Moderator: The Jays finished with 87 wins, good for 2nd in the AL East and 10th in all of baseball. They scored 809 runs and gave up 754 runs for a Pythagenport record of 86-76. Most of the Roster had the Jays pegged between 88-92 wins prior to the season.

What are your impressions of the season and where the Jays currently stand?

Magpie: I find it a little hard to get a handle on where this team is at on the developmental curve. Both 2003 and 2004 were misleading - they weren't really as close to being a good team as 2003 made them appear to be, and no middle of the pack team could possibly cope with the myriad misfortunes that descended, like so many plagues, during the Season From Hell. In 2005, they should have been about an 87 win team, but underperformed their Pythagorean expectation on a truly historic scale. In 2006, they actually won 87 games - which makes it appear as if the season was actually one of consolidation. I think it was another incremental step forward. The offense in 2005 wasn't really as good as the run production suggested - they were a little lucky. The 2006 team scored just 30 more runs, but the improvement was larger than that despite the fact that one position (shortstop, of course) went right off the cliff and turned into a black hole.

Mike Green: I had the Jays scoring 800 runs and allowing 750. Damn, those dice were hot!

It didn't happen quite the way I expected, and I am very optimistic about 2007. The development of Alex Rios and to a lesser extent Aaron Hill gives this club a solid offensive core. It seemed to me that A.J. Burnett grew up some this year, and is ready to be a solid above-average 180-190 inning starter for a few years. The value of having Brandon League for a full season cannot be overstated; the bullpen should be a tremendous strength.

Pistol: I don't think people realize how good the Jays are. There's a lot of hand wringing that goes on, but you know what? Just about every team has problems, and most teams have more and/or bigger problems than the Jays do.

The Jays Pythag win total comes to 86 but their second order wins, which is a more accurate reflection going forward, is 90.9. And those 90.9 wins rank 4th in all of baseball. 4th! The Yankees are well ahead of everyone at 98.4, but after that the Tigers and Twins were both at 91.1, the Mets at 90.7, and the Angels at 89.9.

There's not as much ground to make up to make the playoffs as most people would believe.

Named for Hank: Last year I would have been happy with second place. The year before, I would have been delirious with joy. So they finished second -- why am I not overjoyed? This is a big step up for the team.

But I guess my own expectations are killing the satisfaction that I really should be enjoying right now. I knew from the outset of the season that second place was a possibility and I was prepared to be happy with that finish, but I guess that the total meltdown of the Red Sox and the way the Jays just barely snuck in there have deflated it for me.

I think I would have been happier with ninety wins and only third place in the face of stiff opposition from the Yankees and Red Sox. With the Sox turning into a pumpkin... I guess it just feels a little like the Red Sox lost second place, not that the Jays won it.

Oh, screw it. Give me two weeks and I'll be all "in yer face, Boston!"

Matthew E: I can't decide if I'm disappointed or not. 87 wins is a bit lower than I figured they could get ( 0.5Halladay + Burnett + Ryan + (Glaus - Hudson) + Overbay - Bush + Molina) = 7 wins? I thought it'd be higher), but second place is nice. (And it was a legitimate second place, too: check the Red Sox's Pythagorean.) I never really thought they could go to the postseason this year, so that doesn't bother me too much.

Some points of comparison:
Ash: 7 years
Ricciardi: 5 years

Ash: 3 seasons above .500 (3/7)
Ricciardi: 2 seasons above .500 (2/5)

Ash: 1 really bad season (1995)
Ricciardi: 1 really bad season (2004)

Ash: 1 season above 85 wins (1998)
Ricciardi: 2 seasons above 85 wins (2003, 2006)

Not much to separate them so far. Except that I think Ricciardi's chances of turning extra money into extra wins are better than Ash's were.

I may be skipping to a subsequent question here, so we can move the next part over in editing if it works better that way...

Problem 1: it's a lot easier to go from 80 to 87 wins than it is to go from 87 to, say, 94.

Problem 2: lack of young players stepping forward. Not that there weren't any; League and Rios have made big strides, Lind looks promising, and Hill was as advertised. But the Jays needed more from Adams and their young pitchers, and didn't get it. Oh, I suppose Marcum wasn't *too* bad. I predicted at the start of the season that McGowan would be the second-best pitcher on the team by the end of the year, and I look pretty silly now; he may end up being discarded, Chad Gaudin-style. But out of McGowan, Marcum, Janssen, Taubenheim, Banks, Rosario, Vermilyea and Purcey (and add who you like to this list), the Jays need one of them to come through big time, and probably at least two others to come through at least little time. Is it going to happen?

Problem 3: if we are to believe Ricciardi, the Jays' big problem this year was injuries. Well, everybody's going to have injuries; if you can't cope with that then you'll lose to the teams who can. Baseball Prospectus did a team health report on the Jays at the start of the year, and all five projected starters had red lights. Of those, Halladay did in fact get hurt, Lilly missed a couple of starts (didn't he?), Burnett missed a lot of time, Chacin was hurt, and Towers probably would have helped the team if he'd been hurt. Any plan the Jays have for '07 that doesn't allow for injuries is going to fail.

Gerry: I am relatively happy with the season but I am not convinced it is a springboard. Much attention has been paid to the pitching problems in 2006 but the Rios infection also hurt the team in a significant way. Not only did Rios miss time but he when he returned he was in a weakened state until mid-September. At the same time as Rios disappeared so did Troy Glaus. Glaus hit .229 and .224 in August and September respectively and while many players struggle, it's usually not for two months. JP took a kind of shot at Glaus after the season saying he needed to take better care of himself now that he is getting older.

As I look at 2007 the Jays are missing a catcher and a shortstop. Good offensive and defensive players at those positions are hard to find. My concern for 2006 is whether JP can find good players for those holes and whether Glaus can return to form.

Craig B: I think if each of the teams in the AL East returned their current players next season, the Jays wouldn't be the favorites, but they'd be very close to the Yankees. The thing is, the Yankees have been talking for three years now about their out-of-control payroll situation. Eventually, they need to do something about that, and while I know I said the same thing last year, I really think that this offseason they will cut payroll significantly. Building on what Pistol said, I think the Jays may well open 2007 as the legitimate favorites in the East.

Matthew E: As for the Jays being favourites... as long as a) the Yankees don't have a fire sale and b) the Red Sox make a couple of major moves of any kind, the Jays will not be *consensus* favourites. Even if they should be.

Dave Till: How much can the Yankees afford to spend, given their enormous stadium and cable revenues? I see no reason why they would want to, or need to, cut their payroll. In fact, I see it continuing to grow and fester.

For some time, I have semi-seriously suggested that the Yankees be put into their own division, and given an automatic bye to the post-season. They're not really a real baseball team any more: they're basically a collection of travelling middle-aged all-stars.

And I agree with Matthew: the Jays will never be consensus favourites until they win something. Toronto baseball has a very low profile.

Mike G: Criticism of Glaus for his performance late in the year is horribly misplaced, and is part of an unfortunate pattern. Glaus gave the club exactly what could be expected, and played a full season without injury. When he was unreasonably asked to play short, he did so without public complaint.

When Burnett was injured, Ricciardi questioned his motivation. When Rios told the club that he was not yet ready to go as his timing was off, he was ignored.

This year, I saw signs of growing maturity from a number of players- Rios, Wells, Burnett. For this club to succeed, the GM is going to have follow the example of some of his players and grow up a little.

Uncle Ted is right to give him a 1 year rope.

Pistol: He didn't miss a lot of time due to injuries, and he performed just about as expected, but Glaus certainly wasn't healthy the entire season. It was painful to watch him - he was always limping around and looked like he was 40 and not 30. I agree that the Ricciardi shouldn't mention this in public, but I think there's something to the comment.

Dave Till: 2006 highlighted J.P.'s strengths and weaknesses. His strength is player evaluation: note that all of his acquisitions (Burnett, Ryan, Glaus, Overbay, Molina) made positive contributions (injury permitting).

His weakness is that he just isn't a people person: he's blunt, outspoken, and tends to shoot from the hip. In this respect, he is the polar opposite of his predecessor - Ash wasn't a great talent evaluator, but was the prototypical Nice Guy.

If you could take the best qualities of the two men, you'd have the ideal GM.