Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
As expected the Jays tendered contracts to all arbitration eligible players yesterday. But more interestingly Mike Rutsey reports that the Jays have an interest in free agent catcher Bengie Molina.

And here's the latest scoop in the Blair Blog.

In case you missed it yesterday the Jays avoided arbitration with John McDonald, agreeing to a one year, $500,000 contract.

Some free agents signings recently:

* Jacque Jones signs with the Cubs for three years and a reported $16 million.

* Johnny Damon signs with the Yankees for 4 years and $52 million. The Yanks also signed Octavio Dotel to a 1 year, $2 million deal with incentives that could push it up to $5 million (and $7.5 million if he ends up closing). That's a lot of money for a team that apparently lost $50-$85 million last year. But that figure can't be wrong can it?

Last night was the deadline to offer contract to arbitration eligible players. Here's the unexciting list of players not tendered contracts.

Too Many Molinas - Coming Soon To Toronto? | 176 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Jordan - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 09:14 AM EST (#137070) #
And they've told Mike Powers, the agent for Reggie Sanders, that they do not want to go beyond a one-year contract.

Unfortunate, but understandable for an injury-prone 39-year-old. Considering Sanders is asking for a three-year deal, that probably scotches that possibility, though maybe there's a two-year compromise available down the road.

Bengie Molina is overrated right now and would cost too much for what he would deliver, and anyway, the Jays still need to lower their overall payroll. I think all will be quiet now till spring training approaches.

melondough - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 09:23 AM EST (#137073) #
Yeah I just saw that. Obviously I can't see how anyone could argue that Molina would be anything other than a perfect fit for the Jays. I wonder how much he would go for and how many years he seeks.

By looking over his last three seasons, he seems to be one of the best defensive and offensive catchers currently in the game. He also hits for power, as far as cathers go and rarely strikes out.

2005: 410AB, 41K, .295, 15HR, 69RBI, .996FPCT
2004: 337AB, 35K, .276, 10HR, 54RBI, .995FPCT
2003: 409AB, 31K, .281, 14HR, 71RBI, .993FPCT

The one noticeable thing that he could do better is take some walks (58 over the past 1150AB's in the last 3 seasons). However, we desperately need a guy who is a righty like Molina to platoon with Zaun. We have waited long enough for Quiroz to develop without much luck - he is apparantly stinking up the joint in winterball.

Zaun could easily fizzle out this yr (based on his age) and if he does we better have someone other then the Q to fall back on. Now if we could only add Sanders too!
Jonny German - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 09:33 AM EST (#137075) #
If I'm JP, at this point I'm considering:

Jason Phillips (platoon DH with Hinske, 3rd catcher - Hillenbrand gone)
Matt LeCroy (platoon DH with Hinske, emergency catcher - Hillenbrand gone)
Reggie Sanders (primary RF - Rios gone?)
Rondell White (platoon RF with Rios - 6 man pen?)
Frank Thomas (primary DH - Hillenbrand gone)
Erubiel Durazo (primary DH - Hinske gone)

But JP's much more of a Hillenbrand and a 7-man pen fan than me, so it's unlikely that he's considering most of these.
Mike Green - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 09:38 AM EST (#137076) #
The interesting catchers on the non-tender list are Jason Phillips and Miguel Olivo. Phillips' success rate at throwing out runners tumbled to unacceptable levels last year. Olivo, however, looks like a reasonable potential platoon partner for Zaun. Good arm. Would hit .240 with some pop, albeit with a truly scary W/K ratio, in the Rogers Centre.

Joe Dillon has been a favourite of mine for several years. Honestly, though, it's mostly his sixties' detective show name that does it for me.
Jonny German - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 09:50 AM EST (#137079) #
Obviously I can't see how anyone could argue that Molina would be anything other than a perfect fit for the Jays

Really? Over the last three years, Molina has hit .285 / .318 / .433 (1156 AB). With Ramon Hernandez having signed for 4 years, $27.5M, I expect Molina to get 3 years and $5M per as an absolute minimum. As a negligible upgrade on Zaun (under contract for $1M, .254 / .351 / .376 over last 3 years, 938 AB), Molina would be a total waste of cash. What this team needs is a respectable backup catcher who can give Zaun enough days off to keep him fresh.

Jacko - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 09:52 AM EST (#137081) #
Count me as a big Joe Dillon fan as well (his stats are posted in the BWS thread).

I can't see any downside risk in offering him a contract. Heck, I would even make space on the 40-man roster for him and DFA someone.

Whoever gives him 300 AB next year is going to be very pleased.
Exit - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 09:59 AM EST (#137082) #
I like this rumour, I've been hoping that JP would take a stab at Molina from the beginning. Molina would give the Jays a solid backstop duo. Not to mention the defensive side that Molina would bring to the Jays, to have a backstop that can actually produce runs, in my view anyway, gives the Jays a very solid lineup with lots of depth, whereas many teams have no production from the C in the lineup. Lets face it, as it stands right now, what is the alternative, Quiroz..please.
Thaskins - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:02 AM EST (#137084) #
Anyone think now that Damon has signed with NY the Red Sox might be interested in making a deal for Rios? He probably should be in CF as I think he can handle it defensively. His arm in the deep caverns of Fenway would be a big asset over Damon's potato gun shooter of an arm. Plus, offensively, his numbers would look better as a CF that a RF. As far as I know, the Sox don't have any internal options for CF right now and I don't think there is much left on the market (Is Torii Hunter still being floated out there?) Not sure who we'd want in return but it seems like a possibility where both clubs could come away happy with a deal.
Leigh - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:04 AM EST (#137085) #
Matt LeCroy (platoon DH with Hinske, emergency catcher - Hillenbrand gone)

This is my favourite of the above options by far. Just for the fun of it, I decided to combine Hinske's 2005 vs. RHP and LeCroy's 2005 vs. LHP. The result is 513 AB, 148 H, 29 2B, 2 3B, 24 HR, 62 BB, 8 HBP. That is good for a line of .288/.374/.493... that's an OPS of .867, which fits in nicely on the 2005 leaderboard just above Miguel Tejada (.865) and Mike Sweeney (.864).

Pistol - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:07 AM EST (#137086) #
"I can't see how anyone could argue that Molina would be anything other than a perfect fit for the Jays."

* He's coming off his career season where his OPS was .782. But he's a career .273/.309/.397 hitter, which is ok for a catcher, but nothing special.

* He's 31 and is slooooow. I wouldn't bet on him aging well.

* Benjie's defensive reputation is probably better than it should be. After gunning down 45% of runners in 02 & 03 he declined to 26% and 31% in 04 and 05 respectively. (Average is about 31% - Zaun was at 23% last year)

* Ramon Hernandez signed for 4 years and $27.5 million and is a similar player (#6 at BBref). AJP had two free agent years bought out at $5.5 million each (and he's #4 at BBref...how convenient). I think the starting point would reasonably be 3 years and $18 million. I'm not crazy about that.

* Is Molina going to want to split time with Zaun? And given that Zaun is one of the leaders on the team do you want him to take a secondary or split role? Will there be resentment that Molina would make about 4-5 times the money Zaun does even though they're comparible players? (They both had 15 win shares last year.)

If it's a case of being able to get Molina at a discount (3 years or less and $5 million/year or less) because other teams no longer need a catcher then that's one thing, but if it's going to cost Hernandez money I'm not all that interested.
Leigh - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:11 AM EST (#137087) #
If the team is going to spend money, it ought to be in an attempt to upgrade. Even if they made the same amount of money, I'd rather have Zaun than Molina.
slitheringslider - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:24 AM EST (#137090) #
Spending $5mil plus on a catcher is a dreadful idea. I would rather JP sign a veteran journeyman catcher (like Zaun was 2 years back) and use him as a security measure in case Quiroz fail. I want to at least give Quiroz a chance to succeed in the majors.
Exit - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:29 AM EST (#137091) #
shouldn't Quiroz have to succeed in the minors before we start talking about him succeeding in the majors.
Pistol - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:41 AM EST (#137094) #
I find it interesting that the upper threshold of salaries this year is $13 million/year (although with a 40% luxury tax rate it's effectively $18.2 million to the Yankees). Matsui, Furcal and Damon all got that. Konerko got $12 million and Burnett $11 million.

It seems teams are worried about going too high on any one player and it's benefitting the next tier of players.
VBF - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:45 AM EST (#137096) #
I think he's out of options and will have to start the year in Toronto.
Jacko - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:47 AM EST (#137097) #
I find it interesting that the upper threshold of salaries this year is $13 million/year (although with a 40% luxury tax rate it's effectively $18.2 million to the Yankees). Matsui, Furcal and Damon all got that. Konerko got $12 million and Burnett $11 million.

What would Vlad or Arod get in this market?

I think the top end is starting to rise again...

Kingsley Zissou - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:52 AM EST (#137101) #
I'm part of the group that would love to see Rios dealt.
However, dealing him to the Red Sox is playing with fire. The last thing I want is to face him 19 times a year if he actually pans out to the player everyone's been talking him up to be.
Jacko - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:53 AM EST (#137102) #
As long as Quiroz stays healthy and plays ok defensively, the Jays should not care if he hits .193 with 0 HR. He's out of options, and might as well be given some AB to see what he can do with them. I'm sure he can fulfill the modest requirements of giving Zaun 1-2 days off per week.

The success of the 2006 team is not going hinge on the contributions of the #2 catcher. Include me in the "1 molina is too many" camp. There are better ways to spend that money, if it is available.

All the Jays really need to do is stash a few minor league catching veterans at Syracuse just in case Quiroz hurts himself.

Pistol - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:56 AM EST (#137104) #
"What would Vlad or Arod get in this market?"

Tough to say, but Beltran got $119 over 7 years from the Mets last year. We'll see another $20 million player in the next few years - perhaps Miguel Cabrera.
Jim - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 11:24 AM EST (#137108) #
'Obviously I can't see how anyone could argue that Molina would be anything other than a perfect fit for the Jays'

He scares me to death. I want no part of him. I can't even imagine having to watch his slow 'rear end' chug down the line as he grounds into double plays.

Jacko - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 11:33 AM EST (#137110) #
Anyone remember that game against the Angels where they messed up the rundown, and Chris Gomez beat Molina in a footrace to the plate to score the winning run?
Rich - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 11:41 AM EST (#137111) #
I wouldn't pay Molina 4 or 5 million per. I agree that Zaun may well need a better backup than Q, but if there's one area where even JP's biggest detractors have to credit him, it's been an uncanny ability to find useful catchers on the cheap (Wilson, Myers, and Zaun). Someone like Lecroy would fit this mold.
Twilight - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 11:41 AM EST (#137112) #
I don't think Quiroz will be that bad. He definitely has to work on a few things, but I thought he was alright defensively and has a good arm. He is still raw, and could definitely use some time to adjust. I don't think he will ever become Pudge, but I'm sure he'll get better.

I think stashing a couple catchers in the minors would be a good idea, just in case he and Zaun are both DL'ed. Remember Zaun had a very good OBP for his average. That as well is indicative of his defensive abilities at controlling the plate.

I think before anything else is done, JP needs to get another solid bat. Another Overbay to play RF. If he can address the team's biggest weakness first, then a catcher would be cool if he can get one.
Newton - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 11:43 AM EST (#137113) #
I like the idea of signing or trading for a player capable of catching on a part time or temporary basis who also has enough offensive upside to be used at other positions ie. C. Wilson and LeCroy.

Going into the 2006 season with Cat and Rios slated to start at the corner OF slots would be a major dissapointment and a significant failure for JP.

You don't throw that kind of money at pitching and go into a season with a lineup that might potentially yield only 30-40 HR from 3 key offensive positions (RF,LF,DH). I'm encouraged by the acquisitions thus far but if this is how the team looks in April I'm afraid we will fall short of true contention minimizing the return on the investments already made.

JP shouldn't sleep until he acquires another Overbay type bat to play a corner OF position.















Jacko - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 12:03 PM EST (#137116) #
Going into the 2006 season with Cat and Rios slated to start at the corner OF slots would be a major dissapointment and a significant failure for JP.

That's a little harsh. The Cat/Reed platoon has been very productive over the past few years. Find Rios a decent platoon partner (convert Hinske to RF!) and factor in a little year over year improvement, and right field should be productive as well.

3RunHomer - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 12:08 PM EST (#137117) #
About the non-tenders: If I'm a GM with no pitchers (think Devil Fishees); I think I'd be pretty excited about getting a shot at reclamation projects like Josh Fogg, Wade Miller, Kurt Ainsworth, Ramon Ortiz, Jose Acevedo, Grant Balfour and Mike Lincoln.

Of course the Fishees are the Fishees and they non-tendered Joe Borowski so the above is moot. But all those guys have talent and should get a long look from someone.

Heck ... Borowski, Lincoln and Ortiz will probably end up as closers by July ... then get bazillion-dollar contracts from teams that overpay for saves because they can't see that these guys are freely available every winter.
Matt - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 01:23 PM EST (#137119) #
Where do you guys have our Jays finishing this year?

I'm thinking with the shift of Damon to the yanks, we've got to have a shot at second in the AL East with a wild card spot looming... even with the roster as is.
The Bone - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 01:45 PM EST (#137123) #
If J.P. can't find a right-handed bat in trades or in free agency, then I would think that'd leave him no choice but to keep Aaron Hill on the 25 man even if he had to start out strictly as a righty platoon bat...After all, the players who man the 3 positions he played last year all can be reasonably expected to have a sub-650 OPS against lefties and McDonald can't be reasonably expected to fill that offensive void

Hinske out, Hill in and we have a decent offense with the Cat/Reed platoon and the Hill/Koskie or Adams or sometimes but rarely O-Dog platoon - Can reasonably expect a .775 OPS (minus at bats by injury replacements/Gibbons not using optimal lineups) against both lefties and righties, a significant upgrade on the .740 OPS from last year



BCMike - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 01:50 PM EST (#137124) #
You don't throw that kind of money at pitching and go into a season with a lineup that might potentially yield only 30-40 HR from 3 key offensive positions (RF,LF,DH).

As opposed to not getting the pitching and still going into the season with the same outfield?

TamRa - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 02:18 PM EST (#137126) #
Personally, I don't know why we aren't going hard after Craig Wilson if the Pirates seem to have reduced his role so much. Heck, given their failed run at a 3B, maybe they can be presuded to tolerate Hinske over there. Toss in a B level prospect or a couple of million and see what happens.

Also, let me just express me mixed feelings that Gil Meche is so VERY available (after I have coveted him for years) at the precise moment when we have absolutly no use for him.

I hear the Cards are going to sign Sid Ponson which is laughable. Meche in the hands of Dave Duncan could be sweetness...surely they can come up with someone the M's would take.
Newton - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 02:18 PM EST (#137127) #
BC Mike:

The point is that when you make such investments (Burnett/Ryan), which I support, you need to ensure a return on them by making the appropriate supporting moves.

If the offence isn't improved by April it would have been wiser to save those resources for a season in which we were truly ready to compete.

I have confidence JP will make another move(s), just grow weary when he says there is nothing out there.

I hate excuses.
Ron - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 02:30 PM EST (#137129) #
Nice to see JP has been reading my posts about getting Molina:)

This is the first time I've read or heard JP being interested in another catcher. I just wonder how much faith he has in GQ.
Hodgie - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 02:40 PM EST (#137130) #
"If the offence isn't improved by April it would have been wiser to save those resources for a season in which we were truly ready to compete."

I would agree if the signings had been one year rentals, but we musn't lose sight that 5 year investments were made. It is too idealistic to think that a team that has not even come close to competing for a playoff spot in over a decade should hold onto their resources until the moment came that they could address every need all at once. Incremental gains are better than becoming the Kansas City Royals.

Leigh - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 02:44 PM EST (#137131) #
Deleted the second half of your double post for you, Newton.

BC Mike, Newton makes a strong point. If now is the time that the Jays have chosen to spend the necessary resources to be a top-notch run prevention team (and I think that they have done this very well), it stands to reason that the acquisition of hitting is required.

Last year, the Jays were a B+ pitching team and a C hitting team, for that relatively unsatisfying B- average. If it takes a B+ average to make the playoffs, and they have upgraded the pitching to A without upgrading the hitting, the pitching improvement is lost because the new average is B (not enough to make the playoffs).
Geoff - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 02:59 PM EST (#137132) #
When is the discussion of handling the pitching staff going to come up? The catcher isn't just a bat and a cog in the defensive coverage -- he's the key to the effectiveness of the pitching too.

And the trouble of platooning catchers is that your starting pitchers usually prefer one guy or the other. So if the pitcher's don't want the guy you'd hope would be catcher #1, you're in a pickle.

How would Molina compete with Zaun on the Jays' staff? How's his english? My understanding is that although Molina is a sloth on the paths, doesn't walk much and has more offensive potential than Zaun but comparable performance, he calls a damn fine game.

It would be a great luxury to spend on Molina, and would be a distraction as to the #1 thing, but an important piece in the likely event of losing Crash for some time.

I'm sure J.P. is looking at cost/return and with limited options out there, I presume Molina must make sense (and surprisingly not overpriced?)
Newton - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 03:18 PM EST (#137133) #
Thanks Leigh, for a second I thought maybe the site detected that kind of thing.

Don't be fooled Hodgie, those were the most myopic "5 year" investments ever made.

Burnett and Ryan were signed to pay big dividends over the next 2-3 seasons.

I want to go into this season expecting the Jays to be in the thick of the wild card hunt and I'm not there yet.

Given the tremendous run prevention base the Jays have developed a below .500 record seems unlikely. An over under of 85 wins would be my guess with the current roster, remarkable given our obvious weaknesses at the most readily available offensive production positions (LF,RF,DH).

As such the marginal benefit of each added win greatly exceeds the marginal cost of acquiring that win for the Jays at present (going from 85-90 means a heck of a lot more than going from 75-85).

Adding a solid bat or two will pay tremendous dividends.

We're on the threshold gentleman and it would be a tragedy not to cross it.



BCMike - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 03:18 PM EST (#137134) #
BC Mike, Newton makes a strong point. If now is the time that the Jays have chosen to spend the necessary resources to be a top-notch run prevention team (and I think that they have done this very well), it stands to reason that the acquisition of hitting is required.
Last year, the Jays were a B+ pitching team and a C hitting team, for that relatively unsatisfying B- average. If it takes a B+ average to make the playoffs, and they have upgraded the pitching to A without upgrading the hitting, the pitching improvement is lost because the new average is B (not enough to make the playoffs).

I understand that, but you can't pass up an opportunity to improve your team in one area just because you might have difficulty improving in another area.

Obviously another hitter is needed, but just because one is needed it does not mean that the need will be filled. You can't manufacture one out of thin air no matter how much you want one. The reality is, right now there might not be a deal that the Jays can do. Call it an excuse if you want, but that won't change anything.

The Jays need another hitter, but they need to make the right move to get one. They may even have to go into the season with the lineup they have now whether they(or we) want to or not.

Chuck - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 03:22 PM EST (#137135) #
he calls a damn fine game.

That's the type of statement that's easy to make but difficult to quantify.

in the likely event of losing Crash for some time.

I though Greg Myers was Crash. Is that now Zahn's nickname as well? Is every old, white catcher now named Crash? I guess pretty soon all catchers will either be named Crash, Pudge or Molina. Or Yorvit.

Andrew K - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 03:23 PM EST (#137136) #
Anyone remember that game against the Angels where they messed up the rundown, and Chris Gomez beat Molina in a footrace to the plate to score the winning run?

I remember it well -- one of the two games I've ever seen live.

I don't think Molina is a fit for Toronto. We just need to find some power hitting outfielders. I'm disappointed that, so far, JP has failed here (he's accomplished all the other things he needed to do, but this is a big hole). Still, there's time for a trade yet, and there might be a chance in late May when some teams are already thinking that they need to make a move, perhaps for pitching.

Exit - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 03:29 PM EST (#137137) #
Heres an idea, Why not sign Slammin' Sammy Sosa to a deal riddled with incentives.
Matt - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 03:36 PM EST (#137139) #
It would appear, though, that in order to acquire this one elusive bat it might take something more than what we've seen being offered to this point.

I think JP might have to consider dangling McGowan to make something happen.
sweat - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 03:56 PM EST (#137141) #
It would make more sense to overpay a FA then to trade McGowan.
Hodgie - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 04:10 PM EST (#137143) #
Don't be fooled Hodgie, those were the most myopic "5 year" investments ever made.

Newton, I am not sure that I would call either investment myopic, in fact I think it shows considerable foresight on behalf of the Jays. I believe Burnett's salary is the same for the last 4 years and given his relative youth I fail to see why his expected return is limited to the first 2-3 years of the contract. More so when considering the likelihood that "market value" for pitching is only going to continue to escalate in future years. With fixed cost certainty, the marginal cost for each win in upcoming years should be considerably reduced.

Whether or not they are correct will be determined by the players performance; but the Jays obviously did a lot of homework and their estimation, Burnett and Ryan were "their" preferrable pitching solutions. I would hate for considerable resources to be used to acquire what may not be their preferrable hitting solution just because a need exists.

Newton - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 04:19 PM EST (#137144) #
Burnett can opt out after 3 years...
vw_fan17 - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 04:19 PM EST (#137145) #
Newton, it's true that another bat or two will pay tremendous dividends, IMHO.

However, I ALSO think that JP has put himself in a good position precisely BECAUSE we're mainly weak at LF, RF, DH.

We've filled the "hard-to-fill" position of pitching. Shouldn't LF, RF and DH (in theory) be the easiest positions to upgrade offensively?

VW
Ryan Day - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 04:21 PM EST (#137146) #
It's worth remembering that the team could see some considerable offensive improvement from the players already here: Hinske and Hudson will be 28, Wells will be 27, Adams and Rios will be 25. All these guys are at an age where big years start popping up. Not that all of them will break out, but a Vernon Wells v.2003 and Rios finally figuring out what he's doing could make the team drastically different.

Even Hillenbrand is at an age where he could still have a big season, and I think it's almost guaranteed that Koskie will improve.
Matthew E - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 04:34 PM EST (#137147) #
<em>I think it's almost guaranteed that Koskie will improve.</em>

He'll be 33 next year and was never a superstar.

It's anything but guaranteed. He could be all done. He may not even finish the season. I'm not saying that he *is* done, but I wouldn't want to rely on him.
Jonny German - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 04:35 PM EST (#137148) #
Don't be fooled Hodgie, [Burnett and Ryan] were the most myopic "5 year" investments ever made.

Even if we take "ever made" to mean "this offseason", this statement is only true on the technicality that the only other 5 year contract this offseason was Paul Konerko. If we open it up to all contracts signed this offseason, I like Burnett and Ryan as investments better than the 4-year contracts given to Johnny Damon, Jarrod Washburn, and Billy Wagner, and the 3-year contracts given to Matt Morris and Jacque Jones

our obvious weaknesses at the most readily available offensive production positions (LF,RF,DH).

As the roster currently stands, Mssrs. Catalanotto & Johnson are in line for all of the left-field playing time and Mssrs. Hinske & Hillenbrand the vast majority of the DH playing time. I'd love to hear who you think are better than these.

Heres an idea, Why not sign Slammin' Sammy Sosa to a deal riddled with incentives.

You see that big fork in his back? That's why not.

Geoff - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 05:31 PM EST (#137151) #
Regarding the debate on contract length, I think it is a big focus for the market watchers. They want to start pushing for longer contracts now, which is where we saw Boras pushing Damon.

This why I brought up whether it would have looked dumber on New York to pay $60-mil for 6 years rather than $52-mil and 4 years in another thread. Of course it would look dumber, because all the nay-sayers gripe about money spread out over years where the risk is too great. There would be a lot of whining about giving an aging player 6 years, and the precedent it would set. But how much of an investment risk would another two years and $8-mil have been for Damon? And wouldn't it have trumped Boston's 4-year, $40-mil offer well enough to appease Boras?

Nobody knows how a player will age or perform in five years. Certainly some players surprise you with durability, others fade too fast. Remember when plenty of industry execs thought Clemens was done heading into 1997? Had the Jays signed him to 7 years at $8-mil per, they'd be laughing. Heck, give him $10-mil per without a trade-me clause or promise.

Arod, Manny, Brown, Hampton, Giambi, Beltran all got the years. Neagle and Chan Ho got 5 years. That record has executives scared of long-term deals. Perhaps they got excited by the success of Bonds' big contract and now many are snakebitten. Jeter is on a 10-year that began in 2001. Jeter's a fine player and a fixture of the Yankees, but who would take a risk on his years and that money?

My point is there are plenty of haters out there of putting ballplayers into big multiyear contracts, and they have plenty of evidence to provide. Then there are people who want to convince the doubters that there are misconceptions and anomalies in those bad cases and the long-term deal still works. Well, the Jays are now a part of the experiment of risk. The Yankees avoided another contract greater than 4 years by overpaying. Personally, I think they could have had Damon for 6 years at $9 or 10-mil per if they offered it at the start. But they paid about the same and avoided those ugly years above 4 no executive wants to see on a contract.

The unfortunate reality is that a player may be good four years down the road but may just want out - à la Manny or Clemens. And Burnett's got an opt-out now too. That's what really kills the mood on these contracts. Then it becomes a no-win situation. He sucks, you pay him. He succeeds, he wants more money or he leaves.

Glevin - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 06:16 PM EST (#137152) #
Regarding length of contract, there is a huge difference between giving long-term contracts to pitchers and to hitters. The chances of Arod being great through every year of his 10-year contract is pretty good. The chances of any pitcher keeping his value for more than a three or four years is not great. I don't think you will see many pitchers getting contracts longer than three years. Have a look at the starting pitcher signings of 2004. (The ones I can think off the top of my head)

Pedro- 4 years, 53 million. 2.82 ERA, 148 ERA+
Benson-3 years, 22.5 million, 4.13 ERA, 101 ERA+
J. Wright-3 years-21 million. 6.08 ERA, 73 ERA+
Pavano-4 years, 40 million, 4.77 ERA, 93 era +
Milton-3 years 25.5. 6.47 ERA, 69 ERA+
Russ Ortiz-4 years 33 million, 6.89 ERA, 64 ERA+
Leiter-1 years, 7 million, 6.13 ERA, 69 ERA+

Truly horrible almost across the board. The Pedro signings looks OK but he is still owed over 40 million over the next 3 years which seems very risky. The contracts this year to Rogers, Burnett, and Matt Morris all seem very risky to me.


Fawaz - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 06:26 PM EST (#137153) #
The contracts Glevin cites don't really prove anything in terms of the risk associated with signing pitchers to long-term deals. They merely demonstrate that it's a bad idea to pay mediocre-to-bad pitchers a lot of money. It's also a bad idea to pay bad hitters a lot of money.

That's not to say I disagree with the conclusion (I really don't have an opinion), but that's hardly compelling or relevant evidence.
Glevin - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 08:03 PM EST (#137155) #
Well, I have to believe it is fairly obvious that giving long-term contracts to pitchers is a bad idea in general simply because of the number of injuries pitchers sustain. Of course, one years' worth of signings don't prove anything, but can anyone think of a good 5-year pitching signing in recent memory? The big difference between hitters and pitchers is reliability. If you were to sign Shea Hillenbrand to a 5 year contract, you have a good idea of what you are going to get. OPS+ of 95-110 and not a good chance of getting hurt. Pitchers are just weird. They get hurt all the time, and they are just not very predictable. The most recent long-term contracts for pitchers I can think of were Hampton for 8 years-121 million, Dreifort 5 years-55 million, Chan Ho park 5 years-65 million, Neagle, 5 year, 51 million, Kevin Brown, 7 years-105 million, Mussina, 6 years 88.5 million. Mussina's contract is by far the best and he still made 35 million over the last two years for being a pretty mediocre pitcher. I am sure there are contracts I am missing, but there is a very good reason GMs don't give them out readily.
Geoff - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 08:38 PM EST (#137156) #
I don't completely agree, Glevin. I believe pitchers (particularly SPs) are more susceptible to injury and also can be bigger disappointments more often than hitters. But I'd partly explain the latter to be caused by the importance of starting pitching. When your starting pitcher performs poorly, the pressure and focus is much greater on him than your 3B with the big contract or even your CF. The pitcher's game is primarily him vs. the other team. The fielders and batters fade into the fabric of the team much better.

Still, that's hardly an excuse for Brown or Dreifort or any other guy you mention to start pitching like Jeff Tam.

But for every blunder like Brown or Neagle there are also guys like Mo Vaughn (six years, $80 million), Giambi (seven years, $120 million), Preston Wilson, Knoblauch, Cristian Guzman (4 years, 16.8 million), Drew (5 years, $55 million), Beltre (5 years, 64 million), Bagwell (5 years, $85 million), Thome, Rolen (8 years, 90 million), Piazza (seven years, $91 million), Ken Griffey Jr. (nine years, $116.5 million), Green (six years, $84-million), Bernie Williams (7 years, $87.5 million)...

But how many of those guys were really as disappointing to fans as the starting pitchers? Who cares that Bags is hauling away your team's cash when you have Pettite and Rocket and Oswalt? Astro fans can overlook the four-year, $32 million deal given to Richard Hidalgo before the 2001 season but they'd be up in arms if they gave that contract to say, Jaret Wright...if he was supposed to be their number 2 or 3 starter. Of course Astro fans do complain about Hidalgo and maybe Jays' fans just have the limited view to look through...the Joey Hamiltons, Prokopecs, Sirotkas, etc. of recent history.

Bad contracts to hitters who disappoint, or suffer injuries, do exist. They just don't get noticed as much.
Mylegacy - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 08:39 PM EST (#137157) #
If Mussina had signed a five year deal when he was 29, same age as AJ is now.

W L ERA IP H BB SO
1999 Baltimore Orioles 18 7 3.50 203.1 207 52 172
2000 Baltimore Orioles 11 15 3.79 237.2 236 46 210
2001 New York Yankees 17 11 3.15 228.2 202 42 214
2002 New York Yankees 18 10 4.05 215.2 208 48 182
2003 New York Yankees 17 8 3.40 214.2 192 40 195

AJ in 05:

2005 12 12 3.44 209.0 184 79 198

I agree long contracts for pitchers are dangerous. BUT, if I had to sign Mussina for five when he was 29 or AJ for 5... I'd sign AJ!
Mylegacy - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 08:41 PM EST (#137158) #
OOOPS... The line with W L ERA etc. didn't stay where I put it. Sorry
Jacko - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 09:02 PM EST (#137159) #
Bah, Joe Dillon was sold to the Yomuiri Giants.

With all the talk of how hard it is to find a decent righthanded bat this year, you'd think he would have been able to find a job in MLB.
Dave Till - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 09:45 PM EST (#137160) #
NEW YORK (AP) -- New York Yankees general manager Carl Denham is proud to announce that his latest exhibit, Da-Mon, Monster Of The Northeast, will be on exhibit at the Bronx Theatre for an 81-date run in 2006.

"At great personal risk, our scouts ventured into the dark heart of Yawkey Island, where we found him freely roaming the grasslands," Denham told our reporter. "It took four years and over fifty million dollars to trap him."

Are you not afraid, I asked.

"There is nothing to fear," Denham said. "He has been shorn, and robbed of all his power."
Geoff - Wednesday, December 21 2005 @ 10:57 PM EST (#137161) #
To Mylegacy and others who are posting stats, use the <pre></pre> tags around your stats to preserve the proper whitespace. [hint: pre = preformatted text]

Then, you'll need to select HTML formatted instead of Plain Old Text for your post and put in <p> tags for your paragraphs.

To the Batter's Box Grounds Crew, would you consider drawing up a page of formatting tips like this for posts and linking to that info from the post form?
Geoff - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:45 AM EST (#137167) #
The foolish Yankee spenders are expected to pay more than $100 million this year into MLB's coffers and we go through another offseason wondering, when are they going to break George's will to spend?
The Yankees, as a third-time payer, had to pay a 40 percent tax on the difference between their $200 million player payroll and the $128 million competitive balance tax threshold. The Red Sox, as a second-time payer, had to pay at a 30 percent rate.
...

The threshold rises to $136.5 million next season and both the Yankees and Red Sox must pay at the 40 percent rate if their payrolls surpass that mark.

With the signings of Hideki Matsui, Johnny Damon and a number of relievers, the Yankees payroll is expected to remain in the $200 million range. The Red Sox, meanwhile, may not hit the threshold this year after their offseason restructuring.

How much money can George lose without a certainty of a playoff spot? How much more will he spend just to keep in the playoff, let alone the WS hunt? Will George's legend grow even larger with more largesse in his spending?

Where can you get better entertainment than in the AL East?

melondough - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 08:04 AM EST (#137168) #
The Royals are close to signing Reggie Sanders to a two-year, $10 million contract.
A reasonable signing, though there's still no good reason for the Royals to invest in a 38-year-old outfielder. Sanders has gone to the playoffs five of the six years, but that surely won't happen in Kansas City. Dec. 22 - 1:03 am et
Source: FOXSports.com

Well I guess it looks like I am not going to get my wish. Sanders would have been real nice. Maybe J.P. will jump in and offer a bit more to pry him to T.O. (though I can't understand how he would rather play for an absolute non contender like K.C.).

He's not even from south central U.S. He was born in S.C.
C'mon JP - I say offer Sanders $11 million/2 yrs and see what happens.

Pistol - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 08:26 AM EST (#137170) #
Too bad about Sanders. I would have guessed the Jays would have offered at least 2 for $10 on Sanders. And if offers were similar you'd think he'd prefer Toronto to KC at this point. I guess going from one to two years was a breaking point for the Jays.

Don't get your hopes up on Molina. Blair writes "Ricciardi wouldn't discuss how far the Blue Jays would go financially to sign Molina, but it's safe to say they won't go much above $4-million a year."

I guess Molina should have taken that 3 for $24 offer from the Mets.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051222/JAYS22/TPSports/Baseball

The Cubs may be considering trading Prior for Tejada. Wow, that's nuts.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5189112

Jacko - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 08:39 AM EST (#137171) #
Also in Blair's blog:

It's possible the Blue Jays might consider moving Aaron Hill or even Eric Hinske to the outfield if they can't add another bat through a trade, but that's not the most palatable option.

I wonder if that's idle speculation (like what has been going on here) or something that's being openly discussed by the team...

R Billie - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 08:49 AM EST (#137172) #
I can see that consideration with Hinske but I don't know why you would want to waste Hill's ability to field and throw at an outfield corner. Unless Russ Adams shows incredible improvement through spring training then Hill should be the 2006 shortstop on merit.
Skills - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 08:55 AM EST (#137173) #
Everyone can breathe a collective sigh of relief...Ponson signed with the a Cardinals. Phew! Now we actually have a chance next year.
melondough - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 08:58 AM EST (#137174) #
Am I the only one who thinks Hinkse is too well.....fat to play the OF (I guess there are more politically correct ways of saying it but sorry I think it best describes the situation). I just picture balls getting over his head, him turning around to watch it hit the wall, and then having to endure him waddling to catch up to the ball.

I would much rather see the fleet footed Hill (or Adams) play the OF. Also Hill has a great arm.

I am assuming LF over RF, especially for Hinkse. Isn't that where all the worst OF's play (i.e. Manny, etc.)?
sweat - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 09:05 AM EST (#137175) #
Thats just your own prejudices coming out to play. Hinske is definately a solidly built guy. But by no means is Hinske fat. He also has reasonable foot speed, exhibited by the occasional stolen base. IMO speed is secondary to getting a good read off the bat, and unless Hinske has played some OF before, he probably wouldnt be getting to many good starts on flyballs hit his way.
Newton - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 09:18 AM EST (#137176) #
Many seem preoccupied with our infield "logjam".

Aside from Hudson and Overbay its a logjam of overpaid mediocrity and largely unproven younger players.

The solution is not putting an unproven infield bat into the outfield (notwithstanding the obvious defensive problems), it is punting the excess for whatever we can get.

I hope the aforementioned "logjam" isn't the reason we couldn't nab Sanders (ie. due to concerns over the budget).

This is getting ridiculous, and I can only hope this option passed through JP's mind in an instant.

Jacko - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 09:24 AM EST (#137177) #
Am I the only one who thinks Hinkse is too well.....fat to play the OF (I guess there are more politically correct ways of saying it but sorry I think it best describes the situation). I just picture balls getting over his head, him turning around to watch it hit the wall, and then having to endure him waddling to catch up to the ball.

It's preferable to wasting someone like Koskie or Hill out there. They are pretty good at fielding grounders and throwing laser beams to first base (though interestingly enough, Koskie did spend some time out in RF when he played for the Twins).

And like another poster said, while Hinske is a big dude, he's reasonably fast as well. He's not slow like say, John Olerud or Bengie Molina.

I think it would be a worthy experiment to try him out in RF next year. It doesn't much matter if he's in LF or RF, though I imagine he has a better arm than Cat, so he would probably be better suited to RF.

If he proves he's able to handle the position, he makes the lineup a lot more flexible:

vs. RHP

1B-Overbay
2B-Hudson
3B-Koskie
SS-Adams
LF-Cat
CF-Vern
RF-Hinske
DH-Hilly

vs. LHP

1B-Overbay
2B-Hudson
3B-Koskie/Hill
SS-Adams/Hill
LF-Reed
CF-Vern
RF-Rios
DH-Hilly

Hill would also pick up some AB against RHP backing up Hudson. The playing time in RF would probably be more 50/50 than a straight 1/3 - 2/3 platoon to allow Rios to get some AB against RHP. Hinske could also pick up playing time spelling Hillenbrand and Overbay.

mathesond - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 09:41 AM EST (#137178) #
As far as HInske's body being unsuitable for the outfield, all I can suggest is watching Kirby Puckett in Game 6 of the '91 Series climbing the wall to save the Twins' season. (The home run he hit afterwards was pure gravy)
Ryan Day - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 09:47 AM EST (#137179) #
Wasn't Hinske originally an outfielder? I'm pretty sure he was converted to third in the minors.
Pistol - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 10:19 AM EST (#137181) #
I'm not sure why Hinske would be an option in the OF. It's not like his bat forces its way into the lineup.

Hinske is what he is - a .260/.335/.430 player (in a hitter's park) who had a career year when he was a rookie. Rios in 161 games has hit .273/.321/.390. Even if Rios doesn't improve from that, his speed and defense make him the much better alternative in the OF over Hinkse.
Chuck - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 10:50 AM EST (#137185) #
As far as HInske's body being unsuitable for the outfield, all I can suggest is watching Kirby Puckett in Game 6 of the '91 Series climbing the wall to save the Twins' season.

Yes, but Puckett had a long history of being an outfielder and was disproportionately fast for a man with his build.

While it's true that some infielders have made the transition to being passable outfielders, this, to me, would seem like an act of desperation in Hinske's case. I agree with Pistol. Rios, as a complete package, has to be a better option in RF than Hinske.

Isn't there something in a human rights charter that would protect Vernon Wells from being flanked by both Catanalotto and Hinske?

Ryan Day - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:32 AM EST (#137186) #
In theory, there's probably a market for Catalanotto. You could trade him, then put the infielder in left, where he could do less damage anyway. I don't know if you'd really want to trade him - he's one of the most reliable hitters on the team.

I do like the idea of trying Russ Adams in the outfield; I think he could be much better than Hinske out there, and that gives Hill a chance at short.

At any rate, I'm not sure if converting anybody will make it past Spring Training, if then - Ricciardi likes his defence, and I don't think he's willing to punt the entire outfield.
Smaj - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:52 AM EST (#137189) #
I would be stunned to see the Jays make any experimental moves in the OF. This all very pre-mature given its only December. JP will make a move before opening day to acquire another OF'er. I doubt very much that Hinske or Batista will be Jays come opening day.

No need to push the panic button on shuffling players to foreign positions. Many GM's will be performing needs analysis after the free agent dust settles & be looking to add pitching etc. JP will add an OF'er in time.
Mike Forbes - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:54 AM EST (#137190) #
Random fact of the day: Alex Rios was drafted by the Blue Jays as a 3B.
MattAtBat - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:00 PM EST (#137192) #
Looks like the hunt for Sanders is over (not like the Jays were really ever THAT interested in this kind of deal anyways): http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5188214

The Royals. They will be slightly less bad, perhaps even approaching mediocre this year. Good for them.
Jonny German - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:02 PM EST (#137194) #
JP will make a move before opening day to acquire another OF'er.

Right on, Smaj. In fact, with the curious decision to tender a contract to Pete Walker, the Jays have forced themselves to make some kind of move. They're currently committed to 25 players for 2006. What's wrong with that? Well, 13 of them are pitchers, and the only shortstop amongst them is Johnny Mac (to get to 25 you have to send both Adams & Hill to AAA).

MattAtBat - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:07 PM EST (#137196) #
I can't believe I'm saying this, but what about Rondell White? If you look at his numbers, especially when adjusting for park factor, etc., he really could be a quality outfielder.
www.baseball-reference.com/w/whitero02.shtml

Anyone agree with me? How much would he cost? 3 to 4 Mil/year?
Bones - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:20 PM EST (#137197) #
I would definitely be in favour of signing Rondell White. While he can't stay healthy, he would give us a legitimate bat in RF (something that Rios is unlikely to ever provide). I'd be surprised if the Jays could sign him for as little as $3-4 million. $5-6 seems more likely to me, if its a one year deal.
Thomas - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:27 PM EST (#137198) #
In a side piece of news Elrod Hendricks, the Orioles bullpen coach since 1977, died yesterday at the age of 64. Hendricks, who previously played for the Orioles, was well-known for his friendly demeanour and community involvement. He had a stroke earlier in the year and was relieved of his duties at end of the season, although he was kept in the organization in an advisory role. To demonstrate how involved Hendricks was with the community, on Monday he played Santa Claus at a charity event in downtown Baltimore for about 100 children.

He will be missed.
Ryan Day - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:29 PM EST (#137199) #
The problem with White is that you've still got to find someone to play the 40-50 games he's going to miss. There's always Reed Johnson, but that would leave him unavailable to cover for the Cat vs. lefties.
Ducey - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:35 PM EST (#137201) #
If the Jays want to add power to the outfield why don't they play a certain soon to be 26 year old outfielder who has a MLB career .308 average, & .692 slug%? He hit 31 homeruns last year. He bats left and could platoon with Rios. He will only cost $316,000.

I am of course speaking of JFG.

If I am JP I would just sit tight until spring training or even into the first month of the season, wait for guys to start getting hurt (both on the Jays and elsewhere). Then watch the market for guys like Batista and Hinske and Walker tighten up and trade them for some prospects or keep them if you need them.

Mike Green - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:41 PM EST (#137202) #
Elrod Hendricks shared catching duties with Andy Etchebarren on the great Orioles teams of 69-71, and had a big World Series with the bat in their victory in 1970 over the Reds. If catchers deserve some of the credit for a pitching staff's success, then surely Hendricks qualified on this score, as the O's staff of this era was one of the best ever. As Thomas said, he will be missed.
R Billie - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 01:43 PM EST (#137210) #
I'm not sure that Pete Walker has a market beyond the Jays. He's older and didn't put up much in the way of peripherals. Chulk may have a market being younger with better stuff.
Pistol - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 01:44 PM EST (#137211) #
The other problem with Rondell White is that he just signed with the Twins.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2268838

$3.25 million this year, up to $5.25 million next year depending on plate appearances this year (and a $750,000 buyout if he doesn't get 400 PAs).

The DH spots are drying up......
Leigh - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:01 PM EST (#137213) #
I have what I feel to be the *perfect* DH solution. My solution - based on last year's stats - would hit 30 HR and put up a .285/.381/.498 line.

A platoon of Matthew LeCroy and Matt Stairs. The Fat Matt Bats, if you will.

The former is a free agent, and the latter may have just been squeezed out by the Reggie Sanders signing (Mientkiewicz signed and will presumably play first base, Sweeney at DH, Sanders, DeJesus and Brown in the outfield). LeCroy should come relatively cheap and Stairs is signed through 2006 at the low low rate of 1.35M. LeCroy is also a third catcher and Stairs can play the outfield, allowing some more roster flexibility. Surely Stairs would not be too difficult to draw away from KC... they need pitching, we've got tons of it. The total cost of adding what would rival Wells and Overbay as the most productive slot in the lineup would be - likely - less than three million dollars (combined salary) and whomever we have to deal KC to get Stairs.

Is there anything wrong with this?
Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:06 PM EST (#137214) #
Rondell White had shoulder surgery in the fall and is not a lock to start the year. Nice player, but he's pretty well limited to D.H. at this stage of his career. I think improving the offensive output from the right- field slot remains team objective number one.
Jonny German - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:19 PM EST (#137215) #
Is there anything wrong with this?

It requires ditching both Hillenbrand & Hinske, and tightens up the bench in that neither LeCroy nor Stairs is of much use defensively. I'm all for signing LeCroy but I'd platoon him with Hinske rather than bringing in Stairs. This means shipping Hillenbrand out (which I would hope can be done without including cash), and keeping Aaron Hill on the 25-man to caddy for Koskie (though J.P. has stated he doesn't want to put Hill in a super-utility role).

Wedding Singer - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:20 PM EST (#137216) #
Leigh, I don't have time to run the numbers, but wouldn't a Hinske/Lecroy combo have similar performance to a Stairs/Lecroy combo - without having to trade for Stairs?
Mike Green - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:27 PM EST (#137217) #
There are many possible ways to get more offensive production out of the DH slot. Leigh's all-Matt proposal is one of many good ones. However, with the Jays having tendered a contract for Hillenbrand, and with Shea likely to earn $5.5 million in arbitration, he will probably be the everyday DH, and occasional 1B/3B backup. He might also share the DH role to some degree with Hinske.

Frankly, signing LeCroy alone and platooning him with Hinske in the DH role, while leaving Hillenbrand as a well-paid backup corner infielder/pinch-hitter, would not be a bad solution in the circumstances. It's just not likely to be the one chosen because of the salaries involved.
Leigh - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:35 PM EST (#137218) #
Leigh, I don't have time to run the numbers, but wouldn't a Hinske/Lecroy combo have similar performance to a Stairs/Lecroy combo - without having to trade for Stairs?

Yep, just yesterday I wrote this right here in this thread: [j]ust for the fun of it, I decided to combine Hinske's 2005 vs. RHP and LeCroy's 2005 vs. LHP. The result is 513 AB, 148 H, 29 2B, 2 3B, 24 HR, 62 BB, 8 HBP. That is good for a line of .288/.374/.493... that's an OPS of .867, which fits in nicely on the 2005 leaderboard just above Miguel Tejada (.865) and Mike Sweeney (.864).

Hinske/LeCroy is likely the more sensible option; I've just got a soft spot for Stairs, a fellow Frederictonian.

... [S]hipping Hillenbrand out (which I would hope can be done without including cash).

I would be happy if we could deal Hillenbrand for, say, Adam Peterson.

Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:42 PM EST (#137220) #
Is there anything wrong with this?

I like this idea, depends on who K.C. wants. I also have no problem with the speculation about moving players to other positions, I think it's a sound concept in terms of plan B. I'd still like the team to obtain a legitimate guy for right-field, but I think names like Adams , Chulk,and Frasor need to be bandied about, as Batista, Hinske, Rios don't seem to have much value on the open market, given the lack of interest they've seem to have drawn .

robertdudek - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:49 PM EST (#137222) #
As long as Quiroz stays healthy and plays ok defensively, the Jays should not care if he hits .193 with 0 HR.

Well maybe. But only if the organisation doesn't care how many games they win in 2006.
Matt - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:02 PM EST (#137224) #
I'm leaning more towards the idea of standing pat for now until a superior deal opens up - perhaps in ST or the earlier portions of the regular season.

Part of my reasoning for this is b.c I'm simply too hesitant to give up on Rios. I have the feeling he'll soon be, at least defensively, one of the better pure RF's in the league. That arm of his is top tier.

As for Rios' poor play at the plate, I'm still wary to see him travel elsewhere... I think there's a good chance he can redefine his approach, blossom into a 25+ HR talent and make all of us who've grown impatient feel real sorry.

I also appreciate the point made earlier about JFG. 31 HRs in Syracuse is something to look at. Do I think he's a lock to do the same at this level? no. But I don't see any reasons to go crazy and make trades galore...

The only maneuver I've heard of so far that's really intruiging is the Molina rumour. Having two catchers who both call a great game and can both respectably swing the lumber is a luxury not too many teams have.

This is not saying that Zaun isn't good enough to be a #1 catcher in this league... Absolutely not... But given the nature of that position, such a maneuver could pay immense dividends provided the price is right.
Pistol - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:18 PM EST (#137225) #
Platoons are a fine idea in general, but it seems like a many of the suggested moves here revolve around ‘sign this guy and platoon him with this guy’ and the math just doesn’t seem to work for me.

The Jays carry 12 pitchers, and as much as many of us would like that to be 11 the Jays haven’t shown any inclination to do that (and they have 13 under contract right now so it’s really unlikely). So that leaves only 4 bench spots. And three of those bench spots will be taken up by John McDonald, Reed Johnson and a backup catcher (at this point Quiroz). That leaves one final bench spot. At best you could get one platoon out of it, but it better be a versatile player like Hillenbrand that can play either corner infield & DH or Hill that can play anywhere in the infield (which is why I think it’s more likely that Hinske gets moved over Hillenbrand). If it isn’t you’re in trouble when there’s an injury. There's no way to have a platoon in both RF and DH with this roster, and having a platoon DH is asking for trouble because it kills your in-game flexibility.
Pistol - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:22 PM EST (#137227) #
Here's your latest Jays rumor - Troy Glaus:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5190880

"The Jays offered second baseman Orlando Hudson for Glaus, and probably would be willing to part with right-hander Miguel Batista as well if they obtained another player in the deal."
nicton - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:24 PM EST (#137228) #
Anyone see this Foxsports/Ken Rosenthal article on Troy Glaus and the Jays??? Why would the Jays be interested in Glaus???
nicton - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:25 PM EST (#137229) #
Yeah. That's the one. How long before Carlos Quentin rumors start???
Newton - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:26 PM EST (#137230) #
Because he has 40 HR power.

Jacko - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:27 PM EST (#137231) #
I guess the Jays brass is ok with Aaron Hill taking over for O-Dog at 2B?

Unfortunately, this still does not solve their problem of what to do with Hinske or Hillenbrand.

Given that Glaus has no-trade protection that prevents him from being dealt to Toronto, I imagine his agent will use that as leverage to get more money and years out of Toronto.

For that reason the deal, even if the D-Backs and Jays agree to something, probably won't happen. I just can't see them giving any more guaranteed years and money to Glaus, who still has 3 years left on his contract.
Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:28 PM EST (#137232) #
Blair gives his two cents worth, on the Molina situation.
Mike D - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:29 PM EST (#137233) #
I would be happy if we could deal Hillenbrand for, say, Adam Peterson.

Ah, come on, Leigh. This is becoming mere sour grapes. The Hillenbrand trade was not the ruinous disaster you (and many thoughtful, intelligent writers like yourself) predicted. That ship has sailed, and that argument has long been lost.
melondough - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:30 PM EST (#137234) #
I don't like it.

Glaus strikes out a ton, he does not hit for average. All that he does real well is hit Hr's (though he does walk too). I detest the idea of giving up Hudson. I do understand that there is a price to let him go but I don't think this is it.

Also, Glaus makes $9 millon. O.Hudson made $375K last yr and I believe is due for a raise this yr.

Where exactly would Koskie play?

Anyone know how many yrs Glaus is signed for? This neither makes sense financially nor on the field.

Lets not forget what Hudson can do with the bat either. We all know he is one of the best at his craft on the field and we hear his clubhouse presence is tremendous.

I think the most intersting thing about this rumour is that it puts Koskie on the block (or am I wrong?)

I would hate to see the Jays make this deal!
nicton - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:33 PM EST (#137235) #
Makes $11 mil a year. Plays 1B/3B where the Jays only have Hinske/Hillenbrand/Overbay/Koskie to play....
Newton - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:43 PM EST (#137236) #
Glaus becomes our DH/utility corner infielder for roughly the same cost as Hillenbrand and Hinske combined.

3 keys:

Glaus needs to be willing to come to T.O. and be willing to DH

JP needs to have enough confidence in Hill to play 2nd base everyday

JP needs to be confident he can punt salary (Batista may be included in the deal so that helps)

If these conditions are in place I think adding 20 HR's and some OBP from the DH slot exceeds the gap between Hudson and Hill at 2nd.


nicton - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:50 PM EST (#137237) #
Thrown in Batista and get Koyie Hill back...
Jacko - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:51 PM EST (#137238) #
Actually, the article states that the Jays/Sox would move him to 1B, where he has never played before. Sounds like whoever got that scoop forgot that the Jays already made a deal to get Overbay.

I think the half life of this rumour is going to be about 90 minutes...
Geoff - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:12 PM EST (#137239) #
I'm not that familiar with Rosenthal; is he usually as sharp as a bowling ball?

And what's this:

Shawn Green would go from center to right...
I hadn't realized Green spent a quarter of his time in CF last year...and errorless for the year in center and right! Now if he could only get his outfield assists back up to where they were, he could get his first Gold Glove since his final year of Jays service in '99 and start earning Johnny Damon-type money again.

Hey wait a second... screw the righty bat, let's bring Greenie back to town!

JayFan0912 - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:15 PM EST (#137241) #
I think the jays will put glaus at 3B and trade two of hinske/koskie/hillenbrand. I would trade hinske and hillenbrand -- with the addition of glaus hillenbrand becomes redundant, and hinske doesn't qualify as a major league hitter. Until he was platooned heavily, the rookie shortstop was outperforming him at the plate. I think the jays will have to pay a portion of hinske's salary. Does anyone know if hinske can be sent to the minors ? Can he refuse the assignment (and if so, does his contract become voidable ?)

I think the improvement in having glaus/koskie/overbay would be huge compared to hinske/hillenbrand/koskie from a year ago. Salary wise, if you include batista and hudson (4.9 + 3 (approx. here) Million), it seems like you are adding 1.1 Million to the payroll. With this in mind, just dealing hillenbrand and sending hinske to the minors will satisfy the budget constraints.

Barring an injury to glaus this is a win win deal. The Dbacks get out from the obligation to glaus, and add a gold glove 2B and a SP - both are needs for their team. We get the slugger we (sorely) missed last year, even without an improvement, 37 HR would go a long way in improving the W/L record in one run games.
Geoff - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:18 PM EST (#137242) #
maybe the Diamondbacks would take a Cat and Dog for Green?

Return Batista to last known and address and maybe get a prospect in the package?
Geoff - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:28 PM EST (#137245) #
Barring an injury to glaus ...
ha! this is ludicrous. Why would we want to see the Jays pay all that money for another corner infielder with injury problems? And why would the D-backs trade Glaus for Hillenbrand and some other 3B or poor 1B? Would we be sending them money too?

Arizona dumped Hillenbrand on us because they wanted to turn to Glaus. If Arizona wanted to take our Koskie and Hinske contracts in exchange for Glaus, then so be it. But I doubt that's going to happen. If the Diamondbacks are looking to sell, I hope the Jays upgrade their OF with Green.

HippyGilmore - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:30 PM EST (#137246) #
No chance of Green being traded to us. He's got no trade protection to any team except the California teams.
Jim - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:31 PM EST (#137247) #
'(and if so, does his contract become voidable ?)'

Unless you take the Denny Neagle or Sidney Ponson route there is no way a player can have his guaranteed contract become voidable.
Jacko - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:31 PM EST (#137248) #
I think the jays will put glaus at 3B and trade two of hinske/koskie/hillenbrand. I would trade hinske and hillenbrand

Pulling this off is not as easy as it seems. JP has been trying to trade these guys for the past few months and _nobody_ is biting.

I'm guessing this rumour is pure speculation on the part of Rosenthal. A few days ago, the Jays just came out and basically said they're done trying to make trades until Spring Training.

Mike D - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:36 PM EST (#137249) #
He's got no trade protection to any team except the California teams

Right. And even of those California teams, Green can't be traded to San Francisco or Oakland without his permission -- he can block any trade except one to a Southern California team. It took a lot of doing to get him to agree to his D-Backs trade.
Geoff - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:40 PM EST (#137250) #
Comparing a trade for Green or Glaus

trade for Green:

  • good PR advantage, particularly if you lose Hudson,
  • much improved defense, (Green, Vern and Rios? sweeet)
  • slightly if not greatly improved offense
Glaus:
  • bad PR when that devastating injury occurs,
  • defense downgrade likely,
  • some more pop for the kids who like sluggers
Newton - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:47 PM EST (#137251) #
Jacko:

It is foolhardy for any team to close their mind to potential transactions for any duration.

You simply cannot foresee the opportunities that may arise.

I would love to see Glaus in a Jays uniform and I hope there the rumour is credible.


Mylegacy - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:04 PM EST (#137252) #
I find this threat amusing.

I'd sell my mother (were she not already deceased) to the glue factory people if we could get Glaus!

Good Grief Bauxites: 40+ homers, 350+ OBP, 500+ SLG!

SIGN THE SUCKER::: Trade whoever we have to to get him and whoever is left for a bag of ball to clear the money we need.

Now, to quote my good friend Nike; JUST DO IT!!!
Ron - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:14 PM EST (#137254) #
I'll win the lottery before Glaus gets traded to Toronto.

Although I must say the power bat options are getting smaller and smaller in the FA market.

If Rios even gets a sniff at 450+ AB's the Jays are probably going nowhere next season.

Heading into the off-season, the Jays biggest needs were 2 power bats. Because JP spent most of the money on pitching, there's very little payroll room left to aquire another bat.

And if Hillenbrand gets dealt and a power bat doesn't come the other way, that would once again make the Jays 2 bats short.
Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:16 PM EST (#137255) #
I think the half life of this rumour is going to be about 90 minutes...

While I'm no fan of RoboThal's post trade analysis skills, his ability to break a story is outstanding. I believe this rumour has legs.

Mike Green - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:16 PM EST (#137256) #
Maybe it is me, but I do not understand where this rumour comes from. Glaus still has significant defensive value at third base, and he is young and well paid. He seems like an unlikely trade target.

Now, perhaps, in the spirit of the season, we might wish to refrain from death wishes, threats, calls to Satan for vengeance or other like indignities.
Jacko - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:19 PM EST (#137257) #
This is stupid! I love Hudson. He means so much to the team, clubhouse and community. Unless your getting back a young, proven bat (Dunn, Cabraea, Tixeria) Husdon should stay put. I'd rather trade Adams with Batista and Koskie for Glaus. You clear some payroll and can slide Hill into SS where he is a better defensive player then Adams.

Once again, people are making the classic mistake of assuming that Arizona is even interested in Adams/Batista/Koskie.

Currently, the Jays have 4 corner infielders on their roster who are going to cost around 17 MM next year. Unless they make a trade that gets rid of one of them, they cannot take on another corner infielder (especially one who makes 11 MM per season in the next three years of his contract).

Good Grief Bauxites: 40+ homers, 350+ OBP, 500+ SLG!

Small quibble, but Glaus hasn't hit 40+ HR since 2001.

Jacko - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:22 PM EST (#137258) #
If Rios even gets a sniff at 450+ AB's the Jays are probably going nowhere next season

There's a serious case of cognitive dissonance going on here.

The presence of Glaus on the Jays roster will do _nothing_ to prevent Rios from getting 450 AB next year. Glaus does not play OF!

Ron - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:28 PM EST (#137259) #
"The presence of Glaus on the Jays roster will do _nothing_ to prevent Rios from getting 450 AB next year. Glaus does not play OF!"

I wasn't talking about Glaus replacing Rios's AB's.

I should have added at this point it looks like Rios will be the starting RF. I don't mind Rios as a 4th OF but there's no way he should be starting on a club that plans on contending for the playoffs/World Series next season.

Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:40 PM EST (#137261) #
Driving this rumour is the following:

-The D-Backs have 3 first base types. Connor Jackson ( simply an outstanding prospect),Tony Clark ( hit 30 hrs. this past year),and Chad Tracy who they like best at third. They do not have the D.H. spot to stash one of these guys.

-Glaus is a poor defender. (B.P rate of 93 last year/-10 UZR according to MGL's numbers)

-Arizona has a wack of deferred contracts, they may be seeking some salary relief.

-There has been some talk of moving incumbent second baseman, Counsell to short.
Kingsley Zissou - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:41 PM EST (#137262) #
OUT - Hinske, ODog, Batista
IN - Glaus, Koyie Hill, Eric Byrnes (signed as FA LF)
ME - Happy Guy
Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:13 PM EST (#137263) #
Essentially this trade boils down in this manner;

-Glaus replaces Hillenbrand. Hillenbrand traded. Salary differential estimated plus $4.25 million. Glaus's VORP 45.4/Hillenbrand's 32.5. Glaus upgrade in terms of offence.

-Hill for Hudson. Wash offensively. Downgrade defensively. Saves $2-2.5 million.

-Glaus increased injury factor?

-Would Glaus come to Toronto and at what long-term cost?

-Is Batista part of this deal and would anybody be coming back?

-Can you get anything for Hillenbrand? Should you hold on to him in regards to potential draft choice(s)(?) after 2006 when he is a free agent?

-Is the offence upgrade of Glaus worth the defence lost with Hudson?

-What do you do with Hinske?

Tough choices to be made.

Geoff - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:17 PM EST (#137264) #
The Padres Have signed Mark Bellhorn to an $800,000, one-year deal.

Either San Diego is trying to make Boston look stupid, or really, really smart (in relation to their own stupidity). Are they going to trade Davids, Roberts for Wells?

The Padres also agreed to a $500,000 deal with reliever Brian Sikorski, of which $200,000 is guaranteed. He pitched in Japan the last five seasons.
Those Padres are either crafty or desperate.
JayFan0912 - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:18 PM EST (#137265) #
I wasn't saying that hinske and hillenbrand must be included in a deal with arizona ... it could be with any other team. Hillenbrand doesn't seem very hard to trade -- the angels liked him at the trade deadline, and they haven't improved their offence this offseason at all from last year. Hinske is not untradeable if the jays pay all of his salary, or maybe 80%, or 70%, etc. Trading hinske would probably be about negotiating the money exchanged in the deal. The twins liked him, and so did the reds last year.

If you keep koskie, they can split the time at third and dh, giving each plenty of rest.
Leigh - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:37 PM EST (#137266) #
Hill for Hudson. Wash offensively.

I hope not.

Mike D., I thought we agreed to disagree about Hillenbrand quite some time ago. We interpret the evidence differently. It's not like I have a personal problem with Hillenbrand (though I think I remember that he made an anti-gay remark on the radio in Boston, but hey, it was awhile ago). I will continue to root for him, and I hope he does very well, I just don't think that he will.

Mylegacy - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:48 PM EST (#137267) #
Wildrose, Hinske becomes back up at 1st, 3rd and DH.

Hilly, Hudson and Batista gone frees up about $10.25 million and Glaus makes $9.25 million that puts one million towards the $3 million we are over budget and leaves us still $2 million over budget at this point.

Adams
Cat/Johnson
Wells
Glaus
Overbay
Koskie
Zaun
Rios
Hill

I've seen worse...in fact I saw it last year.
Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:57 PM EST (#137268) #
I hope not.

Not sure what this means. I think Hill will be an outstanding bat, although initially he may take awhile to find his footing as many youngsters do. Hudson, I believe was exactly league average offensively last year.

Pistol - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 07:08 PM EST (#137269) #
I believe Aaron Hill as an everyday second basemen will be more valuable than Orlando Hudson in 2006.

Hill hit slightly better than Hudson last year and will be 24 next year. And he's already shown to be an above average defender at multiple positions. Any defensive dropoff will more than be made up by an increase at the plate.
Mylegacy - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 07:36 PM EST (#137271) #
Boston also wants him. Hope they aren't a fit..
Mike Green - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 07:45 PM EST (#137272) #
I believe Aaron Hill as an everyday shortstop would generate a WARP1 well over 5.0. Russ Adams managed a WARP1 of 0.9 in 3/4 time last year. Adams' career defensive Rate as a shortstop is 82. Adams at short and Hill at second makes no sense bearing in mind their defensive abilities (Hill's strong arm, Adams' weak one).

Hill would make a good defensive second baseman, but his offence will in my view suffer for a year or two while he learns the new position.
Marc Hulet - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 07:52 PM EST (#137273) #
Glaus' injuries get over-blown. He's not really injury prone, for the most part. He had one really bad injury that he has recovered from and I believe he also struggles with the odd back problem... Something all power hitters battle with because of the strain from swinging so hard. If he can DH a third of his games it should significantly reduce the wear and tear on his body.
Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 08:05 PM EST (#137274) #
I prefer Hill at shortstop over Adams. The re-signing of Macdonald is a bit of an enigma to me. It tells me the team, despite well-reasoned denials, has concerns over its middle infield defence going forward ( meaning no O-Dog in the picture).

My preference would be to trade Adams, but his trade value may not meet my expectations.
Mr. Destiny - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 08:19 PM EST (#137275) #
I would think that Josh Fogg might be a decent low-cost investment as a long reliever or possible spot starter. He was brutal last year but had some solid success in Pittsburgh for a couple of seasons. Maybe Josh Towers version 2.0.

Eric Byrnes wouldn't be a bad guy to have. Similar to Reed Johnson but with more power.
Chuck - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 08:29 PM EST (#137278) #
Well, as payback for signing Johnny Damon, the Red Sox have signed John Flaherty. I'm not sure how many crappy catchers they need, having already signed Huckaby. Maybe they'll use him exclusively to steal signs.

Anyone know what has become of Kelly Shoppach? Has his stock dropped so precipitously? I don't recall having heard that he was traded. Maybe he figures to be a trading chit in a deal this off-season and Flaherty and Huckaby are "insurance", much the same way a Nutrigrain bar in your desk drawer is insurance against missing lunch.
Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 09:07 PM EST (#137279) #
Astros re-signed infielder Danny Klassen to a minor league contract. Klassen, 30, batted .319/.375/.535 in 342 AB for Triple-A Round Rock last season. With Jose Vizcaino gone, it's possible Klassen could make the team as the Astros' 25th man. He last appeared in the majors with the Tigers in 2003. Dec. 22 - 4:15 pm et

Good to see our potential World Classic team starting shortstop has a job next year. He was having a great year until injury knocked him out.

Mylegacy - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 10:08 PM EST (#137282) #
This is what I love about the off-season. Here we are, all crazier than hoot owls, wondering IF we might get Glaus.

We all know how much we need/want a powerful right handed bat, and here is one, according to Ken Rosenthal, tantalizing close. A real possibility.

Tick tock tick tock

During the season we only make little decisions, like do we leave Doc in for another inning...but now, just before Christmas we make the BIG decisions.

Oh well, I think I'll have another scotch and watch Miracle on 34th Street for the 22nd time.
The Bone - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 10:21 PM EST (#137284) #
According to Peter Gammons on ESPN Insider, an A.L. GM claims Glaus to the Jays is likely - no mention of the return
Wildrose - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 10:23 PM EST (#137285) #
I love it to. I must admit I'm really surprised by all the deals around Christmas. I thought there'd be a moratorium or something at this time of the year, but the action is still fast and furious.
Twilight - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 10:56 PM EST (#137286) #
It would be sad to see Hudson go, I really like him. But Glaus! Actual clean up hitter! OMG!!!!!11one
greenfrog - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:15 PM EST (#137288) #
I don't think we should give up *too* much for Glaus. He's essentially a DH for the next few seasons (according to ESPN, his defense at 3B is declining and he tends to get hurt playing there), and a damn expensive one at that: $9.25M in 2006, $10.75M in '07, $12.75M in '08. Ouch. Half of our payroll tied up in AJ/BJ/Roy/Troy in 2007 and beyond.

AZ would have to take Hinske and Batista, for sure. I still really don't want to see JP trade Hudson.

My 2c.
Nick - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:19 PM EST (#137289) #
I'm not that familiar with Rosenthal; is he usually as sharp as a bowling ball?

Actually, I have been extremely impressed with Rosenthal's reporting this winter. He has been first on a number of big stories and hasn't fueled any baseless rumors as far as I can tell. I didn't particularly care for his analysis of the Ryan signing, but his sources have proved fairly reliable thus far. I can't see what Gammons' article reads, but the headline reads: "Blue Jays closing in on Glaus." Who knows how close they actually are, but I happen to believe there are at least substantive talks going on.

If Hudson and Batista were traded in the deal and Hillenbrand was traded somewhere else (which wouldn't be hard to do), the salary would work. But in that case, Glaus would be replacing Hillenbrand's production, not Rios', so it's not quite the upgrade I am still hoping for. (Giles would have been perfect. O well.)

I'm leery about trading Hudson.....

Glaus was an awesome talent early in his career and was still a very good player last year. I have no idea how is shoulder is doing, and that is a huge part of the equation. If last year was a step back toward his 2000 season, the Jays are targeting an incredible hitter. It's more likely that 2000 was his career year. It's hard to say whether this would be a positive move without more knowledge of his health.

Mylegacy - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:27 PM EST (#137290) #
"ESPN Scouting Report

2004 Season

Things started so promisingly for Troy Glaus, as winter laser eye surgery was letting him see the ball better than ever in spring training. But a decision to forego another surgery, to his right shoulder, came back and punished Glaus and the Angels. He re-injured his shoulder in May against the Yankees on a swing and wound up missing nearly four months. Still, he came back and proved he's one of the elite young sluggers, mashing seven home runs in September to help the Angels reach the playoffs.

Hitting

As long as he's healthy, Glaus should be able to hit 30 home runs a year without much effort. He has the potential to hit 50 or more, having smashed 47 to lead the league in 2000. The key, as always, is staying healthy. He insists on playing third base and that could lead to further injuries down the road, as his 245 pounds diving for balls can tend to strain tendons, ligaments and muscles. The other issue is the long slumps he can stumble into, typically around early June.

Baserunning & Defense

Glaus makes the routine plays and he once had a strong throwing arm. However, there is a serious question mark about his throwing after he spent the winter rehabilitating from shoulder surgery. His range seems to decrease year by year, making him just an average third baseman. He is surprisingly nimble around the bases for such a large man, though he never will be a basestealer.

2005 Outlook

The Angels decided it was too risky a bet to give Glaus a long-term contract after shoulder surgery, so they decided to go with promising rookie Dallas McPherson for the league minimum. In December, Glaus signed a four-year, $45 million deal to play third base for the Arizona Diamondbacks. While his slipping defense and a tendency to get hurt are concerns, he will continue to put up big power numbers based in a hitter-friendly ballpark."

His 05 production was .258 / .363 / .522 / .885

Apparently "his friends" say he is expecting to be fully healthy this year and he is "expected" to be awesome.

Come to papa!!
Mylegacy - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:29 PM EST (#137291) #
I forgot to mention, he is 29 this year.
Mylegacy - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:37 PM EST (#137292) #
ALLEGEDLY, (I haven't heard it myself) MLB Radio is reporting that the deal is Glaus to us for Batista, Hudson and League. One report states we will get another batter as well.
Nick - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:38 PM EST (#137293) #
$12.75 million in 2008 is a tough pill to swallow, but if the Jays are going for it with 2006-2007 as the best window with Halladay and Wells still under contract, then they may take another big risk. They have to weigh the cost with their needs and the availability of good talent that can satisfy their needs. They might see Glaus as one of the few options left for an impact hitter.

I think he would split time with another injury prone 3B, Koskie, between 3B and DH in attempt to keep them both fresh.

Another huge piece to this is his no trade clause - Glaus was born in California, went to UCLA for college, played for Anaheim, and now, Arizona. How likely is it that he would waive his no trade clause to come east (and North) to Toronto? That might be a tough nut to crack. SS LOOGY might be friends with him from their Angels days.

One thing I am sure about is that if the Jays had Molina and Hillenbrand hit in the middle of their lineup next year, they would have a chance at the MLB record for double plays.
BrockLanders - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:44 PM EST (#137294) #
Glaus' body has alot of wear and tear on it for a 29 yearold. He has shoulder problems and a balky knee. This deal is Russian Roulette for JP considering the financial committment that comes along with Glaus. I pray to god this trade breaks down.
VBF - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:46 PM EST (#137295) #
It's tough on the community trading a way someone like Orlando Hudson. He's hosted Much Music, makes countless trips to Toronto in the offseason to help with the charities, and much like Carlos Delgado, Toronto has become a second home--as supposed to his team's city.

I think if you asked his teammates about him, you'd find out that he's more than a friendly face and a fun-loving guy. I think you'd find he's a person that has changed people's lives, and that the loss of him from the team would take the wind out of them. Toronto hasn't had any O-Dogs in its history.

But the community and the players don't make the trades, and the GM improves the team and gives a fair (but not exhorbant) value of a player like O-Dog. He isn't above the team and at the end of the day, we want to be better. We are better with Glaus, if this reported trade really goes through.

That said, it's going to be _extremely_ painful to see Orlando Hudson in a different uniform.

I imagine in this time I've written this post and previewed it several times, this trade will be bogus and we can all squeeze Orlando tightly.

VBF - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:47 PM EST (#137296) #
I see that is not the case.
VBF - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:52 PM EST (#137297) #
MLB Radio is just playing some old clips. Where did you hear that?
Newton - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:55 PM EST (#137298) #
Glaus would be the most valuable acquisition of the Jay's offseason.

Let's get this done.

Nick - Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:56 PM EST (#137299) #
From ESPN.com:

Glaus to Blue Jays?

Dec 22 - Peter Gammons reports one American League GM says he "expects Troy Glaus to Toronto to happen." Boston and Baltimore have been in, but the Blue Jays were the leaders on Thursday."

Take from that what you will. Gammons usually requires a spoonful of salt rather than a grain.
timpinder - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:08 AM EST (#137300) #
I'm not getting my hopes up, but I really hope this trade happens.

- Glaus for Batista, Hudson and League
- Glaus is the DH, Overbay at 1B, Koskie at 3B
- Adams shifts to 2B, Hill takes over at SS
- OF remains the same, Rios given an opportunity to develop
- Hinske traded to O's for AA nobody (salary dump)
- Hillenbrand traded for backup C (semi-salary dump)
- Griffin starts at AAA but is the safety net DH if Koskie or Glaus gets hurt

J.P would be almost right at budget, and the meat of the order would look pretty damn good.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but not getting my hopes up. I hope Glaus agrees to a trade.
Donkit R.K. - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:19 AM EST (#137301) #
Maybe they can turn it into a three way...

TO TOR: M. Ramirez, K. Hill

TO BOS: Dustin McGowan, Alex Rios, Batista, Troy Glaus

TO ARI: Batista, League, Shoppach

I know this deal would never go down quite like this, but there are some guys on these three teams that could be moved in any combination of deals.
Donkit R.K. - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:22 AM EST (#137302) #
Definitely won't go down like that... I sent Batista to Ari and to Bos... slip Hillenbrand in for Arizona ahead of Batista... maybe Lilly instead of Hillenbrand, if he won't return there (I assume he couldn't return to Boston after the controversy with Epstein - and, yes, I know Epstein is gone but it is still some of his guys running the show there)
Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:26 AM EST (#137303) #
Forget it. No M-Ram to Toronto. It will never, ever, ever, ever, ever happen. Period.
R Billie - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:47 AM EST (#137304) #
Glaus for Hudson straight up is about even before you take into account the fact that Glaus will probably make up to three times more money than Hudson over the next three years.

So if the Jays end up having to kick more into a trade to outbid Boston or Baltimore or whomever, this could become more of an overpay than Overbay.
Mylegacy - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:52 AM EST (#137305) #
IF the deal happens, it costs what it costs.

Hudson for Glaus

Batista so we can afford Glaus

League because we got Marcum, McGowan, Romero, Purcey, Perkins, etc. etc. and IF League is the piece of the puzzle that clinches the deal, then SO BE IT!

Overbay at first, Koskie at 3rd, Glaus at DH

Hinske and Hillenbrand still available for back-up/trades

Do I smell an outfielder down the line...
R Billie - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:57 AM EST (#137306) #
If we're giving up Batista, Hudson, AND League in trade then one of the bats coming back had better be one of the D-Backs young outfielders or Connor Jackson.

It better NOT be Koyie Hill who is older, poorer defensively, and just as unproven offensively as Quiroz at the major league level. Offence is supposed to be his calling card and his offensive history is decidedly mediocore.

For Jackson, Young, or Quentin in addition to Glaus this becomes a good deal for Toronto even with the severe disparity in salary after 2006. If it's just Glaus or Glaus and Hill then this has the potential of going largely in Arizona's favour.
melondough - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 01:35 AM EST (#137307) #
Troy Glaus - 3B - Diamondbacks


Talking about Troy Glaus, one major league executive who recently spoke with Diamondbacks GM Josh Byrnes said, "I think he’s going to Boston, that’s what it sounds like."
The Blue Jays may still be further ahead in talks at the moment. The Boston Herald believes that the Red Sox will try to add both Glaus and Kevin Millwood and that the team isn't presently involved in the Miguel Tejada-Mark Prior talks between the Cubs and Orioles. Dec. 23 - 1:25 am et
Source: Boston Herald

If Boston gets both then JP needs to seriously push for the Jays to get out of this division.

VBF you asked: MLB Radio is just playing some old clips. Where did you hear that?

If you go to MLB.com about half way down closer to the left you will see "MLB Radio Dec 22 UTL". If you play this clip and go to about 1:02:00 you will find the discussion about Glaus to Toronto (I was lucky I found it quick). They said it was Batista, Hudson and Cash (if you can believe it - you would think cash would GO to Toronto).

Anyhow I still hope neither TOR nor Bos get him (not if it means giving up Hudson and then dumping a bunch of players to make it work salary wise).

Now if they were mistaken and $ was coming with Glaus then maybe.
greenfrog - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:07 AM EST (#137308) #
The thing I don't like about the rumoured deal is that we're getting further away from the basic game plan of developing our own talent and adding a couple of pieces to put us over the top. The problems with adding Glaus are (i) he's basically a DH, and not an OF, which is what we really need; (ii) he has an injury history; (iii) he's expensive; (iv) he may have reached his prime already; (v) the proposed deal still leaves us with a glut of DH/1B/3B types, who will be hard to deal for much, as we would have virtually no leverage since other teams know we *have* to deal them; (vi) we give up a great defensive 2B, and go with two unproven middle infielders during our supposed playoff run.
Mike Forbes - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:09 AM EST (#137309) #
Hmmm.. I'd have to file this under the best offseason in Jays history if they got Glaus without giving up Hudson.. But that won't happen.. I'm just hoping they get Glaus, not Boston.. Then Glaus hits 40 homers and they kick Boston's face in on their way to the wildcard..Hopefully something is resolved when I wake up... Last time I said that they signed AJ..

Hey, a guy can dream.
Smithers - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:24 AM EST (#137310) #
Count me in for Glaus, although it would suck badly to lose Hudson in the deal - yours, mine and VW's favourite Jay.

In regards to the title of this thread, I came across this article and couldn't resist posting it - apparently Jobu's "Too Many Molinas" idea has spawned imitators!

"Angels continue sitcom production"
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/13470316.htm
andrewkw - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:22 AM EST (#137313) #
Count me as someone who really hopes this trade happens. As much as I love Hudson he is worth including in any trade for a 35-40 home run hitter. If Glaus and Koskie split time at 3rd base even though Koskie is a better fielder it will maybe help Koskie lose less time to injury. Glaus had the one major injury but I don't think he's injury prone. Certainly not when comparing him to Koskie. Stopping the Red Sox from getting him would also be huge. I think thats reason enough to go the extra mile to get Glaus since JP would be intrested in him without that fact. 2 players in one offseason the Sox wanted and they ended up going to the Jays, how amazing would that be. Sounds more like something the evil empire would do.
Pistol - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:04 AM EST (#137315) #
From today's Boston Globe: "Two industry sources said the Sox were an unlikely match for Glaus unless the price came way down. ESPN's Peter Gammons reported last night the Blue Jays were close to a deal for the 29-year-old Glaus."

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/23/sox_on_the_lookout/?page=2
melondough - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:16 AM EST (#137316) #
The Royals will announce the signing of Reggie Sanders to a two-year, $10 million deal today.
Sanders said he picked Kansas City over Cleveland. It's probably safe to assume the Indians weren't offering a multiyear deal. Dec. 23 - 3:18 am et
Source: Kansas City Star

Oh well, it would have been nice to have Sanders. I think K.C. is getting a decent deal here at two years.

From the Boston Herald...

Exactly what the Diamondbacks were looking for in return from the Sox was unclear, although if the Sox were willing to assume the bulk of the $32.5 million remaining on Glaus’ deal for the next three years, the cost in players may not be as high as one would think.

Team president and CEO Larry Lucchino said Wednesday at Fenway Park that the Sox would “redeploy” the dollars slated for Damon. The $40 million they had allotted for Damon for four years certainly would cover Glaus, 29, who had 37 homers last season for Arizona.

However, it would not address the Sox’ glaring need for a center fielder, leadoff hitter and shortstop.

The Diamondbacks are said to be interested in Toronto second baseman Orlando Hudson. The Blue Jays, however, are believed to be on Glaus’ no-trade list, although he could waive it. The Sox are believed to be on Glaus’ list of suitable teams.

“The Diamondbacks have been keeping us abreast in general of what’s going on,” said Glaus’ agent, Mike Nicotera. “It would not surprise me if something were imminent, but I couldn’t tell you. When you’re not part of the negotiations, you can’t tell what’s imminent.”

Interesting....apparantly it "wouldn't take much to get him". Well Hudson is "much". Again my 2 cents is that this deal would absolutely just be a deal for the sake of making one.

-We lose defense up the middle (great...good thing we have 3 groundball pitchers now).
-We lose team character and club house presense (don't under-rate it)
-We lose trading power of our CI guys (& I would like to leep the leaner, power swing altered Hillenbrand and see what happens)

Too many people get fixated with power hitters. In my eyes this is a lousy idea no matter what the supporters say.
CeeBee - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:18 AM EST (#137317) #
As much as I'd like Glaus in the middle of the order I just can't believe the Jays would be much improved going into the season with Adams and Hill up the middle, Basically 1 and a half hears major league experience between them plus Hill learning a new position. Hudson is the glue that holds the infield together and somehow I can't see Roy, A.J., Josh, Gus or any of the pitchers being too happy with this scenerio. I'd rather see Adams or Hill go instead of Hudson, though I'm not real fond of that solution either. Please Santa, don't let this trade happen the way it's being bandied about!
andrewkw - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:45 AM EST (#137320) #
All i want for christmas is a power hitter.
laketrout - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:12 AM EST (#137326) #
So if the Jays end up having to kick more into a trade to outbid Boston or Baltimore or whomever, this could become more of an overpay than Overbay.
"Overpay for Overbay" - that has got to be one of the most annoying phrases to come out of this off season. Nails on a chalkboard annoying. I don't think we gave up to much for Overbay nor is his contract too big.
Mike Green - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 10:11 AM EST (#137333) #
Flaherty signed by Boston? I guess Flaherty/Huckaby share the "Wakefield catcher" role.
timpinder - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:21 AM EST (#137339) #
I like Hudson too, but if it takes Hudson to get a 35+ HR guy, you have to do it.

I'm not the GM, but I have to assume that Hill (strong arm) would be taking over at SS and it would be Adams (weak arm causing 13 errors in 2005) that would be learning the new position at 2B. That scenerio makes the most sense, NOT Hill at 2B and Adams at SS.

With Adams and Hill up the middle and Rios in RF this would be a team that would continue to get better over the next few years. Hudson is Hudson, and as good as he is defensively, his hitting is behind Adams and significantly behind Hill's.

For everyone that posts that Hudson's defense is of paramount importance, then why not play Hudson and McDonald up the middle all year and send Adams and Hill to AAA? (Rhetorical question)
Mike Green - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:03 PM EST (#137380) #
Orlando Hudson has been a somewhat better hitter than Russ Adams during their respective minor and major league careers. Last year, O-Dog's EqA was .249; Russ' was .247. Now, Adams is 3 years younger and may end up better in 2006, but that is far from a certainty.
Too Many Molinas - Coming Soon To Toronto? | 176 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.