Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
It is a dictum intoned by many a pundit - when your offense gets you some runs, you want your pitcher to go out there and shut the other team down in the next inning.

This Josh Towers failed to do in the first inning last night. Aside from that minor (as it turned out) lapse, he was just fine. Again.

We might point out, in the interests of a perhaps over-scrupulous accuracy, that the Blue Jays offense had very little to do with the first two runs of the game. Frank Catalanotto singled with one out. But Vernon Wells struck out, Corey Koskie hit a ground ball to first base, Shea Hillenbrand hit a fly ball to centre... hang on. Just how many outs was Seth McClung required to get in the first inning?

Five, as it turned out, because Travis Lee couldn't handle the last hop on Koskie's ground ball, and Hillenbrand's fly ball glanced off Joey Gathright's glove and rolled to the wall. Gathright paused and looked at his glove, perhaps checking to see if critters had gnawed a hole in it, before breaking into a somewhat desultory pursuit of the baseball as the runners circled the bases.

Tampa tied it up in their half, thanks largely to a couple of doubles from Crawford and Huff that weren't hit particularly well, but found nice open pieces of real estate to fall into. Towers struck out Jonny Gomes and Travis Lee to end the inning.

The Jays offense stepped up and restored the two run lead without any help from the Tampa fielders. The much-maligned Eric Hinske led off with a double and Aaron Hill walked. Gabe Gross then lined a single to left, and Brian Butterfield surprised me a little by immediately waving Hinske home. Butterfield knows more about this stuff than I do - in particular, he saw that Hinske had got an outstanding break off second base. And while Carl Crawford has an assortment of wonderful tools, a powerful throwing arm is not among them. And so it came to pass that on the 9th of September, Gabe Gross had his first RBI of 2005. At least it was the game-winner. He celebrated by instantly getting caught off the bag when Russ Adams lined a shot into Travis Lee's glove. But Frank Catalanotto delivered his second hit in as many innings, scoring Hill from second, and the Jays were up 4-2.

Towers shut the Devil Rays down through the next five innings - he only retired them in order once, but he was able to wiggle out of the one real jam (base loaded in the second). He got some help from his defense along the way. Frank Catalanotto made a couple of nice catches in left field. Even more fun was watching Shea Hillenbrand gun a fastball to home plate to catch Carl Crawford - Crawford, possibly channelling Alfredo Griffin, was attempting to score from second on a ground ball to the infield.

The offense tacked on some additional runs - Corey Koskie hit what might have been the most impressive home run any Blue Jay has hit all season, and when Lou Piniella left his reliever in the game too long (boy, have we heard this story more than once this year or what?), Adams and Koskie drove in a couple more runs in the seventh. Chulk, Speier, and Schoeneweis closed it out.

Gross ended up with three hits, Catalanotto, Hinske and Koskie had two apiece - and there's a very good chance that Koskie is the only one of those guys who will be playing over the weekend, what with Kazmir and Fossum scheduled to start for Tampa.

And so, on to Josh.

Josh Towers, it seems to me, has always been one of the most interesting pitchers the Blue Jays have ever employed. And way back in the dim and murky past (OK, it was July 2004, halfway through the Season From Hell), I commenced to speculating on just what it was the Blue Jays had here...

Towers intrigues me because so many pitchers have trouble throwing strikes. Well, Josh throws strikes at will. It's a genuine and unusual talent.

Perhaps, I speculated, he was another Paul Quantrill. But no...

There are superficial similarities - they give up a lot of hits, but they never walk anyone...Q of course is a freak who can pitch 80 games a year without his arm falling off... doubt Josh could do that....The differences between them are significant though. Towers walks even fewer people than Q - but Towers gives up more than twice as many HRs. Q can give up lots of hits because he never walks anyone and never gives up HRs. The only way to beat him is to string a bunch a hits together.

A better comparison, it occurred to me, might be Brad Radke of the Twins.

...who never walks anyone and gives up lots and lots of HRs. He's much harder to hit though, gives up fewer hits than Q... Also: Q and Radke are both groundball pitchers. Q in particular has been an EXTREME GB pitcher for his career....In the past Towers has not been a GB pitcher; this year however he is suddenly (small sample size, I know) getting many more grounders than fly balls. This has had the bonus of reducing his HR per 9 innings to a much healthier 1.03...

And that was my conclusion - Towers is never going to be Paul Quantrill. He has to figure out how to turn himself into Brad Radke.

That was then, this is now. How's it going?

PLAYER	    TEAM    G   GS CG SHO    IP   H  R ER  BB  SO  HR ERA  TBF  GDP  K/9  GB  FB  G/F
Josh Towers  Tor   30   30  1   1 179.1 209 87 77  25  99  19 3.86 784   16 4.97 256 229 1.12
Brad Radke   Min   29   29  3   1 188.2 202 90 82  21 114  30 3.91 782   10 5.44 266 250 1.06

When Towers came into the league, with Baltimore in 2001, he was an extreme fly-ball pitcher. And many of those fly balls flew right over the fence. This, of course, is a problem. Even if you never walk anybody, if you give up lots of hits and lots of home runs, there will be trouble, as Robo-Cop likes to say.

Towers immediately began getting more ground balls than fly balls upon arriving in Toronto, but he remained susceptible to the Big Fly. He had allowed 32 homers in 167.2 IP as an Oriole; in his first two years in Toronto, he allowed 31 homers in 180.1 IP. A slight improvement, but not enough.

And here you see the area where Towers has made a big step forward. He still doesn't walk people, but he's keeping the ball in the park. He's doing a much better job in this department than Brad Radke, for one, and pretty well everyone else on the Toronto Blue Jays, for another. Only Scott Schoeneweis and Roy Halladay have given up home runs less frequently.

This is a sea-change, folks. This is a different pitcher, someone who's learned that he doesn't have to always just bring it in over the plate and see what happens.

There are, of course, some other significant differences between Towers and Radke. Brad Radke is 32 years old and is making $9 million dollars, in the first year of a two year deal. Josh Towers is 28 years old, and is earning $358 thousand this season.

Well, he's going to get a raise.

By the way, Towers is still younger than Scott Downs. Besides being better.

Blue Jays 7, Devil Rays 2: Usnoth's Rising Towers | 29 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
ds - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 09:32 AM EDT (#127734) #
I think a lot of Towers' success has to be attributed to maturity and buying in to Arnsberg's mantra of keeping the ball low in the zone. I certainly don't remember too many times where he leaves the ball up. He seems to get shelled when he leaves pitches in the middle of the plate.

I think he's certainly pitched well enough to finally remove that number 5 starter tag that has been following him the last few years.
Flex - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#127735) #
I can't remember whether it was Mike Ulmer or Jeff Blair who said about two months ago that the Jays will have reached contender status when Josh Towers is no longer in the rotation. In other words, when they've fleshed out their staff with five legitimate big-league starters.

It seemed a reasonable statement at the time, but now... not. In those two months Towers has become one of the most reliable starters in the AL. Maybe not the flashiest or most powerful, but among the most reliable for sure. Suddenly you can pencil him in for six quality innings a start. It's no longer a case of "which Josh are we going to get tonight -- bad Josh or good Josh" it's a case of will he get some run support to make his good effort stand up. He's earned my respect.
The Bone - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 10:37 AM EDT (#127736) #
Josh has been one of the many unsung heroes in our pitching staff which, shockingly at least to me, suffers from a lack of depth

The Jays would be in better shoes than I realized if they open with the following 11 man staff in 2006

Halladay
Chacin
Towers
Bush
Downs

Speier
Walker
Chulk
Batista
Frasor
Schoeneweis

The collective ERA of this group in 1061 innings: An eye popping 3.49 (2nd in MLB, 1st in AL)

What drags our team ERA down to 4.06 (13th MLB, 6th AL) is the fact that outside of the above 11 guys our pitching has been brutal

The following Jays have thrown a collective 188 1/3 innings

Marcum
Lilly
League
McGowan
Gaudin
Miller
Whiteside

With an equally eye-popping collective ERA of 7.26

Though it seems counterintuitive to me, it seems the Jays need pitching depth, not pitching stars. Oh, and less Ted Lilly.


Dave Till - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 10:50 AM EDT (#127737) #
I agree that Towers has made himself into a good pitcher. His strikeouts per innings pitched ratio is still relatively low, though, which means that he doesn't have that much margin for error. If he loses a bit of stuff, or a bit of command, he'll start getting clobbered.

Having said all that, I think that he's become a legitimately good pitcher. He's earned himself a spot in the rotation for 2006.

I agree that a rotation of Halladay/Chacin/Towers/Bush/Downs is looking pretty good for '06. The Jays may not need to go out and spend zillions of dollars on an ace starter. (What they need, of course, is one or two large gentlemen who can make a baseball go a long way.)
Smaj - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 11:26 AM EDT (#127738) #
Really enjoyed the article Magpie.

Towers has been very impressive this year particularily in the second half. Obviously, the hope is that he has figured it out & he is the next Radke. Does one successful season erase any doubt surrounding his subsequent performances? I personally need another good year from Towers before I am on the bandwagon. He has more than earned a starting spot next season & hopefully next year equals what we have witnessed in the second half this year.

Downs is similar to Towers but more concerning. Injuries have played a major factor in his career plus he has not shown he can be a strong 5th starter consistently. If the Jays goal is to challenge for a playoff spot in 2006 I would not be enthusiastic with Downs in the rotation. He seems a perfect fit for a 6th starter/long man in the pen. As the timeless adage states "you can never have too much pitching".

Thus, I still see a "zillion dollars" required to obtain a front line starter for the rotation plus a couple of Big Fly Bats before this team is the real deal.

Magpie - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#127739) #
I got interested in the Towers-Radke comparison before last night's game - they had matching 3.91 ERAs at that moment, so they were conveniently lined up in the AL leader list. And it was impossible not to see all the other similarities. The only differences are that Radke does give up fewer hits (.273 BAVG against Radke, .288 against Towers) - but Radke gives up significantly more homers.

I thought I might be cheating a little, because this hasn't exactly been Radke's best season - he's taken the ball every fifth day, but he's had some problems with his neck and now his shoulder is sore.

On the other hand, this is Radke's 11th season, and he's posting the third best ERA of his career.

Thomas - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 11:55 AM EDT (#127740) #
Speaking of Quantrill, any idea why the Padres DFA'd him on August 31st? He was pitching pretty well for them out of the bullpen (3.41 ERA in 31.2 IP with a 12:1 K:BB ratio and a 1.23 WHIP). It just seems a bit pointless to let go of an effective bullpen arm, even if you have several, when the rosters expand the very next day.
Mike Forbes - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 12:13 PM EDT (#127741) #
I really hate having to bring some pessimism into this discussion... Buuuut... Any team with Josh Towers as their number 3 starter isn't a contender. This is Josh's career year and I applaud his efforts over the last two months, he's stepped up and showed he's an effective ML pitcher. But, reality is harsh sometimes. Despite his nice little year, I believe that JP will add atleast two starters to the team... The quality of these starters will decide if the Jays want to hold onto Towers (who's price tag is rising if he's arb. eligble.) or if they wish to deal him away (He might finally have some trade value.).

Sorry for bringing that into the discussion, but, it had to be said.
Jonny German - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 01:03 PM EDT (#127746) #
Mike, your comment is exactly the kind of negativity that some of us can't stand. You present absolutely nothing to back up your opinion, but you say it as if it's absolute truth and we should all feel bad since it shatters our illusions. What exactly did you say that wasn't pure bluster? Where are the facts that back up your position?
Magpie - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#127748) #
Speaking of Quantrill, any idea why the Padres DFA'd him on August 31st?

It is a bit odd, no? There's some discussion of it from SignOnSanDiego. It looks like they wanted to get down to 11 pitchers for the post-season roster, and are hoping that no one else claims Quantrill in the meantime. But the San Diego players sure are puzzled:

Jake Peavy - "I can't tell you all the things Paul did for this ballclub. I hate to see him go. "

Mark Sweeney - "He was the epitome of a great teammate."

Scott Linebrink - "I don't know where they are coming from with that."

Mark Loretta - "I thought he did a real good job for us. And he had been in a pennant race before."

Bruce Bochy - "We don't want to lose him. We didn't want to designate anyone at this point. Our choice is that Paul would decide to stay and no one else will claim him."

Oh, and if you could win a division with Brad Radke as your number 2 starter, you could probably manage to contend with Josh Towers (this year's model) as your number three.

Pistol - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 01:14 PM EDT (#127749) #
The key with Towers is to figure out if his current performance is sustainable. Is the improvement due to improved mechanics, or a different pitch? Or is it just an improvent for no particular reason?

While Magpie points out that his HRs are down and his GB/FB ratio is 1.1:1, Tower's GB/FB ratio is actually worse this year. Last year he had it up to 1.36:1 and his ERA was over 5. So despite giving up a higher proportion of fly balls this year his HRs allowed have dropped when you expect the opposite.
Pistol - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 01:18 PM EDT (#127750) #
"your comment is exactly the kind of negativity that some of us can't stand"

I wouldn't limit it to negativity. If someone wrote: 'I think Josh Towers is a great number 3 starter on a contender' I would find the comment just as hollow.
Sherrystar - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#127752) #
The question will be, if JP does sign some more arms and the young guys develop as they should, who will lost their rotation spot? Halladay? Chacin? Bush? No, probably Towers or Downs.

It'll be a very interesting off-season (I hope!) but in the end, don't the Jays need hitting over more pitching?
Nick - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#127754) #
The Marlins signed Quantrill yesterday.
Jonny German - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#127755) #
Nice call on the Radke comparisons, Magpie. I was going to mention how Towers' success in reducing his homer rate this year is all the more impressive given that the RC is the 2nd-most generous home run park in the AL, but I got looking Josh's splits...

At the RC, his HR/9 rate is 1.25, well above the league average (1.07) but not into Radke territory (1.43). On the road, he's practically bulletproof - 0.72. As you would expect, this has resulted in a far better road ERA (3.34, 100 IP) than home ERA (4.56, 79 IP), but it's even more severe when you consider he's allowed 9 of his 10 unearned runs at home.

2004? Similar story. 1.37 HR/9 at home, for a 6.22 ERA in 59 IP. 1.11 HR/9 on the road, 3.95 ERA in 57 IP.

In 2003 his HR/9 was virtually identical at the Dome and away from it (over 2!), and despite his other peripherals being worse at home he managed a 3.92 ERA in the friendly confines (44 IP) compared to a 5.66 ERA on the road (21 IP).

It'll be interesting to see what the Jays do with Towers this offseason... his current skill set is valuable to them but it seems like the RC treats him harshly, meaning he may be even more valuable to somebody else... Say the Devil Rays, who play in a low-HR park and have some exciting young bats to spare... the hard part is convincing them how much better Towers would be for them than any of their current starters besides Kazmir.

Jonny German - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#127756) #
If someone wrote: 'I think Josh Towers is a great number 3 starter on a contender' I would find the comment just as hollow.

Agreed, absolutely. But as an optimist-fan, it's the negative ones that annoy me more.

Jonny German - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 02:14 PM EDT (#127757) #
The question will be, if JP does sign some more arms and the young guys develop as they should, who will [lose] their rotation spot? Halladay? Chacin? Bush? No, probably Towers or Downs.

I think Halladay's the only sure bet. There are arguments to be made for all of Lilly, Chacin, Bush, and Towers as being worthy #3 starters... and also arguments to be made that none of them should be counted on as more than #5 starters. I think at least one of them will not be in the Jays rotation to start 2006. If I were betting, my money would be on Lilly to be gone, via a non-tender, as part of a big trade, or as a straight-up trade for a B prospect. I think there's virtually no chance of Downs starting the season in the rotation. He'll either be non-tendered or be re-signed as long man. Actually, my best bet would be non-tendered and re-signed - to a minor league deal.

Sherrystar - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#127758) #
Interesting point about Lilly. I guess this last month will determine what his future with the Jays will be. But I don't know if JP can get as much now for Lilly as he could have before he got injured and was pitching pretty well.

Let's hope the off-season is a fruitful one cause I'm already looking forward to the 2006 Jays!
Magpie - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 03:37 PM EDT (#127759) #
Actually, I find myself agreeing with just about everything Jonny just posted above. (Hmmm. Should I take a moment and reconsider?) Towers and Downs are both arbitration-eligible this off-season, for the first time. I also think they'll non-tender Downs and try to sign him to a minor-league deal with a spring training invite. As for Ted the Tease, who knows? They'll be listening to offers, I imagine.

What kind of contract do you offer Towers? Consider this - last year the Jays had a 28 year old pitcher, who was arbitration eligible. His career record was 34-34, 4.49 - he was coming off a 12-10, 4.06 season. The team and player settled at $3.1 million. That was Ted Lilly.

Well, Josh Towers, who is also 28 years old, is 11-10, 3.86 as we speak. Slightly better than Lilly's 2004 season. And his career record to this poiint also resembles Lilly's - 36-33, 4.59.

Magpie - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT (#127760) #
Another thought. We all realize that there's something artificial about the whole notion of #1 starter, #2 starter, etc etc. It's not like the #1 starter is going to start 40 games and the #2 starter is going to start 30. The idea is that all five guys are going to start about 30...

But that never happens either. At least, it's never happened in Toronto. The 2005 team will have just two pitchers who started 30 or more games - Chacin and Towers. In fact, the last time the Blue Jays had four guys who started 30 games in the same season was 1989, Cito Gaston's first year on the job. And that's the only time the Jays have had four 30 game starters since Bobby Cox departed after the 1985 season, taking the four man rotation with him.

What this means, effectively, is that five starters is never enough.

Another way to look at it. Here are the number of games started by the 6th and higher starters over the last five seasons (defined as the starters who are not in the top five in games started that year.) Notice that it's not unusual for the "sixth" starter(s) to start more games the the top starter:

2004 - "Sixth" starter- 40 - Ted Lilly- 32
2003 - "Sixth" starter- 28 - Roy Halladay- 36
2002 - "Sixth" starter- 51 - Roy Halladay- 34
2001 - "Sixth" starter- 39 - Chris Carpenter- 34
2000 - "Sixth" starter- 38 - David Wells- 35

The Bone - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 03:50 PM EDT (#127761) #
Just a small correction Magpie - Lilly signed a 2 year 5 million dollar contract before the 2004 season - 1.9 million in 04 and 3.1 million in 05 - not sure how this affects your argument, except that perhaps Lilly would have cost more had he gone to bargaining table after is 2004 season - However, Towers should make about the 1.9 million Ted did in 04 as it is his first year of arb eligibility
Jonny German - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 04:09 PM EDT (#127762) #
Thinking about 6th starters, it occurs to me that Syracuse could well open 2006 with this rotation:

Dustin McGowan
Josh Banks
Zach Jackson
Shaun Marcum
Scott Downs

With Casey Janssen and David Purcey joining them in June or July.

Yowza! That oughta impress the Syracusians!
Ron - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 05:04 PM EDT (#127763) #
On WWJP last week JP said Downs won't be a starter next season unless he's replacing an injured starter. He said he will compete for a spot in the bullpen next season and viewed him as a long-man.
Chuck - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 05:12 PM EDT (#127764) #
Towers for Gomes?
rtcaino - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 05:12 PM EDT (#127765) #
""Yowza! That oughta impress the Syracusians!""

Hopefully not. My dream is that the Sky Chiefs will pack up and move to Waterloo once the contract expires.

Greeting and salutations from sunny Waterloo. As this is my first correspondence from my new place.

I really enjoyed the article and subsequent discussions today. Thanks guys.
Jacko - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 06:37 PM EDT (#127768) #
Actually, I find myself agreeing with just about everything Jonny just posted above. (Hmmm. Should I take a moment and reconsider?) Towers and Downs are both arbitration-eligible this off-season, for the first time. I also think they'll non-tender Downs and try to sign him to a minor-league deal with a spring training invite

Would Downs really stand to earn all that much in Arbitration next year? This is the first year he's actually done much of anything.

I think Downs might get some decent offers if the Jays put him back on the market. I'd much prefer to hang on to him and let him fight it out for a spot in the rotation next spring, and give him Walker's swing man role if he loses out.

What kind of contract do you offer Towers? Consider this - last year the Jays had a 28 year old pitcher, who was arbitration eligible. His career record was 34-34, 4.49 - he was coming off a 12-10, 4.06 season. The team and player settled at $3.1 million. That was Ted Lilly.

Well, Josh Towers, who is also 28 years old, is 11-10, 3.86 as we speak. Slightly better than Lilly's 2004 season. And his career record to this poiint also resembles Lilly's - 36-33, 4.59.

Lilly signed a 2-year deal after the 2003 season. 1.9 MM in 2004, and 3.1 MM in 2005.

I believe that 2004 was Lilly's first year of arbitration eligibility, so perhaps that gives you an idea of what kind of award Towers has coming is way?

Also, Kyle Lohse (who's career numbers are somewhat similar to Towers) got 2.4 MM in 2005, which was his first year of arbitration eligibility. The Twins offered 2.15 MM.

John Northey - Saturday, September 10 2005 @ 11:14 PM EDT (#127777) #
The pitching for 2006 will be a challenge for JP. Who is for real, who isn't, which prospects are ready, which aren't, do you chase a big free agent or do a trade, how much money do you allocate for pitching?

#1 is will a million (or 10) go further in pitching or hitting when upgrading? The offense appears mediocre viturally everywhere, no spot horrid, no spot fantastic. The pitching appears to have some great (Halladay) and a lot mediocre and a few horrid, but only horrid in limited roles. What is likely to happen in '06 though?

Lets leave the pen out of it for now. Assume any losers from the starting battle go there with Batista, SS, Frasor, Chulk, and Speier. Also assume Halladay is healthy.

So we have 4 slots to fill. Contenders with age in 2006, ERA in 2005, DERA in 2005 (Defense-adjusted ERA), and xFIP (adjusts for defense and many other things). I've sorted by xFIP.
Downs - 30, 4.19 ERA, 4.31 DERA, 3.83 xFIP
Bush - 26, 4.12 ERA, 4.30 DERA, 4.70 xFIP
Towers - 29, 3.88 ERA, 4.18 DERA, 4.74 xFIP
Lilly - 30, 5.65 ERA, 5.28 DERA, 5.06 xFIP
Chacin - 26, 3.65 ERA, 3.86 DERA, 5.23 xFIP
Walker - 37, 2.92 ERA, 2.91 DERA, 5.37 xFIP
McGowan - 24, 7.93 ERA, 7.87 DERA, 5.86 xFIP

Y'know, I'd say xFIP agrees with my general view of these pitchers. Bush & Towers both are servicable 4th/5th starters, Downs is having a great year, Lilly a poor one, Chacin a lucky on, and Walker has been doing it with mirrors while McGowan has been bad but not as bad as it appears.

Given these numbers (the xFIP, not DERA) I'd say JP would be well advised to get another top quality starter, and hope that one of Chacin/Downs/Bush/Towers keeps going well and the others fill in two more slots with the other being your backup while watching for other GM's who don't notice the luck factor.

Btw, the pen is scary by xFIP - Batista 4.74, Chulk 5.15, Frasor 4.32, Speier 4.49, Schoeneweis 4.36. None below 4.3, and given none are big K guys it doesn't surprise me either. I love how they did this year but again it has felt to me like a lot of luck was involved. Maybe a top closer would be a good idea too.

So, to maximize the gains for the Jays maybe pitching is indeed the way to go. Trade guys who have done better than should be expected in the future and aquire guys you expect to be better in '06. Guys who land into this category are Jake Westbrook in Cleveland (4.59 ERA vs 3.58 xFIP), and Javier Vazquez in Arizona (4.74 ERA vs 3.75 xFIP). Vazquez is interesting as Arizona might be willing to get rid of him like the Yankees did, yet he just turns 30 mid-season next year and based on this stat at least, he appears to still 'have it' but has just been very unlucky.

BJ Ryan is a free agent, is the closer for Baltimore, 29-5 in saves/blown, 90 K in 60 IP (19 BB), 2.54 ERA vs 2.36 xFIP so he appears to be 'real'. Just found his control last year (was a walk every other inning or worse before). Was traded to the Orioles for Juan Guzman (OK, that was just a fun fact). He will be 30 next season, so a 2 year deal shouldn't be too bad with a 3 year being livable.

Good ol' A.J. Burnett has a 3.43 ERA and 3.15 xFIP with 8.5 K per 9. He'd be _really_ nice to get too.

So, if I was JP I'd try for AJ and BJ while working with Arizona on Vazquez (I think the Yankees are paying a chunk of his contract which is 11.5 next year and 12.5 in '07, if not then get Arizona to pay a chunk as they might see him as being worse than he really is). Use any of the current starters as trade bait (outside of Halladay of course). Then, if money is still available (since odds are he wouldn't get all 3) get a slugger.
Magpie - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 01:00 AM EDT (#127779) #
Lilly signed a two-year deal before 2004? ... the Marlins signed Q yesterday?...

I am Rip Van Winkle, waking from long sleep, wondering what happened to my memory. Sheesh.

Alex0888 - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 06:21 PM EDT (#127821) #
"the Marlins signed Q yesterday?..."

I find it interesting how many ex-Blue Jays end up on one of the Florida teams at some point.
Blue Jays 7, Devil Rays 2: Usnoth's Rising Towers | 29 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.