Frank Thomas got the only vote for a Blue Jay - one tenth place vote.

Frank Thomas got the only vote for a Blue Jay - one tenth place vote.

Obviously a voter who took his responsibilities very seriously.

Hey, the two writers who voted for Maggs were both from the Detroit area, so there you go.

I also seem to recall Pedro Martinez losing the 1999 MVP because 2 writers felt that pitchers shouldn't be eligible for the MVP and left him off their ballots - despite the fact that they were told to recuse themselves if they thought this way. Even more incredulously, one of those writers had voted for 2 pitchers the year before.

Better than the Gold Gloves at least....

I was looking up Pedro's stats to stand in awe of that 1999 season, and I noticed how odd his 2006 numbers are - 1.11 WHIP, 9.29 K/9, 2.65 BB/9, 4.48 ERA. His GB rate declined, but he was still an excellent pitcher as late as two years ago. I'm kind of excited to see what he will do in '08, and I might make a point of snagging him late in a fantasy draft.

J.P. bracing us for another year of Josh Towers?
http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/teams/report/TOR/10482598

Considering that retaining Towers will cost the Jays more than $2 million, I am absolutely perplexed at this rumour. Certainly the team has other "sixth" starter options who could be paid much closer to the league minimum? Between Chacin, Litsch, Janssen, Banks, and a host of other minor leaguers, there has to be someone of putting up Towers like numbers.

Oh, there are lots of guys who _could_ put up Tower's like numbers but with Towers you have a guy who you know can (if it all comes together) be a top guy. For around $2 million that isn't too bad. Remember, the average salary in baseball is over $3 million and quickly closing in on $4 million. So a guy who can be around a league average starter, with the proven ability to be above average if all breaks right (not all guys have that), for 1/2 of the average salary sound darn good to me.

Towers is an insurance policy. He will let the Purcey, Litsch, Banks crew develop and Chacin has always seemed like a bomb about to go off imo (far more so than Towers). Janssen can stay in the pen and keep it deep as can Wolfe.

If Towers is our #6 starter we are in very good shape.

I certainly agree, John.  Even if we can't deal him, he presents a better option than Thomohkrano would as depth, heading into next season.

These comments about Towers' potential might be true.  I am trying, however, to use the word 'might' properly, by which I mean in order to imply skepticism or doubt.

But what I find alarming about any movements towards keeping Towers are that they suggest continued patience with Towers that I don't think we can afford if he falters.  By some readings of Towers' recent career the Jays have had him on (to use the well-worn cliche) a short leash.  But by other readings the Jays have been extremely patient with negligible returns.  15 starts last year, 4 were quality.  12 starts the year before, 1 was quality.  5 quality starts out of 27.  I want a better chance than, to be approximate for the sake of time, 1 in 4 of having the lead heading into the 6th if I'm going to make the playoffs.

Of course the argument in favour of Towers is that he has the potential to get better - to revert to the 2005 anomaly.  That may be.  I mean I'm no scout, and the Blue Jays - well, used to employ scouts, anyways, so maybe they know better than me.  But my concern is this: if we let Litsch, or Banks, or Casey, or Chacin or whoever take the starts that we would have given to Towers, and they falter, then we will just yank them from the rotation and look to another internal, or external option.  We'll probably only give away one or two games before we adjust.  In the case of Towers, I don't think that's the case.  I don't think that he actually functions as an 'insurance policy'.  He is someone the Jays pay so that we can use him, not in case we have to use him.

 Functionally, our 'insurance policies' are our youth - like Marcum and McGowan last year.  That was some serious Aflack.  I think we should go straight to the insurance.

"And Pujols ahead of Rollins? You would have a hard time selling me on that."

Pujols .327/.429/.568
Rollins .296/.344/.531

I fail to see why it's a hard sell. Yes, Rollins plays an important position defensively, but Pujols is no slouch himself. He is a fantastic fielding first baseman, probably the best in baseball. So Pujols outhits Rollins decidedly in nearly every offensive category, yet Rollins somehow deserves the award? As a function of what? I certainly hope it's not based on runs, because Rollins hits in front of 2 potential HOFers while Pujols had nobody surrounding him this year. Pujols also strikes out less and walks more (which I guess shows in the massive difference in OPS). The only things I see going for Rollins are that the Phillies made the playoffs (again, more a function of 3 better hitters on the Phillies than Rollins) and that he steals bases.

And let me just point out that I didn't vote for Pujols in the poll. He just deserved it more than Rollins!

The Angels have signed Torii Hunter for 5 years and $90m ($18m per year average). 

Rollins was second in the league in extra base hits, tied for second in hits, second in power/speed index, and fifth in runs created; all while playing the second-toughest defensive position in the game.

This choice makes more sense to me than Justin Morneau did last year.

The Angels have signed Torii Hunter for 5 years and $90m ($18m per year average). 

Makes you wonder how much the two-year younger Andruw Jones could have signed for had he been able to repeat his 2005 or 2006 seasons. 8/160? Boras is adamant that Jones won't sign a one-year contract to boost his value for a bigger FA contract next year.

Makes you wonder how much the two-year younger Andruw Jones could have signed for had he been able to repeat his 2005 or 2006 seasons. 8/160? Boras is adamant that Jones won't sign a one-year contract to boost his value for a bigger FA contract next year.

Well the bidding should heat up now - there seems to be more teams than CFs at the moment - and the Angels came out of nowhere.  We now have the Royals, Nats, White Sox, Rangers, Twins and perhaps Dodgers going for Jones, Rowand and Cameron.  You can't rule out the Yankees either.  If the Twins answer their CF hole by trading for Melky Cabrera, I think the Yanks could make a play for Jones.  These chips won't fall until the Winter Meetings.

I think that giving Rollins the MVP based on numbers alone is defensible, as would have been the selection of a number of other players.  What seems ridiculous, to me, is the amount of credit Rollins is getting as a leader.  This would be fine if this credit was earned only as a result of reports out of the clubhouse, from teammates, from managers, from rivals, that declared Rollins to be the spiritual leader of that team the way that Jeter is almost universally praised in the American League.  But Rollins' repute seems to derive chiefly from his preseason declaration that the Phillies were 'the team to beat' in the National League East.

You cannot read an article about Rollins' MVP without reading that story.  Come on!  This is not the Babe calling his shot.  Some reporters talk to Jimmy Rollins in the spring about the Phillies chances, and he exhudes optimism, praising his teammates and saying the team has a great chance.  It wasn't even a guarantee.  He just said that, in his opinion, the Phils were the team to beat.  That's great.  What was he supposed to say, "we have a long way to go before we make the playoffs, but I'll do my best this year anyways and cross my fingers"?  Do we really think that his teammates read that quote and said "wow, Jimmy thinks we can win, I guess we can!"  Or, as has been implied, that they said "Jimmy thinks we can win, but I will only believe it when he puts us on his back and carries us there - at which point I, Ryan Howard [or I, Chase Utley], will also start playing like one of the best players in the National League ... you know, to follow his lead".

Basically what I am saying is that Paul Maurice guaranteed that the Leafs would make the playoffs this season.  I don't think that if the Leafs make it, that guarantee should garner him any consideration for coach of the year.  It shouldn't really be a factor.  It's just something you're supposed to say.