Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The Jays complete their second trade in a week, shipping out Nestor Molina, the team's 6th best prospect according to, well, us. Molina goes to the south side of Chicago to join the White Sox. In return the Blue Jays reacquire Sergio Santos, who hit .183 for the team in AAA in 2008 before being claimed on waivers by the Twins. He then signed with the White Sox who converted him to a pitcher, a role in which he's been very, very good.


Molina has had a very good two years, making the transition from low-A to double A while excelling at every stop. Batter's Box ranked him as the team's 6th best prospect this past offseason; John Sickels had him second. The relevant section from our report:

Year Age Level G GS IP H/9 HR/9 BB/9 K/9 ERA
2010
21
A
37
2
76.2
7.51
0.47
2.35
7.16
3.17
2010
21
A+
2
0
4.1
14.54
0.00
0.00
6.23
2.08
2011
22
A+
21
18
108.1
8.47
0.66
1.16
9.55
2.58
2011
22
AA
5
5
22.0
4.91
0.00
0.82
13.50
0.41

The Jays organization has a seen a few success stories in recent years regarding prospects that have converted from hitter to pitcher, or vice versa. Molina began his career in the Dominican Summer League as a hitter but struggled with the bat. The team made the wise decision to make use of his arm strength on the mound rather than cut bait entirely. Despite his relative inexperience as a pitcher, Molina displays almost extra-ordinary command of the ball. His control helps his average (87-93 mph) fastball play up. His best pitch - his out-pitch - could certainly be his change-of-pace, which is a big-league-caliber splitter. Molina, 22, also features a decent slider/cutter. In 2011, the right-hander began the year in advanced A and posted a 2.45 FIP (2.58 ERA). He displayed his outstanding control with an other-worldly walk rate of 1.16 BB/9 and missed a lot of bats as witnessed by his strikeout rate of 9.55 K/9. He then made five dominating regular season starts in AA, as well as a few post-season appearances. With his fielding glove now with a heavy layer of dust on it, Molina broke the 100-inning barrier for the first time in his career with 130.1 innings pitched between high-A and double-A. The Jays organization is starting to stockpile and impressive group of minor league arms and some of those prospects are starting to reach the Majors (Henderson Alvarez, Joel Carreno, Luis Perez, Chad Beck, Danny Farquhar, etc). Molina could very well join them at the MLB level at some point in 2012 and it will be interesting to see if the club challenges him with an assignment to the launching pad known as triple-A Las Vegas. More than likely, though, he'll begin next year back in double-A New Hampshire.

While it hurts to lose Molina, the Jays undoubtedly have a very strong collection of arms in the low-minors, and the player they are acquiring, Sergio Santos, immediately slots in as the best reliever on the team. In 115 innings spread out over two years with the White Sox, Santos struck out three out of every ten of the batters he's faced, which is top ten amongst pitchers with 100 innings pitched. In 2011 he was even better, striking out 35% of the batters he faced, good for top five amongst pitchers with 50 innings. He also cut his prodigious walk rate slightly in 2011, posting a very strong 3.17/1 K/BB ratio. Santos also does a reasonable job keeping the ball on the ground, and while he's gotten a bit lucky with home runs, he's only allowed eight in two years. Perhaps most importantly, Santos is under contract for an extremely reasonable amount going forward.

Per Cot's: 12:$1M, 13:$2.75M, 14:$3.75M, 15:$6M club option, 16:$8M club option, 17:$8.75M club option ($0.75M buyouts for each option)

Given that Heath Bell, who is likely to be an inferior pitcher over the next three years, got $27 million over that time span, and other top tier relievers like Ryan Madson and Jonathan Papelbon both got over $11 per year for four years, Santos grades out as a huge bargain, as he is guaranteed $7.5 million (+750k buyout) over the next three years combined. While he isn't as good as Papelbon or Madson, it's not an orders of magnitude difference, and he immediately becomes the best Jays reliever since the glory years of BJ Ryan,

Is the cost overall worth it? It depends on how Molina does. If he becomes a good major league pitcher, then the Jays probably lose out - Molina is liable to pitch five times as many innings over his six years of team control as Santos will over the next three the Jays have him for. But given that the team is dealing from a position of surplus, Santos' reasonable cost, and the fact that TINSTAAPP, this seems like a very reasonable win-win deal for both teams.
Jays Trade Nestor Molina for Sergio Santos | 143 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
jgadfly - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:08 PM EST (#247875) #

So, how many of us saw that coming ? 

(Edit headsup ... ChiSox = Southside, Cubbies = Northside)

Paul D - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:09 PM EST (#247877) #

 

I saw this in the other thread, but I'll put it here - I hope that the Jays are now done shopping for relievers.  They have a set up man in Janssen, closer in Santos, lefty in Perez, long man in Litsch, they've also got Carreno, let the rest of the team fight it out to fill out the bullpen.  I suppose a second/better lefty wouldn't hurt, but I'd put that at the bottom of the priority list.

ayjackson - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:16 PM EST (#247881) #
  1. Sergio Santos, PC
  2. Casey Janssen
  3. Luis Perez
  4. Joel Carreno
  5. Carlos Villanueva
  6. Chad Beck
  7. Jesse Litsch

That's solid.

Paul D - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:19 PM EST (#247883) #

 

That's solid, and cheaper than Papelbon by himself.

benplot - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:23 PM EST (#247884) #
As I mentioned in the other thread Griffin seems to think that Santos should not be given the closer role and instead become the set up/ 8th inning man. While I am not a believer in sticking relievers in set inning spots - and prefer to place the best reliever in the highest leverage situation, I wonder why Griffin thinks he is not suited for the closer role?
Gwyn - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:25 PM EST (#247885) #
So, how many of us saw that coming ?

As usual AA is operating way below the media's radar. I did a quick run through the Jays tag at mlbtraderumors.com and came up with this list of players the jays have been reported as having interest in since the start of November:

Daniel Murphy, Albert Pujols, Martin Prado, Kelly Johnson, Prince Fielder, Yu Darvish, Luis Ayala, Ryan Madson, Heath Bell, Greg Holland, Yonder Alonso, Huston Street, Kelly Shoppach, Francisco Cordero, Jonathon Papelbon, David Ortiz, Rafael Furcal, Matt Capps, C.J.Wilson, Brandon Phillips, Jonathon Broxton, Yoenis Cespedes.

Anders - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:27 PM EST (#247887) #
(Edit headsup ... ChiSox = Southside, Cubbies = Northside)

Thanks! It's changed now.

While I really like Nestor Molina, I think this is a pretty solid trade. I don't see any underlying reason why Santos won't be roughly as good going forward, and if you consider that the other alternative was to pay someone an extra $10 million a year to probably not post radically different numbers, that is a significant savings. Of course it doesn't really matter unless the Jays put that money back into the team. I am generally of the opinion that they will when the time is right, but this has yet to be proven.
melondough - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:28 PM EST (#247888) #
I wonder if Santos was in on the complaints the white sox had about the mysterious planted sign stealer.
Matthew E - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:29 PM EST (#247889) #
As I mentioned in the other thread Griffin seems to think that Santos should not be given the closer role and instead become the set up/ 8th inning man. While I am not a believer in sticking relievers in set inning spots - and prefer to place the best reliever in the highest leverage situation, I wonder why Griffin thinks he is not suited for the closer role?

The usual reason.
Hodgie - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:43 PM EST (#247892) #
Can't help but wonder whether this is also a reflection on the Jays long term views of Molina versus Hutchinson? While both had been mentioned recently as possibly being MLB ready for 2012, only Molina was referred to as a bullpen piece. I could be reading too much into it of course and it could be that Kenny Williams reads Kevin Gray and John Sickels and preferred Molina.
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:45 PM EST (#247893) #
I'm telling you this deal has Marco Paddy written all over it.
Geoff - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:57 PM EST (#247896) #
trouble making sense of the trade from the Chisox standpoint. I'm thinking that one of three scenarios might take place
1. Chisox believe they are getting a big win on the hidden value of Molina, and that he is destined for great things.

2. Chisox are fleecing the Jays with the second coming of Mike Sirotka. Santos is looking at a very short career, if it isn't already doomed for some reason.

3. Chisox are taking over as the new Marlins. Reinsodorf has said "screw this, Kenny; save every last dime of mine you can!"

Gerry - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:00 PM EST (#247898) #
Santos has been pitching for just a few years.  I wonder how much better he can get with experience.
ayjackson - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:01 PM EST (#247899) #

It took some time to really wrap our heads around it. There were a lot of heated debates in the room about it, but ultimately I just felt with everything that we have going on this makes sense for us. [emphasis added]

I like this quote from Anthopoulos today after the trade.  I'm going to read entirely too much into it and assume that trading for a reliever made sense because it allows them to allocate the cash elsewhere.  [Don't worry about me, I've never injured myself leaping to false conclusions.]

TamRa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:03 PM EST (#247900) #
Sergio Santos, PC
Casey Janssen
Luis Perez
Jesse Litsch
Carlos Villanueva
Joel Carreno
Chad Beck

That's solid.
-------------------------------

Not only that, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which Cecil is pushed into the "Downs role"


I'm not averse to the Jays going after another late-inning lefty in the mean time - if they were to, for instance, get Jeremy Affeldt that would be fine. but if not, that's cool too


On the trade - when I first heard it (less than half an hour ago) my first reaction was "I love Molina but I'm cool with that"

When I saw the contract I revised my view to include doing the Snoopy dance.

I'm wearing a big ol' grin right now.

when you consider both talent, performance, and cost - this seems to be the best closer situation in the majors right now.


Oh, and no disrespect to Kenny Williams but he might be a little insane to have not leverage Santos for more than one player, even as good as Molina is.
melondough - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:09 PM EST (#247902) #

I would love to see JP sign Ayala. He was solid last year and I have no issues with him overspending at his salary tier.

Rothensal is reporting that rumor circulating that Marlins offered Puljos 13 year contract - WHAT!

Sam, I don't get your Prado comment - pls explain

jgadfly - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:09 PM EST (#247903) #

       When one looks at the logic of this trade I am amazed that so few of us saw it coming .  Santos, although lacking the experience of the available freeagent closers, still put up numbers comparable to this group and was better value than the exorbitant contracts many of them will receive in free agency . If any of them had been on the trade market say on July 31st 2011, I'm sure that most of us would have been pleased if the Jays had obtained anyone of them for Molina.

        Now, how about a trade with cash to Cincy to allow them to free up budget for them to sign a free agent 2nd baseman and a Cuban outfielder.

melondough - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:10 PM EST (#247904) #
Sorry ignore my Prado comment.  I see it was Paddy you were referring to.
TamRa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:11 PM EST (#247905) #
video of Santos discussing the transition.

Seems like a REALLY likeable guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JewJ4EW1Amo&feature=youtu.be


John Northey - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:20 PM EST (#247906) #
It looks like the report is 10 years for Pujols was offered, not 13. 13 would be extremely nuts unless it was though of as a 10 year deal (still nuts) with the money spread over 13.

In truth that would make some sense, if you can get the guy to sign for $200 million over 10 years or $200 over 13 you might as well sign him for 13 years.
ayjackson - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:35 PM EST (#247908) #
@GloBlair Jeff Blair Told AA: "Last time I heard somebody talk about payroll parameters so much it was Claude Brochu." He didn't laugh ....   Found this funny.
Forkball - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:45 PM EST (#247910) #
Is the cost overall worth it? It depends on how Molina does. If he becomes a good major league pitcher, then the Jays probably lose out

If he becomes a good starting pitcher, the Jays lose out. 

If Molina's a really good reliever you're really not losing anything as the Jays have Santos for 6 years and would have had Molina for 6 years. 

Fangraphs has a nice summary.
ayjackson - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:45 PM EST (#247911) #
"I found this funny" was me not Blair...
Jevant - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:53 PM EST (#247915) #
This type of comment is not getting nearly enough play in my books.  Santos has been pitching for 3 years.  It is not at all unreasonable to think he can get better.
China fan - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 03:54 PM EST (#247916) #

Another small point about Santos:  I'm going to assume that he must have excellent fielding skills.  He's a converted shortstop -- and a lot more recently than Shaun Marcum was a shortstop.

Mike Green - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 04:07 PM EST (#247917) #
Pujols for $200 million over 13 years is not nuts.  It amounts to $32 million X 5 years, and the remaining 8 years at $40 million total.  One of the players on Pujols' comp lists is Willie Mays.  Pujols is, of course, a better hitter, while Mays is equally the better player, and Mays is only on the comp list because there aren't too many players with an OPS+ of 170 at Pujols' age.  Mays had that great season at age 40 (when he posted an OBP of .420 and went 23-3 stealing bases!).    I don't know if Pujols will be on average worth $5 million over those last 8 years, but that seems to me to be a relatively less important point than annual salary over the earlier period.

People say that length of the contract is the issue.  That doesn't make sense to me.  The primary issue for a player of Pujols' age is total dollar value and hence the imputed (or actual) salary in the first five years. 

85bluejay - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 04:13 PM EST (#247919) #
Very disappointed to read in Richard Griffin article, that the financial part was such a big deal to AA & the team is already taking into account the lost money from no more revenue sharing for the Jays starting in 2013 - for me this means the team is less likely to compete, less likely to sustain excellence and more likely to follow the Tampa model than the Texas model - also interesting to hear Kenny Williams say he expected to have to part with a starter to acquire Molina, so was thrilled that Santos got it done.
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 04:18 PM EST (#247920) #
If the situation presented where Boras came to the Jays and said, look Seattle is offering seven years $140 million, and we like your organization and see a lot of potential. Prince is willing to do 5 years $120 million, with a lot of the salary front loaded and opt outs in years three and four and maybe even mutual options that depend on performance for years six, seven, and maybe even eight. In a situation like this, in which the Jays would have some say in a contract that goes beyond five years. I think the Jays should consider something like that.
Spifficus - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 04:32 PM EST (#247925) #

the team is already taking into account the lost money from no more revenue sharing for the Jays starting in 2013

Isn't the market size factor slated for 2016, and not 2013? Or did I miss something?

Mike Green - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 04:42 PM EST (#247927) #
In the other thread, there was some discussion about whether this trade is evidence of a move to the Tampa model or a move away from it.   In my view, it is neither.  It is suggestive of an intention to compete sooner rather than later, as Molina will not likely be ready at least until late 2012.  I can see Tampa making this kind of deal, and I can see the Epstein-era Red Sox making this kind of deal.  We'll have to wait for more transactions to assess what the budget for 2012 might be.
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 04:52 PM EST (#247928) #
I don't know if the trade is evidence of a shift in philosophy, but rather his comments in light of the new CBA suggest the Jays will now have to work within a set payroll. I mean, we've always heard that the Jays would spend money when the opportunity presented. On the other hand, we've never heard from AA language like we heard today about payroll and working within strict parameters. It honestly sounds like past comments about payroll expansion are out of the question now. I mean if we're losing anywhere from $15 million to $50 million in revenue sharing each year. Rogers is going to want to see that money show up somewhere.
Lylemcr - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:01 PM EST (#247930) #

I am thinking that AA is going more the Pat Gillick route.  Fill up the minor league system so they can become trade chips. 

Interesting.... 

Closer- check

Backup catcher - check

Next  - LH Reliever and 2bagger

If we the reliever was Ayala and 2bagger is Kelly Johnson, I am thinking the Jays are in the cusp of talking playoffs.  One more quality starter would be really nice and I think we are talking playoffs next year.

 

 

Mike Green - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:04 PM EST (#247931) #
So when Beeston spoke of an eventual payroll of $140 million, this was based on the idea that the Jays would be recipients of payroll sharing monies?  If so, the technical term for this kind of sales pitch to season ticket holders is puffery. 
TamRa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:10 PM EST (#247932) #
anyone got a link to Griffin about the money?

I tend to be skeptical of anything he writes as a rule, direct quotes are one thing but there's still writer's interpretation.

I do not think for one minute we are looking at the Tampa Model. for one thing, the Revenue Sharing check wasn't THAT big and it has nothing to do with continually increasing (assuming on-field success) revenue streams.

Anyone who really though the jays were jacking up to 120 or 140 this season or next hasn't been paying attention anyway. The idea is when these guys get expensive the best of them can be reatianed if we want.

If Rasmus blossoms as Granderson did this year, we can extend him if we WANT...or we can let him go if the price is too high and default to Gose/Marisnick if/as/when.

We can handle players like Morrow the same way. It does not mean you are cheap if you decide to let Morrow make 8 figures elsewhere if we believe we can get the same or better from Syndergaard for the minimum.
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:11 PM EST (#247933) #
I would think that such talk was premised by the Jays still receiving revenue sharing and a significant spike in attendance. Neither has happened, with the allotment we're supposed to receive through revenue sharing significantly decreased.

Honestly, who the hell was the Jays representative at the CBA talks. Nothing in the CBA benefits the Jays and their ownership. Sure they may save a couple million on amateur players each year, but that would surely be lost to increases in salary to ML players and shortened arbitration years. Even further, they'll be losing significant dough through revenue sharing. It really is a disaster.
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:14 PM EST (#247934) #
TamRa, I don't believe that the Jays would have spiked payroll this offseason, but I am disappointed because it now sounds like that possibility is really out of the question.

Here is Griffin's article.

http://thestar.blogs.com/baseball/
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:17 PM EST (#247936) #
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2011/12/06/grange_fielder/

Michael Grange on the other hand seems to think nows the time to go after Fielder.
raptorsaddict - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:30 PM EST (#247937) #
I don't really want to get into the much-discussed big-market vs. small-market argument, but really, I must.

All this talk of tight budgets is absolute nonsense. Look what happens to franchises when they have their own regional sports networks, like Texas: they spend. In Toronto? That goes directly into the coffers of Rogers.

They have a captive market of 35 million people. There is absolutely no tenable argument to be made that we should not be big spenders. That doesn't you go wasting your money, but it does mean signing the odd free agent.

John Northey - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:30 PM EST (#247938) #
One thing to keep in mind... only a fool says 'we have money to blow' when negotiating. Regardless of what the reality is.
BCMike - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:39 PM EST (#247939) #
Bingo. This also relates to everyone's conclusion that because AA said he is adverse to 7 year deals, he absolutely will not do one.

IF he's actually negotiating with Fielder why would he come out and say "I have no problem with long term contracts and our payroll should be in the neighborhood of $140+m going forward?"
dan gordon - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:41 PM EST (#247940) #
Santos' WHIP in his 3 years as a pitcher - 1.99 in 2009 (minors), 1.53 in 2010 and 1.11 in 2011.  He is improving at a terrific pace, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him get even better in the next year or two.  For him to have accomplished this much in just his 3rd year as a pitcher is remarkable.  I think Griffin is completely wrong about him.  I think he has a good chance of being better than Papelbon over the course of Papelbon's contract with Philadelphia, and look at the cost difference.  Molina is a big price to pay, but I think they got a gem.
raptorsaddict - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:47 PM EST (#247941) #
I agree, losing Molina hurts, but the chance to have a low-mileage bullpen ace for the next 6 years at a very reasonable price is too much to pass up. I'd also wager that over the next 3-4 years he outplays Bell, Papelbon and Madson.
finch - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:57 PM EST (#247943) #
This just shows how sluth AA is. NO ONE expected this trade, no reporting was done until it happened. All the rumors you hear about the Jays are pure speculation. If you read about it on MLBTR, regarding the Jays, there's a good chance it's not accurate.
Mylegacy - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 05:57 PM EST (#247944) #

Well, while the Jay’s had a dozen or so high end starters in the minors it was widely accepted in particular they had FIVE very high end YOUNG starters: Hutchison, Syndergaard, Nicolini, Norris, and Molina. They’ve just traded the oldest Molina (22) for a closer with the “best slider in the show” over whom they’ll have 6 years of control!

AA continues to be – without question – the master of the dance the Silent Assassin! He is clearly reading from a play book other GM’s didn’t even know exists.
ayjackson - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 06:15 PM EST (#247945) #
Speaking of pitching prospects, Aaron Sanchez has joined Ricky Romero and Phil Hughes in their offseason training program.
Mylegacy - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 06:16 PM EST (#247946) #
IF - you believe Pujols would be 32 for the 2012 season (he says he was born on Jan 16th 1980) - and you KNEW you were right - FORGET A TEN YEAR CONTRACT - would you offer him a four year $80 million dollar contract? A three year $60 million dollar one?

Well Prince Ponderous Fielder will play the most of the 2012 season at 29 years of age (he turns 29 on May 9th) - signing him to a 7 year contract would mean he would play the final year at the ages of (34 then 35) - the SAME age that Pujols would be at the end of a four year contract. Even an EIGHT year contract to The Fat Prince would see him only be 35 at its end.

The Fat Prince, The Canadian Prince and the Dominican Prince would give the Jay's a 3 - 4 - 5 set of batters that NO other team could beat.

Alex - we are too fu*kin' close to being a serious contender for you to MISS the only spectacular BAT that is on the market now -  and with NONE to be on the market in the foreseeable future.

Strike now Alex - lead us into the valley of the shadow of death - be not afraid - as we - the Jay's Nation are with you! Give us victory or give us death!

Time for a wee dram I think. I wonder what my pulse is?

greenfrog - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 06:33 PM EST (#247947) #
After this deal, can there be any doubt about the value of having a deep farm system? If you have a lot of good prospects, you have so much more flexibility in building a team. For one thing, you have the option (in at least some circumstances) of bypassing the free agent market.
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 06:35 PM EST (#247948) #
I get the impression from Boras' latest comments that he'll wait out the Pujols situation and then count on whichever team(s) that miss out to be in on Fielder. I think at that point, any of the optimism that might be out there that'll he sign for anything less than six or seven years will evaporate. Next to what Pujols is being rumoured to get Fielder will look like a bargain.
RhyZa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 06:40 PM EST (#247949) #
If Prince gets a 6-7 year deal somewhere else without a competitive offer from the Jays, there should be riots.

I hope Beeston and co are just feigning tight purse strings and an unwillingness to go beyond, as a negotiating tactic. There is absolutely no reason they shouldn't be going all out for Prince (within reason, and no, 5 years and below is not reasonable, nor is waiting for the fans to come back before spending).

That last bit is a red flag that this is a smokescreen and the Jays are actually going hard after Prince, because I'd like to think Beeston is too smart for that comment.
ayjackson - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 06:40 PM EST (#247950) #

 If you have a lot of good prospects, you have so much more flexibility in building a team. For one thing, you have the option (in at least some circumstances) of bypassing the free agent market.

It also allows you to an unbalanced payroll where a few stars make a lot of money and the squad is balanced out by emerging stars.

Ryan C - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 06:50 PM EST (#247951) #
AA just got done doing an interview on the Bob McCown show.  He was asked specifically about Fielder and his response was that while they don't comment about specific free agents or specific deals, both he and Beeston are in agreement that they are not comfortable going more than 5 years on free agent deals. 

Spifficus - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 06:56 PM EST (#247953) #
I'm confused by something. Why would a hypothetical $120M+ Jays payroll be dependent on receiving revenue sharing? Would a $120M+ payroll qualify for revenue sharing? If so, wow, did the players get a good deal in this CBA!
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 06:57 PM EST (#247954) #
RhyZa, where'd you like to meet? I'm thinking we start at the City TV building, build some buzz during music video time, then stop and get corn beef sandwiches on Adelaide, make our way down to Gretzky's for an afternoon beer, then power through the remaining three blocks to SkyDome?

In all honesty, I agree with you. If Fielder were to be signed more fans will certainly start coming to the ballpark. I for one would likely attend twice as many games as I have in past years. Not going beyond five years is not a sufficient reason for not pursuing him.
Ducey - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 07:26 PM EST (#247956) #

If Prince gets a 6-7 year deal somewhere else without a competitive offer from the Jays, there should be riots.

They prevented riots when they signed Frank Thomas, BJ Ryan, Vernon Wells and Alex Rios.  That worked well.  Aaron Hill was not a huge contract and he was full of promise but that did not work out either.

When is the last 7+ year big name, big bucks contract that the Jays signed that worked out?

I expect that you would need to follow the Fielder signing with at least two good starters and a second baseman.  Otherwise you are not a contender and its a waste of money.

I'd rather they let their pitching prospects develop into a good rotation and then go out and get a bat.

People will come if the Jays are contenders.  They have not come to see Bautista and I don't think they are suddenly going to flood the ball park because the the fat Prince shows up and hits a tater every four days.



ayjackson - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 07:37 PM EST (#247957) #
That's true.  We should probably be trading Bautista, because we are wasting his value on a non-contending team.
RhyZa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 07:41 PM EST (#247958) #
NONE of those players were near perennial MVP candidates. It's one thing overpaying for an exceptional season or 2, it's quite another to pay for a proven talent.
Richard S.S. - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 07:44 PM EST (#247959) #

I agree totally with Grange.   (A.A. possibly doesn't like Boras, but he'll never let it show.)   Fielder can be signing for less than people think, if he's comfortable with where he's going.   Four years, plus 2-3 option years, or, 5 years, with 2-3 option years would do it.   Alex has no idea when an Impact Bat like Fielder (age, record of achievement, duarbility, etc.) is going to be available again.   It makes me wonder, does he really see the really big picture?

I love the Molina - Santos deal.   We need another Top Reliever or two, before I'm willing to go in-house for the rest.

You won't sign Pujols until you pay him more than any other Player alive (A-Rod $32.0 MM in '09 and in'10).   Alex, offer 3 years $99.0 MM, 2 years at $25.0 MM and 3 Option years at $20.0 MM.

RhyZa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 07:50 PM EST (#247961) #
Grange's article was very well written. I wish he touched on the Rogers aspect a tad though. It seems he was insinuating it's all up to Alex, and if he wanted it, he could sell it to Rogers.
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 07:51 PM EST (#247962) #
There's only been one 7+ year contract given out by the Jays and that was to Vernon. I think with Vernon and Alex there were still significant questions about them prior to signing and the hope was they would both maintain some consistency and improve. I wouldn't say either were elite players and their signings were more about keeping them here than anything. By most accounts, the two other long-term major free agent signings were reaches. BJ Ryan had one year of proven success and was given an ill-advised 5 year deal, and AJ Burnett was given 5 years based and performed similar to his previous years. He opted out after year three. Frank Thomas was 38 so I don't know where he fits in?

I don't think it's fair to compare the Prince situation to those past signings. Prince has a significant track record, no injury history and unlike Vernon has great peripheral stats. I think a Prince signing takes a lot of pressure off the rotation and bullpen and probably allows the Jays to throw some of their AA pitchers into fray without worrying too much about stunting their development. Outside of Kelly Johnson I don't see where the Jays are going to spend big money on the 2B. They could likely fill that position through trade or promotion. Similar to what they did last year, they can complement their bullpen with guys on one year deals and hope some of them have good years. So I think a Fielder signing would obviously benefit the team and really not hamstring the team too much in adding further during this offseason.
TamRa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:08 PM EST (#247964) #
ok, reading the quotes Griffin supplied:

"We're trying to build a competitive team that will be good for a long period of time with the parameters that we do have, when you look at the salaries over six years. It's not a bottomless pit. If it was it would be different."

I read that as basically saying you cannot address ALL teams needs via FA because it is theoretically possible to exceed any profitable status. "Not a bottomless pit" does not mean "we're almost broke"

In other words, "I'm explaining why I was willing to give up a very good prospect rather than, for instance, commit $40 million over the next 3-4 years to Madson."
-------------

"It allows us to re-allocate funds in some other areas."

why is this remark disregarded in the "Tampa Bay model" discussion?
-------------


Griffin: "Hey, what happened to the $110-120 million that Paul Beeston insisted was a reality if they needed it to compete in 2012?"

Oh come ON! Beeston never said, implied, hinted at or inferred the idea that the "$120 million available" was in reference to 2012. This is as blatant manipulation of a subjects comments as Griffin's phantom "Five Year plan" he constantly abused JP with.

"But now Anthopoulos scoffs at those that reported it..."

Oh? I'm not seeing that.

"...meaning that they are back to trying to emulate the Rays model again."

Jump right to the bad news conclusion in one simple leap, eh rich?

------------

From Alex-

"It's not impacting us in 2012," Anthopoulos said. "But I think in '13 and beyond it's going to impact us. Certainly we're going to be receiving less. Again, I don't get involved in those conversations, or accounting, but there's no question that's going to be phased out and we're going to lose dollars there. And I'm sure that has some type of bearing, impact."

"we are going to receive less" does NOT automatically imply "we are going to run a $40 mil payroll every year" Why on earth does Griffin (and others) assume the worst possible outcome?

Anyway, according to THT, the Jays received around $30 million in Revenue Sharing - assuming that's true, here's how the new CBA was described by CBS:


Both teams from New York, Los Angeles and Chicago along with Atlanta, Boston, Houston, Oakland, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Texas, Toronto and Washington are set to gradually become ineligible to receive revenue-sharing funds. The system calls for the clubs to lose 25 percent of revenue-sharing proceeds in 2013, 50 percent in 2014, 75 percent in 2015 and all revenue sharing in 2016.

So the 2012 budget (whatever it is) is unaffected
the 2013 loses ~7-8 mil
the 2014 loses about $15 mil
then $22 mil
then $30

That ignores the real probability of homegrown revenues increasing by as much as $7 mil a year (or some significant percentage thereof) over the same period, and the effects of real world and baseball inflation on payroll in relation to revenue (which gets into economics which are a bit over my head)

Still, the point remains that if you once thought your ceiling was $120-140 million at the peak period (which was realistically a couple of years from starting anyway) then the worst case scenario is your peak-period ceiling is $90-110 million if revenues don't grow and we discount all inflationary influence.

With all due respect to the collective hand-wringing, a roughly $100 million payroll is NOT the "Tampa Bay Model"

And, as John (I think) pointed out, you do not spend the negotiating season going "Budget? what budget? Free money for everyone!" do you?
Ryan C - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:10 PM EST (#247966) #
Grange's article was very well written

It's hard not to like an article that compares Prince Fielder to a marshmallow.

MatO - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:18 PM EST (#247968) #

I wonder how Santos' wildness will play in the AL East where the 3 teams ahead of the Jays are more than willing to work the count.

In the 80's, Gillick wouldn't give out more than 3 year contracts to pitchers.  For Stieb they got around that by having the 3 year deal roll forward every year if reached certain benchmarks like innings pitched.  They could do the same with Fielder and not have the contract longer than 5 years at any one time.

scottt - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:24 PM EST (#247970) #
Working the count is mostly a problem for starters. The closer doesn't always get to face the heart of the order.
MrPurple - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:26 PM EST (#247971) #
I just wanted to second what someone had said earlier. What Alex says to the media is all a smoke screen. It may all have a basis in truth but we KNOW for a fact Alex does not show his cards. I sell cars for a living and one thing I never say is: Mr. Customer I want to sell you the car I make a ton of money on. Everything is regarded as a 'skinny deal' Sometimes it is, and sometimes it ain't. Point is you have to have someone going away thinking they got as much from you as they possibly could. Alex is selling right now.
TamRa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:34 PM EST (#247972) #
DJF quotes Davidi quoting Beeston:

club President Paul Beeston commented briefly on the issue earlier in the evening.

"The CBA has not changed anything," Beeston said, according to a tweet from Shi Davidi of Sportsnet. "We’re still capable of going to the US $120m payroll once we start drawing the people," another tweet continued. "The formula hasn’t changed."

Okay?
TamRa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:37 PM EST (#247973) #
"I wonder how Santos' wildness will play in the AL East where the 3 teams ahead of the Jays are more than willing to work the count."



You mean the wildness of the guy who has pitched less than 144 innings in his entire adult life?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it gets better.


John Northey - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:37 PM EST (#247974) #
For some details on Stieb's deal go to...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thehotstoneleague/2013649948_remembering_dave_stiebs_11-yea.html
or
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-09/sports/sp-23525_1_blue-jays

Basically, the Jays signed him for 11 years after the 1984 season. What was interesting is how they tore up the contract after the 1990 season and gave him $3 mil+ a year for 3 years (91/92/93) which, it turned out, was a very poor idea as Stieb would pitch only 178 innings total over those 3 years with a 92 ERA+, the final year (and 4 starts) being for the Chicago White Sox. Over the 9 years he played during that 11 year contract stretch he was 94-68 with a 118 ERA+ averaging 162 IP over those 9 years. Cut down to the 6 years he was under the contract (before it was torn up) and you get 213 IP per season, 122 ERA+.

Interesting that a guy who was an outfielder became such a good pitcher. Also interesting that the Jays would trade a former hitter for another former hitter today.
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 09:07 PM EST (#247975) #
The trade is unusual in that both Molina and Santos are infielder to pitcher conversions.  The infielder-to-ace reliever conversion I always think of is Trevor Hoffman, who like his older brother Glenn, was a shortstop in college.  Hoffman struggled for one year as a shortstop in the minor leagues before being moved to the mound.  The one nice thing about this type of move is that there is a lack of mileage on the young arm.

In Santos' case, there is a decent chance that he will continue to improve his control as he gets more innings under his belt; if that happens, he will be (obviously) very, very good.
Kelekin - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 10:12 PM EST (#247981) #
Looks like we'll need a new post - Mets sign both Francisco and Rauch tonight.

Flex - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 11:05 PM EST (#247985) #
Apologies if this has already been posted, but in case not, Bluebird Banter sought out a scouting report on Santos from someone who watched him a lot in Chicago, Jim Margalus of the South Side Sox:

Seems Santos has some of the best one-inning stuff in the game, but gets a little emotional and needs more than the usual management for a closer.

Sorry I can't make this a link. Just paste it in: http://sbn.to/sKIJci

John Northey - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 11:40 PM EST (#247987) #
Huh. Two years for Francisco at $6 mil per year.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/mets-agree-to-two-year-deal-with-francisco.html
Rauch is $3.5 for one year...
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/mets-reach-agreement-with-jon-rauch.html

So, the Jays will pay $7.5 mil for 3 years of Santos vs $12 million for 2 years of Francisco. Or if you prefer, the Jays will pay $3.75 mil for 2 years of Santos vs $3.5 for one year of Rauch.
jgadfly - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 11:48 PM EST (#247988) #

"We’re still capable of going to the US $120m payroll once we start drawing the people," ... Paul Beeston

             So , I'm confused (nothing new) .  I thought Beeston had said ... "we will build it and they will come"  and now he is saying "IF they come, we will build it" ...

                         

ayjackson - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 11:56 PM EST (#247989) #

So , I'm confused (nothing new) . 

I`m with you.  I`ve never heard his payroll ambitions qualified like that.  I`ve got news for him, they won`t come until you build it.

Having said that, they are going out of their way to get these `budgetary constraints` out in the media.  I`m just way too skeptical to believe it isn`t propaganda.

Flex - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 12:01 AM EST (#247990) #
Seriously? Beeston has never to my knowledge said anything along the lines of "We'll start spending big in the hopes that people will come to watch." Never, ever, ever. The line has consistently been "We have to start getting people here, which means winning games, and then we'll be able to spend bigger."

I really don't understand the confusion.
ayjackson - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 12:11 AM EST (#247991) #
No.  There`s always been an angle that they can get a larger payroll if they ask for it.  They`ve said they`re not ready to ask for it, implying their system wasn`t strong enough, not that their attendance wasn`t big enough.  There`s no way in hell they`re growing attendance without a postseason appearance.  So we`ll just sit here in 3rd or 4th place with a $75m payroll perennially.
Spifficus - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 01:15 AM EST (#247994) #
I always had the impression that it was build a strong, renewable core through player development and augment with higher priced talent to flesh it out. I've never really got the impression that they were really looking to add to the core through free agency. Arb trades in the hopes of extending them at a more reasonable rate, on the other hand, seems to be part of the MO. That way, the cost is split between money and prospects.
dan gordon - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 01:28 AM EST (#247995) #

Amazing that Francisco got 2 years at $6 million.  The Mets added 3 arms to the back end of their pen today - in addition to Rauch and Francisco, they also sent A. Pagan to the Giants for reliever R. Ramirez and outfielder A. Torres.  The Giants have added a couple of nice bats now this off season.  Just what the doctor ordered.

It does seem somewhat backwards if the team is saying that Rogers wants the customers to come and then they'll improve the product they're selling.  Kind of like saying, OK, we want everybody to pay $20 more a month for their cable, and then over the next couple of years, maybe we'll add some more channels to your package. 

I'm not a big believer in signing guys to these $100+ million contracts, as they often don't pan out, but I think they should be spending more than they are.  I recognize that Rogers is a publically owned company and the management has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, which may conflict somewhat with running a baseball team.  Those quarterly earnings reports have a big impact on the share price, which is what the BOD is ultimately responsible for.

Everybody should look at Santos' splits.  His numbers away from that good hitters' park in Chicago are outstanding.  Small sample size, but the splits are huge.  The more I look into him, the more I think he is just beginning to scratch the surface of his ability.

Ron - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 01:58 AM EST (#247996) #
 I recognize that Rogers is a publically owned company and the management has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, which may conflict somewhat with running a baseball team.  Those quarterly earnings reports have a big impact on the share price, which is what the BOD is ultimately responsible for.

You just described why the Jays are run like a smallish market team.

I'm a hardcore Jays fan and I couldn't even tell you the names of the owners. I know people just say Rogers owns the Blue Jays but who are they? Are Ted Rogers family members the owners? Is Nadir Mohamed the owner? Is Alan Horn the owner? I prefer my sport teams to have ownership that is at least somewhat visible to their fans. Do the current owners even care if the Jays are successful in the W/L column?

If the Jays aren't going to make a serious push to try to make the playoffs next season than Bautista should be shopped around for younger assets. Despite what the Jays PR spin trys to tell you, the Jays aren't a small market/low revenue team. Behind closed doors, I wouldn't be surprised if ownership has told AA he has to slash payroll or to not spend more than last season.
Flex - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 02:10 AM EST (#247999) #
Well if Rogers has told AA he has to slash payroll, then trading a young, cheap talent like Molina for a guy who's gonna cost over $8 million over the next 3 years is insubordinate and he should be fired.

What's the foundation for your bold theory of payroll management?
Ron - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 02:22 AM EST (#248000) #
Well if Rogers has told AA he has to slash payroll, then trading a young, cheap talent like Molina for a guy who's gonna cost over $8 million over the next 3 years is insubordinate and he should be fired.

What's the foundation for your bold theory of payroll management?

The Jays paid 4 million dollars for their closer last season and now will be paying 1 million dollars for the upcoming season. Now we also have the "financial parameters" quote from AA today. Ultimately actions speak louder than words.
Ryan C - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 02:27 AM EST (#248001) #
I`ve never heard his payroll ambitions qualified like that.  I`ve got news for him, they won`t come until you build it.

It's not the whole thing at once though, it's incremental amounts of both over a period of time.  They're taking it one step at a time and they expect to see attendance increase one step at a time as well.  They're not building a team (yet), they're building a competitive organization and they're willing to take their time.  They're expecting attendance and buzz to increase as the team improves and shows it is competitive, and each year they'll spend what's required for the team to improve to the next level.  But what it appears they won't do is spend money to try and jump three steps ahead when they feel the time isn't yet right.


Thomas - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 04:32 AM EST (#248002) #
Interestingly, AA said the Jays tried to convert Santos to a reliever (or at least tried to have him start pitching) when he was in their system, but he was resistant to the change as he still believed he could make the majors as a shortstop. It would have been nice if that had worked and we could have avoided this trade to begin with.

Santos is a pretty articulate guy and comes across well in the interview I heard of him. He didn't mention that he was asked to make the transition by the Jays (and perhaps other organizations), but he discussed how it occurred in the White Sox system and his reluctance to make the jump, for fear of washing out and not being able to support his wife and two children.
TamRa - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 05:21 AM EST (#248003) #
"I always had the impression that it was build a strong, renewable core through player development and augment with higher priced talent to flesh it out. I've never really got the impression that they were really looking to add to the core through free agency. "

there's a great reason for that. given it's exactly what Beeston and Alex have been saying for 2 years now.

The various paranoid musing of how pretty much EVERY personnel move is clear evidence they are screwing us notwithstanding.

Here we have a case where the team has an opportunity to

A. Pay (for instance) Ryan Madson $40-60 million for the next 4-5 years

OR

B. Pay a younger guy (3 years), with vastly less mileage on his arm (almost 1200 fewer IP), who's arguably every bit as good and, unlike Madson, has legitimate potential to still improve as, little as $8.75 for 3 years and no more than $30 million for six years - at the expense of a top 10 prospect from the deepest system in the gave....

and choosing B is clear and convincing proof that the ownership is not financially committed to winning.


of course, if they Jays had HAD Santos in the first place and signed that excellent deal in September and then traded him for another teams best prospect (which Molina, in the Sox system, is) then THAT TOO would have been self-evident proof the team was pinching pennies rather than trying to win.

It's all rather fascinating to watch.


The Jays rotation has, arguably, NO current openings. sure, McGowan is fragile but for now he's there, and he stands to be a free agent next year if not extended, Morrow the year after that, but look at this again:

Romero - under contract for up to five more seasions
McGowan - one more season
Morrow - two more seasons
Alvarez - six
Cecil - four (I think)
Drabek - six
Listch - two
Carreno - six
Perez - six
Villianueva - one
Hutchison - seven if we assume he makes the team some point later this year
McGuire - ditto
Jenkins - assuming he somehow breaks camp with the team in 2013, seven from today
Wojo - arrives 2014 at earliest, maybe later
Nicolino - 2015?
Syndergaard - 2015 or 2016?
Sanchez - 2016?
Nolin - 2016?
Norris - 2016 or 2017?
Cardona - 2017?

And that's not even a complete list

for FIVE spots.

10 options for five spots in 2012, not counting minor leaguers other than Drabek;
11-12 options for 2013 (assuming McGowan leaves);
9-10 for 2014;
10-11 for 2015;
Maybe as many as 14 for 2016

Now, some of those will get hurt, some will fail to develop, some will be ordinary, some wil lbe traded...attrition is a fact of life for pitching.

But without signing anyone, trading for anyone, or converting anyone - the team can lost half of it's candidates in any given year and fill out a good rotation - and that's ignoring that all that AA and Farrell have talked about this offseason is adding a top-shelf starter.

if we can't trade ONE guy from that depth, WHEN can we?

If Molina wins a Cy Young in 2015 this will still have been a perfectly respectable trade based on current information.

danjulien - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 05:38 AM EST (#248005) #
I think anyone complaining about the Jays not spending more money has to remember that spending more money is fine but it needs to be done reasonably.  Can the Jays go to $120 million right now?  Of course they can but it's dangerous.  It takes me back to the Glaus, Overbay, Ryan, Burnett off-season with dumping Koskie (and paying some of his salary).  Could the Jays sign Ryan Madson?  Yes...but at 4 years, $44 million that's a big risk for a reliever.  I rather AA keep some of his money for more rational signings or a big splash than a reliever simply because they've been unpredictable over time.  If Santos flames out, you gave up a good asset and paid him a certain some of money (depending on buyout), if Madson pulls a BJ...you paid him $44 million.  On that note, Molina could be a dominant pitcher in the next few years, or he could be a bust and never make the majors like so many top prospects before him.  As TamRa just went through I think we have enough prospects to give up a couple up for some ML talent. 
pubster - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 07:33 AM EST (#248006) #
I agree with Tamra.

It seems that people want another offseason like the AJ Burnett/BJ Ryan offseason, and we all know how that ended up.

Tampa Bay has shown us how far you can get with an elite farm system and young controllable players.

If the Jays are cheap and dont want to spend money, then why do they spend so much on the draft? and on scouting? and on international players?

I think its fairly clear that the Jays front office has come up with a strategy, a gameplan if you will, and will spend money to fund their gameplan.

ogator - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 08:04 AM EST (#248007) #

  I think with the kind of strategy you are suggesting the Jays have adopted, they will always be two or three years away.  They will always be arguing that they can't be expected to win this year but keep buying those tickets because just you wait.  Look at all of those amazing players down on the farm.  Everyone should buy an expensive ticket and an expensive hot dog and pay a ton for parking because some of the guys in New Hampshire or Dunedin are going to be terrific in three or four years. I mean how can we be expected to compete with New York, Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Milwaukee?  Some year it will be Pittsburgh.  There is nothing wrong with building up the farm system but at some point the focus has to be the Major League team and maybe that means spending some money, not foolishly, but spending some money nonetheless.  People keep arguing that it's either spend 200 million on Pujols or Fielder or just getting more picks.  There must be some middle ground and we are always told, not this year, but soon.  A man only lives so long.  The farm system is loaded, we are told but we better let all of these guys walk because, wow, we can get some draft picks.  Maybe we should all buy a cheap condo in Dunedin.

danjulien - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 09:07 AM EST (#248010) #
ogator I don't understand because they just traded one of these prospects they have stockpiled for a major league closer, something they have lacked and have patched holes with.  They were tired of waiting for one to develop and sped up the process by a couple years. 
ayjackson - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 09:32 AM EST (#248011) #

Can the Jays go to $120 million right now?  Of course they can but it's dangerous.

I don't think they can, if we believe Beeston.  And I agree you wouldn't want them to.  I'm not a proponent of handing out huge contracts to FA.  I like the strategy of building the core and supplementing either through FA or, more likely, trades.

My general contention is that management has gone from saying over the years that they don't have a budget, to being very budget conscious. (Remember that Blue Jays revenues are below the materiality threshold for a Company the size of Rogers).  They are also saying that revenue has to go up before salaries go up, incrementally or otherwise.  I assume that means, that unless we have some success and revenues go up, our internally developed talent will be sold off as they get into their arb years because our payroll is approaching (say) $90m.

Or, they could be just trying to spin a story to counteract the US media reporting on how the Jays could be big spenders/players at the Winter Meetings.  They don't want the attention.

I'm inclined to believe the latter - whether you're in on FA's or not, it's easier to work without the microscope.

MatO - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 09:38 AM EST (#248012) #

It seems that people want another offseason like the AJ Burnett/BJ Ryan offseason, and we all know how that ended up.

This argument always gets me.  The cost for AJ and BJ was money and 2nd and 3rd round picks.  They recouped more than those picks when AJ became a FA.  AJ pitched reasonably well as a Blue Jay and BJ had the greatest season as a closer since Ward in 1993 and one other decent season.  At the same time the Jays found money to pay Wells.  So what exactly was the downside?

John Northey - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 09:42 AM EST (#248013) #
Quite the interesting discussion. We have people thinking that the Jays are either A) showing a desire to win by adding a closer today at the cost of a prospect or B) are cheap because they traded a prospect for a closer and said they won't now go out and blow $10+ mil a year on another closer.

Yes, Santos is cheaper than Francisco or Papelbon or various other options. Don't take 'less expensive' as 'less qualified' though. Yes, Pap would've been nice. But for the $10 mil a year spread you can upgrade elsewhere fairly nicely. IE: they could sign Johnson for less than the spread between them. They won't, but that $10 mil will now be open to use elsewhere and I have to figure the difference between the best closer on the market (Pap) and Santos is less than what $10 mil can buy at any other position.

As to the Jays blowing $100+ mil on a free agent - as I've said over and over again these things tend to work out about 50-60% of the time, while flopping 40-50% of the time. Even when the player produces it can be a problem (see the Carlos Delgado years) if it handcuffs the team from doing other things.

I like AA chasing down quality players at bargain salaries. That is what Gillick did and it worked well in producing a winning team from 1983-1991 then the vault was opened wide to add in a few free agents for those spots that were royal recurring pains for those teams ('clutch' performance via Morris then Stewart, a solid DH in Winfield then Molitor). Remember Doyle Alexander? A solid performer for 84/85 who was a castoff from the Yankees. Remember Tom Henke? A failed prospect for the Rangers left unprotected. Remember Mark Eichhorn? A failed Jays prospect who found himself in the pen. Remember George Bell/Lloyd Moseby/Jesse Barfield/Damaso Garcia/Tony Fernandez/Willie Upshaw/Ernie Whitt/Fred McGriff/Dave Stieb/Jimmy Key/...? All spent time in the minors (either post-trade or post-drafted) and were super-cheap for their first few years in the majors while producing. Remember Dennis Lamp/Bill Caudill/Gary Lavelle? They all were the expensive closer (via trade or free agency) and none worked out.

That is how you win. Build the system, keep your best, keep building, let them go when they get over 30/expensive/unproductive, keep building, finally sign a free agent or two after you just can't find that missing link. A closer and quality set up man fell into the Jays laps via Henke/Eichhorn but that was also due to a stealth move (Henke) and patience (Eichhorn) - stuff AA is showing he has.

The farm is the highest rated it has been...well...ever. I cannot recall the Jays farm system ever being a darling of the Baseball America crowd yet here it is. We have pitching prospects up the wazoo and more coming. This is a good time to be a fan as this team looks healthier than it has been since the winning decade. JPR seemed to have the right ideas, but failed to build the talent stream like he wanted to. AA seems to have figured that part out and now can trade prospects for quality. Doing a 1-for-1 trade to improve the ML roster is impressive. Now he needs to do more like that. I'd expect an $80-90 million payroll in 2012, $100-$110 in 2013 as players here get more expensive and quality guys are acquired. I expect the Jays to be around 90 wins this year, then fighting for the division lead in 2013. Of course, I've always been an optimist but imo that is the most fun way to be.
Mike Green - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 09:43 AM EST (#248014) #
I agree generally with AYJ.  The only additional comment I have is that the separation of Blue Jay revenues/expense from the revenue/expense of other Rogers' enterprises for balance sheet purposes is quite artificial, and that the linking of payroll expenditures with stadium attendance (which may be beneficial for pr/bargaining purposes) does not correspond with the reality for Rogers.
John Northey - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 09:45 AM EST (#248016) #
The downside of the AJ Burnett/BJ Ryan signings (along with Frank Thomas) was the payroll getting maxed out and not having space to add pieces that might have been more valuable. Yes, they found money to resign Wells and Rios (much to the Jays regret) but once all of that was done they were done. JPR was a bit gun-shy after it and Rogers probably said 'we gave you all this cash and the teams still is sub-90'.
Lylemcr - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 09:46 AM EST (#248017) #
It does suck that Rogers owns the Jays.  They give themselves a better TV deal and in return the Jays can't compete fiscally with the other teams.  The put out "value" teams and they wonder why the Jays fans don't show up.
Mike Green - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 09:47 AM EST (#248018) #
I like Pujols a helluva lot more now than I liked Burnett then (I gave the Burnett acquisition a thumbs down then, but in retrospect it turned out no worse than a meh). 
Moe - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 10:00 AM EST (#248022) #
As someone said above, Rogers is owned by its shareholders and has to manage the Jays in a way to maximize their value (discounted stream of profits) -- I don't like it but it's a fact.

Because of that, the Jays can't go all in because the marginal payroll dollars don't bring in enough marginal revenue to justify it. On the other hand, if the Jays are too bad, no one watches so that's not good either. There is an optimal level of team quality/payroll which provides Sportsnet (Rogers) a TV product enough people want to see without costing too much. That level is independent of the revenue sharing because revenue sharing is a lump-sum payment. Hence, the formula for the Jays hasn't changed, 120m could still be the right long-run payroll if it maximizes profits. The big losers are Rogers shareholders because they just lost 30m in free money every year.


MatO - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 10:02 AM EST (#248023) #

I can't think of anyone the Jays couldn't sign.  At least internally.  I don't think those deals affected anything.  They took on Glaus' contract as well

The concept that an individual owner is somehow better than a corporate one doesn't hold water.  In the 80's in Toronto we had Labatt and Harold Ballard.  There's nothing worse than an idiot individual owner.

 

John_S - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 10:09 AM EST (#248024) #

Regarding the size of Rogers:

Per the 2010 audited consolidated financial statements, Rogers has an adjusted net income of $1.7 billion with revenues of $12.2 billion.

When a previous poster mentioned that Jays revenues are less than Roges' materiality threshold, that's 100% correct.  The Jays could increase their annual payroll by $100M and after taxes the net impact to the shareholder would be a decrease of approximately $0.04 in dividends per share.  Obviously this is incredibly simplistic (share price would fluctuate due to lower earnings, alternatively revenues would theoretically increase with a better team, etc, etc) but I think it illustrates that in no way, shape or form are the Jays a small market team.  Yes it sucks that we lose out on revenue sharing but I can see the logic behind the new CBA in that the Jays operate in a large market with a rich owner therefore shouldn't receive the revenue sharing designed to help small market teams.

I'm not an advocate of throwing around money foolishly and I love how AA continually finds ways to maximize value.  It's just that as a fan, I wouldn't mind if the Jays spent some money to put a contending team on the field because their owner has arguably the deepest pockets in all of baseball.  The Sox and Yankees seem more vulnerable than before... why not go for it?

greenfrog - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 10:13 AM EST (#248025) #
One thing to remember is that the value of $120M diminishes over time (especially given the inflation rate in the baseball economy). By the time the Jays get to that mythical number, the Yankees and Red Sox could have payrolls of $230M and $190M, respectively. Plus, the Jays' payroll was $97M in 2008 (probably around $120M in 2012 baseball dollars), so Beeston seems to be saying we *might* get back to the level of spending when we were sorta payroll-competitive. This doesn't sound like a sea change to me.

Anyway, we'll see what the team actually *does*, as opposed to what it says, over the next few years.
uglyone - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 10:34 AM EST (#248027) #

The only thing wrong with the Burnett/Ryan offseason was that half the team got destroyed by career-threatening injuries the following season.

Nothing was wrong with those signings - we SHOULD want to do that again.

John Northey - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 10:49 AM EST (#248029) #
Actually baseball inflation is about to slow down considerably. The new CBA has a soft cap at $189 and the Yankees are talking like it is close to a hard one (they'd be taxed at 50% on any spending above it). I suspect Bud is doing tons of internal pressure to make it as hard as possible to teams without actually going over the line on it (ie: he is following the letter of the CBA but not the spirit).

If so then a $120 million payroll would be very competitive and a $140 one even more so.

Now, I do feel Rogers could spend more but I suspect they've pushed AA to keep costs down as much as possible due to the old 'if you can do it for $80 million or $120 million we'd rather have the $40 mil in the pocket' rule. After all, you could go buy premium gas (Papelbon) for an extra 10-15 cents a litre or you can buy the cheap stuff (Santos) - which do you do? Both get you from A-B but one costs a lot more and while it might do a slightly better job will it make any real difference?
ayjackson - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 10:59 AM EST (#248030) #
Whether baseball inflation takes a hit or not remains to be seen.  There are at least two present inflationary factors at play - the Marlins, and the cap on spending on non-union players.  They add up to over $50m of available annual discretionary dollars.
Anders - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 11:07 AM EST (#248031) #
He didn't mention that he was asked to make the transition by the Jays (and perhaps other organizations),

Mike Wilner had a quote from Santos saying that the Jays wanted to convert Santos but that he still thought he could make it as a hitter. It got retweeted yesterday from the Box twitter account.
John_S - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 11:26 AM EST (#248032) #

@ John Northey

I agree that both premium gas and regular gas will get you from point A to point B, so why pay extra money.

However, when the choices are gas and horse urine I have no problems paying some money for gas because I want to get to point B. 

Apparently the Mets believe in paying gas prices for horse urine.

pubster - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 11:28 AM EST (#248033) #
I think the solution to ownership is easy. We have a lot of people on this board who would be great owners. So why dont one of you just buy the Jays? Problem solved =)
jerjapan - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 11:34 AM EST (#248034) #

The only thing wrong with the Burnett/Ryan offseason was that half the team got destroyed by career-threatening injuries the following season.

Nothing was wrong with those signings - we SHOULD want to do that again.

I wish that we had the thumbs up/down thread back at the time of these signings, so perhaps this idea could be put to rest forever.  Many, many people predicted Ryan's injury and lambasted JPR for giving a relatively unproven reliever with a frightening delivery a huge five year contract.  Clearly, Burnett ended up providing value in terms of the draft picks, but he too was a known injury risk, and the picks were undervalued assets at the time.  I have yet to see anyone suggest that JP was thinking about these picks when he gave AJ the opt-out option - an option that JP was repeatedly lambasted for at the time, and was lambasted for again when AJ excercised his opt-out. 

I am not against free agents signings, and would love to land Darvish / Fielder.  But both Burnett and Ryan were risky overpays which ultimately failed to deliver a contending team - the goal of both contracts.   

Paul D - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 11:41 AM EST (#248035) #
As much as I like this trade for the Jays, the Rockies just traded Houston Street to the Padres, and the rumours are that the return, who is an as yet unnamed minor leaguer, isn't very much, and that the deal is mostly salary relief.  If true, I think it makes me less positive about the Molina-Santos trade.
metafour - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 11:45 AM EST (#248038) #
Why would that make you less positive? Street is an injury riddled declining mess that would get eaten alive in the AL East and in the launching-pad that is the Rogers Center.  Yeah; we could have gotten him for way less...if you would have preferred getting a vastly inferior, injury prone player who also makes way too much money.
Paul D - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 11:54 AM EST (#248040) #
<i> Why would that make you less positive? Street is an injury riddled declining mess that would get eaten alive in the AL East and in the launching-pad that is the Rogers Center.  Yeah; we could have gotten him for way less...if you would have preferred getting a vastly inferior, injury prone player who also makes way too much money.
</i>
If the Math is Street for two years before Molina would have taken over, I'm less positive.  I also don't buy this "eaten alive in the AL East" that people throw around here quite a bit.
bpoz - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 12:06 PM EST (#248044) #
Santos has the tools to be a good enough closer. In the video his FB was 96 &97. His slider has been described as unhittable so maybe it will be good. So if he can develop a 3rd pitch then becoming a very good Starter is not out of the question.

Molina put up incredible numbers, especially in AA. Maybe he develops into an ACE,incredible splitter & 92 mph FB. If he can get his FB to 95+ and develop a good breaking pitch or what ever it take, then maybe he becomes that Ace. S Fassano said the he felt Molina should be in AA in 2010 because he was advanced. If Sal is correct then Molina was building up his arm's durability against hitters that were not a challenge to him. Eventually he will face V good hitters, even if it does not happen until he gets to the Majors.

I have been thinking about this conversion of position players to pitchers. So for example if Garis Pena & G Pierre were to show a strong arm, which I think they have, then you still have to build up the arm's durability. I think that the choice is to do that gradually by starting off in relief. They could easily put up great numbers if that is done in the low minors, but the test comes as they move up.

I have seen bad Jay's bullpens in the distant past. The recent pens have not been bad but IMO not good enough to contend in the AL East. NYY & Boston have good but expensive pens, TB's pen is probably good but the very strong SP rotation is probably helping them.
Santos is a big step to building a good pen. We all agreed that the pen had to get better, and a better closer was a priority.
metafour - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 12:25 PM EST (#248046) #
If the Math is Street for two years before Molina would have taken over, I'm less positive


You do realize that Santos has significantly more upside as a reliever than Molina does, right? It will be a miracle if Molina's splitter or changeup ever becomes as good as Santos' slider (which is one of the most elite put-away pitches in baseball).  Not only is Santos' secondary pitch better than Molina's, but his fastball is better as well.  The only thing Molina has over Santos is control...and if I'm talking about a closer, I'd take the guy that throws 95-98 with an un-hittable slider every time.
greenfrog - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 01:50 PM EST (#248059) #
As much as I like the Santos trade, I was less enthused after watching the post-trade interview with AA. In response to a question about whether the Jays were going to start spending to compete, AA basically said that currently the team needs to get better within its financial "parameters." He hopes that this will attract more fans (he would like to see the Jays draw 3M+, as compared to 2010's 1.6M and 2011's 1.8M). Then, when the fans come out, the team will be in a better position to spend more.

Hmmf. Not impressed. Yes, this could be a negotiating ploy, but it doesn't sound promising. It sounds like more of the switch-and-bait "cheap Jays" that we've had for years and years.
greenfrog - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 02:07 PM EST (#248060) #
Also: presumably the Jays' policy of not going over five years won't prevent them from bidding on Darvish, which would require a posting fee and something like a five-year deal.
whiterasta80 - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 02:16 PM EST (#248061) #

I don't necessarily believe that we really are going to require increased support before spending (I think its a negotiating ploy too).

However, I do know that that approach simply won't work in this market. One really interesting product of the Jays 80s/early 90s success is that it captivated the entire nation and educated an entire generation of baseball fans. For almost 20 years we've known that playoff baseball was an illusion as long as the Red Sox and Yankees were in the same division as us. That's why attendance has been down. We (the collective we) simply wouldn't tolerate being conned by MLB and we replied with our wallets accordingly. 

The same thing is going to happen with this idea that the Jays can't turn a profit without a spike in attendance.  Sell that to somebody who's buying... You have national broadcasting rights in Canada, and the Yankees and Red Sox (read attendance spikes) in our division. Everyone in Canada knows that you are still making money off the Jays and have been for some time. This is not Miami and we expect a realistic chance of winning (here now that the extra wild card exists) and a commitment from ownership before we'll show commitment.

MatO - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 03:08 PM EST (#248066) #
I recall a lot of discussion about AJ's injury risk (and he's been mostly healthy since that time) and none about BJ's injury risk.  BJ had been perfectly healthy up to that time.  He was great in Baltimore before he signed with the Jays and had one of the greatest reliever seasons ever in his healthy season with the Jays.  I think he was "proven".
Mike Green - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 03:18 PM EST (#248068) #
BJ was definitely proven. 

Of course, all this talk about AJ and BJ gets me thinking about CJ.  On the first day of meetings, my GM gave to me a Santos in a pear tree...
Gerry - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 03:33 PM EST (#248070) #
The growing opinion in Dallas is that Kelly Johnson will accept arbitration and be back with the Jays.  AA says it is likely he will be back.
Ryan C - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 04:07 PM EST (#248073) #
The growing opinion in Dallas is that Kelly Johnson will accept arbitration and be back with the Jays. AA says it is likely he will be back.

That's good news. While they're still a number of players away from being a real contender, if Johnson returns then I believe this team is good enough to compete for a playoff spot. They may not make it, but barring any long term injuries, this team is good enough to still be in the running come Sept 1.
whiterasta80 - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 04:12 PM EST (#248074) #

KJ on a 1 year is basically ideal. The options are endless.

If we are in the playoff race, we hold onto him and give it a good run.

If we're eliminated he should be an easy flip at the deadline and it gives us 3 months to see what Adeniy has got.

sam - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 04:29 PM EST (#248078) #
I wouldn't say BJ Ryan was "proven." I think the question with him, was there substantive evidence based on track record, delivery, comparisons to other relievers, that he would deliver over the course of the contract. One look at his delivery would tell you there was going to be arm issues. And then if you factor in that he had been closing for only one year prior to the contract and had two overworked years prior to the contract as well, there should've been more alarm bells before giving him 5/47.

With all that being said, I don't hold the signing against Riccardi. He understood the Jays needed a reliable arm at the back end of the bullpen and wanted the Jays to win and Ryan was the best option for the organization. AA was in a similar situation this offseason, and because he's rebuilt the farm system he had different avenues to explore acquiring a closer. As a result, the Jays have a talented, cost-effective closer for six years (hopefully). I'm sure if the Jays didn't have those resources, AA would likely be bidding for Madson and Cordero and possibly making the same mistake over again.
Flex - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 04:53 PM EST (#248079) #
As part of the Kelly Johnson talk, Anthopoulos has suggested he could still acquire another 2B and Johnson could play some LF.

If I'm Snider and Thames, all the talk of Encarnacion and now Johnson playing LF is sending me a clear message.
greenfrog - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 05:00 PM EST (#248080) #
"Actually baseball inflation is about to slow down considerably"

The 32-year-old Mark Buehrle just signed a four-year deal with the Marlins for $58M.
SJE - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 05:42 PM EST (#248084) #
Actually the suggestion that KJ could play some left field reminds of the time a few years ago when Scutaro was seriously considering  accepting arbritration. AA also suuggested that  he would welcome Scutaro back and that would probably play some left field. Jays signed A. Gonzalez and Marco declined arbritation.
92-93 - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 06:04 PM EST (#248086) #
I read into AAs talk about KJ in LF that he has something he's working on for 2B. Greg Brady tweeted yesterday a "very educated prediction" that either KJ or Beckham would be the Jays starting 2B in 2012. The Jays might have had more than one ball in play with KW, and decided to just complete Molina-Santos because they hadn't yet come to terms on the parameters of a Beckham trade.
Richard S.S. - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 07:02 PM EST (#248095) #

...As to the Jays blowing $100+ mil on a free agent - as I've said over and over again these things tend to work out about 50-60% of the time, while flopping 40-50% of the time. Even when the player produces it can be a problem (see the Carlos Delgado years) if it handcuffs the team from doing other things...

What utter nonsense, check the number$ clo$ely.  1) J.P. was ordered to cut payroll to the bone.  Roger's had no interest in who was on the team, it was just an ends to the means.   They needed content, any kind to fill broadcast hours.   2) I can't be exactly accurate, without better access to the $$$$, but I believe the Purchase of the Team and the Purchase of the SkyDome were totally funded by the Payroll sayings that occurred from the first day of Team Puchase until Ted Rogers' press conference to announce allotting $210.0 MM over the next 3 Years.

Not keeping Delgado was a travisty.   He didn't handicap the team, Rogers did.   And it's unlikely I'll change my narrow mind here.

...We have people thinking that the Jays are either A) showing a desire to win by adding a closer today at the cost of a prospect or B) are cheap because they traded a prospect for a closer and said they won't now go out and blow $10+ mil a year on another closer...

I love the Santos deal.   I was pissed at the Jays for missing this opportunity, when they had him in this system - now I know.   I just want to know where the money saved is going.

1) Revenue Sharing is $30.0 MM in 2012; $22.5 MM in 2013; $15.0 MM in 2014; $7.5 MM in 2015 and $0.0 MM in 2016.   (Only creative booking shows this team lost money.)    Just shows what an addiction can be.

2) Impact Bats rarely become available on the Free Agent Market.   When they do, they`re usually in their 30s.   When a 27-year old Impact Bat (he`s 27 for the first 28 games of the regular season) becomes available you should be in on that like glue.   (The complaints about weight, aren`t a problem for him, so why is it a problem for you, a bias, maybe).   At 1B and DH, explain to me who (must be better) is blocked.   Lind has trade value, more than you think.   And when will his like be available again.   

Well Prince Ponderous Fielder will play the most of the 2012 season at 29 years of age (he turns 29 on May 9th) - signing him to a 7 year contract would mean he would play the final year at the ages of (34 then 35) - the SAME age that Pujols would be at the end of a four year contract. Even an EIGHT year contract to The Fat Prince would see him only be 35 at its end.  

Is the 29 instead of the 27 a typo, of something more?

3) When will it be the time?    2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 - when?   Fielder (27 - 32) and Bautista (31-35) can be a dominant 3-4  in our lineup for 5 Years.

ayjackson - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 07:04 PM EST (#248097) #

I guess I wasn't alone in thinking AA had changed his story on payroll.  Here's Wilner's latest blog...

The largest, and most spirited part of the day’s discussion, though, was about the fallout from Anthopoulos’ comments while talking about the Sergio Santos/Nestor Molina trade about the payroll parameters within which he has to work. It was the first time Alex had ever mentioned such things. Most of us believed that the Jays’ had no payroll limit, that things were fluid and that Anthopoulos could pretty much spend whatever he felt necessary to build the team he wanted to build.

TamRa - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 08:50 PM EST (#248110) #
As we speak, without Johnson (yet?) on board, and without the starter that AA and Farrell have spoken often of, the Jays projected payroll for 2012 sits at about $64 mil. Add Johnson and a SP and you should end up roughly around $80 mil

And frankly the natural escalation of payroll necessary to keep this group together is years away. Since I can't project the salary of the theoretical new starter I'll leave Mr. X out of this.

consider the rotation:
1. Romero - goes up by 2.5 in 2013 and stays at that level two following years
2. Morrow projects to go up about 2.5 in 2012 and 2013 before free agency
3. Cecil - pre-arb in 2012 and not likely to be expensive for a couple of years after that
4. Alvarez - 3 pre arb years
5. Drabek - 3 pre-arb years
(ignores McGowan since he's a free agent after 2012)

Others which will join rotation from farm are obviously cheap. The 2012 rotation ought to cost about $12 mil and the 2015 rotation ought to cost about $16 mil or so (unless Morrow is extended at an expensive price) - this projects Cecil being pushed to the pen at some point.

The Bullpen:
Janssen and Villanueva are in their last year before free agency, Litsch has two. I make the current group as costing about $9 mil and while the composition of the pen is insanely difficult to project, if you called it Santos, Cecil, Carreno, Perez, and younger guys, that would work out to $15 or so

lineup
C - Arencibia theoretically gives way to d'Arnaud at least by the time he hits arb, so you are looking at paying near minimum for at least the next 4-5 years and the reserve guy would be irrelevant (pyaroll wise)

1B - Let's assume for the sake of argument Lind ends up being as good as Farrell and AA describe him for just a minute. If he stayed through every option year he'd only rise from $5 mil in 2012 to $8 mil in 2016

2B - Assume Johnson in 2012 and then Escobar for the length of his deal, Esco would make, through 2015, less per year than Johnson will get this year

SS - Escobar, then (in theory) Hech for six years, 3 of them pre-arb. Though I'm not sure if they can drop Hech back down after getting $1.75 per year in '12 and '13

3B - Lawrie - 3 years pre-arb, not wildly expensive in 2015 (depending on potential long-term extensions)

RF - Bautista under contract through '16 at a level salary.

CF - Rasmus, potential to rapidly escalate over next three years, then choice to extend or give way to Marisnick (for instance)

LF - Snider/Thames/Gose (don't quibble over positions)...strong potential to be paying near minimum for 3-5 years.

DH - who really knows?


As a bit of a wild guess, your 2015 lineup might be quite good and be made up of -
(I'm gonna assume Snider blows up just to be generous here)

C -- d'Arnaud - $600k
1B - Lind - $7.5m
2B - Esco - $5m
SS - Hech - $2m?
3B - Lawrie - $2m
LF - Snider - $12m
CF - Gose - $600k
RF - Marisnick - $500k
DH - Bautista - $14m

Combined, that's $45.2....throw in 4 cheap bench players and call it $48-50

The current 13 or so guys (if you include Johnson) cost about $37 mil

so while this is very rough, it's not difficult at all to see the current projectable core team staying together only rising from ~70 in 2012 to ~90 in 2015.

and despite assuming that Morrow and Rasmus and a couple of relievers move on, that's still an exciting team even without free agents or trades.

not that I think for one minute their won't be free agents or trades.


I think all the negativism about payroll is uncalled for.
grjas - Wednesday, December 07 2011 @ 09:32 PM EST (#248113) #
"The largest, and most spirited part of the day’s discussion, though, was about the fallout from Anthopoulos’ comments while talking about the Sergio Santos/Nestor Molina trade about the payroll parameters within which he has to work. It was the first time Alex had ever mentioned such things."

I can’t understand why AA was so foolish to make this comment in the first place. Why talk about "payroll parameters"? And what the hell does payroll parameters mean. May be $120mm is off the table; may be it's not.

The trade was a strong baseball move regardless of  whether he has money to spend. Instead of celebrating the deal, he's got the press- and a good chunk of the fan base- fretting over budget dollars that may or may not be there. So now unless he unloads a big FA signing, he has doomed himself to defending the team's wallet no matter what other rabbits are pulled from the hat.

Any one who is had the pleasure(?!) of dealing with the media knows the key messages from media training: "keep to your message"; "make clear statements" and "don't make comments you don't want in print". I thought AA knew this. Not sure why he slipped up.

dan gordon - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 12:51 AM EST (#248124) #

Kelly Johnson has accepted arbitration.

Francisco Rodriguez accepted as well.  Angels apparently are close to signing CJ Wilson for 5 years, and have offered Pujols 10 yrs/$210m.

greenfrog - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 02:18 AM EST (#248128) #
I don't think AA slipped up. For whatever reason, the whole "parameters" thing *was* the message. I don't think it's "negativism" to point out that the FO is backtracking from the message it had previously put out (eg, Beeston's comment implying that payroll would eventually go up significantly or his nod-nod, wink-wink comment that if Jays' ownership didn't know who Yu Darvish was, they certainly do now (ie, after AA's visit to Japan)).

In my view, the backtracking and mixed messages are a very bad sign, and one that suggests we're in for another era of "cheap Jays" and comparatively low attendance. AA is brilliant at what he does, and maybe he can produce a playoff team on a shoestring, but it just got that much harder. This also sends the wrong message to players, scouts and front office personnel around the league (who knows? Maybe this is part of the reason Marco Paddy split). It might also create an incentive for AA to accept a GM job elsewhere before too long - one where he has more financial resources at his disposal.
Richard S.S. - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 02:22 AM EST (#248129) #

Payroll parameters (as for Dictionary.com: 4. Usually, parameters. limits or boundaries)

Determining how much a team has to spend is determined by: Attendance (Team did not increase average ticket price of $23.84 from 2010 season*); Concessions (generally exceed average ticket prices by 25%-65%*); Programs and Souvenirs; Television Revenues; Revenue Sharing; and a few others (Parking?, Stadium Rental?; Others?).   I cannot conceive this Team having less than $100.0MM to possibly $125.0 MM available without Rogers' money or an increase in attendance, but then I don't know how creative the bookkeeping is.   (* - I remember, since last year, maybe still findable on the interwebbi.)

Alex basically wants to diffuse the use of the Blue Jays to fuel Press speculating; to diffuse the use of Blue Jays to drive up Free agent demands/prices; to keep us from running rampant on the webbi.   He's tired of answered the "same" question all the time.   I still thinki he'll go after Darvish, but an Impact Signing will have to wait for another year.   Trades, considering how agonizing it was for him to trade Nestor Molina, may not amount to much, unless need fuels desire.

IMO, I generally don't think A.A. has Carte Blanche to exceed $75.0 MM unless it`s a windfall deal, that would be rubber-stamped after the deal.

With Kelly Johnson accepting arby (sign 3 years, plus 2 option years), our 2B problem is solved, unless A.A. finds a young `Cano` to acquire.  We need another Top Reliever, preferably a LHP, preferably who`s just as good with left-hand bats as with right-hand bats.   We need a front-of-the-rotation Starter, or we must expect too much from everyone not named Romero.   Is Luis Valbuena our middle infielder for next year?   I don`t thing he`s good enough.   I don`t expect much more to happen, as I think A.A. could be done for the Offseason.   This is a must read: http://blog.rogersbroadcasting.com/mikewilner/2011/12/07/boundaries/ .

Hodgie - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 11:02 AM EST (#248162) #
Most of us believed that the Jays’ had no payroll limit, that things were fluid and that Anthopoulos could pretty much spend whatever he felt necessary to build the team he wanted to build.

In other breaking news, a little chicken reports the sky is falling, there may have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll and apparently there was an aviation accident close to Roswell New Mexico. But fear not, I am told the truth is out there.

92-93 - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 11:41 AM EST (#248169) #
It's hilarious. For 3 years now I've been calling Beeston a liar and Rogers cheap and have been attacked around these parts. Now half of you have shifted over to my side and the other half are actually denying that Beeston ever actually said these things to begin with. Remarkable.
sam - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 11:59 AM EST (#248171) #
92-93, look I wouldn't use the words you use to describe Rogers and Beeston, but I admit there's an element to what you're saying that holds.
Hodgie - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 12:30 PM EST (#248179) #
The notion that the Jays did not have a payroll limit is indeed hilarious. Even Brian Cashman has payroll "parameters" to work within and can't spend whatever it takes to construct the team he wants. If you choose to believe that Beeston is a liar and say so publicly so be it, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. Much the same way I am entitled to believe that the rampant speculation that one innocuous statement by the team's GM in December constitutes proof of anything is a tad premature if not down right paranoid.
Richard S.S. - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 05:35 PM EST (#248240) #

Where A.A. has no Limits:

I firmly believe any trade A.A. makes, regardless of salary gained, is automatically approved.   Why?   It's pure and simple, A.A. doesn't make bad trades.  He also, doesn't have limits (regardless of what the new CBA says) on signing Draft Picks and International Free Agents (at least 1 year out of 3).

Where A.A. might have Limits:

Signing Free Agents might differ.   There are areas here, where even A.A. will not go (they have been mentioned).   Under a certain amount, no problem.   Over that amount, no one will say no.   Why?   Because he hasn't done anything stupid, nor will he.

Why now?

Possible extra Wild Card berth in 2012 - first offseason since possibility was mentioned - Reporters and Bloggers going wild.

The real downside?

Listening to the doomsayers, pat themselves on the back, and keep saying "I was right, I was right."  

The bad news?

This was possible, if A.A. asked for it.   Starters: Romero, Wilson, Buehrle, Morrow, Alvarez.   Bullpen:  Papelbon, Santos, Francisco, Janssen, Litsch, Villanueva.   Outfield: Bautista, Rasmus, Lind.   Infield: Pujols, Johnson, Escobar, Lawrie, Arencibia, Fielder.   Bench: Anyone.   The Cost?   Approximately $175.0 MM without included the Bench.   Don't you think so?

bpoz - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 07:06 PM EST (#248253) #
Well said Richard SS. We are more talented at the ML level now than we were a year ago, IMO. We also have the extra wild card... I may be blind but I cannot think of why it should not start in 2012. The schedule does not have to change and the owners and players have no issues with it starting in 2012.

With NYY, Boston, TB, Texas & LAA it seems that we are stronger but further away from that 2nd wildcard. But Boston won nothing last year.

I am starting to think that we can compete next year.
Geoff - Thursday, December 08 2011 @ 11:21 PM EST (#248269) #
Was an interesting year for Santos in the home/road splits. Add in one bad turn in his only visit to Detroit and it goes like this:

Appearances in Comerica & Cellular Field:  23 earned runs in 33.1 innings, a 6.21 ERA

Pitching anywhere else: 2  earned runs in 30 innings, a 0.60 ERA

It's a good thing that AA got that boy out of Cellular Field.

Okay, I know you're thinking "that was one year. I'm certain the split wasn't so dramatic the previous year!"  Or was it?


2010 Santos didn't like pitching at home or in the Pitts.

Appearances in PNC & Cellular :  16 earned runs in 27.1 innings, a 5.27 ERA

Pitching anywhere else: 1 earned run in 24.1 innings, a 0.37 ERA

Perhaps he really doesn't dig pitching in the Cellular. Perhaps he really doesn't like pitching the top halves of innings; he's more of a bottom inning guy, which can only be achieved as the road team.

Needless to say, those splits are madness. If he struggles in the top halves of innings at the Ted Rogers Centre, the Jays must seriously consider a closer platoon. Save Santos for the road games only. Not that he couldn't get the job done at home, but you really want that guy who loves pitching in the bottom halves to throw as many of those in a season as you can get.

bpoz - Friday, December 09 2011 @ 10:20 AM EST (#248298) #
Thanks Geoff. The more data that comes my way just adds to my enjoyment of the game.
Beyonder - Friday, December 09 2011 @ 12:01 PM EST (#248308) #

Bpoz.  Not to tamp down anyone's enthusiasm, but there is no "extra" wildcard.  The existing wildcard was halved; a one-game play-in was created to qualify for the same old slot that always existed.   Our chances of reaching the Divisional Series will be no different next year than this year.  In fact, if we improve as we expect to, the new format only increases that chance of a capricious exit from the playoffs after losing a 1 game play-in. 

 

bpoz - Friday, December 09 2011 @ 12:30 PM EST (#248312) #
Beyonder,I think I follow your thinking.

Lets say the better half wins 95 games and the other half wins 90 games. The better WC team may have the 2nd best record in their league, and now risk being out in a 1 game series rather than a safer 5 game series.

There are some positives too. Right? Say 95 & 94 wins are the 2nd & 3rd best records in the league, so now at least you get something for being a great 3rd best team.
Beyonder - Friday, December 09 2011 @ 12:52 PM EST (#248316) #

Yes.  Unless you count the one game play-in as being part of the playoffs, the Jays' chances of reaching the playoffs are close to the same.  The size of the prize (a playoff spot in the divisional series) is unchanged: it's just that an additional element of randomness (the one game play-in) has been introduced into the process for earning that prize.  Randomness only benefits the weaker team.  We may be grateful for it now, but we won't be very happy if, as we expect, we produce a top-two team in the Al East.

Geoff - Saturday, December 10 2011 @ 01:37 PM EST (#248374) #
Why wouldn't you count the one game playoff between two wildcard teams as part of the playoffs?

If you are the fifth place team in the AL last year, the Red Sox, you had zero percent chance of advancing in the playoffs. Under the new system, you are gifted a better than zero percent chance of winning a World Series. The odds are not as great as the other teams', but it's something. You played 162 games and now you get to play one more for a shot at advancing through the playoffs.

It is identical to if the fourth and fifth place teams finished the season tied for a one game play-in, but it is to be entrenched as an official playoff game between two Wild Cards, not two teams competing for one Wild Card seed. Season ended and playoff seeds determined, playoffs begin with a wildcard faceoff.

If you're the top team in the East, it shouldn't hurt you. If you're the second team in the East, you may be playing the third team in the East or the second team in the West or Central. But here's the thing: if you're the second team in the East, you are a Wild Card team.  (Unless I'm mistaken about the division winners automatically bypassing Wild Card seeding.) Being a Wild Card team did get tougher, but that was largely by design. It's been surprising to see how often a Wild Card team gets to or wins the World Series. For the past five years, I have expected the trend that at least one Wild Card team would make the World Series. But looking back, after an impressive run of Wild Card participants in the Series in 2000, 2002 (both teams),  2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, there was a three year run with out Wild Card teams before the Cardinals made it and won it.

Baseball executives are deliberate in making it tougher for Wild Card teams's path to the Finals.

In other news, did you know that the Yankees have reached the postseason in 16 of the past 17 seasons? See the bottom table of this page for proof that for playoff runs during which a franchise appeared in at least 70% of the postseasons, with gaps of no more than one year, those Yankees really take the cake. As it has become my pastime from all their success, I shall wonder if this could be a year where the Yankees don't make the playoffs.

And will it ever happen two years in a row? Or will there be more playoff seeds to come?
greenfrog - Saturday, December 10 2011 @ 02:05 PM EST (#248375) #
The AL is going to be tough next year. You would think that Anaheim or Texas has a good shot at one of the wild card spots.
Jays Trade Nestor Molina for Sergio Santos | 143 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.