Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
At a press conference this evening the Blue Jays finally announced the deal that has been mentioned for several days: Troy Glaus and prospect Sergio Santos join the Jays from the Diamondbacks in exchange for Orlando Hudson and Miguel Batista.

While it seems that Troy Glaus has been around for a long time he's still just 29 years old. He was the 3rd overall pick of the entire draft by the Angels in 1997. He made it to the Big Show the following year in 1998 and was a regular in 1999. In 2000 at just age 23 he made it to the All Star game hitting 47 HRs over the entire season.

In four playoff series Glaus has excelled. He was the World Series MVP when the Angels defeated the Giants in 2002. In the post season Glaus has hit .347/.427/.819, including 9 HRs in 72 ABs.

Here are Glaus' career regular season stats:

1998	21	165	.218	.280	.291	49
1999	22	551	.240	.331	.450	98
2000	23	563	.284	.404	.604	150
2001	24	588	.250	.367	.531	127
2002	25	569	.250	.352	.453	115
2003	26	319	.248	.343	.464	118
2004	27	207	.251	.355	.575	138
2005	28	538	.258	.363	.522	125

Some cause for concern with the acquisition of Glaus is due to shoulder and knee injuries that limited his play in 2003 and 2004. While being a full time DH may be the best role for Glaus to remain in the lineup Jeff Blair reported today that Glaus has been told privately that he'll be the primary third baseman for the Jays.

Glaus had Toronto on his no-trade list in his contract with the Diamondbacks. However, his agent noted that the reason for that was only due to the old, hard artificial turf that the Jays used prior to 2005.

Glaus waived the no-trade clause, but in return for that he got a further expanded no-trade clause. Additionally, Glaus received a player option for 2009. Specific terms were not known at this time but Glaus' agent noted it was "very reflective of the average annual value of the original deal." The contract Glaus signed last off-season was for $45 million over 4 years so I'd suspect the player option would be in the $12 million range.

No money will exchange hands between Toronto and Arizona in the deal, although the Diamondbacks will send Glaus 'less than $1 million' in 2008 to make up for net money that Glaus will lose to taxes because he's playing in Canada according to the Arizona Republic.

Regardless of the turf, Glaus still could have turned down the trade to Jays. However, his agent Mike Nicotera said that Glaus is "going (to Toronto) because he believes they can win a World Series". And certainly the Jays are bringing Glaus' 'Big Scary Bat' to Toronto to attempt to do just that.

Also, coming to the Jays in the trade is shortstop Sergio Santos. The Diamondbacks selected Santos out of high school with the 27th overall pick of the 2002 draft. Santos progressed quickly through the minor leagues reaching AAA this past season, although not without struggles. However, Santos will be just 23 next year - the same age as many of the college players the Jays drafted in 2005 that will start in Dunedin - so he's still ahead of the curve for his age.

Here are Santos' career minor league stats:

Year	Team 	League	Age	Level	AB	Avg	OBP	SLG
2002	Miss.   Pio	19	Rk	202	.272	.367	.520
2003	Lancstr	Calif	20	A	341	.287	.368	.408
2003	El Paso	Tex	20	AA	137	.255	.293	.365
2004	El Paso	Tex	21	AA	347	.282	.332	.461
2005	Tucson	PCL	22	AAA	490	.239	.288	.367

At 6'4", 240 Santos is large for a shortstop which has led to spectulation that he may be moved to a different position. However, Arizona apparently felt he could handle shortstop and the Jays like to keep a player at the most demanding defensive position they can handle for as long as possible so it's likely he'll start at SS for Syracuse this spring.

The scouting report on Santos is quite interesting and noted that he had exceptional bat speed (and compared to Sheffield). Santos was Baseball America's #3 prospect after the 2004 season and #10 prospect after the 2005 season. With both Justin Upton and Stephen Drew in the organization the Diamondbacks apparently felt Santos was expendable.

Miguel Batista ends up being the odd man out of the Jays pitching staff after the acquisition of BJ Ryan and AJ Burnett. He returns to Arizona two years after leaving to sign with the Blue Jays. The Jays pitching staff is now back to 12 players, with McGowan and League (and Rosario and Marcum) in the wings and likely to start the season in Syracuse.

Orlando Hudson's departure opens up a full time spot for Aaron Hill. After being called up last season following Koskie's injury Hill started off on fire before cooling off ending the season at .274/.342/.385. Hill ended up moving between 3B, SS, and DH until a sprained ankle sidelined Hudson in September. At that point Hill shifted over to 2B and played capably, and statistically was as strong as Hudson on 'D' (although obviously over limited games). It was perhaps that 'audition' at 2B that gave the Jays the confidence that Hill could handle 2B in Toronto.

While the trade opens up a spot for Hill it's also a strong endorsement of Russ Adams by the Jays brass as well. If the Jays felt that either Adams or Hill couldn't handle the middle infield it's not likely that they would have gone ahead and traded Hudson.

With Glaus now on the team the Jays have 5 players (Glaus, Overbay, Koskie, Hillenbrand and Hinske) for three positions (3B, 1B, DH). It's almost certain that the Jays will need to trade one of Koskie, Hillenbrand, & Hinske. My best guess is that Hillenbrand ends up being the player traded - he seems to have the most value and most reasonable contract at this point. However, in Blair's article today he reported that Gibbons has lobbied to keep Hillenbrand and Ricciardi has apparently obliged.

Glaus will make $9 million this season, $10.5 million in 2007 and $12.5 million in 2008. It is estimated by Blair, and I believe a number given to him by the team, that the Jays currently have $73 million committed to the 2006 player budget for 26 players. The Jays have mentioned a $75 milllion payroll as their target this season.

(Note - The $73 million payroll is the accounting version of the payroll - the actual cash paid out in signing bonuses and salaries for this season is currently around $81.5 million).

Besides unclogging the corner infield it's likely that the Jays offseason is complete. There's always a chance that they will attempt to upgrade at backup catcher or RF but I think at this point they'll go with Quiroz and Rios and see how they fare. If upgrades are needed in those positions - or others positions - moves can always be made in the summer. Remember, for all the moves the Jays made this offseason they only traded away one prospect - Zach Jackson. There's still plenty of players in the minors, particularly pitchers, that other organizations would be interested in acquiring at the trading deadline.

JP Ricciardi and crew came into the offseason with money to spend and a plan to upgrade the roster. They've executed their plan and now the 'on paper' improvements will take the field in the spring. We'll see how the moves work out once the season begins but it's arguably the most exciting time to be a Jays fan since Joe Carter touched 'em all in 1993.

The Official "Troy Glaus is a Jay" Thread | 105 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Geoff - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 06:41 PM EST (#137901) #
I can't shake the fear of a Mike Sirotka curse arising again. Maybe Roger lifted the curse.

And where's this press conference where I get to see a new face in a Jay uniform? Tomorrow now?
VBF - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 06:42 PM EST (#137902) #
Is the PC over?
jsut - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 06:43 PM EST (#137903) #
they are setting up on the video cast on
Geoff - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 06:46 PM EST (#137904) #
is it not running yet? I expect this link will work when it does: go here's working RIGHT NOW!
Nick - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 06:46 PM EST (#137905) #
There is a link on the team website. If you click on it right now, it is just the reporters waiting for the PC to start. I think it's live but can't say for sure.
jsut - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 06:48 PM EST (#137908) #
how long is godfrey going to blather on this time?
VBF - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 06:52 PM EST (#137911) #
Hey, we may as well use the chat to discuss the conference.
Geoff - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 07:57 PM EST (#137956) #
I'm not sure what is stranger, that TSN wouldn't stop poker to show the press conference, or that the Jays elected to hold one during the time of a Leafs and a Raptors game.

And Godfrey could not be present, and old man Rogers had already gone to bed.
mark. - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 08:05 PM EST (#137961) #
I was somewhat surprised that J.P. didn't mention Santos even once.
Joel - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 08:51 PM EST (#137964) #
Tom Singer at had a ready to print article that is now up: Tom Singer Article The most interesting bit at the heart of the article, to me, for all the payroll watchers, was this paragraph: And just look at some of those numbers. Ryan, Burnett and Glaus represent a $139 million commitment. But even with such investments, Toronto's payroll (about $80 million) climbs to less than half of New York's. If we take a step back, this is a nice little team for the money. I'm looking forward to seeing them play.
Barfieldsgun - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 09:05 PM EST (#137965) #
Ive got to admit. After all is said and done, I am pleasently blown away by this massive offseason overhaul. And while the true measure begins in April - the last
two months have been some of the most exciting in BlueJays offseason history.
Thankyou Mr.Ted Rogers for giving a damn.
Thankyou J.P for some very clever manuevering thus far and Thankyou O'Dawg
for some unforgettable memories.

If we can retain Hillenbrand and unload Coskie or Hinske
it will be a proverbial cherry on an already glorious looking cake.
VBF - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 09:31 PM EST (#137966) #
Something caught my attention in Blair's column today.

We all know that Bud [Selig] was unhappy with the contracts signed by Ryan and Burnett. My guess is Paul told him to relax, that we're not going over $75-million.

Selig, whose job description requires him to fret about these matters, called Godfrey twice after the Ryan signing. Selig has a considerable hammer when it comes to dealing with the Blue Jays: a $5-million annual currency equalization

Sorry, Bud. Didn't know we were'nt allowed to spend money. I see where you're saying, but I don't recall such a fuss about the Russ Ortiz contract or some of the even uglier ones.

Jabes - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 10:11 PM EST (#137968) #
I'm surprised this news hasn't brought Coach out from his reclusive hide-away. Well, maybe he'll make an appearance tomorrow.
Ron - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 10:22 PM EST (#137970) #
On the Score report, the reporter said JP is planning on calling Hinske tommorow to see if he's interested in playing some LF next season.

I have a very bad feeling about Hinske playng LF.
Elijah - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 10:34 PM EST (#137973) #
Well, I think Hinske is certainly athletic enough to play the outfield. I remember how many weak throws to 1B he made when he was playing 3B just to hit the target but I know his arm is stronger than he displayed. When he throws in from the OF, I suppose he won't have to be as accurate. I think it's intriguing and if nothing else, it gives the team a little more flexibility and of those three guys, Hinske is the best internal candidate for a position switch.
King Ryan - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 10:34 PM EST (#137974) #
I'm surprised this news hasn't brought Coach out from his reclusive hide-away. Well, maybe he'll make an appearance tomorrow.

I remember when the D-Backs signed Glaus, Coach said it was a bad idea. It would indeed be interesting to hear his opinion now that Glaus is a Jay.

Pistol - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 10:35 PM EST (#137975) #
"I don't recall such a fuss about the Russ Ortiz contract or some of the even uglier ones."

And anyone outside of Toronto wouldn't know about this. I actually think it's quite common of Bud to do this, especially when it's setting 'new ground' in contracts. He's ALWAYS complaining about salaries in general publically and I'm sure it'll pick up again this year with the CBA expiring.
Geoff - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 10:49 PM EST (#137976) #
re: Singer article

I expect Overbay to pop up as a vocal team guy. Singer calls him a pup, but the Jays had a pup named Hudson who filled the role of vocal leadership.

Certainly guys like Roy and Vernon will have voices that carry weight, and guys with some World Series experience like SS and Troy will be heard from time to time.

But I don't think Singer has met Greg Zaun. He must have his head in the sand or moves it there when he picks out his article topics from the big hat.

And the card says: leadership. Okay, I'll write about the Jays and leadership. Now, tails they have it; heads they don't.
Besides, how vocal were Damon or Konerko? This nitpicking of the Jays' greatest weakness is amusing. Could he more obviously be serving the market of New York? Judging from this search, he's a NY man. Still, the lack of leadership is his only detraction; and missing out on Delgado his only criticism for J.P.'s moves. But how common is this "there are no leaders in the clubhouse" detraction going to become for the Jays?
Chuck - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 11:10 PM EST (#137980) #
More jumping on Singer:

Hindsight tells us that all the great teams have go-to guys.

Precisely. Hindsight. After a team has won a championship, you have free rein for revisionist history. You can ascribe leadership qualities to whomever you want and pretend that they actually matter. In fact, as a hack writer, you are dutybound by your mindless devotion to the cliche and lack of original thought to seek out the obvious candidates to herald as the heart and soul leaders, the guys who, dag nab it, just knew how to win and taught everyone else to win.

I sure hope someone on the Jays knows how to win. It can't be as simple as simply outscoring the opposition. Oh no, it is more than that. It's about honour and courage. It's about quality of character. It's about ratcheting it up a notch. It's about giving 110%. It's about leaving it out on the field. It's about being a winner. It's about being a go-to guy.

Magpie - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 11:15 PM EST (#137981) #
They're going for it. Whether it actually works or not... there are no guarantees, ever. Even if you do everything right.

I have no leadership worries with this team, and actually haven't had any for a long time. The most important leadership element on any team is how the best players carry themselves. Because those are thee guys everyone in the clubhouse watches, and pays attention to. Always has been, always will be. Wells and Halladay (and Delgado before them) are men who work hard and care about the team. Leadership takes care of itself in those circumstances.

Now if your best player is someone like Manny Ramirez, who marches to music all his own... then your team needs some leadership.

Sanjay - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 11:22 PM EST (#137982) #
Looks like all Bluejay fans voting on this pool.
Elijah - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 11:24 PM EST (#137983) #
I did a quick look and I can't find too many teams with an overpaid outfielder and a need for a corner infielder. But here is what I found:

The Angels' best outfielder is playing first base in Darin Erstad. No, he can't really hit and I'm dubious about all the claims about clubhouse leadership although I can't really question the guy always looks like he's playing hard. He makes $8.5M in the final year of his contract. The Angels current 3B and DH are probably Dallas McPherson and Casey Kotchman. The Angels have a lot of problems on offense aside from Vlad. They could probably use Hillenbrand (the heck with what Ricciardi says about not trading him) or Koskie in case one of the two youngsters stumble. I don't think the Angels would be willing to deal Erstad though. They may even be willing to take one of the Jays corner guys for a pitching prospect (like Bootcheck or something).

The Padres don't have a third baseman AFAICT. They have an grossly overpaid outfielder in Ryan Klesko. Okay, so he's a marginal outfielder but he's no Adam Dunn out there. But he would be another source of power and patience in a lineup that could use it. He had a poor year in 2005 but still had an OPS+ of 112 and is due $10M in 2006 with an $8M option or $500K buyout for 2007. I could see any of those three dealt in some package for him though Hillenbrand would probably require a salary equalization payment. I'm not convinced I'd go for this but he's more of a sure thing as an OF than a Hinske might be.

And finally, the Twins have old friend Shannon Stewart. I know how Coach would feel about this but he would be a possibility. The Twins are going with Tony Batista at third right now and I can't imagine he'd be better than Koskie over a full season. That's a possible deal as well. Of course, we'll have those nightmares again of runners going from first to third on routine singles to LF. I don't think I'd do this one. Torii Hunter is making over $10M in 2006 and the Twins probably wouldn't trade him unless they get young players and a CF in return. And I don't think Alex Rios would do it unless a pitcher like McGowan is included. So that's a no.

The Brewers have Geoff Jenkins and Carlos Lee but they don't need help at first and Russ Branyan, Jeff Cirillo and Bill Hall will made a decent combo at third.

So the bottom line is that I don't think any of the overpaid outfielders options are that attractive as the trade market the Jays' three corner infielders is thin. I don't think I like any of those options. They may as well give Hinske a shot and hope for the best.
TamRa - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 11:39 PM EST (#137984) #
Actually, Hinske is the only guy we MUST move (unless JP was seriously thinking of giving Cat's job to him?)

Koskie and Shea make an excellent potential platoon at DH and provide great depth in case of injury. Barring an excellent opportunity, I'd keep both. According to JP we are still about $3 million to the good and if you deal Hinske that goes up potentially to over $7 million.

That's not insignificant "walking around money" for later additions at midseason and if none are needed, I'm sure it rolls right into next season.

Now, I'd be down with moving Shea and bringing in LeCroy for that platoon DH role if money were at issue - but if Blair'
s report is true, I think we are just fine if we don't.

Also, from an emotiuonal point of view, there was a long story last year on the MLB site about how Koskie grew up dreaming of playing for the Jays - far above playing at Yankee stadium or anything else. Statistics aside, I don't WANT to see that romance gone from the team. He's acharacter guy to start with and keeping him on his dream team has a lot of resonence.

I think that's way more important to him than the regular 3B job is.
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 11:44 PM EST (#137985) #
The team needs all the defence it can muster. Hinske's should be a pinch-hitter and replacement DH in the event of injury to Koskie or Glaus if he remains with the team. John-ford Griffin would be a better bet in leftfield if Catalanotto were to get hurt.
Joe - Tuesday, December 27 2005 @ 11:54 PM EST (#137986) #
The Twins are going with Tony Batista at third right now and I can't imagine he'd be better than Koskie over a full season.

Corey Koskie earned a VORP of 11.0 in his injury-plagued 2005 season, in which he came to the plate 404 times.

In 2004, Tony Batista got 650 PA for the Expos, and as far as I can tell didn't spend any time on the DL (he played in 157 games). Batista's VORP for the full 2004 season was 10.3.

You do the math.

Matt - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:24 AM EST (#137987) #
Sounds well and good, but I don't know if shea/koskie would be terribly content with such a limited role. Something's gotta give here.
Geoff - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:37 AM EST (#137988) #
Elijah, like your suggestion of Geoff Jenkins ;)

But there seems to be no better fit than the Pirates and Craig Wilson. If J.P. can unload Hinske in some package for Wilson, he will truly deserve having folks buying his name on jerseys. (Though I won't be surprised if some of you out there already have a Ricciardi jersey.)And he'll cement a fanbase of J.P. boosters for the level of excellence, without so much as bringing home a championship yet. Singer thought that Jays fans were ga-ga over this offseason now? Get Wilson for Hinske and watch the looney dreams of divisional crowns begin.

BTW, I finally changed my option to display nested comments in preferences, so I'll be sure to start using that properly now (I've abused it in the past, thinking nesting didnt exist). I didn't realize I could get that feature! Whoops.

Elijah - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 02:28 AM EST (#137998) #
Yup, Koskie would definitely be more valuable than Batista - I should've phrased that sentence better. That being said, the more I think about it, I really don't want Shannon Stewart back.

As for Craig Wilson, I think he'd be an excellent fit - a rightfielder who can catch. However, I just don't see how such a trade would make sense for the Bucs. They don't need a first baseman with Sean Casey. And Joe Randa, assuming they sign him, would be cheaper and just as effective as Hinske. And he has a history of injuries. And he cut his hair before last season. As nice as getting Wilson sounds, I just don't see a fit for the Bucs.
Amarsh - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 02:51 AM EST (#137999) #
I think after hearing JP say in the PC that he has some "wiggle room" in regards to salary ($72 m as of now), it looks likely that there'll be another trade to upgrade the offence somewhat. This is especially true when you consider that any trade of Hinske, Koskie or Shea frees up around $5m... which leaves what, like $7m of JP's "wiggle room"?

Also, I would be happy to have Shannon Stewart back for sure. I don't see that trade as being very likely, but I'd rather have Stewart than Wilson. The one thing the Jays don't really have right now is a bonafide leadoff hitter, and although Stewart had an off year last year, his seasons prior he had an AVG around 300 and an OBP of around 380. I think as it stands right now, Adams looks like the leadoff guy, and although I'm sure his numbers will improve, I'd like to see someone get on base more for TO's new 3-4-5 sluggers.

On another note, I find it interesting how JP seemed to imply that he favoured Overbay at the 3-spot and Wells batting 5th. I know Overbay's OBP has been better the last couple years, but I'd like to see what Wells could do with Glaus's protection behind him. Another 2003 season may seem very unlikely, but seeing better pitches might boost his AVG closer to 300 again.
slitheringslider - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 05:54 AM EST (#138000) #
I believe we have come to a junction where we should add by subtraction. I think JP is lying straight to our faces saying that all 5 of the corner IFs/DHs will have places to play; it was merely a political move. I feel like at least 1, preferably 2 of hinske/koskie/hillenbrand should go. See if you can upgrade on the OF, and by outfield I mean LF (I am set on giving Rios another shot, this is the way I look at it, moderate success in his rookie season, sophomore slump, improves on rookie season). If we can't add another outfield, I don't think we should fret about it. We don't have to spend ALL our money in the offseason, it is always wise to have some room left in our budget to make in season acquisitions, or even during spring training.
Dave Till - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 06:49 AM EST (#138001) #
Craig Wilson would be a perfect fit - he can play the outfield, and he can catch. Do the Jays have anything the Pirates want?

I assume Hinske is likely to be gone. It's admirable of him to be willing to play the outfield (and extremely sensible of him to volunteer to play anywhere), but I doubt he will be able to play there, and he won't hit well enough to hold an outfield job.

I'd like to see the Jays keep Koskie, if possible (especially given the Canadian thing). Though if Gibbons really likes Hillenbrand, Corey is probably gone. I wonder if he'd be willing to go back to Minnesota?

As for those people complaining about the Jays' spending: there's a world of difference between out-of-control spending and planned investing, and the Jays have been doing the latter. Baseball in Toronto is a tremendous, if risky, investment opportunity: once upon a time, the team filled their ballpark every night, and Toronto is a huge potential market. If the Jays start to win regularly, Rogers will make lots of money (and deserve every dollar of it).

I expect that Selig will yank that currency equalization payment or whatever it is, but I assume that the Jays have budgeted on that assumption. If he continues to complain, I politely suggest to him that he should go dunk his head in a bowl of 10W30.
einsof - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 08:31 AM EST (#138003) #
What about a Koskie for B.Inge trade?--its gets us that 2nd Catcher we need --& replaces their 3rd baseman by Koskie (an upgrade for them)--If that fails there's the Twins who have plenty of Catchers (Mauer-- Lecroy & M.Redmond (who I prefer)--We should be able to work something out with the Twins--they've shown some interest in some of our 3rd basemen (they're all upgrades over T.Batista)--I just don't think Quiroz is up to par to backup Zaun..Comments?
subculture - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 09:37 AM EST (#138005) #
I think we also need room to give John F Griffin a shot in the OF, possibly platooning with Rios. I wasn't too upset about Gross being traded b/c I think JFG has the same upside.

To do this, I think we'd need to trade 2 of either Hinske, Hillenbrand, Koskie, or Cat (though I think Cat is our best #2 hitter).
PeterG - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 10:00 AM EST (#138008) #
Wiggle Room? Catcher!
JC - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 11:57 AM EST (#138016) #
The Padres don't have a third baseman AFAICT.

The Pads have Vinny Castilla, courtesy of the Brian Lawrence trade with the Nats. Not a great 3Bman, but their starter nonetheless.
CeeBee - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:03 PM EST (#138018) #
"The Pads have Vinny Castilla"
Apparently some players seem to have 9 lives. They may get progressivly worse but some GM's hardly seem to notice.... add Tony Batista to the list ;)
Wildrose - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:05 PM EST (#138019) #
Reality check.

I'm getting tired of some individuals calling Troy Glaus "injury prone", pro athletes get hurt, such is the nature of the game. I see no evidence of a long term chronic injury record with Glaus.

Examine the facts. In his first four seasons he was a horse, missing only 16 games. This string came to an end in July of 2003 as Glaus was placed on the D.L.with a shoulder injury missing the rest of the season. He opted for rehab over surgery in the 2003/2004 off season. This was a mistake, as in May of 2004 he required in -season rotator cuff shoulder surgery. He did not return until September of that year.

In 2005 he missed only 13 games, mainly due to some knee tendinitis, he had NO record of injury to the shoulder. The player he was traded for, Orlando Hudson, in actuality missed more games in 2005 due to injury.

I work in the medical field. Time and rehabilitation heals most injury. Given his age (29) and position ( he's not a pitcher), concern over his repaired shoulder should be muted.

Elijah - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:22 PM EST (#138022) #
Well, Castilla isn't *really* a third baseman... hehe. Okay, I totally forgot about that trade. Thanks, JC. Sheesh, if I were Ricciardi, I could've traded a better player (either Shea or Koskie) and been thrilled to get Lawrence, while mediocre, will at least eat some innings.
Nick - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:32 PM EST (#138023) #
There was a columnist (name escapes me) in Minnesota who was clamoring for Koskie's return. He blamed a lot of the Twins' problems in 2005 on the loss of Koskie's presence in the clubhouse. (I wonder what Koskie's leadership abilities are like when he hits .249 and slugs .398 and is injured half the year....)

Anyway, he asked Terry Ryan about it and Ryan basically said there was no way the Twins were bringing Koskie back with that contract. My guess is the Jays would have to eat some money for Koskie to return to Minny.
Jacko - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:58 PM EST (#138026) #
I assume Hinske is likely to be gone. It's admirable of him to be willing to play the outfield (and extremely sensible of him to volunteer to play anywhere), but I doubt he will be able to play there, and he won't hit well enough to hold an outfield job.

This is untrue.

If Hinske is restricted to platoon duties, his numbers would be quite respectable for a corner outfielder (283/358/452). That's basically the same performance you'll get out of Jacque Jones...

Barfieldsgun - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 02:01 PM EST (#138033) #
Perhaps the wildcard on this club is Alex Rios.
If Rios can bloom into the player we expect him to one day be - in 2006, wouldn't that be as big an aquisition as Glaus or B.J Ryan? We have a rough idea what to expect from 90% of the club. Rios however, is anybodys guess. The biggest question mark in my mind is what to expect from him. If he can blossom into say...Shawn Green ala 1998 - very good things will happen.
Of course this is a best case scenario. However possible, it is unlikely. A fan can only hope.
John Northey - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 02:16 PM EST (#138034) #
So, what are the basic numbers for the lineup in 2006 vs 2005?

Using the 2005 numbers by position (via ESPN) and the stats of the probable starters in 2006 (real numbers will be slightly worse due to fill-ins most likely). Stats are based on what they did last year for simplicity. Names listed are 2006 players. I'm assuming Koskie is traded as he won't be a happy camper on the bench. Another assumption is Hillenbrand getting the bulk of DH time while Hinske gets splinters.

P	2005		2006		Who
CA	234/329/339	240/335/348	Zaun (80%) Quiroz (20%)
1B	267/314/449	275/365/448	Overbay (95%) Hinske (5%)
2B	265/319/389	274/340/379	Hill (90%) McDonald (10%)
3B	282/361/421	261/361/515	Glaus (90%) Hillenbrand (10%)
SS	248/320/358	258/325/377	Adams (90%) McDonald (10%)
LF	285/350/419	288/353/435	Cat (60%) Johnson (40%)
CF	269/323/456	269/321/460	Wells (95%) Johnson (5%)
RF	261/308/397	263/311/400	Rios (80%) Johnson (20%)
DH	272/347/432	285/341/445	Hillenbrand (80%) Hinske (20%)
I'm certain many will argue the playing time estimates I used, but it is a starting point. So, did the offense improve and where and how much? At 1B we see a big jump in OBP (50 points) but a tiny drop in Slg (1 point). At second a bump in OBP (21) a drop in Slg (10). Third sees the same OBP and a 94 point jump in Slg. SS improves by 19 in Slg (Hill hit terrible when playing short - made Huck look good at 146/268/188 over just 48 AB). LF is close to the same, CF also as is RF and DH which should be expected given they are the same players as were the core for last season (juggle playing time a bit and you could probably match last years numbers).

So, no big drops, a couple of very big increases (1B OBP and 3B Slg). The only drop in OBP I see is at DH (2 points in CF but that is irrelevent). 2B is the only Slg drop, and that is slight and could easily be improved on if Hill develops at all.

Y'know, the more I look the more I like. Btw, if Hillenbrand/Hinske are dumped and Koskie kept (249/337/398 in 2005 while injured) I think we'd see an improvement at DH. If Hinske goes to RF he would be a better offensive choice than Rios too (geez has Rios sucked so far).

Btw, the big OBP at 3B was due to what was done by Koskie and Hill when they played there (Koskie=270/364/426 Hill=333/388/444).

mathesond - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 02:30 PM EST (#138035) #
Off topic, but Jon Garland has been resigned for an average of close to $10M per
Wildrose - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 02:42 PM EST (#138036) #
Can a third baseman be converted to the outfield? Good question.

It's rarely done because;

A.) It's tough to learn a new position in the majors.

B.) Generally you don't move a player down the defensive spectrum, from a harder spot, to an easier one to maximize value.

To play R.F. you need the following skills, foot speed, a strong arm to make the deep throw across the diamond to third, and the ability to track pop-ups and line drives. The later skill is probably the hardest to master.

Can it be done? Is there precedents? Here's what I found.

1. In 2002 Chipper Jones was moved from third to L.F. to accomodate the newly aquired Vinny Castilla. Jones had a B.P. defensive rate stat of 85 at third, with subsequent rates of 102 and 91 in L.F. I do not believe he played the outfield in the minors.

2. In 2005 Casey Blake was moved by Cleveland from third to right, to accomodate Aaron Boone. He went from a 92, to a 100 rate stat with the change.

3. Gary Sheffield, started as a shortstop, moved to third, then the outfield. His career rate stat at third, 97, and 98 in R.F. Again he had to learn the position in the majors.

4. Frank Cattlatano, moved from second to the outfield ,career 95 rate stat at second,101 in the outfield.

I think as shown, it can be done, but success varies with the individual. The likely candidates on the Jays.

Hillenbrand- Plenty of arm, not sure about his footspeed, only 15/7 career steals.

Hinske- Good footspeed, 45/15 career steals, not sure about his arm.

Koskie-Good footspeed (70/31), strong arm, played 25 games in the majors in 1999 in R.F.. I think like Blake, he could do it reasonably well.

Will the team consider such a move. Not sure. Sounds like they intend to try to trade Koskie ( talking with his agent), who could best make the switch. You'd have to determine if the offence gained by platooning Koskie in right, would be worth the defence lost by not having Rios ( or someone obtained in a trade)playing in that spot. I think in terms of roster manipulation and overload it should be considered.( Actually my first preference would be Koskie at third, Glaus D.H. and a trade made for a new R.F., but I'm not running this team.)
HollywoodHartman - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 02:49 PM EST (#138038) #
Jim Callis of BA is answering questions on and had this to say about Sergio Santos

Santos looked like an offensive shortstop who'd have to move to a different position. He did a complete about-face in 2005, having a terrible year with the bat in Triple-A but convincing scouts he could play shortstop. He's still just 22, so he has time, but he has a lot of adjustments to make at the plate. Not a bad guy to get in a deal, though."
HollywoodHartman - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 03:01 PM EST (#138040) #
Sorry for the double post.

Blair's latest is up, and once again it's restricted to subscribers. A way around this is to go to Google News and search "Jeff Blair" I believe that it is the second article. It's a good read, nothing we didn't already know though...
6-4-3 - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 03:11 PM EST (#138042) #
Steve Treder had a nice series of articles on players who spent a portion of their careers at third base, then moved on. he covers third base to the outfield. He found 7 of them, along with Harmon Killebrew, Chipper Jones, Kevin Mitchell, and Gary Sheffield.

If the Jays weren't planning on competing next year I'd probably laugh at the idea of a Cat / Wells / Hinske (or Shea, or Koskie) outfield, but given the Jays' spending, this is probably equivilant to Cashman's "we're completely willing to have Bubba Crosby as our opening day center fielder" talk, not a serious plan.
Wildrose - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 03:22 PM EST (#138044) #
Thanks. Interesting article, basically no conclusion, other than some do well at another position, some do poorly. It's very much an individualistic thing.
Wildrose - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 03:35 PM EST (#138047) #
As always, the Blair article is well worth the read, the team seems to be thinking of Hinske to left, Cat to right and one of Koskie/Hilly gone.
andrewkw - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 03:51 PM EST (#138048) #
The Pirates and Joe Randa have reportedly agreed to a one-year deal worth about $4 million.

so much for a trade with the Pirates...
HollywoodHartman - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 03:54 PM EST (#138049) #
Isn't it about time to start up a "Gone But Not Forgotten" for Orlando? ...and Miggy I guess...
phifediggy - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 04:00 PM EST (#138050) #
does this mean we'll have to replace o-dog's picture at the top of this site? :-/
Named For Hank - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 04:07 PM EST (#138051) #
Isn't it about time to start up a "Gone But Not Forgotten" for Orlando? ...and Miggy I guess...

We've started delaying them for a few days so people's memories aren't overrun by trade analysis.
Jabes - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 04:51 PM EST (#138054) #
Where have you gone "Coach" Kent Williams?

A blogging nation turns its lonely eyes to you, ew, wo, wo.

What's that you say Mr.Riccardi?

The Coach has left and gone away, hey, hey, hey. hey, hey, hey.

Ducey - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 05:13 PM EST (#138055) #
BA has an analysis of the trade on including a review of Santos. Here is what they say:

"The Jays also get a prospect with potential impact for their farm system in the deal. Santos struggled through 2005 at Triple-A Tucson and didn't get his average above .200 until late May, and he hit only one home run after July 1 and finished the season hitting .239-12-68 for the Sidewinders.

While he slumped at the plate, the 22-year-old shortstop improved significantly in the field and still has premium tools. Santos has soft hands and an above-average arm, and he made great strides in his reads and work on double plays. Santos overreacted to his slow start and fell apart mechanically at the plate, leaving him susceptible to inside pitches and inept against lefthanders (.148 average). The first-round pick in 2002 doesn't have good speed, and might be limited to third base down the road."

Any opinions on whether Santos is a better prospect than Zack Jack? From what I can figure Santos looks to be better. He already has power, soft hands and a good arm. You give him another 2-3 years to work on his game at AAA and he likely will be very good at a relatively young age.
TA - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 05:55 PM EST (#138056) #
FWIW Crasnick seems to like the trade:
Pistol - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 07:10 PM EST (#138061) #
I think it's a reach to consider Santos a better prospect that Jackson. Jackson was the key to the Overbay trade. Santos was a throw in.

Santos may be young and may have tools, but he still was awful at the plate last year.
JayWay - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 10:01 PM EST (#138064) #

"Also, from an emotiuonal point of view, there was a long story last year on the MLB site about how Koskie grew up dreaming of playing for the Jays - far above playing at Yankee stadium or anything else. Statistics aside, I don't WANT to see that romance gone from the team. He's acharacter guy to start with and keeping him on his dream team has a lot of resonence."

I think this is a good point and deserves to be heard.

In light of all the mourning going on over Hudson's exit, and given all the claims that the Jays are somehow less of a real team and lack identity because a character guy like Orlando is now on his way out, I find it a tad ironic that nearly every poster has met the prospect of Koskie being shipped out with a smile.

If Hudson was valuable because he wanted to stay here, what does that make Koskie, who *dreamed* of playing here? Koskie provides for the Jays what teams like the Sox and Yanks have in droves - players for whom suiting up is not just a matter of contractual obligation, but a matter of carrying out a boy-hood dream. It's players like these that help (even if just a bit) transform a team from a souless collection of largely disinterested professional ballplayers for hire into a team that in some way reflects the community and fanbase it represents.

Given all the cries over Hudsn's commitment to the team and to the community, I find it pretty hypocritical that a Canadian Jays fan (not just a player) is being treated like yesterday's trash.

VBF - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 10:07 PM EST (#138065) #
I totally agree with that.
Jordan - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 11:20 PM EST (#138069) #
As it turns out, Glaus was 5th among NL third basemen in Defensive Win Shares last season (4.0; David Wright led all comers at 4.8). DWS doesn't tell the whole story, but it's a different tale than is usually told about Glaus' glovework. My concern with Glaus at 3B remains the increased likelihood of an upper-body injury if he's not DH'ing, but that's just another reason to keep Shea Hillenbrand around.

Reading between the lines with Blair, Koskie seems the likeliest to be dealt (I wouldn't expect much in return except salary relief). That would put Glaus at 3B, Overbay at 1B and Hillenbrand as a DH who could take one game a week at each corner infield position. Hinske will have to hit his way into the starting lineup; if he posts another .283/.358/.452 line against RH (389 AB) as in 2005, he'll justify a platoon role in left field. If he doesn't, he's a good first guy off the bench. As I've said before, Hinske is not useless; he's been disappointing since 2002 and has a fat contract, but he can produce on offence.

Koskie's desire to play for Toronto is admirable and all, but if he had done better than .249-11-36 in 94 games last season, Troy Glaus wouldn't be a Blue Jay today. Koskie has only himself to blame if he's shipped out this off-season, and since I'm in the camp that says he's in career decline, I won't be sorry to see him go. Whether a guy wants to play here is not nearly as important to me as whether he plays really well when he is here.

The one guy who never seems to get talked about in the context of this deal is Aaron Hill. Will he win a Gold Glove next season? Certainly not, but there wasn't a play I didn't see him make at second base last September. He won't be Hudson -- no one is -- but he should still be pretty good. Adams remains a legitimate question mark defensively at short, and we'll see if Glaus can again play at a high level at third, but Overbay is one of the better defensive first basemen around. The infield defence, overall, won't be that much of a dropoff from 2005, while offensively, it should be a huge upgrade.

And in any event, the infield doesn't concern me nearly as much as the prospect of Eric Hinske and Frank Catalanotto in the outfield corners against right-handers. I would like to see a better solution in LF-RF than a Hinske-Johnson-Catalanotto-Rios grab-bag before the season opens. But that may be asking too much from Riccardi after the most amazing off-season for this ballclub in more than a decade, maybe ever.
Gerry - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 11:41 PM EST (#138070) #
There is another theory....... JP wants to deal Hillenbrand, Hilly has drawn the most interest, but if you are forced to deal someone their value goes down. So JP gets Gibby to plead for Hilly, so now JP can say to the other GM's "I don't want to trade Hillenbrand, Gibby wants me to keep him, but if you throw player X at me I will just have to tell Gibby I couldn't say no."

Time will tell.
Ryan B. - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:24 AM EST (#138073) #
I'm hoping that J.P can package Hillenbrand and Rios together to bring in a corner OF with some pop.
Barfieldsgun - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:04 AM EST (#138075) #

You don't want to see that 'Romance' gone from the team?
Coskie was a mediocre first date at best. Cory grew up dreaming of playing in the Skydome for his beloved boyhood team - The Jays. Didn't we all have that same dream at some point. And at some point something happened to each of us who dared that dream. We realised we just weren't good enough to make this a reality. Unfortunatley Koskie must come to terms with what we all did.
Coskies numbers clearly indicate the sun is setting on a respectable career. Just like Miguel Batista, Coskie was in my view, mostly a 'whos available - now who can we afford' signing. With a tight budget and the loss of Delgado, the hard nosed Canadian seemed like a decent fit for the Jays at
the time.

Games played - Coskie:

2002 - 140
2003 - 131
2004 - 118
2005 - 97

Lost time due to injury = 162 games
VBF - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:24 AM EST (#138077) #
Not to sound rude, but his name is Koskie.

Barfieldsgun - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:42 AM EST (#138078) #
Man. And all this time I thought it was Coskie.
Well,that changes everything.
Now I'm thinkin contract extension for the guy.
TamRa - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 02:23 AM EST (#138079) #
Well, I'm not sure how a guy with a history of injuries would hold up out there but genericly speaking, I would not be completely opposed to Koskie showing up early at ST and trying to make the switch to RF. Certainly he's apssionate enough to go at it full speed.

But I can't see how it wouldn't almost guarantee an injury before the season was over.
Barfieldsgun - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 02:41 AM EST (#138080) #
I think we were all pulling for 'K'oskie. And if he happens to be on the opening day roster, I'll still pull for him. Between Hinske and Koskie (for the life of me I cannot envision either one playing the outfield) - Hinske probably gets the edge via durabilty.
With the 'New'Jays, its hard to find exactly where Koskies piece of the puzzle fits.
Its hard for Jays fans(myself included)to be objective on this particular issue.
Phil - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:24 AM EST (#138082) #
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the folk at the Think Factory seem to think this was all a big win for Arizona--a salary dump that returned real value in Hudson and Batista.

Also, am I the only one who's worried about these player options for extra years? It's like anti-hedging your bets. "Well, Tory, if we lose the bet and you really suck, we will pay you $12 mill for an extra year."

The AJ deal is the weirdest. If he does well, it's a 3 years and then off to the Yankees for Pedro money. If his arm falls off 6 months from now, the Jays are on the hook for 5/55.
VBF - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 08:19 AM EST (#138084) #
Man. And all this time I thought it was Coskie. Well,that changes everything. Now I'm thinkin contract extension for the guy.

Yea, unfortunate that we have to spell their names right. We only watch/go/listen to 162 games a season. How do they expect us to catch on?

Barfieldsgun - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 11:18 AM EST (#138106) #
Did you have a bad day? There there now.
Using your cranium as a rectal probe won't add any sunshine
to the issue.
If I offended anyone on this thread by mispelling Coskie's
Doh! 'K'oskies name. I am truly sorry for the pain I have
And Cory. To you I apologize the most. What was I thinking
using a 'C' instead of a 'K' at 2 in the morning after
a 13 hour shift.
Am I even really a Jays fan?
Named For Hank - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 11:32 AM EST (#138109) #
Barfieldsgun, we try to maintain a much higher level of discourse here at Batter's Box than what you'll find on some run-of-the-mill forum.

As such, basic spelling and grammar are far more important here than other places. Player names are easy enough to look up if you're not sure, at the official team site -- just click on "roster". I myself added Schoeneweis to my spell checker to make my life easier.

And I'm hoping you spelled his first name wrong in that last post as a gag.

Anyways, it's not a question of whether or not you're a fan -- it's about the standards of Batter's Box. If you don't care for them, you can surely find a place to post where spelling is not important.
Barfieldsgun - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:06 PM EST (#138114) #
Actually. As I beleive I did point out, it was a simple mistake. Shall I once again be crucified for the 'C'. My post was baseball related. The conversation seems more focused on grammatical errors than baseball. If you'd like to argue, agree or criticize my opinion... be my guest. I beleive this forum is set up for this purpose.

Perhaps you missed the antagonizing threads posted by the grammar lord. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore.
Any way you slice it - lets just talk baseball for cry'in
out loud. BTW
If I had dime for every typo Ive ever seen on this site...

Leigh - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:35 PM EST (#138117) #
I beleive [sic] this forum is set up for this purpose.

NFH told you what the purpose of this place is.

Oh, and this is not a forum. It is a pena. Not only that, but it is our pena. As NFH points out, at our pena those who want to contribute to a higher level of discourse than is available at are more than welcome and will be treated with respect. With the magic of spell-check and, virtually anybody is able to meet this standard.

Named For Hank - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:44 PM EST (#138119) #
Barfieldsgun, I see the post where he corrected your spelling, the post where you reacted sarcastically to it, and then his followup sarcasm. What else is there?

As to "If I had a dime", I'm sorry that other users have also made typographical errors. That does not give you carte blanche to write sloppily. As we've told many people before, please make an effort to conform to our standards or go to a different place to do your posting where the standards are not as high.

Now please, let's all stop talking about this on-site. If any of you want to discuss this further, e-mail me.
Barfieldsgun - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:05 PM EST (#138125) #
For who am I but a simple man. Eloquent only to the underbelly of the commoners. Forming the stunted words of a simpleton.
Jesse. Give me the strength :)

Flex - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:24 PM EST (#138129) #
Hey, Troy Glaus and a prospect for Hudson and a year of Batista?! Great trade, eh?

I'm dying to hear what people think.
HollywoodHartman - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST (#138132) #
Bob Elliot made a very bold statement today

"The Jays are better than the Red Sox and will win more games in 2006."

I hope he's right...
Craig B - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 02:31 PM EST (#138137) #
The Red Sox have apparently "sweetened" their offer for Miguel Tejada... instead of just Manny Ramirez, now they are offering Ramirez and Matt Clement!

"Instead of *one* kick in the pants for your piece of cake, what if I were to offer *two* kicks? Sweeten the deal a bit, you know?"

Of course, this is Baltimore, but I really think if you want to get Flanagan's attention you need to offer some guys in their 40s, or at least their late 30s.
John Northey - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 03:06 PM EST (#138139) #
Gotta love those GM-less Red Sox (at least I don't think they have one yet). For an A1 shortstop they will give up two contracts.

Ramirez is a great one, although overpaid by $5-7 million I suspect and carries a lot of baggage.

Clement is probably paid correctly but is he better than Batista is? Batista has had 5 straight 100+ ERA+ seasons with two in the 130's. Clements has 3 100+ ERA+ seasons in his career (7 years plus 4 games) with a peak of 123 in his free agent season. Clement is 31 next season with 2 years on his contract vs Batista at 35 with 1 year on his.

I find it interesting that a guy the Jays were trying to get rid of as excess is probably just as good, if not better, than the guy Boston is counting on as their #2 or #3 starter.

Of note: AJ has had 100+ ERA+ in all seasons with 100+ IP (4 seasons) but a peak of just 121.
melondough - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 04:08 PM EST (#138146) #

As much as I love wheeling and dealing, I honestly feel that it would be best for JP to let things be for now (aside from signing B.Molina which I think is a must!)

My whole argument stems from the fact that there does not really seem to be any good suitors for either Hinske or Koskie right now (I think the majority have stated abundantly that they want to keep Hillenbrand and I agree). This compatibility issue would invariably change as injuries, poor results and hot prospects pop up during the season. Thus, a team that today may not be a suitor could certainly become one after just one game where one unfortunate injury occurs (which may even occur in a spring game).

Yes we have a glut at 3B and DH but I for one think it is worth taking our chances to start the year and turn Hinske into an OF. This would allow us to play Hillenbrand three out of every four games at DH, except when the occasional tough righty is starting at which time Hillenbrand would sit while Glaus would take over DH, giving Koskie a chance at 3B.

At the same time, I think Rios and Hinske in the end deserve about the same amount of starts. This would allow Hinske to sit against every lefty starter (usually occurs about once every four games) plus again one out of every three games played against a righty. Rios should be given the opportunity to see one righty and one lefty starter out of every 4 games played (i.e. half the games as well).

Now most of you are probably thinking when does Koskie play? There would be the five or so pinch-hits a week, the occasional (this model would allow for one of every four games) spot start at 3B (whereby Glaus could DH and Hillenbrand sits), and defensive 3B replacement late in close ball games (if Glaus is not due up anytime soon).

In the end this would get Hillenbrand three starts out of every four, Hinske and Rios each two out of every four, and Koskie one out of every four. Yes, $5 million is a lot to pay Koskie in this role. However, if would give us one very deep bench and I feel that it would not last the whole season. Like I wrote above the whole idea would to do this until a trade possibility opens up whereby someone out there desperately needs a 3B like Koskie and would be willing to trade something of value back.

I would love to hear some of your comments. Am I in the minority here?
John Northey - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 05:06 PM EST (#138154) #
Keeping Koskie, Hillenbrand and Hinske would be a very hard thing for the Jays to do. If they were all here you'd almost have to do a platoon at DH (Koskie/Hillenbrand) and in RF (Hinske/Rios) to make it work. Then this would be the lineup...

CA: Zaun/Quiroz
1B: Overbay
2B: Hill
3B: Glaus
SS: Adams
LF: Cat/Johnson
CF: Wells
RF: Hinske/Rios
DH: Koskie/Hillenbrand
UT: McDonald

That is 14 players. McDonald would be needed just in case you wanted Hill or Adams to have a day off. Now you just have 11 slots for the pitching staff.

SP: Halladay
SP: Burnett
SP: Lilly
SP: Towers
SP: Chacin

RP: Ryan
RP: Frasor
RP: Schoeneweis
RP: Speier
RP: Chulk
RP: Downs
RP: Walker

That is just the guys who will have major league contracts for 2006, totalling 12 pitchers and a total of 26 players. Only problem being that you can only have 25. Thus someone has to go, and given the way things have gone in the past I suspect it would be a hitter. Don't forget others who could make the team such as League, McGowan, Rosario on the pitching side and Griffen on the hitting side. Plus I wouldn't be surprised to see another catcher/DH (plus able to play one or both of 1B & LF) put on the team before spring hits.

In the end I would bet on Griffen being the 5th outfielder and in the DH mix, while two or all 3 of Hillenbrand/Hinske/Koskie are traded away for whatever JP can get for them. Rios will probably still be here, but will have Griffen pushing him. Some bullpen arms could be used to get a solid RF, mixed with Rios, one of the spare 3B, and a prospect.

That is my view at least.
BCMike - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 06:05 PM EST (#138163) #
Barring injuries they can't come out of spring training with all 3 on the roster. Too many people who want to play and no positions for them. It would not be a very healthy atmosphere in the clubhouse.

I'm not really worried about it though, since I'm sure JP will find someone interested in one of the three before spring training comes around.
Geoff - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 10:44 PM EST (#138173) #
I can't imagine all three of Hillenbrand/Hinske/Koskie traded away. The good news I feel is that I can see the Jays looking strong no matter which one or two of them will go.

But I like the look of the pitching staff there. League and Marcum available as injury call-ups.

ION, I like this comment from Tejada in today's AP story on him:
"I don't want to say anything bad that can hurt my teammates, but look at Toronto, they have strengthened themselves and we haven't done anything," well come on over here, Miguel! Who would you trade Tejada for? Ramirez and Clement or Wells, Adams and Marcum? If the orange birds are going to trade him within the division, I hope J.P at least drives up the price for him.
VBF - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 11:09 PM EST (#138180) #
The immediate answer is no, no, no, noooooo, it can't be done!

But as mentioned previously, it is the Orioles. What would they want?

-bullpen help
-first baseman
-young stud

...At the very least. And they'd probably want at leats one star player somewhere in that package. And because I'm VBF, my blind support for Vernon includes that I not mention him in trade talk.

So, what about Frasor, Hillenbrand, McGowan, Rios, Hill and Chacin and taking on half of his contract, which they'd probably still laugh endlessly at and JP would get all red. I can't see them wanting any package not including Wells.

And like the Ramirez trade rumours, out of all the teams interested and making offers, Toronto would have to match them. And Miggy's trade value is even greater considering the relatively inexpensive contract he earns for the player he is.

Maybe I am saying no, no, no, no, noooo, it can't be done.
Hodgie - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 02:11 AM EST (#138195) #

I for one would not want Tejada on the Jays. Nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to sign with the Orioles, and as far as I can tell, if he really didn't want to say anything bad about his teammates he would keep his mouth shut. What I find more telling is his quote later in the same article.

"I am not asking for a team of superstars, I only want a good group that helps me to win."

And here I thought that he was supposed to be trying to help Baltimore win......

Twilight - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 04:14 AM EST (#138197) #
This may be a dumb idea, but how about Koskie playing some SS?

I know SS is very hard to play, but Corey is an athlete. He's fast, and his defense is very good. I don't think it would be a huge stretch for him as he's still on the right side of the mound. Give him some work on turning double plays and I think he'd be good.

Only problem is this doesn't open up a spot for Hill, who I'd like to see on the roster. Unless Hill had 2nd, Adams had SS, and Koskie split time between DH, 3B, and SS.
A - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 09:28 AM EST (#138204) #
It's comments like this that make our off-season just that much sweeter:

"I don't want to say anything bad that can hurt my teammates, but look at Toronto, they have strengthened themselves and we haven't done anything," said Tejada.

Tejada cotinued: "If the Orioles don't do anything, I want them to trade me because I am tired of losing."

VBF - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 11:37 AM EST (#138216) #
I don't like those kind of players either, Hodgie, but's TEJEDA!!!!!!!
Geoff - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 02:15 PM EST (#138225) #
No, it's Tejada, VBF...... TEJADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chuck - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 02:52 PM EST (#138232) #
how about Koskie playing some SS?

Players almost never move to the right on the defensive spectrum, least of all in their 30's. Ripken moved from 3B to SS as a 21-year old. I'm trying to think of the last successful rightward move done at the MLB level. A hundred years ago, Bill Russell was converted from an outfielder to a shortstop. And Dale Murphy made the very unusual move from catcher to CF (though that wasn't a rightward move). Has there been anyone since (other than corner outfielders being overextended and made into center fielders)? I'm sure there must be, I just can't think of who.

SimonB - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 03:59 PM EST (#138236) #
<i>Has there been anyone since?</i>

Well...Mike Young, Brandon Inge...corner outfield and first base are pretty interchangable, some 1B go out to LF...

But point taken...I don't think anyone believes there's a snowball's chance in hell that Corey Koskie will play a game at SS next season.
Chuck - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 04:16 PM EST (#138237) #
I guess analagous to the corner outfielder moving to CF is the 2B moving to SS la Pokey Reese and Mike Young.

In Young's case, if the various defensive metrics are to be believed, he was a top notch second baseman and has been only a mediocre shortstop. While his shift did allow Soriano into the lineup, it's hard to believe that Young's personal contributions haven't dropped due to the move.

I agree that you do see some 1B going out to a corner outfield, but have many done so on a permanent basis? Pat Burrell did, but only because Travis Lee was on the roster. David Justice moved from 1B to RF, but IIRC, he was only ever at first base in the first place since there was no room for him in the outfield at the time. I guess there are probably a handful of similar cases.

I am quite sure, though, that the 3B-to-SS switcheroo does not take place too often.
Chuck - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 04:18 PM EST (#138238) #
Oh, and Brandon Inge went from catcher to 3B, a leftward move.
Twilight - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 03:06 PM EST (#138319) #
Ah, I see...though just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it's impossible. I've played both positions, and the only trouble I really had was adjusting throwing angles. Though I only played through my highschool years and didn't play any position for a sizeable length of time.

I figured that Koskie's strong arm and good range would make him a good candidate for SS. I wasn't really paying attention to any stats or anything. This is just something I made a mental note of while watching games.
Jordan - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 01:16 PM EST (#138470) #
Trolling through Rotoworld, a couple of items caught my eye. First, the Star-Tribune says the Twins are committed to Tony Batista at third base and have no interest in reacquiring Corey Koskie. I'm sure that's indeed what the Twins say, but I have a hard time believing they can pretend to contend in 2006 with Batista in the lineup -- his .309 OBP three years ago was the highest he posted in his last five seasons in North America. So I have my doubts about his viability, but at the same time, a return to Minnesota does seem unlikely for Koskie at the moment.

Secondly, the Pirates, for reasons only they can divine, are apparently about to sign Jeromy Burnitz to a two-year, $12M contract. The immediate upshot of that deal is that it would make Craig Wilson redundant and potentially available, if the Jays were interested and could offer something of interest to Pittsburgh. I know there's been a lot of Wilson talk hereabouts, but so far as I know, his name hasn't surfaced in anything coming from Rogers Center HQ. So, lots of speculation, but little else at this point.
Cristian - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 01:37 PM EST (#138472) #
What exactly are the details of Koskie's contract? I figure he's due 5.67M in 2006 and 2007. However, there is also a 6.5M option for 2008 that vests if Koskie reaches a certain number of at bats over the initial three years. Does anyone know how many at bats Koskie needs to reach? This is important because if the number needed is within reach then the Jays are trying to unload a 3 year deal not a two year deal. As for the Twins settling for Batista: remember that the Twins settled for Rivas and HIS putrid OBP for many years before tiring of him only when he was due for an arbitration raise. The Twins can sit tight and wait for the Jays to throw in a ton of cash before biting on Koskie.

This Sun article:

states the Twins also have some interest in Cat. Maybe Cat and Koskie can be packaged together. Maybe adding Cat would make it more palpable for the Twins to take back Koskie. A Hinske/Johnson platoon in left makes more sense to me than a Hinske/Rios platoon in right.

Pistol - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 02:14 PM EST (#138477) #
I believe the Koskie contract is based on 1200 PAs over the first three years. You almost have to go on the assumption that it'll kick in (he had over 400 PAs last year).


The Twins aren't really committed to Tony Batista unless they want to be. They can buy his contract out in spring training for a fraction of his total contract which is minimal to start with.
Leigh - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 02:18 PM EST (#138478) #
Just to get a rough idea of where the new guys fit into the offence, I thought I'd do a simple little set of numbers. The following are three year averages (unweighted - I've got other things on the go, you know) of my favourite offensive catch-all stat, BP's Equivalent Average. The number that you see is the average of the last three seasons of more than 300 at bats. I used career numbers for Rios, Hill and Adams, and I used two year averages for Zaun and Catalanotto in order to avoid reaching back too far.

Overbay     .289
Glaus       .288
Catalanotto .285
Wells       .284
Koskie      .283
Hillenbrand .271
Zaun        .268
Adams       .265
Hill        .264
Hinske      .260
Johnson     .259
Rios        .253

I think that those represent reasonble expectations for next season, cumulatively. I'd probably knock 5 points off from each of Catalanotto, Koskie and Hillenbrand, and bump Hinske 5 and Hill 10.

Further to Jordan's comment about Craig Wilson, I did the same average for him and the number was .289 - that's Overbay/Glaus territory. And we could use that extra hitter, I think.

For context's sake, here are the 2005 Equivalent Averages for the 2006 Yankees (around the horn): .285/.346/.275/.352/.305/.306/.293/.316/.255.

Jonny German - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 02:38 PM EST (#138486) #
Leigh, what do you like about EQA? I dislike it because a) it approximates batting average, which is the worst scale I can think of to be approximating, and b) I can't visualize it in real terms like I can with OBP or SLG or even Win Shares. I'm guessing you might be able to help me with b), I doubt anybody will ever change my mind on a).
Pistol - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 02:44 PM EST (#138487) #
What's nice about EqA is that it mixes everything together (at least offensively) and adjusts for the park.

But I agree, I don't see it enough to get a good feel for what is what (although I believe .270 is average).
Leigh - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 03:05 PM EST (#138494) #
.260 is the average.

I'm not entirely sure why I like EqA. It might just be that Clay Davenport's explanation makes a fair bit of sense to me. I've used it for so long now that the scale makes sense to me. I also like that it's always adjusted for everything.

Jordan - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 03:32 PM EST (#138504) #
Over Wilson's last three seasons, he's ripped lefties at a .284/.413/.575 clip in 268 total AB. His numbers against righties, while still nice (.257/.344/.459 in 79 AB) are less overwhelming.

As they stand now, the Jays' lineup will suffer greatly against lefties, with Catalanotto, Adams, Overbay, Zaun and any remaining "Ski" infielders either diminished or neutralized. Wells crushes lefties, Glaus and Hillenbrand are noticeably better, and one presumes that Aaron Hill will be more effective against southpaws, but it would still be very nice to have another true LH-basher in the lineup, especially when playing the AL Central or West. Wilson would provide that.
Craig B - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 03:55 PM EST (#138507) #
a) it approximates batting average, which is the worst scale I can think of to be approximating

I actually think just the opposite. I like the BA-like properties of EqA (and GPA) very, very much because my own origins as a fan lie before the sabermetric revolution. I still think of guys as .190 hitters, .220 hitters, .270 hitters, .300 hitters. I "know" instinctively that .280 is real good, .330 is up with the very best, and .220 works for a backup catcher or infielder but not otherwise.

Similarly, I have always liked Runs Created (or EqR if you like) because its scale is similar to runs scored and RBI. When a guy creates 30 runs, or 70, or 110 I know what to do with that. Similarly, RC/25 or RC/27 I can handle because, if I remember to adjust downwards by the appropriate percentage, it makes an equivalent to ERA for me, plus I can usually do a quick-and-dirty offensive winning percentage, another easy stat to understand.

OBP and slugging percentage, I have a harder time with, let alone OPS. If you gave me a choice between EqA or GPA and OPS, I'd take EqA or GPA every time. I intuitively "get" the scale.

Jonny German - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 04:54 PM EST (#138533) #
I "know" instinctively that .280 is real good.

See, I don't know that. I know that Raul Ibanez and Mark Kotsay both hit .280 last year. So what? Ibanez was a significantly better hitter, as told by OBP and SLG (.355/.436 (614 AB) for Ibanez and .325/.421 (582 AB) for Kotsay). A good hitter can very realistically have a batting average as low as .260. A bad hitter can very realistically have a batting average as high as .290. What are we supposed to think of those that fall into the .260 - .290 range?

The point being that batting average is a fairly meaningless stat. It tells you something about the shape of a batter's production, but very very little about the size of it until you get to extremes like .210 or .340.

Now you come along with a stat like EQA and tell me that it's a very good sum-up stat and that it approximates the scale of batting average. That runs backwards of everything I've learned about sabermetrics. I'm fully convinced that batting average is to be taken with a grain of salt, and now you're telling me that here's a stat that looks like batting average but is totally reliable. Conversely, if I don't have any knowledge of sabermetrics, the fact that EQA mimics batting average just reinforces my belief that batting average is a worthwhile measure. "Yah, this new EQA thingy is better when you want to get down to the nitty gritty, but for everyday quick comparisons AVG still does the job just fine."

My personal preference is good old AVG / OBP / SLG, along with AB. Yes, I do like to have AVG in there - I use it in conjunction with the other two rates to get a quick feel for walk rate and power. And it's another pet peeve of mine that people so often leave out a playing time measure, presenting sets of numbers as equally valid samples despite the fact that some are based on hundreds of at-bats while others are based on dozens of at-bats.

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 05:21 PM EST (#138535) #
I'm with Jonny. I prefer the avg./obp/slug in X PAs description to EqA, but they do both work as long as you remember to factor in playing time when using EqA.

Last year, the Jays scored with a highly efficient offence (from the run-scoring perspective) 775 runs. They should top 800 this year. The trick with this year's team is not the runs scored column, but the runs allowed. If it's significantly less than last year's 700, the team should be in the pennant hunt. If it's significantly higher, they probably won't be. And that's where we come to matters of faith-do you believe in independence of pitching and defence, brothers and sisters, or are you one of the heathen folk who cling to scientific notions of symbiosis? The Reverend Al Green will take you places where I cannot go.
The Official "Troy Glaus is a Jay" Thread | 105 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.