Damn formatting ...

The Yankees don't play in Queens (1) and it was no "Miracle" (2) by the Red Sox, it was a team slightly favored to win the series... winning the series, slightly.

That picture is the rudest thing I've ever seen on the Box.

Coming back from a 3-0 deficit is pretty miraculous (in a secular sense), don't you think?

It came up in NFH's A-Rod thread, but I'll raise it here- this is what we've been waiting for. Bunch of panic moves that go over Cashman's head or force his hand, based on embarassment instead of reason. It could mean they walk away from the winter a better team, but probably not. It isn't a given that they'll get Beltran or anyone else they decide to grab. Hopefully, they dump Vasquez thinking he's done, and make a couple of other rash moves.

What an amazing series, and what a great time to live in NYC.

It isn't a given that they'll get Beltran or anyone else they decide to grab.

What free agents in recent times have the Yankees wanted to sign, but haven't signed?

The Yankees will spend a lot of money this off season. So much so that it will mean the other 29 teams can't compete and have no shot at winning the World Series.

I think it's funny how everyone (in New York) say that they have the best fans in the world, but they are the only city that has to bring riot gear into the ball park when things don't go their way.

On another thread it was mentioned that there is a quota on the number of Type A/B FA a team can sign. Does anyone know the exact rules on this?

I saw on SportsCentre this morning that they're going to have Dan and Buck filing daily reports from the World Series.
That might be interesting.

I've never heard of the quota before... not sure it acutally exists... The A/B/C rating only deals with the type of compensation required... Anaheim signed three type-A free agents last season, which is why the Jays only got the Angels third round pick for Escobar, who was rated a type-A, but below Guerrero and Colon. Plus Guillen was type A or B.

A Boston-Houston series would be wonderfully full of echoes of the past. The shared post-season failures, and the players who were part of course. Roger Clemens and Jeff Bagwell, of course.

But, what about Curt Schilling? In early 1991, the Astros acquired Pete Harnisch, Curt Schilling and Steve Finley for Glenn Davis. It was commonly thought at the time that they had been hosed. Schilling pitched one season in middle relief for the Astros and was so-so, and was shipped off to Philadelphia (for Jason Grimsley) where he immediately exploded on the league as a starter. Easy come, easy go. If that single trade had not been made, it seems likely that the Astros might have had a WS ring or two in the late 90s.

http://www.geocities.com/deviant_weirdos
What free agents in recent times have the Yankees wanted to sign, but haven't signed?

Schilling!

I've never heard of the quota before... not sure it acutally exists...

It does exist, I just can't find the specifics on it right now.

If I remember correctly it's not all that limiting.

Schilling wasn't a free agent.

Just a remarkable series .... I'll be happy to tell my kid I watched the greatest comeback in post-season baseball history while assembling his baby play station. :-)

Did Boston win this series, or did New York lose it? The Yankees lost two extra-inning games that could've gone either way, and they had the winning run at the plate in the 9th inning of Game 6. They got very few breaks, if any, during this series. They manhandled Boston in the first three games; would anyone have predicted this outcome after the 19-8 game? This was a powerful club. And yet ... they had a 3-0 lead in the series, and they were leading in the ninth inning of Game 4 with the greatest post-season closer ever on the mound -- and they lost it all. Jeter hit .245/.339/.347 in the playoffs, .192/.344/.231 in the ALCS. One hundred and eighty million dollars in the payroll, yet Tanyon Sturtze was still a key setup man. A-Rod had a 1000+ OPS in the playoffs, yet everyone's talking about The Slap. These are not the Yankees we know and love to hate.

This has already been a momentous series for Blue Jays fans, and more upheaval could be on the way if Boston wins the Series. The Yankees are exposed on what used to be their strength: the expectation and inevitability that they would always win -- something I referenced only two days ago. All good things must come to an end, and this dynasty is no exception. Yankee pitching is deeply suspect, and the position players are aging rapidly. The best free agents on the market -- the two Carloses, Beltran and Delgado -- would boost their offence, but they wouldn't help their pitching problem. Pedro Martinez would be a risky signing for anyone, and once you get past him, the best free-agent hurler is ex-Yankee prospect Eric Milton. Paul Quantrill looks to be done, and Tom Gordon could be slowing down. Rivera is mortal. In the new age of fiscal responsibility, the number of inflated contracts the Yankees can acquire for minor-league baubles is rapidly running out.

This is, in a real sense, a crisis moment for the Yankee organization. If they're fortunate, Brian Cashman and others in the front office can convince Steinbrenner that the great run is ending -- perhaps it ended last night -- and that the time has come to start a new one. They should remind him that the soul of the Yankee dynasty rose up from within the organization -- something that the current Yankee farm system, neglected and depleted, could not duplicate today; Randy Johnson could not be obtained for Dioner Navarro and friends. New York will hardly be a .500 team next year -- Javier Vazquez, for one, should rebound, unless he's been hiding an injury -- but the decline is unmistakable, and soon or late, the rebuilding will have to begin.

If that wasn't enough, consider the effects of a possible Red Sox World Series championship. The ghosts are exorcised, the Curse is broken, yada yada yada. New England goes on a two-week bender, and Curt Schilling gets the Purple Heart. Fine. But what about next year? John Henry will have his ring, and probably will not be inclined to spend another $130 million to get another one. Free agents, most notably Pedro and quite possibly Cabrera, will depart; will Henry be motivated to replace them with top-priced talent? Blue Jays fans can attest that troughs often follow a championship high; those troughs are lower when the farm system is not strong, and Boston's is not strong. The Red Sox aren't as close to their decline phase as the Yankees are -- this is still a rich club run by smart people, a dangerous combination, and if they lose the Series, they'll reload and try harder next year -- but a Series win would definitely mark a massive culture change in that organization, and thus in the division.

The overall conclusion one can draw here is that for the first time in quite a while, there's real hope for Jays fans that these two immovable monoliths ahead of them in the AL East might just be starting to move.

What free agents in recent times have the Yankees wanted to sign, but haven't signed?

Notably, Greg Maddux,whoeveryone "knew" would end up in pinstripes; sound familiar, Beltran-baiters?

Now if the Jays could just get past the Orioles and Devil Rays, they'd be all set!

Pedro Martinez would be a risky signing for anyone, and once you get past him, the best free-agent hurler is ex-Yankee prospect Eric Milton.

Jordan, there's a Mr. Pavano on Line 1 who would like a word ...

I stand by my prediction that Beltran will be playing twenty million dollar stickball in Scott Boras' backyard next year.

True, I missed Pavano ... it's kind of cool that both Pedro and Pavano, who were once dealt for each other, are available. Maybe the Expos will cut Tony Armas Jr. loose to make it a threesome.

Last comment came out snarkier than intended.

Great analysis Jordan! I think, though, that the Jays use the "AL East" crutch way too much. The Yankees & Red Sox weren't the problem this year; the Jays simply stunk. Same with 2002.

2003 was an exception, but how often are you going to have career years from your 3 best players at the same time?

The problem with the Jays isn't that they're trying to compete with the Yankees & the Red Sox. The problem with the Jays is that they're not one of the 10 best teams in baseball.

I'm curious to know:

If this team finished in last place again next season, would you fire the general manager?

Very true, Mike, and neither the O's nor the Rays are going to get worse. But the Jays are in a position to move up themselves: many of their best organizational assets are still at Double-A, while the Yanks' best assets are in their mid-30s. And really, I'd be quite happy to see the Boston-New York crutch removed. It's easy to blame the unfair system for your own shortcomings, but if both the Yanks and BoSox fall back to mortal status, the spotlight will shine directly on the front office at Skydome. And it will make it harder for Rogers to maintain a low payroll if they can't play the "What's the use?" card.

I should add that if we are in fact seeing the end of the Yankee dynasty, it's been a great one that deserves tremendous credit. It may have been propped up with free-agent money at the end, but in its heyday, it was a home-grown juggernaut of the kind every fan would wish for. And I still wouldn't want to face them in a short series.

There's been so much talk today of whether to call this series a "Sox comeback" or a "Yankee collapse." It's gotta be both anyway you cut it, but I think people are forgetting the Yankee leads in Games 4 and 5. 4-3 bottom 9 in Game 4 and Rivera walks Millar? I'd call that choking. Same with Game 5-up 4-2 in the 8th and an Ortiz HR followed by...a Millar walk sets up that comeback too. The Yankees had 2 opportunities and it was gagged away by their bullpen. Not to take too much away from the Sox, impressive feat, but it was still a monumental collapse of "Sports' Most Winning Franchise" (I hate how Charlie Steiner says that on the YES commercials).

So today's a happy day. Although I must admit, I'm not solidly rooting for the NL squad to beat the Red Sox so the misery of their fans continue.

If this team finished in last place again next season, would you fire the general manager?

The Jays? Not unless there was no improvement from 2004, not unless the plan had clearly failed, not unless I had a solid replacement, and not unless I was prepared for another organizational 90-degree turn that a new GM would require. I don't see any of those in the cards for this time next year.

So if you saw improvement and the Jays finished last in the division again, you wouldn't fire the general manager? I'm not sure you'd have to hire a GM that would be a 90-degree turn.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is at what point would people determine that the plan has "clearly failed" and whether there is in fact such a point.

Notably, Greg Maddux,who everyone "knew" would end up in pinstripes; sound familiar, Beltran-baiters?

Which was what, a decade ago now?

Notably, Greg Maddux,who everyone "knew" would end up in pinstripes; sound familiar, Beltran-baiters?

I don't recall Maddux going around canvassing for a job in NY like Beltran has been.

"We didn't deserve to win. They played better than us." - Derek Jeter

The Yankees will obviously make a big run at Beltran - he's the best FA out there. The next best is Beltre, but he plays 3B. They'll probably go after Pavano. Martinez I'm not sure. Possibly out of spite. He's still a great pitcher if handled very carefully - but I'm not sure Joe Torre's the guy for that.

A big problem for the Yankees this year was that Torre had leaned so heavily on the front half of his staff, especially his three best relievers, that they had nothing left for October. Quantrill, pitching on a bad leg, started creaking halfway through the season. Gordon was doing more harm than good by the time October arrived. And its tempting to wonder if Rivera was at all affected by the tragedy in his home. From all accounts, he sounds like the type of man capable of carrying that burden, and he hardly pitched badly - still, he blew three saves in two weeks after blowing two in all his previous postseasons combined.

Yankee watchers have always complained that Torre gives pitchers a couple of chances, and if he doesn't like them right away, he tends to bury them away. That might have come back to bite them. Still, the other three guys in his bullpen this postseason - Sturtze, Heredia, and Voldemort - actually did a pretty good job.

Free agents in which the Yankees were interested, yet not signed by the Yankees:

Randy Johnson
Barry Bonds
Manny Ramirez (the first time around)
Alex Rodriguez (ditto)
Kevin Brown (ditto)
Andy Pettitte (this year)
Juan Gonzalez
Mike Hampton

More on the NY-Bos series. Michael Kay-- a definite Yankee homer has made the following comments this morning:

1) If Torre hadn't signed an extension, he would be fired.
2) The Yankees should have started Mussina in game 4 so that he'd be available in game 7. (20/20 hindsight of course)

I agree with Jeter. The better team did win. The Yankees got hurt with the Olerud injury, because Clark was clearly overmatched. Brown and Vazquez were arguably the worst pitchers for the Yanks in the last month and they were left to pitch game 7.

Completely agree with Magpie's comments about the bullpen.

Michael Kay is the voice of the Yankees on YES and also has a show on ESPN radio. Should have explained that...

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is at what point would people determine that the plan has "clearly failed" and whether there is in fact such a point.

I respectfully disagree with my learned brother Jordan on this point. I absolutely think JP should be gone if the club moves in any direction but forward at the big-league level this season. Lots of best-laid plans went awry this season, but that doesn't excuse JP from his obligation to lay those plans even more carefully this year. Optimism v. 2005 is not as justified as optimism v. 2004 was; JP needs to address significant problems.

Given the inherent unpredictability of prospects, a team that descends into big-league utter irrelevance in May (April?) would possibly do more harm to the Blue Jays franchise than the solid farm system would do it good. He absolutely should be given a chance for next year. But I'd oppose him vigourously if the Jays can't crack 70 wins in '05.

Other random LCS notes...

Anybody else notice that Matsui did almost nothing after Pedro knocked him down in Game 5?

If you had known in advance that Manny Ramirez would drive in zero runs in the series, who would have you expected to win?

Orlando Cabrera in 2004 was a huge upgrade over Normar Garciaparra in 2003. Huge.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is at what point would people determine that the plan has "clearly failed" and whether there is in fact such a point.

The Jays could improve next year and still conceivably finish last through little fault of their own. The Orioles may choose to accelerate their spending to fend off a new Washington competitor, while Tampa really is assembling a solid core of young talent. And the Jays have a ways to climb from a 94-loss campaign.

At what point would I say the plan has failed? I probably wouldn't make that judgment until the fruits of the Ricciardi drafts hit the majors (or don't, as the case might be). Russ Adams and David Bush are making an excellent first impression on me; if Josh Banks and Aaron Hill have the same impact, I'd be very favourably inclined that my GM was drafting good talent. This club will rise or fall on homegrown pitching, so if that pitching thrives, my confidence will be buoyed; if it coughs and dies, then the GM will be in trouble.

Beyond that, I'd be worried if my GM consistently acquires and commits to non-performing players and coaches, calling into question his talent radar; my GM's team had a great 2003 and quite a questionable 2004, so he's not on thin ice, but I'm paying close attention. Vernon Wells good, Eric Hinske bad, Roy Halladay unlucky thus far.

My GM will also be judged on how young players do or not develop under his reign. My GM's coaches helped turn 47th-round draft choice Orlando Hudson into a Gold-Glove-calibre second baseman. They also turned Josh Phelps into Eric Crozier. Again, I'm still at the data-collecting stage.

Finally, there's the question of resources. If my GM has half or one-third of the financial resources of his divisional counterparts, I'm not going to hang all the blame for a last-place finish on him. At the same time, my GM was hired to compete on a budget, and he will ultimately be judged on how well he does that. I'd be willing to boost his resources into the $60-65M range, depending on circumstances (higher if contention is at hand); but he will not receive a $100 million payroll, because that's not what he was hired to work with.

Overall, I probably wouldn't give up on my GM till at least until sometime during the 2006 season, when enough evidence of his performance should be in. I personally doubt that will be an issue by then, but we shall see.

I'm holding out hope that JP will make some moves this off season to make the team better. I am a believer in his philosophy, still believe that he is a good drafting GM and will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. I also think that injuries played a major factor this season.

That being said, I'm really concerned about the Blue Jays offense next year. Without some major improvements I don't see the Jays finishing out of last place. I also think that the Ligtenburg, Hinske and Batista contracts are a burden on this team and it is direct result of decisions JP has made. If the Jays are in the same situation this time next year, I think you definitely have to question his effectiveness.

I still have hope that this won't be the case.

Free agents in which the Yankees were interested, yet not signed by the Yankees:

Randy Johnson
Barry Bonds
Manny Ramirez (the first time around)
Alex Rodriguez (ditto)
Kevin Brown (ditto)
Andy Pettitte (this year)
Juan Gonzalez
Mike Hampton

I don't remember all of these, but the Yanks made no real attempts at either Bonds or ARod when they were free agents.

I think Hudson should be given most of the credit for turning himself into a gold glove caliber feilder. on the other hand, you could give the coaches credit for helping Hinske's feilding.

A big problem for the Yankees this year was that Torre had leaned so heavily on the front half of his staff, especially his three best relievers, that they had nothing left for October

Precisely what I said before the series. My own view is that the Yankees exceeded their Pythagorean projection by so much because they had a fine front end of the bullpen that was overworked during the season. In that sense, the manner of their success contributed to their post-season defeat- they could very well have lost to the Twins.

As for the future, Steinbrenner is 74 years old. Putting myself in his shoes, it would be easy to say that this year's Yankees were just a little short in the pitching and defence department, and the acquisition of Beltran and Pavano would address these deficiencies well. My guess is that the Yanks keep going full throttle for the WS ring until they fall way short.

Not that this should be a crutch for the Jays.

As for the yankees, lets just say they got all of the "top 3" type free agents they ever chased. guys like maddux wouldn't fit into this category. Guys like ARod would, but they never chased him. ditto for Manny, at that time, they were more interested in Mussina (good choice is you ask me).

Without knowing the details of the major-league teaching process, which will differ for each individual player, it's very difficult to say which players deserve more or less credit for their improvement. But the coaches unquestionably have the responsibility for their players' performance, and with that responsibility comes either credit or blame, as the case may be. And ultimate responsibility rests with the man who put them in charge.

The Yankees have never won without LH pitching and LH power. Never. And generally, lots of it. They had a pretty decent LH starter these last ten years, and they could have used him this post-season. I guess Houston wishes they could use him, too.

And the best LH pitcher out there is Eric Milton? That's not good enough for George.

With Giambi questionable at least, does George contemplate going after Delgado? Or would someone like Palmeiro make more sense for the Yankees. They need some insurance at 1B. I wouldn't want to be counting on Jason Giambi, not at this point...

This is another reason why it was so important for Boston to neutralize Matsui. He had, by default, become the Yankees major LH power source.

Jorge Posada, historically, has never done much in the post-season. He's usually pretty burned out from playing 140 games by the time it arrives.

Bernie Williams is still dangerous, but he's a shell of his former self. His career BAVG is still precariously above .300 but he's hit .263 and .262 and he doesn't figure to improve...

I'm not saying it was the Pedro knockdown that stopped Matsui - more likely just the fact that no one could keep hitting the way he was hitting. Anyway, he was 12-22 (.545) when Pedro buzzed him; he went 2-12 from that point on

Didn't George Stienbrenner say that Delgado will never wear a Yankee's uniform because of his protest in not standing for God Bless America?

Not that it really matters what Stienbrenner says.

I appreciate the responses, fellas. While I agree with nearly everything you've said, Jordan, I feel like finishing last in two consecutive years would indicate that the plan has failed. I have full confidence in JP's intelligence and judgment with the limitations that have been put on him by the ownership. However, there comes a time when you have to look at results. I think 2006 is the right year to do that so long as some improvement is shown next year. If this team is dead in May as Mike D said, I think the organization will need to do something significant either in terms of a payroll increase or a change in leadership. Let's hope it's all a doomsday scenario.

One of the things that troubles me is the idea of looking at the Jays in a vacuum. I don't think that's the way to do it. I think you have to factor in other clubs improving, particularly in a division where there are three owners with tremendous financial resources at their disposal. So, while improvement is nice, the improvement has to keep up with the Rays and Orioles level of improvement and surpass it. That should be the easy part. In 2006, the idea (I believe) was to keep up with the Red Sox and Yankees. While I like the drafts and what I've seen from some of the prospects, I haven't really seen anything that leads me to believe that we'll be able to do that.

If the Yanks sign Beltran, what happens to Williams? Bernie's signed for $12 million next season, and that's a lot for a designated hitter who's not hitting anymore (his last five OPS+ totals: 136, 140, 143, 109, 110). And if Giambi's around, he should be the DH.

If Beltran comes aboard, the Yanks might simply cut Bernie loose, or dump him on a team that's still in the market for aura. It would be a repeat of the ugly Pettitte situation, and that one may have hurt the Yanks, in a number of ways, more than they expected.

Palmeiro's an intriguing possibility for New York.

As for the yankees, lets just say they got all of the "top 3" type free agents they ever chased. guys like maddux wouldn't fit into this category.

I'm presuming that when people talk of Maddux as a FA they mean back in the day, when he was the best pitcher in baseball, not the man bearing his name this past off-season.

the Yanks made no real attempts at either Bonds...

I could be wrong (it was a long time ago) but I thought the Yankees were sniffing around after Bonds back in 1993 and a great many people did expect him to go there at the time.

However the Yankees basically said to Andy Pettite "So long, its been good to know ya." Steinbrenner, for some unfathomable reason, never seemed to think much of him.

I absolutely think JP should be gone if the club moves in any direction but forward at the big-league level this season.

I think that's setting the bar a little low. They just lost 94 games, winning 70 would be a step forward.

But I think they're still in the player acquisition and development phase and not yet at the "putting players on the field to win" phase. If they get to that point, and its not working....

the Ligtenburg, Hinske and Batista contracts are a burden on this team

Ligtenberg - Nah, its just for one year, and he'll probably bounce back

Hinske - For sure

Batista - Depends to some extent on his role, but I don't think so. Even if he's just a league average starter, that has real value.

My guess is that the Yanks keep going full throttle for the WS ring until they fall way short.

That's the only way George knows how to do it. I don't imagine turning 74 is going to make him want to be patient...

The problem with the Jays isn't that they're trying to compete with the Yankees & the Red Sox. The problem with the Jays is that they're not one of the 10 best teams in baseball.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

By the way, John Kerry is "giddy" over last night's game.

Bernie Williams would be an acceptable DH. His GPA+ would be in the 120-125 range, which is fine. He's particularly effective from the right side, so if you sit him 30-40 games per year against righties, you'd probably get that up to 130 or so. Olerud, Giambi (or Delgado, if Giambi cannot play) and Williams would make a fine 1b/dh set-up.

If the Yanks sign Beltran, what happens to Williams?

Remember how close Boston came to signing Bernie Williams way back when? If I recall, it was awfully close to happening.

How many long-term FA deals don't end up being organizational albatrosses? Are these largely a thing of the past or will Anaheim and Baltimore be desperately trying to fob off Guerrero and Tejada several years from now?

I think Williams should seriously considering investing in a first baseman's glove. While he may well get the heave ho, with his contract eaten, I think it's much likelier that he'll stick around, being a Torre favorite and all. There figures to be playing time at 1B for anyone inclined to give it a whirl.

By the way, John Kerry is "giddy" over last night's game.

He is particularily glad that Manny Ortez won the ALCS MVP.

I agree about Williams, though. If Tony Clark and John Olerud are the 1/2 options for the Yankees, then Williams has to be considered there if Giambi never recovers fully.

Another thing regarding next season is the possibility of a full-season NHL lockout. If the Jays are floating face-down come Victoria Day, with no Leafs to distract the sporting fan base, Paul Godrfey might be feeling a lot of heat. There's no shortage of factors out there.

But you know, this is all speculation after a dismal season. The odds are good that the Jays will be better next season, and I'm not going to worry too much about how much rope JP needs to get hanged. I think this team will be competitive soon enough, and I think the franchise is still on solid ground.

I mentioned this to someone before yesterday's game, and now it might not be applicable. Would it make sense for the Jays to take a run at signing Derek Lowe? My reasoning was, he is one of the ground ball pitchers the Jays seem to like (although they do seem a open to someone who can just plain get outs), he has had two straight poor regular seasons (maybe this is enough of a reason not to sign him) so his price would be reasonable, and he seems to have problems with Francona so the possibility of returning to Boston seemed rather low.

Last night changed a few things. He had a big game under an incredible spotlight which might drive his price up a bit, although if he had lasted a few more innings I think the price would have spiked. I'm also not sure if he still has that animosity with Francona who effectively gave him this opportunity.

So I was wondering whether you thought Lowe was still affordable, and if so, are you interested in him?

I can't see the Yankees just releasing Bernie. As a baseball decision, if they sign Beltran, that's defensible. But he'd probably veto any trade and I have to think that they would have to treat a guy that's been with the organization that long better than that.

I have to think that they would have to treat a guy that's been with the organization that long better than that.

Steinbrenner? You're kidding, right?

I missed this, and its got to be the best quote of the year. Its Juan Rincon after his awful 8th inning in Game 4:

"No one wants to be in my pants right now."

Hey, I know that feeling...

I think Lowe will get more money than he's worth. I don't think going after Lowe is the right move. Especially considering that the Blue Jays have the worst offense in baseball (as it stands right now without Delgado)

I think 2006 is the right time to evaluate JP's results. If the Jays still look like they are years away from competing, I think that is a problem. My guess is they will look substancially better by that point and right now we are down because we are recovering from a horrible season hangover.

So I was wondering whether you thought Lowe was still affordable, and if so, are you interested in him?

I don't think Lowe's any more than an average pitcher. His ERA+ was 105 and 90 the past two years. I think his 2002 season is a fluke.

Year, K, BB
2002, 127, 48
2003, 110, 72
2004, 105, 71

He's going to be paid more than what an average pitcher would get. I don't think I would pay him more than $3 million/year. He'll get at least twice that.

Great baseball this past week!

I think kid Theo deserves to take a bow. Yes, he had lots of money to spend, but he did it wisely.(I.E... Ortiz,Millar of waivers) I think his most underated move was getting the speedster Dave Roberts. Too often Stat-Head G.M.'s are derided because they don't like the stolen base. This I don't think is true, obtaining a high percentage basestealer such as Roberts proved to be quite valuable.

I also really liked the moves of Francona. He's decisive and proactive and really seemed to push all the right buttons.

I wonder if J.P. and Billy Beane are perhaps a bit wistfull today regarding what could have been?

Roy Halladay's most comparable player at BR right now: Pat Hentgen.

Who's second? Schoolboy Rowe.

There aren't enough players named Schoolboy.

I still think someone should ask Steinbrenner if he really wants to keep that bum, vazquez, around.

How good a pitcher is Pavano, really? It seems like there is lots of talk about him being a free agent pitching gem this offseason, but I don't see that he's really done enough to prove himself as a top quality big league pitcher. In parts of seven seasons, he's had exactly one full season where he pitched as an above average pitcher. While he was very effective this past year (ERA+ of 137), he did that with a strikeout rate of only 5.6k/9, in a pitchers stadium. He does have good control and he keeps the ball in the park pretty well, but his stats don't say to me that he is going to be a dominant pitcher for a long time - I'd certainly be worried about giving him a long term deal at this point.

But you know, this is all speculation after a dismal season. The odds are good that the Jays will be better next season, and I'm not going to worry too much about how much rope JP needs to get hanged. I think this team will be competitive soon enough, and I think the franchise is still on solid ground.

I completely agree with Jordan here. My limited point is just that I don't believe JP should be given a free pass on another disastrous season at the major league level. There were extenuating circumstances this year.

I completely agree with that as well.

There's no way after this humiliation that Steinbrenner is going to take his foot off the peddle. He might do something irrational and drastic like fire his GM and/or manager. You can say Cashman should have been more frugal with his budget but I'm sure Steinbrenner has a big say in how it's spent. He'll only pay for what he perceives to be the best players even if it means long term contracts at big dollars.

That said, Cashman SHOULD have been able to do much better than a bench of Ruben Sierra, Tony Clark, and Kenny Lofton. Meanwhile over the past few years the Red Sox have been picking up David Ortiz, Kevin Millar, Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn, Dave Roberts, and others at very reasonable rates. I don't understand with that payroll how Tanyon Sturtze, a guy with a 5.50+ era and 1.40+ whip in the regular season becomes your main setup man. Not that he didn't do the job but it's just amazing that the Twins can field such a deep pen on a third of the budget while the Yankees can't. Do you think they could use Brazoban whom they traded for Kevin Brown about now?

As for the Jays, I'm relatively happy with the drafting. There's not much to complain about there so far with players having moved quickly and showing promise at the big league level. And yes they are very limited in what they can do on the field especially in light of Delgado taking up about 40% of a low payroll for the past three years. But drafting over several years is really the brute force method of team improvement. We had a very nice core of players in place when JP took over in both the majors and the minors and it's been slowly dwindling away.

Will the draftees ever catch up quick enough to all make an impact at the same time? I doubt it. That's why the decisions made at the major league level and moves to bring in (and send away) players at the major league level are so important. This is where the Jays have been seriously lax although they've hit with some second tier players (Myers, Zaun, Menechino etc). But second tier players don't make you a winning team.

Hinske's deal, Stewart for Kielty (which through good fortune was reversed), Lopez/Perry for Arnold/Griffin, Werth for Frasor, Phelps for Crozier. Hentgen for $2+ million. Ligtenberg for two years at twice the option the Orioles declined. The jury is still very much out on just how much more shrewd our front office is than other front offices. And that's really the only way we can hope to advance with a lower payroll. By being better at seeing things than other people.

The good thing is that the Jays are getting a lot more depth in the rotation and pen from the farm system in the next year or two. Some of that is thanks to JP's mature player drafting philosophy, some thanks to the players that were already in the low-to-mid minors when he arrived. But again this is the brute force method of team building. Anyone can be content to be mediocore or bad for several years while building up a farm system. You have to use other avenues to supplement and accelerate and the Jays have just not been very successful at that. Outside of Lilly you can think of many very positive moves. Cat was a good move if he can stay healthy.

It's not enough for JP to get players who are OK for the money. He has to get players who are GREAT for the money. We're trying to compete with teams fielding All-Star squads here. The only way you do that is to make some risky signings. Hentgen at $2 million is a bad risk with little upside. David Ortiz for $1 million for Boston a couple of years ago was a good signing with a very high upside. I mean you put Ligtenberg and Hentgen's money together and you have enough to pursue a Benitez level of free agent. Even signing guys like Dave Berg, Chris Gomez, and others of that ilk are not helping this team. If they're going cheap they have to give the spot to a minor league utility player (Sequea?) and pool that 'utility veteran' money towards a higher impact acquisition.

Sheesh this ended up being a book. Well to sum up...good job Boston. It will be interesting to see how much the Yankees do this off-season. They certainly won't be sitting still. Not that they ever do. And Blue Jays...please be more creative and more risk bearing than spreading out your low payroll over several medicore players.

Also, Matt Clement, Brad Radke, and Matt Morris are on the free agent market as well I believe. Maybe I'm wrong about Clement. I would take either of them long before I took Eric Milton. There's probably a few other names I'd take before Milton but I don't have a free agent list with me.

The Roster's Roundtable dissemination of the 2004 Blue Jays is nearing completion, and we hope to start posting excerpts early next week. Just an FYI.

RBillie, I read your book and think you have made some very excellent points.

I second that thought. Excellent post.

Do you think they could use Brazoban whom they traded for Kevin Brown about now?

Hell, they could have used Weaver.

There's no way after this humiliation that Steinbrenner is going to take his foot off the peddle

Peddling, maybe; buying for sure.:)

You guys are forgetting the worst thing about Delgado going to the Yanks, he's gonna look really weird without the goatee.

I think R Billie has a good point about the Jays blowing money where it wasn't needed the past couple of years. The Yankees and Red Sox can spend $1 million on a utility infielder who cannot hit but the Jays cannot. This year the Jays spent $800k on Dave Berg (never really more than a 1/2 decent backup for 2B), $750k on Chris Gomez (good d, not much else ever in his career), $775k on Woodward (although he was to be the starter thus worth a shot). That was $2.325 million for 3 guys who could've been replaced (and almost were) for $900k (Adams, Menencheno at 400k, and a photo of a good player for Berg - OK, a bit cruel there) thus saving over $1 million. I thought Gomez and Berg were a bit much at the time, Woodward I'd have kept for this season too, although I'd have played him in at least 1/2 the games.

The pen was ugly and expensive. Valerio de los Santos $850k, Justin Speier $1.6 million, Kerry Ligtenberg $2 million, Terry Adams $1.7 million. 3 were free agents while Speier was a salary dump by Colorado. Why sign Adams (Jan 7th) when you already had the others (delos was on 12/27, Speier on the 14th, Ligtenberg on the 8th) plus Lopez who was expected to be a lot better than he was? A lot of money blown there that didn't have to be.

In the end, we hope JP has learned from these expensive lessons. For the $2.5 million spent on delos and Adams (after the rest of the pen was put together) plus the extra $1 million on utility infielders he might've been able to get Tom Gordon (paid $3.5 million by the Yankees to be a setup man) who would've been a big improvement on the Jays closer situation. I think he was who they wanted instead of Ligtenberg but went cheap, then blew the money elsewhere.

Guess we'll see in a few weeks if he learned or not eh?

For the $2.5 million spent on delos and Adams (after the rest of the pen was put together) plus the extra $1 million on utility infielders he might've been able to get Tom Gordon (paid $3.5 million by the Yankees to be a setup man) who would've been a big improvement on the Jays closer situation.

But would Tom Gordon have wanted to pitch here? I think that one of the problems that J.P. faces is that many players just don't want to play in Toronto (foreign country, funny turf, relative lack of chance of contention). I wonder whether J.P. has to pay a salary premium to land anybody at all.

Guess we'll see in a few weeks if he learned or not eh?

I don't know, there weren't too many voices of dissent a year ago on the free agent signings. Nearly all of the 'wasting money' posts have been done in retrospect.

The Jays were after Worrell and offered him more money than the Phillies but he didn't want to come to the Jays. Gordon was never coming. The Yanks would have simply outbid the Jays. Hindsight is great but most people had no problem with the signings other than Ligtenberg. A question that's never been asked is why the Jays didn't trade Hendrickson for Kennedy rather than a 3 way for Speir.

I agree with Pistol. Last year people were crying that the Jays shouldn't keep signing cheap relievers who make just over the minimum like Tam and Creek, who were both around 600K. Instead they should sign higher quality guys who make more.

That should read Speier.

There was a lot of concern that Kennedy was overused in Tampa and his arm was basically fried. Given the grief J.P. took over Prokopec, could you blame him for not taking another potentially injured starter?

Nearly all of the 'wasting money' posts have been done in retrospect.

You're right, Pistol. But the thought at the time was that these relievers would be an effective bridge to a dominant Aquilino Lopez. Or that the infielders would mentor the still-improving likes of Woodward and Hinske.

I think it's wrong to indict JP in hindsight. It's perfectly OK, though, to say now -- with foresight -- that the strategy of signing complementary role players to help out the current core of the club is unlikely to work going forward. At least in the short term.

Come on, Moffatt. You don't have to be a "crybaby" to express a view that the '03 bullpen wasn't optimally constructed.

Nearly all of the 'wasting money' posts have been done in retrospect.

It goes in cycles. All the people who are complaining that the 2004 bullpen could have been filled much more cheaply were complaining at this time last year that the low cost 2003 bullpen didn't get the job done and that JP needed to spend money on quality relievers.

With a limited budget, you either have to do one of two things:

1. Get players who make a lot and surround them by guys who make the minimum.

OR

2. Spread the money evenly around the different positions that needed to be filled.

The Jays took a lot of heat in 2002-2003 for using option 1 and relying on guys like Doug Davis and Jose Acevedo.

The Jays took a lot of heat in 2004 for using option 2.

Mike D is right, though, by saying the Jays need to identify what to do going forward. Unfortunately I doubt either approach will work and J.P. will get blamed for making the wrong choice, when there's in fact no right choice.

Come on, Moffatt. You don't have to be a "crybaby" to express a view that the '03 bullpen wasn't optimally constructed.

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is people are going to complain no matter what is done.

And I liked the Adams and Ligtenberg signings. They both pitched extraordinarily badly, relative to both their abilities and their track record. I don't blame JP for signing them at all. If he signs two guys with their track record this offseason, I'll be happy again.

Sturtze, Creek and Tam were big-league mediocrities for their entire careers.

I don't disagree with the deal for Speier. It's just that Kennedy is an intriguing guy (and Jay killer).

I disagree that letting Woodward go paves the way for Adams...

Letting Woodward go is one decision, based in the Jays unwillingness to play him... and bringing up Adams is another based in his readiness...

Before we even saw Adams (in about August) my suggestion was to sign a really big gun SS, that can bat 3rd or 4th, (yea so none exists) but the point is from a salary plan, and batting order standpoint, you DON'T have to replace Carlos with an 1B, you can replace him with an SS..

Now that Adams has had a "decent" September, the question still remains what is he?? Is he Felipe Lopez, Orlando Hudson, or Eddie Zosky... and the sooner we find out the sooner we should act....

but getting rid of Woodward is a no-brainer, if you aren't going to play him anyway... replace him with Gomez is better than paying him for nothing....

And I liked the Adams and Ligtenberg signings.

and I like Speier too...
it gave the Jays what looked like 3 really solid set up and very short relief guys... add a closer and we are set!

You guys are forgetting the worst thing about Delgado going to the Yanks, he's gonna look really weird without the goatee.

True. Carlos has had a goatee ever since...what, 1996? His rookie card picture has no beard, but perfect teeth. He's always had such great teeth; what's up with that?

And nobody mentioned the Woodward news.
I guess we all expected him to be gone, I know I did, although I was secretly hoping he would stay on as a utility player; I don't think he can't take the grind of playing every day, but he has something to offer a team off the bench once or twice a week. 2002 appears to be his best season so far, perhaps because he only started 77 games at short -- 74 for the much-maligned FLop, 11 for Berg. (I didn't think Berg was a Jay in 2002...he's been here three years??)

Oh well, I hope he catches on somewhere and takes a job away from Neifi Perez. Woody deserves to find a place to play where he would mean more to that team than he does to the Jays.

Why sign Adams (Jan 7th) when you already had the others

You can never have too much pitching, but you should assume that one or more members of your bullpen will get hurt, and you can't call up AA pitchers to replace them and get away with it. DLS was hurt this year, Speier and Ligtenberg also saw some DL time, and that's going to happen.

Sure, his signing looks terrible now. But there was no reason to expect Adams to serve up 43 homeruns, 42 of them grand slams by Matthew LeCroy. But he turned into John Hattig, a third baseman whose upside might be a part-time role in Toronto, and he will definitely help Syracuse. If you could quantify "John Hattig minus a bag of baseballs", that's how much more J.P got for Adams than I ever would have thought.

Out of nowhere:
How's our old friend Pete Walker doing in Japan? Anyone know?

Good news all! The ejection pool winnings will be posted shortly in a new thread once NFH works his magic.

Carry on.

Pete Walker is number 43. Not such a good season.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/Stats/box_AFL.shtml
COMN for yesterday's AFL boxscore. Still no Vito. John Hattig hit his 1st homer and is lashing the ball.

I was as critical as anybody during last off-season, but I felt the only move that had significant adverse impact beyond 2004 was the Ligtenberg signing for 2 years. No one's perfect, and I am sure that it's a move that JP wishes he had a mulligan on.

Moving forward, there are four things that I'd like to see for next year:

1. a smaller bullpen
2. a more diverse bench (a 4th and 5th outfielder would be a real plus)
3. quick integration of the young ballplayers, and
4. a modest amount of risk taking.

I don't agree that major league acquisitions are the most important part of the Jays' near future. They are definitely significant; the team will not succeed if they have the equivalent of Dave Berg as their 4th outfielder. But, this team will live or die with the performance of the kids, and in particular of the young pitchers. Young pitchers often fail, but often enough, they can be spectacularly good, and that is this team's hope. Sorting out the young pitchers is the main project for 05-06.

I'm not overly concerned about the bullpen, as much as I am about the offense. That being said, my thoughts on the Jays bullpen signings were as follows:

Ligtenburg - I thought he was a good signing but thought they paid too much for him. I was also extremely curious as to why Baltimore did not renew his option.

Speier - I thought this was a good deal. Speier had led the national league in preventing inherited runners from scoring. In fact I would still like Speier back next year.

Adams - I didn't think this was a good signing, my Philly friends said he was awful, and was only used in low pressure situations because he folded like a cheap tent as soon as there was any pressure.

Des Los Santos - I thought this was a horrible signing and unnecessary, I didn't understand it at the time. I thought, JP must know something I don't.

I'm curious to know:

If this team finished in last place again next season, would you fire the general manager?

Not nearly enough information. I'd be much more likely to fire the GM for other reasons than the team's record, which is subject to 1,000 factors outside GM performance.

at what point would people determine that the plan has "clearly failed" and whether there is in fact such a point

It clearly fails when it clearly fails. That's what "clearly" means... when there's no more ambiguity.

I think you have to factor in other clubs improving, particularly in a division where there are three owners with tremendous financial resources at their disposal.

Why? Why does this matter? What the hell does Boston or Baltimore have to do with the performance of the Blue Jays' manager? This is an idiotic thought, like firing a CEO who is turning around a moribund business, because the guy down the block is making more money.

When J.P. was given the GM job, the reason he took it was that he was the only person who presented a coherent plan that could offer positive results. No one else - and the Jays interviewed several candidates - had any idea of what to do that didn't involve "spend a lot more money". That's a "lot more" than what they were spending at the time - about $25 million more than they are spending now.

No one else wants this job. No one else will take this job. JOIN REALITY, PEOPLE! You can complain all you want about the current GM, and about this year's losing, but if you want to somehow avoid a long string of last-place finishes, he is your only, and I mean ONLY, option. Because what the other candidates promised was that there was *no* way to succeed without spending twice what this team can afford to spend. And that is simply not going to happen. Rogers has taken nine-figure losses on this ballclub since they bought it, and that's in addition to what they sunk into the franchise.

There is no more money until the fans come back to watch, and pay more money for their tickets too - because this team continues to lose money and a lot of it, regardless of whatever insane conspiracy theories you choose to believe about millions of dollars in cash stuffed under Ted Rogers's mattress. This is harsh reality, and this is the way the world works - losing teams with no fans don't get to invest big money in players. You think it's unfair? Too damn bad. Everyone talks about how the team should give away their tickets, splurge on free agents, re-sign Delgado, eat payroll when making trades and a dozen other completely self-contradictory wishees. This is utter, utter foolishness. What you see, right now, is what you get and I know it's hard to adjust to after the early 90s when the Jays fans were spoiled with anything they wanted.

So if you think another last-place finish next year would mean the end of the line, I can respect that. But you better strike a search committee right freaking now for a replacement candidate, because nobody else wanted this job under these conditions in 2001, and I can assure you that it doesn't look that much more attractive now.

John Hattig, a third baseman whose upside might be a part-time role in Toronto

Among 3B with 250+ ABs the median player in OPS was Casey Blake at .271/.354/.486.

This year in AA John Hattig hit .296/.391/.532. I don't see why Hattig's upside can't be at least that - a middle of the pack 3b - especially as he continues to grow into his man strength.

Pistol, I think it's a good idea to remain positive about Hattig, since players from non-traditional areas do sometimes develop on a different curve.

How old is Hattig?

Among 3B with 250+ ABs the median player in OPS was Casey Blake at .271/.354/.486.

.246/.312/.375

I believe Hinske is the bottom of this list.

Hattig's 24, but will turn 25 soon. Here is Casey Blake's career record. It's interesting to note that like Hattig, he had great year at age 24 in Dunedin and Knoxville. He eventually made it as a big-league regular at age 30.

Not nearly enough information. I'd be much more likely to fire the GM for other reasons than the team's record, which is subject to 1,000 factors outside GM performance.

If you'd like to continue to live in your fantasy land, where the record of the major league ballclub isn't relevant, keep on keeping on. This team finished dead last. And for all of the things that you are excited about with this franchise (things that I'm excited about as well), you are the one who must face the reality that it has not worked out so well. Anyone can say not nearly enough information on any single subject on this board. I made lots of comments complimenting the organization. You should step out of the bubble and accept that things have not gone well.

It clearly fails when it clearly fails. That's what "clearly" means... when there's no more ambiguity.

"Clearly fails" is as ambiguous and subjective as anything else out there. So is very clearly fails. And very, very clearly fails.

Why? Why does this matter? What the hell does Boston or Baltimore have to do with the performance of the Blue Jays' manager? This is an idiotic thought, like firing a CEO who is turning around a moribund business, because the guy down the block is making more money.

It matters, Craig, because when you are in last place and people stop watching your games in May and you no longer offer free tickets to season-ticket holders and cheap ticket deals to increase your attendance numbers, you will end up with no fanbase. Any good CEO would know the importance of having customers spending money on their product. So, using your CEO firing analogy, the CEO who is turning around his business, better not have his customer base buying his competitor's merchandise.

I believe in JP and believe in his plan. At the same time, I do not think that he is some sort of divine being above the level of fair criticism.

It's a shame that you've really taken all of the negative things out of my posts, put words in my mouth, ignored the positive points, ignored the Roster member's thoughts that agreed with me, labelled a thought as idiotic, and tried to group me together with an entirely different type of fan that you seem to loathe.

I think you've shown that you are the one that is really in need of a dose of reality. And perhaps a tranquilizer.

Thanks for the Yokohama link, Chuck.
Running the page through Babel Fish translation, I find that Pete Walker had a 6.80 ERA, 46.1 IP, 63 H, 18 HR, 23 K, 20 BB, and the following: "38 Losing points." I couldn't figure that one out. He also had a 10-2 record with 4 saves.
It doesn't look too impressive, especially the 1.79 "Suffering hit plus four mispitched balls divided by frequency of pitch."

This year in AA John Hattig hit .296/.391/.532

I notice Hattig's OBP went down after he was traded, but his ISO improved. Is that about as simple to explain as "Gill Stadium: lots of foul territory, but ball flies over short fences"?

Speier - I thought this was a good deal. Speier had led the national league in preventing inherited runners from scoring. In fact I would still like Speier back next year.

I've never really understood why people put so much stock in the inherited runners stat. It's nice to look at in retrospect to see just how well the pitcher performed in those 30 or 40 situations that he came in with runners on base. But isn't that like looking at how a batter performs with runners on base and deciding how good of a player he is?

I mean pitchers have walk rates, hit rates, strikeout rates, homerun rates. While it might be constructive to look at how they perform out of the stretch as opposed to with no-one on base, I don't think you can look at one season's worth of inherited runner data and conclude that a guy is a good or bad reliever. Based on Speier's other stats he looked like a decent performer but a tremendous one.

I'm sure pitchers blow hot and cold just like hitters. When they're on and healthy they can locate and put guys away when needed. When they aren't 100% they don't perform no matter what the situation.

The irony is, the very best relievers in the game, most of whom are closers, are usually brought in strictly to begin an inning with no-one on base. Often they will also pitch just that one inning.

Addressing another issue about why the Jays pursued Adams. I think it was because they had budget room left and Adams looked like a decent get. I thought at the time he was as good a get as Speier and Ligtenberg with the bonus of allowing relatively few homeruns and performing equally well against righties and lefties while the other two had significant splits. For the first couple of weeks Adams looked great. Then whatever happened after that he completely lost location of his pitches and was as bad as a pitcher can be.

With a limited budget, you either have to do one of two things:

1. Get players who make a lot and surround them by guys who make the minimum.

OR

2. Spread the money evenly around the different positions that needed to be filled.

I don't think it's that black and white. There's room for plenty of shades of grey in between. Whether a certain player is worth a certain amount of money all depends on the situation of that position in your organization and the alternatives available. You have to assess the cost/benefit and opportunity cost.

Is Dave Berg really 2.5 times better than Jorge Sequea? Maybe but it's not a tremendously important position in the big scheme of things. Pay Sequea the minimum and use that $400K saved towards a bigger player. If one of your regular starters goes down you're not getting any significant performance out of Dave Berg on either side of the ball anyway. It's a relatively small risk.

Is Catalanatto, a mid-level player worth his money? If he stays healthy then certainly. He's half of Shannon Stewart in that he can't hit lefties and is earning less than half of Stewart. If you platoon him with someone good at hitting lefties, say Reed Johnson or Jayson Werth or even Josh Phelps, then you've got good production out of one spot in your lineup.

Is Delgado or another front-line player worth $10+ million even with a $50 million payroll? Absolutely as long as you're not committed for too long and you have enough young/cheap talent to make up a lot of the rest of the roster. If you want to split it up into smaller portions paying for multiple players the only way it becomes worth it is if most of those players play above their salary level. Otherwise you're just trading one really good performer in one slot for multiple average performers in multiple slots. That's not a good trade in fantasy or in real life. If the Jays had an equivalent of Casey Kotchman or Nick Johnson or Justin Morneau ready to step in and develop into that level of player it would be different. Or if they had enough offence elsewhere in the lineup which they don't.

Among 3B with 250+ ABs the median player in OPS was Casey Blake at .271/.354/.486.

.246/.312/.375

I believe Hinske is the bottom of this list.

You forgot to mention that Hinkse's contract is an albatross.

I don't think Speier is tremendous, however I do think he is a good reliever and worth keeping.

While I did look at Speiers other numbers, I felt that they may be skued because he pitched for Colorado.

I believe it was a much greater number than 30 or 40 runners, I don't remember exactly but it was about twice that number. Also it's one thing to be good at preventing runners from scoring, it's another to be the best in the league.

You forgot to mention that Hinkse's contract is an albatross.

LOL, I figured I mentioned that enough already for today :)

http://www.sportsnet.ca/mlb/article.jsp?content=20041021_152050_5112
COMN

Sounds promising...

Smirnoff, I think one only needs to read Craig's posts to know that he thinks this season stunk.

You guys just have a fundamental difference: Craig is willing to let the team rebuild, as per the plan, before declaring the rebuilding a failure. You're more focused on the present.

Sorry, Mike. Sounds promising, but looks, talks, and walks like Marty York.

The quote from David Sloane:
I would say there's a legitimate chance we'll do a new deal with Toronto. I am optimistic and I will remain optimistic until I see reason not to be. As long as people are talking, I believe there's reason for optimism. And we're definitely talking with the Blue Jays.

So, to recap:
1) "We might sign with Toronto"
2) "I'll keep thinking this until we sign somewhere else"
3) "I'll keep being optimistic about this until we sign somewhere else"
4) "We are currently in negotiations with the Blue Jays"

There is no more money until the fans come back to watch

Umm, I think your logic is backwards here Craig. While Gord Ash, among many others, has proven that you can lose with a large payroll just as badly as with a small one, the fans won't come back unless the team is winning.

Like Smirnoff, I have been a believer in JP and his plan from day one, but the A's, Twins, and Marlins are getting in the playoffs and JP's Blue Jays aren't (so far). These clubs prove you can win with a low payroll, even though they are in easier divisions, but JP simply has to be coming out ahead on a greater number of his transactions to give the club a chance. I have no problem giving him another couple of years until his own drafts are filling the roster, but he's got to make better decisions along the way, especially when it comes to the bullpen. In many ways, he's done the same thing as Ash by overpaying for mediocre talent, it's just that the dollar figures he's been dealing with are lower (but so is his budget).

Remember that there are only 30 of these jobs in the entire world. If you think there aren't dozens of hard-working baseball men who would give their left nut to have JP's job you are seriously deluded.

I think the "Jays blowing money where it wasn't needed" or they spent it the wrong way arguments are flawed. For one thing, we don't know what the alternatives were. Sure if we didn't sign Ligtenberg and Hentgen JP could have had over 4 mil to work with, but who is to say a Gordon or Benitez would have signed here? JP was ready to grossly overpay Tim Worrell, but Worrell didn't want to play here. Why are we to assume more players don't share that sentiment towards Canada?

Ligtenberg
2001: 3.02 ERA, 59.2 IP
2002: 2.97 ERA, 66.2 IP
2003: 3.34 ERA, 59.1 IP
2004: 6.38 ERA, 55.0 IP

Adams
2002: 2.38 ERA, 34 IP (as a reliever)
2003: 2.65 ERA, 68 IP
2004: 4.76 ERA, 70 IP

de los Santos
2002: 3.12 ERA, 48.0 IP
2003: 4.50 ERA, 52.0 IP
2004: 6.17 ERA, 11.2 IP

He spent over 4 million on those three combined. Considering their history, was there any reason to say any of these deals were bad? Come on. Adams was coming off a 2.65 ERA and .666 opponents OPS, and JP got him for under 2 million for one year. Ligtenberg was coming off his worst major league season, an ERA of 3.34. de los Santos was a less than a mil scrap heap signing. And now they are used as means to critisize Ricciardi for bad spending? I find that a little unfair.

I'll give you Hentgen. That was bad. Everyone knew Pat was going to regress (though I'd be lying if I said I knew he'd be forced to retire). I'm also not a fan of what Batista has become, but I didn't hate the deal at the time (though I wanted Esco back).

Batista
2001: 3.36 ERA, 139.1 IP, 5.81 K/9, 1.50 K/BB
2002: 4.29 ERA, 184.2 IP, 5.46 K/9, 1.60 K/BB
2003: 3.54 ERA, 193.1 IP, 6.61 K/9, 2.37 K/BB
2004: 4.80 ERA, 198.2 IP, 4.71 K/9, 1.08 K/BB

It just turned out that Batista turned into BBatista and had no command of his pitches, the exact opposite of his previous years.

Now hindsight needs to be used to elevate moves, I'm not totally going to dismiss it, but at the time of the transaction is the most important to see whether it was a sound investment. If we traded Chris Woodward for Mark Prior, but 2 years later Prior blew out his arm and Woodward turned into Melvin Mora, was it a bad deal?

I think JP should get critisized for his moves, and his new strike out phobia is scaring me, but overall, I don't think you can honestly say he's been careless with the money he's been given. In some instances yes, but no one (not even Billy Messiah Beane) has handled every cent well (Jermaine Dye ring a bell?).

Honestly, I don't think the Jays are any further back in their plan than had they finished with 85 wins.

NFH,
I think one only needs to read my posts to know that I believe in the GM and a long-term plan. However, the plan included specific improvement and taking steps forward towards competing in 2006. If the team finishes in last next year, than it would indicate to me that the plan is not working. Which would then mean that the owners either need to kick in money to accelerate the plan or consider Plan B.

The difference is not nearly as black and white as Craig and perhaps you seem to believe. I appreciate Craig's loyalty, optimism, and faith and share much of it. But at some point, you have to gauge success on results at the major league level. I think the end of 2006 is a fair time to do that, but that the end of 2005 is fair as well if the club is not improving.

I've created an extreme hypothetical that Craig seems to be infuriated by. Talk of finishing last would have bothered Craig before this past season as well. It's a hypothetical. Hopefully, it won't happen.

you are the one who must face the reality that it has not worked out so well

It hasn't worked out at all. At all. It hasn't had time to work out, either, so to pretend that it should is laughable at best, disingenuous at worst.

Where do you think this team was heading in 2001? I'll tell you, it was a lot further downhill, a lot faster, than what we got.

Do I like it when the Jays lose? No, I do not. Are they going to lose? They are indeed, they are going to lose. They will end up losing many, many more times than they will win it all. Might they win it all one day? For sure. But it's going to take a coherent plan in order to do it, and there is, for better or worse, only one person who had even made a pretence of having one.

"Clearly fails" is as ambiguous and subjective as anything else out there.

So why were you asking for an objective measure of it? I mentioned disingenuous before, well I think we just found it. If you think that management's plan for the franchise has failed, say it. We've heard it all before - you aren't going to shock anyone. It's not as if the front office should be immune from criticism, especially given the crap year we've all gone through.

Did you ask the question for any purpose other than to just wind people up? And if you're just a wind-up artist, can you please pick some other group of people to wind up?

because when you are in last place and people stop watching your games in May and you no longer offer free tickets to season-ticket holders and cheap ticket deals to increase your attendance numbers, you will end up with no fanbase

I hate to tell you this, but when this team was a game out of first place, at the end of June, they didn't sell any tickets either. In case you're related to Mr. Short Term Memory, that was LAST YEAR. You know, 16 months ago? I promise you, nothing at all has changed since then.

When people try to build up some enthusiasm for this franchise, to encourage them to come out, people take shots at them, people rip them, mock them.

At the same time, I do not think that he is some sort of divine being above the level of fair criticism.

Neither do I - I criticise him too. If you're going to criticise him, do it! Don't sit around spewing innnuendo like "I'm curious to know: If this team finished in last place again next season, would you fire the general manager?" There's no need to be coy here.

I am quite happy to hear criticism. I'll back you up when it's fair, and justified, and when it's wrong, I'll tell you so.

Smirnoff, after reading your last post, I think I understand better where you're coming from. I understand what you mean... sure, if the team takes another step backwards (not necessarily in terms of results - they could take a step back with a better record, or a step forward with [shudder] a worse one) then I think you'd need to re-evaluate what the hell we were doing.

At this point, though, it's a bare hypothetical. Like I said above, "if the Jays finish last again" isn't enough information. This team could get a lot better and finish last again - and they could take a step back and finish third, or even second if The Boss blows up the Yankees. If you fill in some more of the detail, I could certainly speculate with you. Though I think that's useless speculation, it can be entertaining. :)

I'm a lot less of a J.P. supporter than most around here. (Though not any less a well-wisher, I hope). I think he is still a long way from proving himself. But I do know this team is a lot better off with him, right now, than without him.

As you say, it isn't black and white.

hindsight needs to be used to elevate moves

Is there any other way to evaluate a baseball team? It doesn't matter if the moves look good in February and seemed defensible at the time.

It's typical for a young team that took a big step forward to regress the next season. That doesn't make it any less frustrating as a fan. What I think is part of Smirnoff's point is that last winter's acquisitions had somewhat successful (if unspectacular) track records, but in most cases, very little upside. Asking whether this is a smart approach is a valid question in my opinion.

And yes, it seems stupid to debate the merits of the combined $1.5 million that Gomez and De Los Santos made, but considering how strapped the club is it can't afford to waste any money on unproductive players.

This place is ridiculously hostile.

A lot of us are on short fuses because of things we see said about ourselves on other message boards. Things that attack us as people.

It is quite irritating to have people insult you, your wife, your photographic work, and your unborn child and then see the same people posting at battersbox.ca and interacting with you as if they had never said any of those things. And as far as I can tell, the crime I've committed is to have given the Cheer Club a silly name.

I am not speaking of you, Smirnoff.

The sad thing is you didn't even come up with the name. You stole it from Derek Zumsteg. ;)

I've always thought that J.P.'s biggest problem is that he hasn't been lucky enough. In the offseason, I recommend a vigorous program of kissing blarney stones, throwing salt over his left shoulder, and searching for four-leaf clovers.

For me, the question of whether it is possible to contend on Rogers' budget is still open. The A's did it, but the A's were lucky enough to have three young pitchers get good all at the same time. (I still believe that if Halladay, Carpenter, and Escobar had developed earlier into the pitchers they are now, someone like Michael Lewis probably would have written a book about Gord Ash.) Sure, Billy Beane and his brain trust are very smart people, but coming up with Zito and Hudson and Mulder is like rolling three consecutive sevens.

I agree with Craig that (a) J.P.'s plan is the best of the plans available, and (b) Rogers is the best owner available, mostly because he is the only Toronto-based owner who was actually willing to buy the team. If he bails out, what happens next? I don't know that I want to find out, as it could mean that the Jays wind up leaving town. As I've mentioned rather often :-), Toronto Life magazine once predicted that the Jays would be out of Toronto by 2010; I think they're wrong, but I see this most pessimistic outcome as being in the realm of possibility. For example, what will happen if Rogers suffers a cash crunch due to a setback in his primary businesses?

A lot of us are on short fuses because of things we see said about ourselves on other message boards.

"A lot"? Seriously? On what message boards?

It takes awhile to rebuild a fanbase. One 90 plus win season including at least a fight for the wildcard during the last week of the season is going to do wonders. But it's the year after that the increased ticket sales show up most. Being near first place in June isn't going to cut it - it's going to take sustained competitiveness to make the Blue Jays a significantly better draw.

Craig, I think, is unduly pessimistic about the current financial situation. My sources tell me that the Jays were close to breaking even in 2004, and that does not include the ancillary benefits that Rogers gets by owning the team. But Craig is absolutely right that the fiscal sitaution of the club was poor indeed when Rogers bought the team and when J.P. was hired.

Now is the time to start increasing payroll once again - not drastically, but significantly with medium jumps each year. With the Canadian dollar over 80 cents US, and many analysts forecasting it's ascent to the 85 cent level over the next 18 months, there isn't a better time for Rogers to INVEST something extra in the baseball business.

For example, what will happen if Rogers suffers a cash crunch due to a setback in his primary businesses?

I don't know if that will happen. I think my cellphone bill alone is keeping Rogers afloat. ;)

Is there any other way to evaluate a baseball team? It doesn't matter if the moves look good in February and seemed defensible at the time.

Yes, it does matter. So if JP traded Woodward for Prior, but a year later Prior has a 6.00 ERA and Woodward wins the batting title, that should be considered a bad trade? Seriously?

What I think is part of Smirnoff's point is that last winter's acquisitions had somewhat successful (if unspectacular) track records, but in most cases, very little upside. Asking whether this is a smart approach is a valid question in my opinion.

But when you don't know what the alternatives are, it doesn't make any sense. Ricciardi spent over 4 million on Ligtenberg, Adams, and DLS last off-season. Tell me, what were Ricciardi's alternatives? What were guys like Benitez or Urbina or Gordon asking for from Toronto? You can't answer those questions. Ricciardi can.

Spending a little over 4 million on three relievers with solid track records is not a bad move. It turned out bad yes, but it wasn't something easily projectable (like Hentgen was).

I can't speak for everybody, but I personally stopped reading the ESPN boards not because I was tired of being called a faggot for trying to get people to come out and cheer at ballgames, but after a series of posts about how stupid my child would be. That was before the All-Star break, I think.

And someone from this board said that, NFH?

There's a whole history between Batter's Box and some ESPN posters. Probably best not to discuss it publicly.

I think it *is* pretty safe to say that every one of the people who wrote absolutely nasty stuff about us on ESPN ended up coming back to post on here sometime AFTER they made those comments.

Yes, GT.

So if JP traded Woodward for Prior, but a year later Prior has a 6.00 ERA and Woodward wins the batting title, that should be considered a bad trade? Seriously?

Scott, at what point and under what criteria do you personally evaluate baseball transactions? To me, there are 3 ways a team's performance can be considered positive:

1. It wins lots of ballgames (didn't happen)
2. It wins more than it had the year or years before (didn't happen)
3. The statistics that best indicate future success (like K/W ratio) improve or show some positive indicators (didn't happen)

I don't follow the argument that it's unfair to evaluate JP's moves after the fact. I'm not sure how else we are supposed to evaluate him. If he has 2 more winters of promising-looking transactions and the club finishes in last in '05 and '06, then will it be fair in your view to start to evaluate him on the past?

It's a hard business, but one that has very clear measures of success, at least from a team point of view. I'm not saying he should lose his job, because I don't think he can be fully evaluated until his own draft classes fill the roster. When that happens, I am optimistic, but at the same time it's fair to say that many of JP's moves this year did not work and that is not promising.

I think it *is* pretty safe to say that every one of the people who wrote absolutely nasty stuff about us on ESPN ended up coming back to post on here sometime AFTER they made those comments.

Wow, the internet sure is a wonderful thing. :-/ Thanks for the clarification.

Hey, as long as we're dealing with"hypotheticals" in defining success in 2005, woudl Jay fans prefer to be the 1994 Rangers (52-62, 1st) or the 1991 Angels (81-81, but in sixth and last place.

before some wisacre answers that you want to be the '73 Mets(82-79, won division title) ... the bottom line is -- what's the bottom line? Record or finish?

Does anybody ever want to be the Mets? It's like playing Monopoly and wanting to be the iron.

/Waiting for someone to saying "But I *like* bring the Iron".

No.....no one likes the iron.

That should say bEing the Iron.

I'm not sure who likes the Iron. It's the worst piece. The thimble is also pretty lousy.

The battleship, car, dog, cannon, and horse statue all rock.

Speaking of the car...

can anyone honestly say they never got into physical fights over being the car as children? It's easily the most violence enducing game I've ever played.....and I've played ringette.

I've played ringette.

I can see the ESPN posts already...

There's a ringette board at ESPN? And they don't even cover the CFL....

We solved the car problem by using Micro Machines as our pieces... then we all got to be the car.

Yes, I am a product of Ontario's educational system.

can anyone honestly say they never got into physical fights over being the car as children?

I cannot say that, I'm as guilty as anyone. After a few years, though, I realized I preferred being the horse anyway.

it *is* pretty safe to say that every one of the people who wrote absolutely nasty stuff about us on ESPN ended up coming back to post on here sometime AFTER they made those comments.

Well, fuck, they were all there. Nobody said boo about it, and as far as I remember they all thought it was great fun. Including Smirnoff.

So if we're hostile, as some seem to indicate, forgive us for our long memories.

The guy on a horse is almost as cool as the car. Anyone know who it's supposed to be? When I was 8 or 9 one of the other kids said it was General Custer. I have no idea how she got that idea.

My sources tell me that the Jays were close to breaking even in 2004

So these sources know that Rogers had to pump $28 million in cash in the first six months of this year to keep this team afloat, right? Is that "breaking even"?

We all fought for the car, but like Craig B states, we were just raised by the media to believe the car was the best, when deep down, we all had different preferances....except the iron of course. We just weren't as great peace makers as NFH.

This whole ESPN board comments confuse me as if I've walked into an argument between two people accidentaly, so I'm just going to back away slowly.

PS. Did everyone claim their prize from the ejection pool (who deserves it)?

If the New York Mets are the iron, would that make the Pittsburgh Pirates the thimble? Or is the thimble reserved for the Kansas City Royals?

I always thought he was a mountie.

The thimble is the Devil Rays. The thimble is the bottom of the pile. My *mother* likes being the thimble.

Jeff on life as a Blue Fan.

I think it is constructive to have a conversation on where you
believe the Jays are going. For everybody that has witnessed the
Craig B and Smirnoff talk do not be dismayed for we need more
fans like this that feel strongly about our Team.

ROFLMAO !!! We have 2 lawyers discussing their different views
on the Jays. I do know and have talked with both men who I believe
have great qualities as men and blue jay fans.

I do though think Smirnoff(and all the other batters box posters from NY State ) must be commended for living in the
depths of Manhatten and surviving as a Jays fan.

Both Craig and Smirnoff have been very generous with their time and helping me( via phone and or email ) in their own way cope with my family tragedy.

I am glad to see in the last few posts that you gentlemen(I know I am pushing it. lmao )see that you are not very far apart in your thinking.

The ESPN Jays board is history , here is to a great future for all posters to CHAT together and see the Jays take on the future.

I do not agree with and and I think it was awful that Named for Hank was made fun of for trying to get a cheer club going.

Okay I am off the Soap Box.

I am Jeff Geauvreau aka formerly known as torontonorth on the ESPN Boards and Nestor Falls on the Jays fan forum.

Okay I am going to collect my prize from Jobu " Prof my real name is Jobu and not Jack ".

This whole ESPN board comments confuse me as if I've walked into an argument between two people accidentaly, so I'm just going to back away slowly.

Yeah, it's all ancient history, of no possible interest except to those involved.

Hey I want the Car Jobu...........

In the old antique sets from the 50s and 60s, the equivalent of the car was inexplicably, the milk bottle.

Last off-season I thought JP did a good job signing the relievers who's arms eventually all fell off mysteriously once the season began.

This year he should try to do the same bearing in mind. Chulk and Frasor BOTH throw 92-94 and could be at least OK. Also that League could be Bradford, Eichhorn or if lucky the Quiz. Also that Rosario and Vermilyea are VERY close.

The test of JP will be the results of his drafting. It looks to me like our minors will be graduating at least two good pitchers a year for the next four years just based on what is in the system now.

Go Jays!

We actually came to a point with my friends where we took out the car and had a "no one can be the car" rule for everyone's benefit. So in turn we can all be different micro machines and all be happy. Anyone who has a problem with that can check out the cheaters link from the ejection pool.

the equivalent of the car was inexplicably, the milk bottle.

I can see the board meeting now:

"There's not enough VIOLENCE amongst today's youth. Let's change the milk bottle to something cool like a ringette stick or a race car"

We solved it by making life difficult for whoever got the car. Like "peeing" on the car's tires when you got stuck with the dog.

I remember having a very competive game of Monopoly with my wife when we were dating. She wanted me to lend her 800 monopoly dollars so that she could get back in the game.

I said no way. She said I will take off my top if you do, I said forget about it we have to finish this game. She had the car...

Thanks for getting to thinking about a funny memory of my wife.

In my family's version of Monopoly, all the pieces were missing...so I had to play as whatever small thing I found under the couch, usually a Lego piece. Then I lost most of my Lego in the Basement Playroom Tragedy of '95. Still hard to talk about that.

Seriously, though...I am, in fact, the King of Monopoly, and all who challenge me are destroyed, left behind to live their Baltic ways while I party on in my hotel on Boardwalk, which, despite being the richest part of the city, is located around the corner from, you know...THOSE properties. I could take anyone here easily.
The thimble is the Devil Rays.

"YOU HAVE BEEN TRADED - GO DIRECTLY TO MILWAUKEE."

Like "peeing" on the car's tires when you got stuck with the dog.

I don't want to know what the guy with the horse did.

Blue-Jay-A-Day-Pre-Pre-Game Show with Brandon League, on the FAN right now! Just wanted to make sure everyone saw that. I think that's the first time I've ever typed out the entire name, too.

LOL. Great story, Jeff!

I have to admit, when I lived in Holland, I played a game of strip Monopoly. Good times.

"YOU HAVE BEEN TRADED - GO DIRECTLY TO MILWAUKEE."

YOU WIN SECOND PRIZE IN A BEAUTY CONTEST AND THIRD PLACE IN THE AL EAST - COLLECT $10

Thanks for the heads-up Rob. Will create a new thread ASAP.

Phew!! Thanks for reminding me Rob. I would have forgot about the show entirely....

Did you claim your prize yet?

Ahhh... the Flyin' Hawaiian is a no show.

"YOU HAVE BEEN TRADED - GO DIRECTLY TO MILWAUKEE."

YOU WIN SECOND PRIZE IN A BEAUTY CONTEST AND THIRD PLACE IN THE AL EAST - COLLECT $10"

LMAO CRAIG !!! I think you have a start on a new game of Monopoly.

The Jays edition of Monopoly by Craig B " the car is mine or I will sue you , Jobu " pee on the car" and Moffat"Soon to be called Prof God Moffat next summer by his students".

Just getting back to all the talk off JP's bad bullpen signings... I would guess that JP expected to be able to flip some of his one year RP signings to various teams. Much like Adams was traded to boston for a decent enuff prospect. You can't tell me the yanks aren't regretting being a little short on the LH RP's. If dls had paid off, and been somewhat decent as a lefty spcialist, he would have definately had some trade value to the yanks, especially when I use my 20/20 hindsight.

http://members.aol.com/dayoster/quiz/quiz.html
I was trying to find a Monopoly personality quiz online ("Which token are you?"), but my limited search produced not one working link. COMN for one that may or may not work.

And yes, Jobu, I received my prize. I forget what it was about your ex-wife that made me...uh, not like her. Never mind now, I feel quite the opposite.

If Rogers did have to pump in 28 million doilars (do you have a cite?), then yes, my sources likely know about it. Nevertheless, that's what they said to me and this was during the final week of the season.

That's good to hear Robert. The 28 million dollar figure for cash advances to the Blue Jays from its parent company (Rogers Communcations) comes from Rogers Communications' interim financial statements for the second quarter of 2004 (i.e. through June 30). These are available here in PDF format. The Blue Jays are discussed on page 9.

That doesn't mean that the team lost $28 million... the reported accounting loss for that period was $18.9 million. The operating loss might well be less than $18.9 million, though.

I'm no accountant(or tax lawyer for that matter),but is not the Jays revenue quite seasonal? Rogers may need to "pump" money into the franchise during different low revenue phases during the year? I guess there's probably some sound financial reason for this, but on a yearly money in/out basis I'd guess the team is near the break even point.(infact when I have the time I'll extrapolate the 2001 MLB Senate report numbers to the present to show this).

Scott, at what point and under what criteria do you personally evaluate baseball transactions? To me, there are 3 ways a team's performance can be considered positive:

1. It wins lots of ballgames (didn't happen)
2. It wins more than it had the year or years before (didn't happen)
3. The statistics that best indicate future success (like K/W ratio) improve or show some positive indicators (didn't happen)

I don't follow the argument that it's unfair to evaluate JP's moves after the fact. I'm not sure how else we are supposed to evaluate him. If he has 2 more winters of promising-looking transactions and the club finishes in last in '05 and '06, then will it be fair in your view to start to evaluate him on the past?

Well, there is a difference between specific moves and the team as a whole. Some on here were saying that Ricciardi wasn't using his money properly by signing Ligtenberg, Adams, and DLS and I don't find that fair due to the history of those particular players before this season. Some moves that make sense don't turn out well. If you want to blame Ricciardi for not having the skill to predict a guy who hadn't had an ERA over 3.40 in any season in his entire career was going to post a 6.00 ERA in '04, than that's up to you. I don't see how they were poor signings.

As a whole, Ricciardi is going to get blame for the teams misfortunes and the praise of its success. That's par for the course. Whether it's justified or not. I'm not disagreeing with that, but for specific moves, you look at how much sense it made at the time to evaluate whether it was a smart decision. If it doesn't turn out to be the best decision, tough luck, but that doesn't change the fact that statistics and norms proved it to be a solid investment when it happened.

It's a hard business, but one that has very clear measures of success, at least from a team point of view. I'm not saying he should lose his job, because I don't think he can be fully evaluated until his own draft classes fill the roster. When that happens, I am optimistic, but at the same time it's fair to say that many of JP's moves this year did not work and that is not promising.

I agree, his moves didn't work out this year. I'm arguing that it wasn't wasting resources, as other people have implied. It was a case of solid signings turning out badly.

As for JP's job, I don't think it should be in any danger. The team is still on the path JP intended, unfortunately the big club didn't fulfill the promise it had. The players in the minors that were supposed to advance and progress did, I don't think anyone really took a step backwards (McGowan, Quiroz, and Perkins due to injury, but it wasn't hitting a wall). The big league club had injuries to Delgado, Wells, Halladay, Speier, Hudson, Catalanotto, Ligtenberg, Woodward, Myers, DLS, and Miller. With a 50 million payroll, and 40% of that tied up to one player, depth is not going to be easy to acquire when injuries beyond reasonable numbers happen.

Basically, I don't see any difference in the future of this team whether they won 86 or 65 in 2004. This is not the team Ricciardi intended to compete with anyway, and once the last batch of Ash inherited players come up, and Ricciardi's draftees start getting close, than we can start looking at JP's work. I'm not going to cry a river because veterans underachieved or got injured, leading to a last place finish. Those aren't the guys we need in the next few years anyway.

Well, fuck, they were all there. Nobody said boo about it, and as far as I remember they all thought it was great fun. Including Smirnoff.

So if we're hostile, as some seem to indicate, forgive us for our long memories.

Burley, if you've got an issue that you'd like to discuss with me, feel free to send me an e-mail. It appears you are holding a serious grudge. Perhaps you should skip the game and get some sleep.

I can't for the life of me understand where you are even coming from today. You've mischaracterized my viewpoints on baseball. And now you are trying to make something personal? If something I said or did a whole bunch of months ago is still troubling you, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

My sources tell me that the Jays were close to breaking even in 2004

So these sources know that Rogers had to pump $28 million in cash in the first six months of this year to keep this team afloat, right? Is that "breaking even"?

Well, a cash infusion has no impact on earnings, although a good indication that there are real losses.

I'm no accountant(or tax lawyer for that matter),but is not the Jays revenue quite seasonal? Rogers may need to "pump" money into the franchise during different low revenue phases during the year?

Yes, there would be seasonal revenue. And seasonal expenses for that matter. I suscept that a large portion of the Jays revenues comes in one chunk when they receive the national TV money from MLB.

I suspect that all MLB teams have a line of credit that they can draw on when expenses are greater than cash on hand.

Dan H's non-prize is a great re-enactment of the play found by Mike Green

Yeah me :) Disturbing prize though...

She said I will take off my top if you do

I've really got to take up Monopoly; I never knew it could be that much fun, or that rewarding.

I think it *is* pretty safe to say that every one of the people who wrote absolutely nasty stuff about us on ESPN ended up coming back to post on here sometime AFTER they made those comments.

I feel kind of like a babe in the woods; I had no idea this was going on. There's Blue Jays' discussions in places other than da Box?

Rogers may need to "pump" money into the franchise during different low revenue phases during the year?

That's true. Most of the cash - nearly 90% - came in during Q1. The same procedure happened the year before, when $31.5 million was put in in the first two quarters, but over 90% of that in Q1.

The reported losses for Q1+Q2 in 2004 were $18.1 million, versus $27.7 million in 2003. If the Jays manage to replicate that performance vis-a-vis 2003 in the last two quarters, that means they would lose $19.2 million less than in 2003 - resulting in an overall loss of just $37.3 million versus a loss of $56.5 million in 2003 (and $101.7 million in 2002). These latter numbers are from the 2003 annual report which is here. The Blue Jays are discussed at page 16.

But there is better news. If, in fact, the Jays did $19.2 million better than 2003, purely from an operating perspective (unfortunately, there is no reason to expect the gain to be entirely an operating gain) then it's possible they will be breaking even - see my discussion below.

We should remember that these are accounting losses. There are some purely accounting-based losses in there; some depreciation and amortization expenses, which are *quite* large - nearly two-thirds of last year's losses are depreciation and amortization expenses. Some of these are real costs - capital deteriorates and it does need to be replaced. Some of it is just stuff - as far as I can tell - like player contracts, which don't really belong with operating losses. There's also interest expenses, which are real expenses too.

Operating losses in 2003 were just ("just") $19.1 million, with interest and depreciation expenses of $37.4 million. In 2002, those numbers had been $54.4 million and $47.3 million (of which $4.4 million was a one-time charge).

Now let's say that the $9.6 million change in the team's fortunes in Q1+Q2 carries over into Q3 and Q4. This is very unlikely - in Q3 and Q4 we have this year's second-half ticket revenue and next year's season-ticket revenue, which are likely to be worse than the year before. But it could happpen! If the team makes a $19.2 million turnaround, then they will indeed almost exactly break even this year - exactly as Robert's source has stated. With the interest expense added in, they'd lose a million or so, which is nothing - and there would be some capital items with deprecitation losses. But for all intents and purposes, they'd turn a $100,000 operating profit.

Mind you, this is with a $50 million payroll. But still, coming close to breaking even after what's gone before is an amazing job - and reason number 1 why Ricciardi's place in the organization is secure.

As I said, I don't think that will happen. Q3+Q4 revenue is likely to be down a touch from 2003, so they'll probably still lose money. And not all that $9.6 million change in fortunes is likely to be operating in nature (at least $2 million of it is likely to be purely accounting, judging by year-on-year improvements from 2002 to 2003) But I'm glad I looked at this in greater depth, because I have a much better - more accurate - picture of the team's finances now than I did before. And it's a better picture.

If I had to guess, knowing what I know now, I'd say the Jays are likely to have an operating loss of less than $10 million, and maybe even less than $5 million, in 2004.

It's not a surprise, then, that the team see some freedom to increase the budget, instead of the planned decreases. Long may it happen!

Most of this is in response to Craig:

Baseball related-points:

1) I was genuinely interested in Jordan's viewpoint on what constituted "clearly fails" according to him. My question was in response to his post. I'm still genuinely interested in it. It was a very civil discussion until you decided to step on your soapbox and vent. I still don't find any of it applicable to my viewpoint, but I mention it since I've been unfortunately grouped together with it.

2) Craig, I think you are just dead wrong about looking at the Jays in a vacuum. They have to win games and to do that they have to be better than their competitors. Being good isn't good enough. So it does matter what everyone else does. I'm happy to agree to disagree on that, as it appears we will get nowhere on it.

On the non-baseball points unfortunately:

1) ESPN and Battersbox issues: I have made about 5 posts on espn in the last few months. I don't have a clue what is going on there, nor do I care. A few of you do seem to have anger about some of this today and I'd be happy to talk to you via e-mail if that would help clarify my opinions on anything that took place in the past. I can't help you with anything going on now.

2) When I did post on ESPN, I did say a few things. I'll re-hash a few that I still stand by: A) Cheer Club is a great idea with a horrible name. :) B) Many of the people on this board take themselves way too seriously. C) Many of the people on this board think they are right about everything. They aren't.

On the non-baseball points fortunately:
1) Jeff G., you remain an unbelievable gentleman.
2) Aaron, I think your photography is excellent.

But his pornography is sub-par at best...

You've mischaracterized my viewpoints on baseball. And now you are trying to make something personal?

If I did mischaracterize your views, I'm sorry I did. That's uncharitable of me.

Are you gonna drop a hint as to why you've got a crush on me today? Pretty much everything is completely out of nowhere to me. It'd be charitable if you filled me in.

Since there does seem to be a lot of talk regarding the Jay's financial situation, one thing that should be made clear, is that Roger's uses the team as a tax shelter. Under the current arrangement, the team must pay Rogers a dividend of around 9% (I believe) per annum. Now the Blue Jays don't have the cash to give so they instead transfer tax loss points to Rogers. The team will likely never show a net profit on an annual basis (as is the case with most of Roger Communications even though they have strong cash flows). So analyzing the financial statements is almost a waste of time.

I did get on a soapbox. I'm sick of the whining. I shouldn't have.

I will go back to being sick of the whining silently.

I'm not going to cry a river because veterans underachieved or got injured, leading to a last place finish. Those aren't the guys we need in the next few years anyway.

Scott, I fully respect this view. I can't agree with it for 2 reasons:

1. The team that we all love played terrible baseball all year. As a fan, it was disappointing.

2. When JP's draftees do arrive, he's still going to need to sign free agents, build a bench, plug holes through trades and Rule 5, and make shrewd moves at the trade deadline. So many of his acquisitions last winter turned out badly even though many looked good at the time, that there is cause for concern going forward. Yes, many of these guys, like Ligtenberg, had good track records, but the GM doesn't build a club for the past, he builds it for the present and future. That means that even in an organization that includes a healthy dose of performance analysis, it's still more important to project who will perform well for what they earn going forward.

This is the corollary of my view that you can only evaluate transactions in hindsight. Hentgen is a good case in point. Sure he pitched well for 2 months at the end of 2003, but was he really a good bet to project forward to give the team 200 quality innings?

I actually think you whined quite a bit more than anyone else did, Craig. I thought the original discussion was pretty interesting.

I just have one question:

Can I be the Wheelbarrow?

You can be whatever you want when you elect me banker.

My apologies to everyone for dragging the boring part of this thread out.

Spicol and DanH, I did not mean to offend with the picture. Mike M was joking about the "re-enactment" of the A-Rod play. The women in the picture were in fact attempting to "capture the spirit" of the Supremes "Stop in the Name of Love". I thought that the chintzy aspect of the picture captured the chintz inherent in A-Rod's slap.

Elect? I thought whoever won the Feats of Strength got to be banker. At least that's always how we played.

Hey, thanks Smirnoff.

Everyone should bug me to put up more than just that one O-Dog pic from the final game of the season. I'm dragging my feet on 'em, for reasons unknown to me.

Spicol and DanH, I did not mean to offend with the picture.

Oh, it didn't offend me; I just found it slightly disturbing. Remember, I've got a thing for Christine Cushing; I like disturbing :)

As a completely new topic, what do you guys think of changing the logo. I don't live in TO, but I went to a local sports store, and the hat is not pretty, nor is it a baseball hat in my opinion. I don't mind the new uniforms, but why is that shade of blue in there. I can just see this new logo falling on it's face a couple years down the road. I want something with the Blue Jay head again, maybe just a head on a plain blue hat. No baseball behind it, just a good old fashioned Jay on a hat...:P

I'm just throwing this out there. It'll probably be ignored for a lengthier discussion of the merits of investing more money in the Jays...;)

http://me.woot.net
Simon,

The new logo, and its associated merchandise, has already gained a lot of 'casual' fan acceptance. In the GTA, you tend to see quite a number of new Jays logo hats—way more than I would expect given the region's lack of support for the Jays. The new logo is one place I think the Jays couldn't have done better: it really seems to have caught on with the younger crowd, which is what I believe they were going for.

I like the logo.