nice work Jonny!

I have updated my Salary Spreadsheet in the same spirit.

http://economics.about.com
Good stuff. Does anyone have the salary commitments for the Jays in 2005, 2006, and so on? With all these backloaded contracts, it looks like 2005 might be tights, particularly if they want to keep Delgado. Unless Rogers decides to increase the budget, of course.

Cheers,

Mike

2005 - 16.25m to 5 players
2006 - 13.35m to 3 players
2007 - 11.2m to 2 players

http://economics.about.com
Ooops.. it was in your spreadsheet the whole time. Thanks Gwyn!

How much you like Lilly may depend on whether you consider his second-half improvement in 2003 a fluke, or an indicator. I was impressed by the way he turned his season around after a disappointing May and June nearly cost him his rotation spot. His playoff performance against the desperate Red Sox was terrific; if Eric Byrnes or Miguel Tejada had bothered to touch the plate, Lilly pitched well enough (one unearned run in seven innings) to nail down the series at Fenway. Then, off one day's rest, he tossed two perfect relief innings in the deciding Game 5, another huge effort.

I think Ted accepted a few dollars less than he might have wanted this year and is well-compensated for 2005. He might become too expensive after that; I'm in the camp that says he'll more than earn his money as a solid #3, providing a different look between Batista and Hentgen.

His playoff performance against the desperate Red Sox was terrific; if Eric Byrnes or Miguel Tejada had bothered to touch the plate, Lilly pitched well enough (one unearned run in seven innings) to nail down the series at Fenway.

Coach, I was at that game. It was my first live MLB game in ten years; living in NB, getting to a game has been prohibitively expensive. A couple of classmates and I drove down to Boston (about a seven hour drive from Fredericton) and paid a very shady looking character an obscene amount of money for tickets to game 3 vs. the A's. Both Lilly and Derek Lowe were amazing.

The Jays are in great shape regarding salary commitments.
Does anyone knows File and Miller status: BJ's control and signed for AAA or otherwise?

Bob File... haven't thought about that guy in awhile. Did he pitch at all last year, at any level?

Frank Catalanotto is the Jays' second highest paid position player. That sounds strange, considering their terrific offense.

I'm with Coach-I think Lilly was a good pickup, is a good sign, and will be very solid for the next two years. It's nice to have a (somewhat at the very least) dependable lefty in the rotation compared to trusting Lurch as the only southpaw.

If Lilly even manages a 4.50 era over 180 or so innings then arbitration in baseball is such that he might earn more than the $3.1 million the Jays currently have commited to him in 2005. He's likely to be worth the money and if you think he can be above average (which I think he has a chance to be) then the Jays have themselves a good deal. At worst they've paid for an average starter at the going rate assuming Lilly doesn't get hurt.

In this market where Sheffield get $13M/ year, and Vlade gets $25M/year. What would you guess Delgado will be worth next year? Obviously what he does this year will be a huge factor, but I'd think the market wouldn't give him more that $13M a year.

So, if Delgado's highest offer is $10-12M/ year over a 3 year deal, would the Jays re-sign him for that amount, and if that's too high, would Delgado except less to remain a Jay?

My difficulty with this signing revolves around the unpredictability of pitching performance. Ted Lilly could reasonably end up with an ERA of 3.00 this year, in which case the contract is a true bargain, or with an ERA of 6.00 this year, in which case the contract is a complete millstone. I'd be much happier if it was a one-year deal for 2.5 or so for that reason.

Some risks are necessary to take. The signing of El Artista is a good example. Others, the long-term contracts to Wells and Hinske, were wise risks. This one makes me nervous.

Mike Green,

Unpredictability is irrelevant. Let's say you expect the contract to be justified if Lilly earns 14 win shares over the two years. What matters is his expected performance, not variability. It doesn't matter if his range of possible performance is 12-16 win shares or 2-26 win shares (the latter being more variable). EXPECTED PERFORMANCE IS WHAT COUNTS!

Assuming a 105 million dollars spent on players for 2004/2005, 5.1 million represents less than 5% of that. It's hard for me to see that as a millstone even if Lilly never pitches for the Jays.

http://economics.about.com
It doesn't matter if his range of possible performance is 12-16 win shares or 2-26 win shares (the latter being more variable). EXPECTED PERFORMANCE IS WHAT COUNTS!

I'd actually rather have the latter. If it turns out his "true" win share value is less than 6, you can always replace him with a replacement level player. So the mean level of performance is likely to be higher with the player with the higher variance, since you're not forced to use him if you don't want to.

I can construct a few examples if this doesn't make sense. I'm still pretty sleepy.

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Here's an example.

Suppose each player has a 50% chance of reaching their "high" performance in season 1 and a 50% chance of reaching their "low" performance in season 2.

In season 2, the player has a 90% chance of repeating his season 1 performance (a "low" player performs at a "low" level) and a 10% chance of switching levels (a "low" player becomes a "high" player).

Now look at the players one at a time:

PLAYER 1 (low performance "12", high performance "16"). You'd never replace him with a replacement level player. So the mean performance of that roster spot is a 14.

PLAYER 2 (low performance "2", high performance "26").

If he was a "high" player in season 1, we'd expect him to be a high performer 90% and a low performer 10% of the time. So his expected performance would be 26*.9 + 2*.1 = 23.6 win shares.

If he was a "high" player in season 1, we'd expect him to be a high performer 10% and a low performer 90% of the time. So his expected performance would be 26*.1 + 2*.9 = 4.4 win shares. But if we expect him to only have only 4.4 win shares, we'd replace him with a guy we'd expect to have 6.

So in season 2 we'd either have an expected 23.6 win shares or a expected 6 win shares. Since these can occur with equal probability, our overall expected (at the beginning of the game) performance for that roster spot in season 2 is 14.8, higher than the 14 the low variance pitcher would provide.

Obviously this is a very, very contrived example, but all else being equal, I'll take the high variance player.

Cheers,

Mike

Obviously this is a very, very contrived example, but all else being equal, I'll take the high variance player.

Say the Jays make the playoffs this year. In the playoffs they'd most likely have the weaker starter in every game, except those started by Halladay.

If you have a pitcher that will give up 3 runs in 6 innings every time out you and another pitcher that will go 8 shutout innings one game and give up 6 runs in 4 innings the next, I would take the higher variable guy because he's giving you the best chance to win any one game.

Of course, Escobar is one of those players so maybe it's not a path the Jays' braintrust believes in.

http://economics.about.com
If you have a pitcher that will give up 3 runs in 6 innings every time out you and another pitcher that will go 8 shutout innings one game and give up 6 runs in 4 innings the next, I would take the higher variable guy because he's giving you the best chance to win any one game.

I hadn't thought about game to game variance, but that's a good point as well. I'm not sure which one I'd rather have, but I could see the higher variance player being more useful.

Mind you, if you have a team that always scores 5 runs a game, the first pitcher would win every game, whereas the second guy would go .500. So it's probably really highly dependent on what your offense is like.

You know, it's really, really hard for me to express my ideas in words instead of math. :)

Cheers,

Mike

In this market where Sheffield get $13M/ year, and Vlade gets $25M/year.

Jim: The Vlad deal was 5 years/70 Million. That would be an average of 14/year. I think this sets Delgado at around 12 to 15 (depending on length of contract and his performance in 2004).

Robert,
I don't agree. The significance of variability is as follows. Let's assume that the Jays appraise their chance of success as significantly higher in 2005 than in 2004. If Lilly performs acceptably or better in 2004, there is obviously no difficulty. If he performs atrociously (let's say a little worse than Lidle did in 2003), then the Jays are on the hook for 3.1 million in 2005, and it is a contract that they will simply have to swallow. On a $50 million budget, of which roughly $20 million will be assigned to pitching, this is a big deal, particularly if it is in a year in which one expects to compete.

I would also say that the contract diminishes the possibility that both Delgado and Halladay are re-signed, bearing in mind the Jays' other contractual obligations for 2005. I would rather if those matters had been dealt with before a commitment made to Lilly for 2005.

It seems to me that the contract is an expression of faith by the organization in Lilly. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but not really much different from some of the contracts that the former regime has been much criticized for.

If the Jays are going to make the playoffs in 2005, they'll need some guys to exceed expectations. If you buy the idea that Lilly has a fairly high ceiling (which I think is the case, based on his strikeout rate) then you're going to want to roll the dice with a player like him.

http://economics.about.com
If Lilly performs acceptably or better in 2004, there is obviously no difficulty.

Of course, if he performs really well, the Jays might be on the hook for $5 or $6 million had they not signed him to the 2 year deal. Then they either have to give up their second best pitcher (bad), or get him signed for $5-6 million, eating into their small budget (also bad).

If you look at the risks and don't consider the rewards, then any deal looks bad. Besides, the 2005 budget isn't set in stone, and if Lilly bombs but the Jays are only another starter away from an '05 division title, I'd imagine Rogers would increase the budget so JP can pick up the guy he needs.

Although I'm not too high on Lilly, I think it's a pretty good deal. He likely would have done better than $1.9 million in arbitration, and $3.1 million in 2005 isn't a horrible risk given Lilly's upside. This is not at all the same as giving Mondesi a $15 million dollar contract.

Cheers,

Mike

benum, no offense intended but there is no way that Carlos would command more than Vlad or even be in the same range. If Vlad's deal is an accurate indicator of the market, which I think it is (see Miggy and Sheff for other FA signing values) then Carlos and his agent would have to set their expectations lower for someone who will probably be considered a DH and part-time 1B going forward.

I love Carlos and want to see him retire as a Fighting jay and would be upset to see him leave, but if he demands $12-$15M on a multi year deal he is as good as gone. Even with a one year deal where a team pays a premium, I could see the Jays only offering $10M (similar to what the Marlins did with Pudge this past year).

On another topic, has anyone else noticed how JP has now staggered very nicely the terms of the SP various deals? Hengten for 1 year, Lilly for 2, Batista for 3 and hopefully Doc for 4. Which I assume means he intends to fill in one SP from the minors each year beginning with next year. Or am I reading too much into this trend?

Ahhh it's good to see Mike Green taking everyone on, instead of agreeing with people as has been the scary trend of late. Fight the power, Mike!

Oh yeah, basbeall. Count me as a supporter of this deal - I'm a Lilly believer. Even if he bombs out, he could still give us innings next year - there's value in 180 innings at a 5.20 ERA, even if it's not worth 3.1 million (and, as stated above, he could do quite well and be worth more than that). The only REAL downside is an injury, which is always a risk, but not an especially high one in this case (I don't think so, anyway).

Mike M, You're right, this contract is in no way comparable to the Mondesi deal. I might disagree with the timing, and fret about the downside, but it is not a crazy move.

SK, I'm not trying to take everyone on. Jonny expressed similar views in the header. I honestly don't think Lilly will bomb out (160 innings, 4.5 ERA is my best guess), so it's really hard to work up a head of steam even if I was so inclined.

On a $50 million budget, of which roughly $20 million will be assigned to pitching, this is a big deal, particularly if it is in a year in which one expects to compete.

Actually, the Jays will very likely be paying more than $20 to pitching. Batista, Lilly, and Ligtenberg will make a little over $10 million, and Halladay will get about that much himself. So that's $20 million to just 4 pitchers.

Of course, after Hinske and Wells ($6 million combined) the Jays don't have any commitments to position players so a lot of money can go to pitching if needed.

One advantage of the Lilly deal is that if the Jays are sellers at the trade deadline (and Lilly is performing well), his trade value will increase--"available to a contender: productive, cheap starting lefty, signed through 2005"...

Presumably in that scenario the Jays, who anticipate contending in 2005, would want to hang onto Lilly. But you never know. He could be part of a package that addresses more pressing needs (say, a blue-chip SS prospect).

If you were JP, would you be calling Delgaldo's agent a lot before spring training to get an extension done given the current market conditions?

You can call, and say, look, I don't think, with Vlad getting 14 per, that you can realistically look for Delgaldo to get more than 10 mil per for maybe 3 years. Delgaldo is older, plays an easier position than Vlad (albeit Vlad had the injury, but you don't say anything about that...)

And don't you think Delgaldo's agent is trying to avoid JP's calls like the plague?

Actually, the Jays will very likely be paying more than $20 to pitching. Batista, Lilly, and Ligtenberg will make a little over $10 million, and Halladay will get about that much himself. So that's $20 million to just 4 pitchers.

I'm too lazy (and busy) to look this up myself, but it would be interesting to see how other teams' payrolls break down in terms of hitting and pitching -- and even more interestingly, to cross-refernce that breakdown with winning percentage. Does it make more sense to pay the bulk of your salries to pitchers or hitters, or is there no difference at all? Someone with a spreadsheet and some spare time could make a great article out of this.

Carlos' salary in 2005 and forwards will probably be affected far more by next winter's transactions than by this winter's. I probably wouldn't think too much about it till then.

Does anyone have a list of potential unrestricted free agents across baseball after this season?

Can someone explain the rules regarding service time?

i.e. does the clock start after a brief September callup?
and what constitutes a first full year of service?

thank you.

I think the Lilly deal is good risk. He has high-end potential and even a Lidle like performance (at a lower cost) won't hurt the team too much. He kind of reminds me of Al Leiter.

I just hope that JP doesn't fall into that common GM trap of backloading salaries (short-term impact at the expense of long term competitiveness). I think the Lilly deal, like the Hinske and Wells deals, at least makes some sense structurally. Those players are expected to be better performers and command greater salaries in arbitration as the years go by whereas Ligtenberg and Batista salaries will increase but their expected production and marketplace value will not and thus backloading means having to pay them more than their worth.

Look at Houston with huge backends on the Pettitte, Bagwell, Kent and Clemens deals, if they don't win it all this year, they've screwed themselves for the future with those huge salaries for players with declining production or in the case of Clemens not playing at all. These one shot deals very rarely pay-off (the exception that proves the rule is Florida in 1997 and still look what happened to them).

He could be part of a package that addresses more pressing needs (say, a blue-chip SS prospect).

You don't like Hill or Adams? With Jorge Sequea close and Juan Peralta in the mix as well, I think the Jays are ok when it comes to prospect depth at SS.

Acker: Here's a list of 04/05 free agents. Big names include Garret Anderson, Glaus, Nomar, Pedro, Magglio, Beltran, Mariano Rivera, Eric Chavez, Carlos, Berkman, Kent and so on. Another flooded market.

Jeff:

I agree with you about backloading in general, but remember that there's the Ashian $20 million for Delgado that comes free next year. I think most of the backloading is intended to reflect that.

Spicol - cool list. I think the Vlad signing makes a lot more sense when you realize that the Angels will have the option of dropping several large salaries next winter.

As much as we all love Delgado, might we not be better off with Koskie if he's available (moving Hinske to 1st)

As much as we all love Delgado, might we not be better off with Koskie if he's available (moving Hinske to 1st)

How about move Phelps to first, JFG or someone to DH, and spend the $12 million we're all reserving for Delgado on Pedro? Matt Morris?Lowe?

Just because the Jays are lopping off Delgado's contract next year, I don't think they will big spenders. This year Stewart, Escobar, Lidle and what we were paying for Mondesi, in the aggregate approximately $20 million per year, came off the books and we didn't add anyone of significance. I think the majority of the money we would save on Delgado would go to the preordained pay raises to Wells, Hinske, Lilly, Batista and soon to be Halladay. Plus Phelps, Hudson, Woodward and Lopez will all be salary arbitration eligible and due pay raises.

I agree Jeff, I think a lot of the money from Delgado's contract has already gone into the contracts that have been or are soon to be handed out. Though Phelps, Hudson and Lopez have all just completed their first FULL seasons and should all fall short of super-2 status (Phelps might have a slight chance of qualifying). So at least two of those three won't be arbitration eligible until after the 2005 season.

No-one's saying the Jays will be big spenders next year. But keeping existing (and presumably improving) players is as important as adding new ones. The GM's job is to determine who's worth keeping and who's worth adding within the budget. If it's better for the Jays to let Delgado go and sign Doug Mientkiewicz to a one year $2 million contract that's what they'll do and sink the remaining $17 million into raises and other additions or upgrades.

We also don't know what their 2005 budget will be and what it might be going forward from 2005. This is very important when considering an expenditure as large as Delgado. If the budget is $48 million then their chances of keeping Delgado go down significantly. If it's $53-$55 million then their chances of keeping him go up significantly.

And finally (and perhaps most importantly) we don't know what Delgado's 2004 numbers will end up looking like. We can guess based on a strong lineup around him that they should be good but it might be hard to reproduce a year like 2003 just as it was hard to reproduce 2000. Delgado apparently plays through a lot of pain and suffered a decline to mortal production once again in the second half. If his season is more like 2001 or 2002 then his demands would likely have to change.

Let me be a little controversial.

Making it clear that I love Delgado and would want him on my team in the abstract, I don't think I'd even bid on him. Even if we had $12 million or so to spend on him, whihc isn't yet clear.

The decision is not 'sign Delgado for $10-12 million or sign nobody at all'. It's 'sign Delgado at $10-12 million or spend that $10-12 million elsewhere'. First, Delgado, while awesome, plays at the position with the highest replacement level in baseball. JP can definitely find a cheap, good 1B.

Second, his main strength is offensive, where the Jays already have lots of talent, and have at least Quiroz and Rios to add on top of current offensive strength.

Finally, $10 million could possibly buy you Pedro or Lowe or Morris or Millwood (Wood will definitely go higher), and will definitely buy you Radke or Leiter or Leiber (if healthy) and a reliever.

According to Win Shares, a method that fully accounts for position value, Delgado was the second most valuable player in the AL last year. People are kidding themselves if they think they can replace him without the offence taking a big hit (Oakland's offence took a big hit after Giambi left).

It is possible to make up that loss by acquiring other players, but we should fully understand what we'll be losing if Carlos moves on.

Spicol:

Re future Jays shortstops. I like both Hill and Adams, but, as many commentators have noted, they may represent the Jays' future at 3B and 2B, respectively. (Granted, it's early.)

I haven't heard any speculation about Sequea and Peralta. Can they really be considered legit contenders for 'Jays SS of the future'?

The possibility of trading Lilly for a blue-chip SS was only one example of Lilly's potential trade value next summer. I would love to see Hill or Adams prove he can field the position well (and produce offensively), making the issue moot.

I agree with Robert. Further, while it is possible to make up the offensive loss if Delgado leaves, it will be very, very difficult. It will be much easier to improve the pitching, for instance, from within the organization.

I third the motion by Mike G and Robert that Delgado is not easily replaceable. Even within the Jays' own stocked system there really isn't anyone who looks like a .300 / .400 / .600 player (sorry, Vito). The penny-pinching A's themselves could have kept Giambi at $17 million per if not for the no-trade fiasco. There are only a handful of hitters of Carlos's calibre on the planet, and I wouldn't give him up unless his demands are really unaffordable.

This question about Delgado is one that we've debated a number of times here. I agree with Robert that the offensive impact of losing Delgado would be significant. However, a run scored equals a run saved and that will dictate the choice after this year. Will it cost more or less than what you have to pay Delgado to acquire pitching and defense that exceeds Delgado's offensive contributions? In my opinion this past year and this offseason that was an easy question to answer. Because the run prevention was so poor you could pick up net gains by acquiring pitching that would exceed the difference in Delgado's offensive production above the internal alternatives (F-Cat or Phelps). In other words there was some "low hanging fruit" to be gathered by replacing the "contributions" of Lurch and Lidle and the Wasdins of this world. If the pitching improves and some of the young pitchers arrive this year you may well reach a different conclusion next year (i.e. that Delgado adds more offense than you can offset on the pitching side).

Making it clear that I love Delgado and would want him on my team in the abstract, I don't think I'd even bid on him. Even if we had $12 million or so to spend on him, whihc isn't yet clear.

Oh, the Jays can very easily have it, even sticking to a $50MM budget. The roster JP has built is like a big, beautiful shark's mouth. Each time a tooth breaks off, another has grown behind it to take its place.

In addition to Delgado, look at who the Free Agents are at the end of 2004:

C Myers $900K
LF Catalanotto $2.3MM
SS Gomez $750K
SP Hentgen $2.2MM
RP Adams $1.7MM

Coincidentally or planned, these are the exact positions Toronto prospects are ready to take over. Given a normal rate of development, Myers, Cat, Gomez, Hentgen and Adams can very easily turn into Quiroz, Rios (or Gross), Sequea, Bush and Peterson (or Arnold or File or Miller or whoever). That's a savings of $6.35MM.

These two are also to be free agents...

IF Berg $750K
RP De Los Santos $850K

...but these roles may not be able to be replaced from within. Let's say these players are replaced with those of equal salary.

The Jays will have have then saved $24.85MM, simply by letting their free agents go. Of course, some people will get raises. How much do those cost?

Using Gwyn's wonderful salary chart, we can estimate that raises to players due to guaranteed contracts and arbitration and non-arb eligible players will be about $10.5MM.

$24.85MM - $10.5MM = $14.35MM

All in all, the Jays will have an extra $14MM kicking around at the end of the year. The accuracy of this number obviously depends on a lot of things...in-season acquisitions, arbitration awards and who, if anyone, gets non-tendered...but I think I've been reasonable to come up with that total.

An extra $14MM might be enough to sign Delgado. We can't quite tell at this point (props to RBillie for his post). But signing Delgado might mean there is little money to improve on other positions and you've got at least the 5 rookies on the team that I listed above. The success of this team would hinge on whether or not those youngsters can contribute at a level equal to or higher than the players they are replacing. The good news is that if any farm system can feed a major league team adequately, it's Toronto's.

Alternatively, you could spend the $14M on 2 players or on many players, trying to ease the rookies in wherever possible. I don't know what the right answer is. The point is simple that once again, there's going to be a lot of money available.

Re future Jays shortstops. I like both Hill and Adams, but, as many commentators have noted, they may represent the Jays' future at 3B and 2B, respectively. (Granted, it's early.)

True enough. But I don't think Lilly would be enough to get you a shortstop prospect any better than the two Toronto currently has.

http://economics.about.com
Or put differently, if Delgado get $12M and Halladay gets $10M, then the Jays can have a payroll of under $43M for these 20 players:

Delgado	12.000
Doc	10.000
Batista	4.750
Lilly	3.100
Hinske	3.000
Wells	2.900
Lberg	2.500
Phelps	0.400
Hudson	0.400
Lopez	0.400
Johnson	0.400
Cash	0.400
Kersh	0.350
Towers	0.350
Haines	0.350
Werth	0.350
Clark	0.350
Arnold	0.300
Quiroz	0.300
Rios	0.300
TOTAL	42.900

It wouldn't be hard to fill in the remaining 5 slots (SS, RP/SP) with the left over 7-10 million, particularly considering there are other useful players in the minors.

Cheers,

Mike

I agree with Nigel. It is matter of economy, where can you improve the most at the least cost. If Rios, Quiroz, Gross, Adams and Hill develop and then their might not be a need to upgrade the offense. If McGowan, Bush and Arnold prove ready and then there may be no need to spend on pitching. But odds are some of the Jays prospects will either get hurt or struggle at AAA and some of the team's needs will have to be addressed from outside the organization. The extent and cost of those needs will determine whether Delgado is a worthy investment or whether those dollars should spent elsewhere.

As an aside, I don't think the A's regret letting Giambi go at all. He is certainly no longer worth the $17 million they would be paying him (low average, bad knees and defense et al). If the Yankees pulled a Theo and put him on waivers no one would pick him up. In fact in todays market is any player worth that price? And, the loss of offense certainly hasn't prevented the A's from making the playoffs.

As a further aside, Jays shouldn't try to exactly copy the Oakland blueprint because it emphasizes pitching and defense which is an appropriate design for their ballpark but it may not be an effective model at Skydome.

First things first. The moment we have Doc under contract ( 3 years+ the better ) everything else will matter.
Delgado is just as close as irreplaceable as Doc. I rather have him if i'm serious about winning it all.
We have a good farm. But we still have a defensive hole in SS and third. Woody and Hinske may pan out, but there should be plan B just in case. Sequea just do not look like 05 answer for SS, he has played mostly 2B and nobody has reported he stands out defensively.
So it just look that it is a need to be adressed from outside sources.

Re future Jays shortstops. I like both Hill and Adams, but, as many commentators have noted, they may represent the Jays' future at 3B and 2B, respectively. (Granted, it's early.)

I haven't heard any speculation about Sequea and Peralta. Can they really be considered legit contenders for 'Jays SS of the future'?

Hidams would be a great SS. Hill has a strong arm but weak range. Adams has good range but a weak arm. They are questionable as the Jays SS of the future. Sequea is probably not the answer, he is more of a utility type. Peralta is still too young to tell. Finding a strong SS for 2005 and 2006 will be one of JP's prime goals over the next 12 months. The contender could be internal, but this could be one area where the Jays might have to engineer a trade.

benum, no offense intended but there is no way that Carlos would command more than Vlad or even be in the same range.

Vlad has a 5 year deal. If he signed a 3 year deal (which was never in the cards but let's pretend) I think he would have got around 55 Million (~18 Mil per season). If Carlos has another Monstrous year without serious injury (I stated that his performance in 2004 was a factor in the dollar amount) I could see 1 year/$15, 2 year/$14 or 3 year/$12 being the ballpark required. I don't know if the Jays would be interested or not but he is:
A) On Offensive force
B) Beloved in the Community
C) A leader regarded as "good in the clubhouse"

I see Delgado as the Frank Robbie to the Jays Orioles in 2004-06

Moffatt is much more conservative than I with the raises (players like Phelps and Hudson will get more $$ than that and that list is missing Spieir and Woodward) but we're pretty much telling the same story.

Er, Speier.

http://economics.about.com
Moffatt is much more conservative than I with the raises (players like Phelps and Hudson will get more $$ than that and that list is missing Spieir and Woodward) but we're pretty much telling the same story.

Neither Hudson or Phelps will be due for arbitration, so I guessed 400K. If you change that to 500K or 600K each it doesn't change much.

I assumed that both Woodward and Speier won't be offered arbitration. If one or two of them are kept, then they'll have less than $7-10M to spend, but they'll also have one or two less roster roles to fill.

One factor nobody has brought up is the Leafs. I think if the Leafs either (a) make it to the Stanley Cup or (b) are bounced out in the first round, it's all anyone will talk about all summer and people will ignore the Jays.

The best thing for the Jays will be for the Leafs to have a playoff run like last year, so people aren't dwelling on it too much either way.

Also if Aaron and the Cheer Club are successful, it should bring more people to the dome which may spur Rogers to invest more in teh team.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike M, That's a helpful summary. I'd have some names off, and some names from the minors on (tentatively), but the cost would be essentially the same. The only issue from a cost perspective would be Woodward, but even assuming he has a good season in 2004, his salary in 2005 would not bust this budget.