Hudson, Hill and Adams. How do you fit them all in?
Backup catcher. What backup catcher?
Koskie: Bad year or albatross?
Rios: Will he ever get it together?
All this and more in Part II of the Roundtable discussion.
----
Mike Green: I like Hill quite a bit more than Adams, both at the plate and in the field. I'd like to see Hill and Hudson open up 2005 as the starting double play combination.
Named for Hank: Having not followed either of them in the minors, I don't think I can really make an evaluation in Hill vs. Adams yet, though I'll say that I was pleasantly surprised by Hill at second base at the end of the year and as a result I've softened in my "HUDSON CANNOT BE TRADED" position. Still, I'm a big O- Dog fan and I'd much rather see a solution where he sticks around and both Hill and Adams get to play full time.
Gerry: Like others I prefer Hill to Adams. If it were me I would see if there was a market for Adams and have Hill and Hudson up the middle. Koskie was a huge disappointment this year but a lot of first year free agents were (Beltran, Beltre, Pavano, Clement, Wright, etc.). I do think that these players put too much pressure on themselves to live up to the hype and I would look for a better year from Koskie in 2006. I am not thrilled with his defense however and depending on who JP signs I could see him at firstbase.
Magpie: Lots of folks either like Hill's upside better, or were simply blown away by his hot start. But Adams' rookie season was better than Hill's. They both hit the wall in September, they both had stretches where they played very well before that. Still, Adams in July and August looked like an honest-to-goodness quality leadoff hitter who could score 100 runs.
Mike Green: Hill had a better OBP than Adams this year, runs as well as him, and has shown more power when you look at his major and minor league career together. Then, you take into account that Hill is 1 and 1/2 years younger. .274/.342/.385 is a fine offensive line for a 23 year old rookie shortstop, who runs well and has shown some pop in the minors.
Gerry: Who believes JP when he says we can still have Adams, Hudson, Hill and Koskie next year? I find that hard to believe as someone will be short of at-bats, unless you assume Koskie misses his 40-60 games. So if one has to go, who will it be?
I decided I liked Hill better in part because of his arm. Adams arm is weak for a SS and costs you an out or two a week.
Magpie: Yeah, I'm probably just being weird and contrary on Adams-Hill.
One of the slightly odd things about this off-season is that there seems to be almost universal agreement, from the GM to the rest of the world, on what needs to happen. More offense needed. A Big Scary Bat would be good.
But there is no FA this winter who could solve this problem. Well, there's Konerko and Giles but I think the chances of either leaving his current team is pretty remote. Which means a trade is required, which will likely involve dealing from the club's areas of surplus - infielders and pitching prospects.
It's almost always futile to speculate about trades. Of course, this has pretty well never stopped anyone from doing it. But doesn't it seem like there's a real reluctance in the fan base to contemplate dealing Aaron Hill or Orlando Hudson or Dustin McGowan? It's kind of sweet...
------
Pistol: The Jays have had awful production from their backup catcher, and it likely caused Zaun to wear down during the season. Quiroz is the obvious internal solution, but since his big year in AA in 2003 he's been injured and has had mixed performance and seems that he could use more time in Syracuse next year. However, Quiroz is out of options and would have to pass through waivers to be sent down.
What do you do? Take a chance Quiroz can handle catching in Toronto or sign someone else? Or is there a better alternative?
Mike Green: You have at least one other right-handed catching option in camp, and I don't mean Ken Huckaby. If Quiroz is healthy in camp, he starts and #3 goes to Syracuse. Otherwise #3 becomes the right-handed part of your platoon, while Quiroz ends up on the DL.
Jonny German: I'm generally a J.P. Ricciardi supporter, but one aspect of his tenure that has frustrated me is his loyalty to certain players. Most glaring of all was the case of Mr. Ken Huckaby this season. The plan that was in place coming into 2005 was not bullet-proof, but reasonable: Gregg Zaun as the starter, Greg Myers the backup, Guillermo Quiroz seasoning in Syracuse and hopefully coming up in July, Huckaby mentoring Quiroz in AAA and available to fill in should there be a minor injury to Zaun or Myers early in the season. But with Quiroz hurt before the season even began and Myers declared "Toast" on April 26, the catching plan needed to be revisited. There was no reason to expect Zaun to be able to catch practically every day and not wear down, nor was there any reason to expect Huckaby to hit enough to be a reasonable option to give Zaun some rest. But instead of scouring high and low for a legitimate backup catcher from the moment it was decided that Myers' hitting abilities had left him, Ricciardi stuck by his man Huckaby and filled the gaps with Andy Dominique and Joe Depastino, two career minor leaguers even less likely than Huckaby to contribute at the Major League level. Backup catcher is hardly a difficult position to fill: Huckaby's meager .503 OPS in 2005 (87 at-bats) was bested by no fewer than 58 catchers with more at-bats. Meanwhile, Zaun topped his previous career high in at-bats by nearly 100 and contributed little with the stick after May.
The Jays are currently in a lose-lose-lose situation with Quiroz: he hasn't shown he can handle being a major league backup, but he's sure to be claimed on waivers if the Jays attempt to send him to Syracuse, and he has little trade value coming off two injury-ruined seasons. My inclination would be to go into 2006 with Zaun the starter and Quiroz the backup, but with at least one and preferably two minor league vets standing by in Syracuse should Quiroz show no signs of belonging in the bigs. Curtis Thigpen is the next prospect in line, but he'll be doing extremely well if he makes it to the Show as a September call-up.
Mike Green: Loyalty to players is a common trait in GMs, and one what produces both positive and negative effects. Pat Gillick was loyal to many of his players, from Willie Upshaw to Pat Borders, at times to the detriment of the club.
It's a positive quality when the confidence of the GM inspires the player to perform to the best of his capability. It's a negative quality when the loyalty prevents the GM from making changes that are necessary for the betterment of the club.
GMs can learn to balance their loyalty to particular players with the needs of the club, but it is a hard process.
Magpie: I'm perfectly willing to go into 2006 with Zaun and Quiroz, but as Mike says, there should be a Plan B in place. That doesn't involve Ken Huckaby making outs in the major leagues. It really shouldn't be that hard to find a serviceable major league back-up catcher - Zaun himself was rescued from the scrap heap. Look what the Orioles got from Sal Fasano this past year. It seems to me that there are always guys like that floating around.
Maybe Sal Butera can help out here - he used to be one of those guys himself.
----
Joe: Corey Koskie has become a lightning rod for criticism of J.P., some people going so far as to call the contract an "albatross." Well, if he doesn't ever produce like he has in the past, yes, it might indeed be an untradable contract. But it's not like the Blue Jays paid Carlos Delgado $18 million a year to play like Corey Koskie did in 2005, so I think everyone who thinks the contract will be a real millstone is being a bit premature.
I'm not convinced that Koskie is or isn't done — I tend towards "isn't," though — but I believe that a lot of his production problems probably stem from his intensity, trying to prove himself worth the money to the fans and himself, finally playing for his childhood team, and his later production, more than likely, from his injury, spending 2 months on the shelf. I would be utterly unsurprised, though, to see him bounce back — but I would be equally unsurprised to see him never able to recover his hitting stroke.
If he has lost his hitting stroke permanently, though, he's not a useless player. He's a good to excellent third baseman; further, he's a clubhouse force. Those things cannot be underestimated, especially the latter: as Minnesota learned, you definitely need to know how to win if you're going to win. Teaching the Aaron Hills and Russ Adamses of the 2006 Blue Jays how to win is worth the cash.
Mike Green: I don't tend to put much stock in the intangible component, but there is little doubt that he's an above average defensive third baseman. All he needs to do is find a mid-point between this year's off-season and his prior performance, and to get 450 PAs and he's a valuable contributor. That's a perfectly reasonable expectation for him. His salary would in that event be maybe a smidgen on the high side, but in my view hardly worth worrying about.
Jordan: I'm not ready to declare Koskie a washout, but I am pessimistic about his production in 2006-07. I don't know about whether he let his intensity get the better of him, though I do note that the Jays already had an incumbent third baseman who wears the "too-intense" label. Koskie is a veteran and he had a whole season to get used to playing for a new team in his home country. I can understand the yips in May, but not in August.
The bigger issue, for me, is my concern about the deterioration of his skills at the plate. I'm not sure I saw him connect with a real live fastball all season -- his swing just looked long and slow from start to finish. He can still murder a hanging breaking ball or take one the other way, but a steady diet of heat seemed to neutralize him. Defensively, we all saw him make some truly spectacular, give-it-all plays. But Defensive Win Shares places him 15th among third basemen in the AL; even accounting for missed time, that's not good (Aaron Hill was 10th).
At this point, Koskie looks like an average third baseman whose peripherals are heading in the wrong direction. Considering his GP has dropped every season since 2001 (153-140-131-118-97), it seems unlikely he can be counted on for a full or even three-quarters of a season in '06-'07. Over his last two seasons (776 AB), Koskie has batted about .250/.340/.450. By way of comparison, Hinske's career line now stands at .258/.335/.430.
Koskie might very well rebound, stay healthy and post another 2003 campaign (.292/.393/.452), giving the Jays a season like Frank Catalanotto gave them this year. But objectively, the tea leaves just don't read that way. For that reason alone, Aaron Hill (who probably will start the year in Syracuse) should fill the same role he did in 2005: fill-in third baseman. With luck, his bat will stay hot after taking the job this time around.
Pistol: I feel like I'm the only one that hasn't soured on Koskie. I think he'll be fine. You can't expect 600 ABs from him (of course we also said you can't expect Cat not to get hurt and he was healthy all year this season) but I expect him to get back to his established levels next year.
1st half (pre injury): .248/.313/.430 2nd half (post injury): .249/.353/.376
In the first half of the year he had decent pop, but his selectivity wasn't there. In the second half he had his batting eye back but his slugging was down 54 points. Having lower slugging after returning from a hand injury makes sense. So I expect him to come back next year and combine the two halves into something like .260/.360/.440. Nothing spectacular, but solid play and an upgrade over what the Jays got from the corner infielders and DH.
Dave Till: Koskie might well be toast with the bat: a lot of third basemen drop off sharply in their early thirties. (Let's call it the Cirillo Cliff.) But he still had a better season than Hill did, and is a better defensive third baseman. Besides, he's a proud Canadian. I say give him another shot.
Thomas: Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I don't think Koskie is over the hill. I'm going to subscribe to the line of thinking, which I've heard Mike Wilner support, which is that Koskie spent nearly two months on the DL, had less than a week of rehab in the minors and injured his hand, which has to affect his swing. I think it's naive to believe that the injury didn't impact him and his swing even after he came off the DL. Koskie has always hit worse against lefties, but in the four previous seasons he posted an OPS over .700 against lefties three times. This year it was .581, which is a career low. It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that lefties were pounding him inside and a not 100% Koskie couldn't catch up.
Granted Koskie struggled before his injury, but that could be two random months of sub-par baseball or a case of a Canadian pressing too hard to impress his new team and his home country. If he had hit like that for a year when healthy I might reacha different conclusion, but I'm not going to hold him responsible for 6 weeks of below-average baseball when healthy. I'm aware I may be trying to find an explanation to fit my preferred conclusion, but I have no problem going into 2006 with Koskie at 3rd.
Magpie: Koskie, Koskie - I don't know whether or not Koskie has lost all that much. He never looked quite settled in to me - he started out probably trying too hard to justify the contract, and then he got hurt, and then it was August and he was still trying to get settled in. That said, Koskie doesn't hit much against LH, and he doesn't hit much unless he's also playing the field. And he plays baseball like a hockey player. Even if he doesn't miss 30 or 40 games (or more) because he hurts himself, maybe he should miss 30 or 40 games anyway.
If the same bunch of infielders come back, what do you do with them? You've got six guys for four spots. One of them can also DH, of course, and probably will. Gibbons dealt with this last year by taking full advantage of the flexibility these players gave him, mainly the capability of Hill and Hillenbrand to play more than one position. But Hill will almost certainly be better off if he gets to concentrate on one defensive position.
------
What do you do with Rios- wait or trade?
Mike Green: Wait. He's a fine defender, and if he hits even a little more than he already does, he'd be a valuable asset. I'd put him in there every day next year.
Jordan: If Rios is the key to a deal that brings a major bat or arm to the team, I would deal him without hesitation. If this were 2002 and the Blue Jays were in full rebuilding mode, I'd give him 140 games in the outfield without hesitation to see what he can do. But the Jays are ready to contend, and they need more from their rightfielder than what Rios has so far provided.
Rios appears to be in little danger of a breakout season next year. Yes, his homer total rose from 1 in '04 to 10 in '05 -- but his slugging percentage barely budged and has yet to crack .400. That's because he hit one fewer double and triple than last season in 55 more at-bats. Add in the facts that his batting average fell 20 points, his walk total dropped in a greater number of plate appearances, and his stolen-base percentages fell off drastically, and 2005 looks like a substantial step backwards for a player who ought to be breaking through. He showed flashes of "getting it" at various points in the season before reverting back to his old ways, including a terrible season-ending slump. His brief benching for what reportedly were hustle-related issues does not improve the picture.
Rios will almost certainly put it together one of these years, but Toronto can't wait that long. There should be at least a few teams still impressed with Rios' tools collection and willing to give him an opportunity, and the Blue Jays should explore a match with such clubs. They've seen 900 big-league at-bats from Rios already, and they can be forgiven for concluding that they're not going to see anything substantially different in 2006.
Pistol: I agree. If Rios has value he can be traded without hesitation.
If the Jays can't find someone that will give them above average production in RF (ie Giles) I'd let Gross play. He's consistently put up .380/.450 in Syracuse which translates (by my eyeball adjustment) to an average RF.
Gerry: JP has stated that he wants to make his team more balanced, and the first problem in that regard is Alex Rios. Lee Sinin's RCAA (runs created above average) shows Rios to be the biggest hole in the Jays lineup with a -17 RCAA. Rios did not have a good swing for much of 2005. He came to the majors with a lot of opposite field power but then the pitchers pitched him inside. He adjusted his swing to handle the inside pitch and now has trouble with the outside pitch, Rios has been slow to adjust to major league pitchers. Having two hitting coaches this year probably did not help him. I do think Rios is a lot better than he showed this year, and I think his big frame causes his swing to get out of sync, and I would probably keep him as I think he is close to realizing his potential.
Dave Till: Rios can't control the strike zone. At this point, I'd say that he's not going to make it. Trade him to a team that needs hitters and likes toolsy players. (Everybody sing along with Wilbert Harrison! "I'm going to Kansas City... Kansas City, here I come...")
-----
The final installment of the Roundtable on Friday will take a look at the much anticipated offseason where the Jays will have a considerable amount of spending money.
https://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20051029162518154