookie catcher - and until JPA PROVES he's not lousy you need another veteran catcher on the team who can clearly be the starting catcher if he falters.

Blimey - time for an afternoon scotch.

ayjackson - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 06:54 PM EDT (#225076) #

We is ain't.

It's hard to say with any certainty that we can be contenders when the core of our team can put out a monumentally craptastic season at the drop of a hat.  Wells, Lind, Hill, Bautista, Snider, Escobar, Arencibia - how do you have any confidence in what kind of season they will put up.  We know what kind of offense they can produce, but it seems likely that at least a couple will totally wet the bed.

Mylegacy - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 07:42 PM EDT (#225077) #
AY - what are the odds that all our Golden Geese lay rotten eggs in the same year?

Have faith son... like the good book says - opening day is April 1st against the Twins - Go Jays!
ayjackson - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 08:11 PM EDT (#225079) #
I'm not worried about them all laying rotten eggs.  I'm just worried that enough will.
TamRa - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 08:17 PM EDT (#225080) #
Of course Griffin could be wrong...

Your talent for understatement is showing.


Regarding the catching - and i was sure I'd posted this already but if so I'm overlooking it. forgive me if I repeat myself -

Buck will NOT stay and Olivo 98% certainty won't stay. Why?

Buck has ONE shot at a big payday and this is it. the only way he gets it here is if we get a ridiculously good chance to max out JPA's value (say, for instance, KC is willing to deal us Grienke but JPA has to be in the deal) - since i cannot predict trade possibilities, i'll lay that caveat aside, even though it's a valid one.

Olivo told the Rockies he didn't want to return specificaly because they had plans for ianetta and he didn't want to play for a team where his role would be reduced. he couldn't have stopped the Rox picking up his option but now that he's free, he won't sign with a team with a coming young stud.

that said, AA does apparently want a veteran guy who can split the load early and give way to the kid as JPA establishes his worthiness. probably via trade since there are few guys like that in free agency (Zaun, being an example)

bold prediction: Russel Martin. He's fading from favor in LA, he hasn't hit well in what, three years? Some thing he's a non-tender candidate so he's unlikely to be expensive from a player point of view. PlusAA does seem to pay SOME attention to the Canadian angle.

and if by some chance he recaptures his former offensive ability, theycna look at moving him out to 3B as JPA develops. if not, then he slids into a reserve role.

IF he passes a physical, I think he's the guy the Jays pursue (and should). You could probably get him for Brad Mills and a throw in.

Jdog - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 09:28 PM EDT (#225081) #
I dont understand why they didn't pick up Olivo's option if what Griffin is saying is correct.
Thomas - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 10:34 PM EDT (#225082) #
Of course you CAN contend with a rookie catcher - that's not my point - my point is you can't contend with a LOUSY rookie catcher - and until JPA PROVES he's not lousy you need another veteran catcher on the team who can clearly be the starting catcher if he falters.

Well, your point seemed to indicate that you couldn't contend with a rookie catcher, as you said that the young pitchers needed their diapers changed by a pro. I doubt Buster Posey became a pro and an expert at changing diapers during two months of major league action. That comment suggested, to me at least, that you were saying you needed a veteran catcher with a young pitching staff, which San Francisco demonstrated may not always be necessary.

John Northey - Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 10:58 PM EDT (#225083) #
Another thing to keep in mind - does AA really see the Jays as being that close in 2011 or does he think some regression is likely in 2011 then 2012 becomes the year to shoot for?

My gut says 2012 (and beyond) is AA's goal with 2011 being a second development year. I'm sure he saw how JP's plan was messed up with a premature good year, and how Gord Ash blew it by thinking he could rebuild far faster than he could.

2011 will see rookies in the pen I'm betting. 2011 will see rookies at other slots getting their feet wet. If a Papelbon or Martin come here it will be due to them being 'deals you can't refuse' situations. I doubt we'll see any big prospects go this winter unless it is also for a controllable asset.

After 2011 we have potential free agents out there like Prince Fielder, Albert Pujols, Gil Meche, Papelbon etc. Not as many big names as I'd hoped, but a few are still on the list. Plus with the CBA coming up it could be a set of new rules or no 2012 at all depending on how it goes.
TheBunk - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 06:13 AM EST (#225084) #
Something that should be considered with Buck is that his advanced statistics are very similar to previous seasons except with a spike in babip in 2010. The only stat that seems to have changed a good amount is his infield hit percentage which doesn't surprise me, I can remember quite a few grounders that found holes between third and short.

I'd like to cash in on Buck's campaign and would prefer not to pay for his one very good full year in terms of multiple guaranteed years and expensive salary.
TheBunk - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 06:20 AM EST (#225085) #
Whoops, that was poor analysis, scratch the part about grounders finding holes between third and short relating to IFH%.
China fan - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 07:27 AM EST (#225087) #

....now that he's free, he (Olivo) won't sign with a team with a coming young stud.....

This doesn't make sense at all.   First, the Jays won't try to sign Olivo unless they NEED a starting catcher, so Olivo would already be assured that he'll have the starting job if he signs with the Jays, regardless of their young prospects. (The Jays have already signed Molina at a significant salary to be their back-up catcher, and he is cheaper than Olivo would cost, so they don't need Olivo as a back-up.)  Second, there's no assurance that JPA is "a coming young stud."  There are too many question marks surrounding JPA.  He's certainly not guaranteed to be the Jays starting catcher in 2011, even in July or August.  The acquisition of Olivo as another option for the Jays in 2011 is further evidence that the Jays have question marks about JPA's ability to be the starting catcher next year.  Maybe JPA will be ready by 2012 to be a starting catcher for the whole season, but that wouldn't deter Olivo from signing with the Jays for 2011 if the money is right.

If the Jays were confident that JPA is ready to be the starting catcher in 2011, why would Anthopolous say this on Friday:  "I really don't believe we can afford to be left naked at that position."  He said this as his explanation for why the Jays acquired Olivo.  He was clearly implying that the Jays would be "left naked" at catcher if Buck departs and Olivo was not acquired.  In other words, he believes that Molina and JPA are not sufficient "clothing" for the Jays at catcher in 2011.

It's true that the Jays didn't pick up Olivo's option and he is technically a free agent.  But the Jays have an edge in signing him (if they want him) because they can offer him arbitration and because they're already talking to Olivo's agent in advance of the free agency period.

By the way, it's not merely Griffin who suspects that either Buck or Olivo will be with the Jays next season.  Jordan Bastian, reporting on AA's conference call with journalists on Friday, phrased it this way:  "Adding Olivo to the mix creates a sort of contingency plan in the event that Buck leaves via free agency."  The implication is:  if Buck departs, the Jays will probably try to keep Olivo.

Griffin, after listening to Anthopolous on Friday, put it this way:  "Anthopoulos is convinced, either way, he has his man behind the plate for 2011. He just doesn’t know which one, although he has strong suspicions it will be Olivo."  I don't think this is merely Griffin's speculation -- this is the implication of AA's words in the conference call on Friday.

Anthopolous also said that the Jays might still try to sign Kevin Gregg as a free agent.  His strategy is to give himself lots of options at the negotiating table, so that he's never "left naked" if someone departs.  The strategy at catcher is fairly clear:  Olivo is the option if Buck departs.

Finally, I don't understand the suggestion that the Jays should trade for Russell Martin.   For the past two years, Martin has had worse offensive numbers than Olivo, including a significantly lower OPS.  Having gone to the trouble of acquiring Olivo and beginning to talk to Olivo's agent, AA has little reason to acquire a catcher with worse numbers.

Olivo's numbers over the past two seasons, in fact, are very similar to John Buck's offensive numbers in 2009 before he came to the Jays.  If the Jays could turn Buck into an all-star, they might be able to improve Olivo to a similar degree.  John Buck's improvement from 2009 to 2010 was only about 20 points of OPS, and it's not impossible that the Jays could achieve something similar with Olivo.

Jdog - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 07:48 AM EST (#225088) #
If all that is true I just don't get why the Jays would have declined his option. His option was pretty cheap.
China fan - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 08:19 AM EST (#225090) #
I assume there were several reasons for declining Olivo's option:  1) the Jays are still negotiating with John Buck and might have a shot at keeping him;  2) the compensation draft pick if Olivo signs elsewhere;  3) the free-agent market price for Olivo, like that of Kevin Gregg, could be cheaper than the existing contract option.
Chuck - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 08:20 AM EST (#225091) #
Buck's BABIP in 2010 was .335. Should the Jays take credit for what is more likely a random statistical fluctuation? Had his BABIP been .306, as it was in 2009 with KC, he'd have hit 12 fewer singles meaning an OPS 60 points lower than it was, or a 40-point drop from 2009. It's not clear to me that the Jays have somehow raised Buck's game. (The team's BABIP was .269, so this clearly wasn't a team-wide "skill".)

Olivo's BABIP was .346 in 2010. That's not likely to be sustained, let alone improved. Olivo's 2009, which was better than 2010, was accomplished via a more normal .306 BABIP, but whether he can replicate that outlier of a season at age 32/33 is certainly questionable.

None of this is to say that JPA will necessarily be better than both next season. That's far from a lock and to describe him as a stud may be a tad hyperbolic. But I think that both Buck and Olivo are in for a regression in 2011 and that should be factored into any forecasts.
Chuck - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 08:26 AM EST (#225092) #
I flubbed my John Buck math. A .306 BABIP in 2010 would have cost him around 8 singles, not 12. So a drop of 40 points of OPS, not 60.
Mark - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 09:26 AM EST (#225095) #
Despite the spin people are trying to put on it, the only way any of their  free agents stay is if they accept arbitration. Olivo was a move for a pick, not picking up Gregg's option was also a move for a pick. All the praise heaped on John Buck is a move for a pick.

Of course you want to keep the door open in case these players do accept arbitration or you have to put JPA in a trade to get something else you need. But overall, it is nothing more than trying to accumulate as many draft picks as possible. Which is smart considering the trade off.

China fan - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 09:29 AM EST (#225096) #
If everything was done for draft picks, who is the starting catcher for the Jays in 2011?  Do you really think that JPA is ready to catch 120 games at the major-league level next season? 
sweat - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 09:35 AM EST (#225097) #
I think there is at least a small chance that Buck is brought back and JPA becomes the backup and/or spends some time at DH or maybe even 3b.
scottt - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 09:57 AM EST (#225098) #
Some people are reading to much into the lip service you give to type B free agents. They're all great and we would like all of them back next year.

Players sign 1 year deal in the hope of scoring a 3 year contract the following year. Even if JPA wasn't any good, D'Arnaud should be ready before that.

Signing one of your own Type B is the same as signing a Type A, it cost you a pick. There's probably not a lot of difference between Toronto's first round pick and the supplementary picks the Jays will get. Just look at this year's draft and the Jays  finished higher this year.

Wildrose - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 10:15 AM EST (#225100) #
Despite the spin people are trying to put on it, the only way any of their  free agents stay is if they accept arbitration. Olivo was a move for a pick, not picking up Gregg's option was also a move for a pick. All the praise heaped on John Buck is a move for a pick.

I agree with this.  People need to remember that AA is not J.P. Ricciardi. Publicly he doesn't say what he really means. His pronouncements err heavily on the side of polite caution. He's not going to say something to the effect such as, " We don't think much of Olivio, we just flipped him for the draft choice". He's not going to burn any bridges.

I think the only realistic scenario for keeping Olivio is if JPA gets traded ( and given their catching depth I could see that happening).  
TJ Caino - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 11:19 AM EST (#225101) #
I have been very surprised at how many people had been taking AA's words at face value. It seems clear that AA wants the picks. I think it would be unlikely for the FA's to come back, unless the market really dries up, and they are signed to exceptionally team friendly contracts.

Which is to say, I agree with Mark, scottt and Wildrose:

Despite the spin people are trying to put on it, the only way any of their  free agents stay is if they accept arbitration. Olivo was a move for a pick, not picking up Gregg's option was also a move for a pick. All the praise heaped on John Buck is a move for a pick.

Some people are reading to much into the lip service you give to type B free agents. They're all great and we would like all of them back next year.

People need to remember that AA is not J.P. Ricciardi. Publicly he doesn't say what he really means. His pronouncements err heavily on the side of polite caution. He's not going to say something to the effect such as, " We don't think much of Olivio, we just flipped him for the draft choice". He's not going to burn any bridges.

Chuck - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 11:30 AM EST (#225102) #

Do you really think that JPA is ready to catch 120 games at the major-league level next season? 

Many here are curious to find out. It appears that you harbour some pessimism on this front. Why specifically?

DaveB - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 11:45 AM EST (#225103) #
People need to remember that AA is not J.P. Ricciardi. Publicly he doesn't say what he really means. His pronouncements err heavily on the side of polite caution. He's not going to say something to the effect such as, " We don't think much of Olivio, we just flipped him for the draft choice". He's not going to burn any bridges.

AA is definitely not Ricciardi, but I think he has actually been consistently honest in his public statements about the kind of ML team and organization he wants to build. He does say "the right thing" about individual players, coaches, managers, etc, but that's common sense about how to conduct yourself with the media. In regards to the Jays he has said he wants to build organizational depth and make the team more athletic and into a better defensive team, and continue to build a pitching staff that has more power arms. All of the moves he's made, apart from some obvious BandAid type acquisitions, and his first draft echo what he has said. He wouldn't have acquired D'arnaud if he was convinced JPA was the catcher of the future. When AA  said the Jays have long had an interest in Olivo, and continue to, I believe him. The Olivo move will result in the Jays having either a better defensive catcher than they had last year, or another high draft pick. He's said the team will pursue trades rather than FA this off-season, and when discussing the catcher situation he reiterated the team's interest in making trades. I think the writing is on the wall that JPA is going to be traded for a young Major Leaguer or a top prospect who better fits the AA team-building philosophy.

I don't know exactly why AA didn't just exercise Olivo's option, that would have made sense. It may be as simple as him knowing he doesn't HAVE to at this point and that based on discussions with the agent knows he can reach a deal with Olivo when the time is right and the market for Buck and trade interest for JPA are more certain.


China fan - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 12:04 PM EST (#225104) #

Hey, I'm curious about JPA too.  I'd love to see him become a great major-leaguer, and maybe he will.  Maybe he can even do it in 2011.  Some rookie catchers have done very well, as we saw in San Francisco. 

I don't personally have a strong viewpoint on JPA.   I'm not particularly pessimistic about him -- I'm only trying to assess the Jays' viewpoint towards him.  I'm trying to read the tea leaves, and that's why I think there's some doubt about whether the Jays will make JPA the starting catcher next season.  This is based mostly on my parsing of AA's statements and moves.  Acquiring yet another veteran catcher and saying that he doesn't want to be left "naked" at the catching position next year -- to me that's one of the hints that Anthopolous doesn't think that JPA is ready.  Another hint:  the lack of playing time that JPA received at the major-league level in 2010.  If Anthopolous seriously planned to make JPA the starting catcher next season, I'm pretty certain that he would have ordered Gaston to give him plenty of playing time in his two stints on the major-league roster.  It's not feasible that Gaston would defy an order like that from his boss.   And finally, the fact that Anthopolous has been so reluctant to make any public statement of support for JPA being the starter in 2011.  What motive would he have for hesitating so long?   If JPA is going to be the main guy next season, why wouldn't Anthopolous simply say so?  He talks to the media regularly, the catching situation is an obvious question, I'm sure he has been asked about it, yet he doesn't say it.  It just seems to me that Anthopolous has doubts about JPA's immediate readiness. 

TheBunk - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 12:13 PM EST (#225105) #
Olivo stands to make more in arb than the 2.5M that his option would have costed the Jays which would look bad on AA. I think it was a move for the pick.
ayjackson - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 12:18 PM EST (#225106) #

Apparently the market is full of Olivo's and Buck's this offseason.  Why would we sign one of them when we could get a draft pick for them and go with Arencibia/Molina or sign one of the reasonable facsimile's available. 

Same goes for relievers.  They're generally replaceable and we get picks for doing so.

We have to take advantage of this FA compensation system while we can to build a top tier pipeline of prospects.  I don't anticipate the compensation as it exists today will exist in two years from now.

All of AA's moves are consistent with this approach, notwithstanding his lipservice to the FA's in question.  After all, if any of Downs, Gregg, Frasor, Buck or Olivo accept arbitration, they'll be Jays next year.

Wildrose - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 12:45 PM EST (#225108) #
Acquiring yet another veteran catcher and saying that he doesn't want to be left "naked" at the catching position next year.

AA's talking points with both Olivio a
nd Molina seems strangely the same, 
(This from a Bob Elliott article on signing Molina a few weeks ago)

“We couldn’t allow ourselves to be left naked at that position,” Anthopoulos said in a conference call.

to me that's one of the hints that Anthopolous doesn't think that JPA is ready.

From the same article:

“J.P. has learned everything he can in the minors and needs to be challenged in the majors,” said Anthopoulos.

AA should be a politician, he's great at spin.....



 


SJE - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 12:49 PM EST (#225110) #

I am with Scottt,Mark,Wildrose, and TJ Caino on this one. There is a pile of lip service being done on our Type B free agents. Really it`s no different than last year when AA stated that he would love to have Brajas back, and even after signing Alex Gonzonlez he still stated that Marco Scutaro could come back if he wanted to and play some shortstop or even some left field. Left field, really?

As for is JPA ready to catch 120 games this year? I don`t know, but he is going to be 25 years old this year, he is not some wet behind the ear kid, I believe last August and September was the time to answer that question, but for reasons that no longer in play that diidn`t happen. JPA `s time is now.

I believe that AA wants to maximize that amount of draft picks as possible for several reasons:

1) easiest way to accumulate upside talent

2)strong predicted draft,and

3) current CBA expires soon, and maybe compensation picks rules will probable be changing.

Can anybody confirm whether Sam Dyson had TJ surgery? A number of internet sites have him having TJ surgery any where from 2 years ago until a couple of dates ago. thanks

 

 

China fan - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 12:50 PM EST (#225111) #
Yes, AA said that JPA needs to be "challenged" in the majors.  But that quote only suggests that JPA is unlikely to spend next season at Las Vegas.  Being "challenged" in the majors could easily mean 60 games at catcher and 40 games at DH or 1B.  Or being traded.
Wildrose - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 12:51 PM EST (#225112) #
If Anthopolous seriously planned to make JPA the starting catcher next season, I'm pretty certain that he would have ordered Gaston to give him plenty of playing time in his two stints on the major-league roster.

I'm pretty sure the only "order"  a veteran, retiring , much decorated manager such as Cito would listen to is that given by his wife. I think that's why they went out and got a rookie manager who has player development experience, so that the young G.M. and manager are on the same page.
Wildrose - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 01:06 PM EST (#225113) #
I don't know exactly why AA didn't just exercise Olivo's option, that would have made sense.

I think if they intended to retain Olivio they pick up the $2.5 million dollar option. Really, at that price if you intended to keep him, he's an absolute bargain.

 Fangraphs has his 5 year average value at $7.4, after adjusting for age, league difference and perhaps more finely parsed defensive data, moving forward the guys a steal at his option price, yet they didn't pick it up.

Now I know many non saber type Bauxites don't believe in this type of evaluation, but I'm pretty sure AA is on board with it, given it's prime developer, Tom Tango, is a team consultant.
 
Chuck - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 01:12 PM EST (#225114) #

AA should be a politician, he's great at spin.....

In fairness, AA has nothing to gain by publicly revealing everything he believes. And we shouldn't be expecting him to. What would be the point of saying anything negative about a given player? There's no upside.

Oh, and I concur about your theory re the AA-Gaston relationship. I'm sure AA was too smart to consider locking horns with Gaston in his final season (if, in fact, he held differing views on player deployment). This can be the year he starts throwing his weight around.

Wildrose - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 01:21 PM EST (#225115) #
In fairness, AA has nothing to gain by publicly revealing everything he believes. And we shouldn't be expecting him to. What would be the point of saying anything negative about a given player? There's no upside.

Perhaps spin was too harsh a term. He's certainly not as opinionated as his predecessor in public, which as you point out is the correct approach. The media just didn't realize how lucky they were with J.P., he often said what he actually thought, which is very rare in public discourse these days.
China fan - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 02:24 PM EST (#225116) #
Wildrose, I'm slightly confused by your comments.  At the beginning, you suggested that AA is too polite and cautious to give his honest opinion of Olivo, and you suggested that AA's honest opinion is probably:  "we don't think much of him."   Yet later in the thread you pointed out that Olivo is a bargain at his current salary (based on the Fangraphs numbers) and that Anthopolous probably shares the Fangraphs assessment.  Isn't there a bit of a contradiction there?  If AA does have a high opinion of Olivo, isn't it possible that I'm correct when I suggest that Anthopolous might be seriously negotiating with the guy?
Wildrose - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 02:53 PM EST (#225117) #
Isn't there a bit of a contradiction there?

Nope ( talk about spin).  I said quite clearly, if they picked up Olivio's option, they have a $ 7.5 commodity( roughly) at $2.5 for one year. If they intended to keep Olivio and make him the # 1 catcher, guaranteed, they would have moved on this option. By not doing so this may be an indication that they want the draft choice.

Having said that, I do see where some posters are coming from. By having some control over 3 veteran catchers, they have laid the groundwork for a potential trade of JPA. I mean given that there may be 2 other guys in the system at the same position with higher ceilings, a trade is not out of the question. I have to say AA, has played this entire situation rather well. 
Wildrose - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 03:19 PM EST (#225118) #
I'm probably over stating his value ( much of it is based on his defensive evaluation which is extremely hard to pin point for catchers), but the basic point remains, he's a $4-5 million a year catcher , bat alone , even if league average for defence, so a $2.5 option looks quite attractive. I will say though , that the catchers market is quite strong this year, hard to know what guys will settle for in the end.

 
ayjackson - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 03:19 PM EST (#225119) #

The Jays have no control whatsoever over Olivo and Buck.  They are free agents - 100%.  They can sign right now with any club they choose.  The Jays had some exclusivity on Olivo for 90 mins after they acquired him.  I'm not sure if they attempted at all to use it, but I'm guessing not.  It would be interesting to know if AA talked to Olivo or his agent at all prior to declining the option on his contract.

Wildrose - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 03:51 PM EST (#225120) #
The Jays have no control whatsoever over Olivo and Buck.  They are free agents - 100%.  They can sign right now with any club they choose.

True enough. Free agency opens today. I said " some control", I  should have said they have some potential " interest" , if they choose to offer arbitration by Nov 23/10.
scottt - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 05:14 PM EST (#225122) #
It would be interesting to know if AA talked to Olivo or his agent at all prior to declining the option on his contract.

If they talked to him, that was only to let him know the option would be declined. There is nothing to bargain about at this point.

I would be interested in knowing what Farrell thinks about the options behind the plate. I would imagine he'll be the one making the playing time decisions.
ComebyDeanChance - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 06:33 PM EST (#225124) #
Here's my favorite free agent prediction, courtesy of Ken Davidoff at Newsday.com this morning:


24. Miguel Olivo , C With such a great need for catchers, he’ll get a decent salary. Prediction: Blue Jays — Two years, $7 million

I'm hoping for Ken's sake that this was written before the trade/option decline last week, otherwise he has the Jays paying .5 mi to decline a 2.5 mil option, and then shelling out another 7 million to get Olivo back. Maybe they could then release him as well, so they could pay for him to play for someone else.
Richard S.S. - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 08:22 PM EST (#225127) #

The Commissioner  of Baseball floats a "trial balloon" of adding two (2) more teams to the post-season in 2012.   He would not mention this item, as publicly as he did, unless it is actually happening in 2012.   This lends as an urgency to this off-season that didn't exist just weeks ago.

A.A. must not ignore his plan for the future.   He must, however, be prepared to take advantage of a window of opportunity that exists now.

You need an Ace: this wil happen in 2011, 2012 or 2013, unless A.A. gets a good deal done now.

You need a Top Closer: now, and for the next three or more years.

You need a better Bullpen: 10th out of 14 teams just doesn't do the job.   Bringing back Downs, Frasor and/or Gregg isn't making this team better - it can only stay the same.   We have too many pitchers without options - this doesn't help.

You need better On-Base Percentage: with openings at 1B and 3B being obvious choices.

The list goes on: including finding out, this year, if Travis Snider and J.P. Arencibia can be starters.   If you will not or can not do so for any reason, trade them, one or both.   Make the decision now.

Matthew E - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 08:50 PM EST (#225128) #
I disagree. The playoffs aren't going anywhere; they'll still be there in two years or five years or whatever. Acting with a sense of urgency didn't help Ash and it didn't help Ricciardi and it wouldn't help Anthopoulos either. He should take his time and do it right. It will take as long as it takes.

I mean, I don't think it's going to be any more realistic to expect the Jays to win anything in 2016 than it is in 2011, but we already know that rushing doesn't work; they might as well try it the other way.

TamRa - Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 10:54 PM EST (#225130) #
the continual notiation of how bad the pen was does have a caveat - if you take away the coloasal awfulness that was Brian Tallet's relief work, we climb to the middle of the pack with just that one change. Obviously, we are losing one great and two good contributers to free agency, but if we get rid of Tallet (and having moved past his biggest fan sitting in the manager's seat) we can't help but be off to a good start.


bpoz - Monday, November 08 2010 @ 10:42 AM EST (#225134) #
Tallet was bad in 2010 20Hr in 77IP. It was mentioned before that Tallet did some V good work in the pen B4 2009.
I wonder where and for how much $ 2011 will be.
bpoz - Monday, November 08 2010 @ 11:12 AM EST (#225135) #
WOW!! I think just about every possibility has been covered.

Just 3 things:-

1) Trading T Snider and JPA is a bit tricky if done. But I have confidence that AA can make it work to the Jay's advantage. If they under perform we get less (more raw players), over perform gets us more?
2) J Bautista was viewed as a part time player until 2010. Year to year performance can be so volatile IMO.
3) Most interesting from an intellectual point is how AA will manage to sign M Olivo to a winning $ amount that takes J Molina's $1.2mil & the $500,000 buyout into consideration.
Blue Jays Decline Options on Kevin Gregg, Acquire Miguel Olivo | 141 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.