Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
On the front page of Baseball Primer, another in the series "Looking Forward to 2003" has been posted. It's an eclectic mix of analysis and commentary. A prediction of 83 or 84 wins for the 2003 Jays? Geez, any poster on this site could have come up with that.
Two guys preview the 2003 Blue Jays | 12 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Craig B - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 11:35 AM EST (#93533) #
Thank God it's finally done.

Great work, Robert. Folks, I encourage collaborating with Robert, it's a great pleasure.
Gerry - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 01:48 PM EST (#93534) #
Not that is a comprehensive review. Sections on the GM, on the manager, on inexperienced teams, and the lineup. Did you guys get paid by the word?

Great analysis, well done.
Gitz - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 01:52 PM EST (#93535) #
Does Primer need someone to do the A's?
_steve - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 02:43 PM EST (#93536) #
Great work, Robert and Craig!

While not nearly as comprehensive a study, Scott Carson wrote a decent piece today on

There's one line in Carson's column that did strike me as a little bid odd though:

A concern may be 2002 Rookie of the Year Eric Hinske, who's slow start this spring has less to do with skill and more about attitude.
Pistol - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 04:33 PM EST (#93537) #
Nice job on the piece.

One pet peeve I have is the Cruz for Sturtz/F-Cat/Myers/Bordick swap. Chronologically, that's how it happened, and the total dollar amounts are similar.

However, I don't think the Jays ever intended to take Cruz to arbitration. They looked for a team to trade him to, but found no takers. When they realized they couldn't trade him for a prospect(s) they non-tendered him. I don't believe the Jays non-tendered Cruz and thought, 'how can we use this money now that we freed up $5 million'. I believe that money was unallocated all along and they knew all along how much money they could use to acquire players in December and Cruz was never a part of that equation.

If Cruz was an unrestricted free agent, like Loaiza for example, would we say the same thing about using that money for multiple players? I don't think so, but that's what's being done here.
_Sean - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 05:37 PM EST (#93538) #
Really good job, guys.

Were there any differences of opinion between you that didn't make it into the article, or did you both see things the same way?
_Cristian - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 06:32 PM EST (#93539) #

In the situation you mention - letting Loaiza go - I think it can accurately be stated that the money saved by not resigning him will be used for other players.

Fact is, whether a player goes via non-tendering or free agency, money is free to be reused as the organization sees fit. This will be either to acquire new players, invest in scouting/development, or the owner pocketing the cash (the KC Royals method).

Something is nagging me though. I get the feeling I haven't quite grasped the point you are making.
Pistol - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 06:59 PM EST (#93540) #
Christian - I agree with your post.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't feel there's a direct connection between non-tendering Cruz and signing Sturtz/F-Cat/Myers/Bordick. I think many people think that the Jays freed up $5 million the day Cruz was non-tendered and then used the money to sign those 4 over the next couple of weeks. While those 4 were signed after Cruz was non-tendered, and the total amount of Cruz and those 4 in total were similar, I think both are coincidences.

I feel that the Jays never felt they were going to re-sign Cruz back in November (or earlier) so that $5 million wasn't freed up when he was non-tendered in order to sign the 4 free agents that were signed, it was freed up in November when the decision to not keep Cruz was made (admittedly an assumption I'm making).

So what I'm getting at is that you can point to Lidle, Tam and Creek for using up Cruz's money just as much as you can the other 4 acquisitions.

It's splitting hairs, and is pretty silly, but that's why they call it a pet peeve.....
robertdudek - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 07:53 PM EST (#93541) #
I think I'm even more optimistic about Phelps than Craig is, not necessarily for this year, but over the next 4-6 years. He has a chance to be the best power hitter of his generation; Bill James once predicted that Phil Plantier would hit more homeruns in the '90s than anyone else, so we ought to take such forecasts with a ton of sea salt.

I don't know if Tam will be helped by Skydome. Our infielders have pretty good range, but are not outstanding. I don't know that turf helps groundball pitchers - it might even be the opposite.
_Shane - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 08:45 PM EST (#93542) #
Nice job fella's. There's a lot of text there to go through. However, I still put money down that the Jays go north with three catchers... Any takers?? Coach??
Coach - Friday, March 14 2003 @ 11:18 PM EST (#93543) #
Congratulations, guys. Excellent job.

Tosca looks pretty good in the box; I particularly enjoyed that segment. The whole piece grew on me, like Dave Berg. Good comparison of Lidle and Sturtze to the '99 A's staff. Lots of wonderful stuff.

The least impressive part isn't Robert or Craig's fault. On some players, ZiPS is right on, but I'm scratching my head about others. I see the fine print about it not being a playing time predictor, but I disagree with many of the estimates, no matter how they are derived. Maybe it's all over my head.

Shane, I would happily take your money in a fantasy pool, but sorry, BB (and especially its proprietor) does not condone wagering on the site. I will, however, bow to your predictive abilities if the Jays take a third C not named Jayson Werth. Everyone but Shane: get Wilson and Myers for $1 each in your auction, or in the last two rounds of your draft, and thank me later.
_Cristian - Saturday, March 15 2003 @ 10:31 AM EST (#93544) #

Now I see your point. You are saying that the Jays didn't free up money when they non-tendered Cruz. They freed up the money months before when they decided to non-tender him. I guess the question becomes: are the effects of a decision felt when a course of action is chosen or when the course of action is eventually taken? Of course, they knew they wouldn't be spending the money on Cruz earlier and were able to proceed on this basis way back in November.

You are absolutely right are splitting hairs :-)
Two guys preview the 2003 Blue Jays | 12 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.