Shaun Marcum is a good-to-very-good Pitcher, who knows he's better than he actually is.   With his injury history and his proclivity of injury, he might be only offered one-year contracts going forward.   Jays did well to deal Marcum when they did.

Lawrie for Marcum looks better all the time.  Marcum is a good pitcher, as his 111 ERA+ both years in Milwaukee show, but the fact no one would offer more than a single year deal to him (or at least not for much) sure shows how little value he has right now.

Marcum is an excellent pitcher.  I imagine that, after missing some time in 2012, he expects to improve his value for a long term contract after the 2013 season.  He has made 85 starts over the past 3 years, so I think the injury thing is a little overblown.  He gets to pitch in a pitcher friendly park for 2013 and I expect he will perform very well.  If he does, he'll get a very nice contract.

Subjectively speaking, I think I'd rather have Marcum than Lawrie. It's immensely satisfying to watch a guy striking out serious major league hitters with an 86mph fastball.

Meanwhile, I'm already bored with Lawrie's all-100% all-the-time routine. Or perhaps I'm just bored with the announcers telling me about it. The guy seems destined to end up on the DL due to a high-five incident; the only question is how many innocents he'll take with him.

Marcum was always fun to watch because he threw four pitches for strikes when healthy. They all were delivered with the same arm motion, so batters were bound to guess wrong.

As for Lawrie: if John Gibbons winds up earning his money, it will be because he has figured out (among other things) how to harness Lawrie's considerable talent and get him to play within himself (to use the cliched term). Getting major-league talents and major-league egos all pulling in the same direction is Job One for a manager.

My guess is Gibbons is a lot more old school than Farrell, JF seemed to use the technique of "praise in public, criticize in private", which seems to be a modern day mantra in business. But in baseball, as Visquel pointed out, if you don't criticize flagrant behaviours in public, there has been no criticism. The tricky part is how to criticize in public.

I can never tire of "100% all the time".  With the money that these guys make, it is nice to know that they are at least trying.  I guess that is why I hate NBA basketball.....

2010 was the best year we had in a while. We had a big 4 IMO in 2010 with the #5 being way back in productivity.

For results most people have Marcum & Romero as basically equal as the top guy in the rotation. Cito was the manager and he gave Marcum the opening day start. Cecil was clearly #3 and Morrow #4.
Over 3 years from 2010-12 I still feel that Marcum & Romero are pretty much equal & so would claim the #1 spot in the rotation. Of the 4 Cecil has a lock IMO on being #4 because he was horrible in 2011 & 12. Morrow claims # 3, but has not given 200+IP with a sub 3.00 ERA yet.

I wish Marcum well. However in 2012 if we had Marcum, Halladay & Carpenter in our rotation results would have been poor compared to expectations due to injury.

I'm happy with the Dickey acquisition, but you could argue that it would have made more sense to keep the prospects and sign someone like Marcum or Dempster to a short-term deal. Would you rather have:

A) rotation of Dickey / JJ / Morrow / Buehrle / Romero / Happ and current farm system

B) rotation of JJ / Morrow / Buehrle / Dempster (or Marcum) / Romero / Happ and current farm system + d'Arnaud, Syndergaard and Becerra

I love the depth, quality and innings that Dickey brings to the rotation -- we're talking about a potential #1 at a steep discount -- but I think there is a legitimate argument for B as the preferred option. I still prefer option A, though.

Who had 1 year and $4m for Marcum in the crowdsourcing?

I definitely prefer B. Unfortunately the most attractive part of Dickey was that Rogers doesn't have to pay for him in 2012; AA overpaid for that privilege.

Here's a nice piece by Wendy Thurm on the battle between the 1.5% and the .01%.  Cue Badlands for this one...

I'm sure this debate could be thrashed out endlessly, but I prefer Option A because it maximizes the Jays talent in 2013 and gives them the best short-term chance of contending and winning. The potential difference between Dickey and Marcum could be very big. Keeping those 2 key prospects (d'Arnaud and Syndergaard) would be very nice, but it could cost the Jays a chance at the playoffs in 2013, for an uncertain benefit in the long term.

Another way of looking at it: if the Jays had an extra $40-million to spend, would it have been better to spend half of it in 2012 and the other half in 2013? Or is it better to spend the entire $40-million in 2013? I would vote for the latter, because $20-million is almost certainly insufficient to get the Jays into the playoffs. Better to maximize spending in 2013, maximize the chances of getting into the playoffs this year, and then hope that the success will persuade Rogers to keep spending in the future. If the owners keep spending, the loss of d'Arnaud and Syndergaard is much less important.

Just to clarify my last point: I realize that Dickey doesn't increase the payroll in 2013 (compared to a Marcum scenario). I'm using dollars as a proxy for the debate between short-term and long-term. I'm saying that it's better to do whatever you have to do (including trading a couple of prospects) to maximize your chances in your best-opportunity year (which is 2013) as long as you don't completely empty the farm system. So you double-up on your 2013 major-league talent and then you calculate that the additional revenue (from attendance, viewership, playoffs) will persuade the owners to spend more in the future.

For what it's worth, we have already voted on this in another thread.  I said then that objectively I was thumbs down on the trade and subjectively, worse than that.  Needless to say, the availability of Marcum at $4 million makes it an easier call for me. 

Will Marcum and d'Arnaud add more value than Dickey and Arencibia in 2013?  Probably not, but it may be very close.  Mike D made the point that the Dickey trade may have been more about 2014 when Johnson is likely to be gone and Syndergaard/Sanchez not ready. 

I prefer option A  very strongly and predict the difference in production in 2013 between Dickey and Marcum/Dempster  will be negligible.Also, since I think the Jays are not likely to  make the playoffs in 2013, keeping those prospects become even more valuable - A year from now, I think that D'Arnaud alone will be more valuable than Dickey.

Sorry, That should have read "I support option B very strongly"

"Keeping those 2 key prospects (d'Arnaud and Syndergaard) would be very nice, but it could cost the Jays a chance at the playoffs in 2013"

It cuts both ways. D'Arnaud could have been a significant factor in 2013 in the event of poor performance from Lind / Arencibia / Buck. And the farm system is thin enough now that it may prove difficult to bring in reinforcements at the trade deadline.

"I think the Jays are not likely to make the playoffs in 2013"

This strikes me as an unusual opinion. Do you have 3 (or more) AL teams that you see as clearly superior to the Jays, or do you see the Jays as having significant holes?

While it might be unwise to count on a 38 year old pitcher, I think it's even more unwise to count on a rookie catcher. Big league catching can take its toll - Matt Wieters was an outstanding prospect, and a solid rookie who didn't become clearly above average until his 3rd year in the league.

The career patterns of catchers vary more than those of other positions.  Some are great as rookies (like Carlton Fisk), some have typical growth to prime (like Gabby Hartnett) and some struggle in their early 20s but make it later (like Ernie Whitt). 

I remember in the 1992-93 off-season, Bill James said that he liked Joe Oliver more than Mike Piazza.  We know how that turned out.  ZiPS has Oliver as d'Arnaud's comp...

The other imponderable is whether Arencibia's defensive skills, aside from throwing, improve.  We shall see.

".... I think it's even more unwise to count on a rookie catcher...."

I agree with this. D'Arnaud's offensive skills might be nearly ready for the majors, but I don't think the Jays were likely to choose a rookie catcher this season after investing so much in a totally revamped and upgraded rotation. So I'm very skeptical of the notion that the Jays would have improved at catcher in 2013 if they hadn't traded d'Arnaud. Perhaps in 2014 or 2015, yes, but not likely in 2013.

I get the sense that AA really believes in Dickey -- he has said that he thinks he may even continue to improve. Financial cost was clearly a factor, as the Jays' payroll was apparently maxed out after the trade with Miami, but there were other reasons for acquiring Dickey:

- Demonstrated track record of excellence

- Performance trend (for example, K rate and total IP)

- Greater career longevity for knuckleballers

- Years of control (4)

- Weak 2014 free agent pitching class

- Starter to front the rotation in 2014 after JJ departs

- Innings insurance for the rest of the rotation (which has some injury/age/performance risks)

Fangraphs did a write-up on the Marcum deal and noted that his performance after he returned from injury was definitely worse than it was pre-injury. Small sample size and all, but considering Marcum's velocity he likely has a smaller margin of error than other pitchers.

I'm surprised the deal was only for 4 million (plus incentives), but keep in mind that 28 teams other than the Blue Jays passed up on offering something more. There's a pretty good risk going in here, and Marcum isn't being viewed by teams as someone you can rely upon as a contributer. The Mets aren't unlikely to be competitive and likely see him more as a stopgap and potential trade candidate if all goes well.

Starter to front the rotation in 2014 after JJ departs

I see this assumption being quite common among those in the know.  Somehow, I don't quite see it.

AA himself has told the story of the Marlins trade as beginning from his opening move, approaching Miami about the availability of JJ.  It was only later that the names of Buehrle, Reyes and co. got thrown into the deal.  Why would he want to acquire Josh Johnson for just one year?  I have never heard him say that he was going for a winning team, but just for 2013 alone.  So, I believe he started out pursuing Johnson as someone to acquire and extend.
Shortly after acquiring Johnson, he was heard to say that the Jays had a great deal of experience in extending players that they wanted to keep.  Not a commitment of course, but still.

Of course, one could argue that after discovering that he could also acquire Buehrle and Dickey, his priorities have changed, and that he now might be less interested in retaining Johnson, especially at the current price for top end starting pitchers.

Six factors will surely enter in:

• Will AA make a bid to extend Johnson before the season starts, taking the risk to act before he knows how JJ will perform and before he knows how the other starters will do?
  
• If not, will Johnson start out the season strong - too strong, and he will think he is on track for a maximum contract; too weak, and AA may not wish to extend for JJ's asking price
  
• Will Johnson be willing to extend once the season has begun, or will he hold out for free agency?
• What will be the perceived value of a draft pick, once people contemplate the lessons learned by Bourn and Lohse especially
• To what extent will the Jay's belief in Hutchison, Drabek or Nolin for 2014 have an impact?  (My guess is that most of that data will only be available late in the season)
• How much money will the Jay's budget contain for 2014?  My guess is that by June, the Jays will have a strong sense of how attendance has reacted to the 2013 team.  If attendance is much higher, an expensive Johnson will seem more affordable
  

Just one of the many stories to follow this exciting season!!

I wouldn't rule out a Johnson extension. If he's healthy, it would be great to have him in the fold for the next few years (to overlap with Dickey, Reyes, Bautista, EE, Morrow and others). It seems unlikely, but never say never. The team managed to re-sign EE when he was only a few months from free agency; perhaps they can do the same with JJ.

JJ is just too much of a wild card.

This is NOT the great JJ - we have a damaged shoulder pitcher who is trying to find his way in an after injury world. Last year he "discovered" his curve and began throwing it 20% of the time - 20% from basically 0%. This is a guy grasping at whatever he can to remain relevant - it worked to some degree in 2012 - OK, but not great. Before I would even consider signing him long term I'd like to wait until the All-Star break at the earliest.

That is why I see the rotation as: Dickey (KB), Morrow (R), Beherle (L), Johnson (R) and Romero (L). If any fail - Happ, Lincoln and Jenkins are 1,2,3. The nearest "real" prospect to the show is Nolan (L) and by next year Hutchison and Drabek should be ready to challenge. In 14 when (more likely than if) JJ leaves I'm content with Happ, Hutch, Drabek, Nolan and Romero fighting it our for the last two spots. Unless, of course, the Silent Assassin does the voodoo he do so well after the 13 season is over.

The team managed to re-sign EE when he was only a few months from free agency; perhaps they can do the same with JJ.

Not saying they can't sign Johnson, but the EE situation was quite different. He had been in Toronto a while and had formed personal and professional relationships. Johnson is helicoptering in fresh with no ties to the organization at all.

Chuck: true, but the Jays' outlook for 2013-15 is arguably a lot more interesting than when EE signed his contract at the All-Star break last year.