Eric Gagne to the Brewers ... LaTroy Hawkins to the Yankees ... Milton Bradley to the Rangers ... Kosuke Fukudome to somewhere in MLB ... Danny Haren to the D-Backs? ... What else are you hearing?
I'm not hearing much except that Fukudome may make his decision by the end of the day today. I'm also not hearing anything at all about Rios and Lincecum, which could actually mean something. Sabean said he'd likely decide by the end of the weekend or the beginning of the week, and here we are. I think that the longer we wait, the more likely it is that Lincecum is on his way here. If Sabean turned down the trade, we'd surely hear about it right away. If he accepted, however, then we'd likely have to wait until the final details were hashed out and the physicals were complete before we heard an announcement. I may be out to lunch, but if I hear nothing by Wednesday, I'll assume the deal has been done. Then more corresponding moves may follow. It's been a couple of boring days since the meetings, maybe it's just the calm before the storm.
I posted this under the wrong thread .. oops. Sorry if it's redundant.
There is no way the Rios for Lincecum deal will go through. Period. I'm surprised Sabean is even considering it. Kudos to JP for the attempt.
There is no way that the Jays will make the playoffs in the near future. Rios or Lincecum won't change that fact.
I have been reading this board regularly for a few years now, and like every other year, I will make my one and only comment for the year:
The Jays will, unfortunately, flirt with the .500 mark again. However, I'll still watch them religiously like the masochist that I am.
Keep up the posts, I enjoy reading them.
Cheers!
P.S. What happened to JP's 5 year plan?
P.P.S. Isn't it time that the Jays get a legimate/proven Manager? To me that would be the first sign of a club willing to contend.
Well, I think quite a few moves may end up being delayed until the week at least, given that the Mitchell report is due out Thursday (last I read). If you're trying to swing a big trade or sign a free agent, in some cases, it's vital information on who might be suspended and/or counted on to maintain their past performance. I actually don't expect the report itself to amount to much in terms of new names and punishments, but teams would be wise to wait on that type of information. I hope Mr. Mitchell surprises me, though, with a huge damning report of the whole industry, players, trainers, and management alike.
And I could be totally out to lunch on all of that, and teams already know everything the report will say.
And I could be totally out to lunch on all of that, and teams already know everything the report will say.
I too don't think that the Giants do this deal.
As for the Mitchell Report, I think that the teams will be getting the report the same days as everyone else.
To me theJays have almost always been respectable. While I don't always agree with J.P,s moves he has a better team now than when he started. His 5 year plan is OK if he was in another division however when we improve the monsters in the east seem to spend more than ever. There have been years where we would be in the playoffs in another division. Legitimate proven managers are all working and I believe that we have one even if I don'tlike the way he handles the pen. There are people who say the same thing about Torre and I believe he would be considered a proven manager.
Baseball is always about second guessing and I like to think our fellows usually make a good if not spectacular move, even when I disagree with them. It's like picking horses I only remember the winners I pick, and the losers the other guy picks.
As for Rios and Lincecum I think it is even either way.
I'm not replying to argue just that you put your post in the form of questions.
P.S. What happened to JP's 5 year plan?
We've been through this many times before. JP never mentioned a 5 year plan. It was Paul Godfrey who did and it's been falsely attributed to JP ever since.
<i>His 5 year plan is OK if he was in another division however when we improve the monsters in the east seem to spend more than ever. There have been years where we would be in the playoffs in another division.</i>
I think JP has been largely successful in a lot of his mandate. Since taking over, the Jays have cleaned house financially, re-organized the front and back office, and put forward teams by 2006-2007 that have a legitimate chance at competing. I know people may argue the point, but the Jays have been in the hunt for the wild card for the last couple of years until at least after the All Star Break. Being in a division with the Yankees and the Red Sox is a massive challenge, and while sports writers like to paint that as whining or an excuse, like injuries, it is a reality that cannot be discounted as a factor. He hasn't been a great GM, but he has been at worst a decent one.
The Jays are a competition team. Yes, everything has to break the right way for us, but barring Rogers suddenly upping the payroll another 50%, that is always going to be the case as long as we're in the AL East with New York and Boston. Personally, I say we lobby for an American League team in Miami or Charlotte.
<i>Legitimate proven managers are all working and I believe that we have one even if I don'tlike the way he handles the pen. There are people who say the same thing about Torre and I believe he would be considered a proven manager.</i>
*shrug* Gaston was an 'unproven' manager. The cult of the manager is a touch overwrought in my opinion. Much as you've mentioned, I wonder a bit with some of Gibbon's bullpen choices, but I don't think he's costing us any games, nor do I feel importing Joe Torre would suddenly make the Jays any better.
<i>As for Rios and Lincecum I think it is even either way.</i>
If Lincecum is the pitcher they think he is, there's no question that trading Rios for him is an excellent move. The only trouble I have is that Rios is a proven commodity with a strong plus side next year, and Lincecum's got just 170 MLB innings in total to consider. Cain/Rios, no question. Lincecum/Rios, can't fault the reasoning, just not as sure we'll get the same return, even though both his college record and his stats indicate he's worth a gamble.
Washington Post via Rotoworld reporting that Paul LoDuca has signed with the Nats.
Dan Szymborski's ZiPS forecast for LoDuca and Thipgen are 274/320/369 and 243/316/363, respectively. The guy that got away will be 36 next season and will cost ten times as much as the in-house solution. I'm not opposed to a better backup catcher, but LoDuca ain't it.
Here's the link on LoDuca and the Nats
It's bad news if the Jays insist on a veteran catcher. It's good news if Thigpen gets the call (or at least that's my perspective).
It's bad news if the Jays insist on a veteran catcher. It's good news if Thigpen gets the call (or at least that's my perspective).
In keeping with Pistol's continued support for Thigpen, the average AL catcher in 2007 put up a line of 254/318/395, not screamingly better than the Thigpen ZiPS forecast. Since you don't demand that your back-ups be league average (or else they'd have a right to demand that they start), a strong argument could be made for Thigpen given the low bar offensive demands of the position.
I'm in the play Thigpen camp too, for a number of reasons. One of them is that carrying Thigpen would have the pleasant side effect of giving Robinzon Diaz a true everyday gig at AAA, providing further evidence on whether he can be expected to continue to play the unstoppable hacking machine role he nailed last year in New Hampshire.
After watching several of Thigpen's starts behind the plate last year, I think his offense is adequate. It could be the way he handles the pitchers that prevents JP from handing him the backup spot for the 08 season.
The dynamics are better, too. Lo Duca would not be satisfied with 200-250 PAs, and would be complaining ad nauseam about losing time to Zaun. Thigpen would be delighted, I am quite sure, to be Zaun's understudy and get the short end of the platoon stick. Lo Duca has not thrown out runners at an acceptable rate in each of the last 4 years, incidentally. Thigpen would not likely do worse on that front either.
I would be equally excited if it was Thigpen as the fallback, but it appears that Fasano is.
Not that I hate Sal, I just can't imagine much of a difference between the two. And when it comes to that, I'd always play the younger guy, because there's always a chance he could surprise. Not much chance of Sal surprising.
Not that I hate Sal, I just can't imagine much of a difference between the two. And when it comes to that, I'd always play the younger guy, because there's always a chance he could surprise. Not much chance of Sal surprising.
I think most signs militate against a Rios-Lincecum trade. In light of the quasi-furor in San Francisco over the proposed trade, Lincecum may have acquired near-untouchable status in Sabean's eyes. But if JP wants to really go for it, he could offer to throw in someone like Litsch. That way, Sabean gets a young starter in return. Now, this may be too much to give up for Lincecum, but it might be the only way to get the deal done. Litsch could be an appealling option for an NL team and might placate the SF fan base. And the Jays would still have several potential sixth starters (Janssen, Towers, Wolfe, Chacin) if the need were to arise in 2008.
Just so we're clear on our likely backup catcher. Sal Fasano's career major-league numbers (and keep in mind that he's now 36): 219/293/394. Folks, those are John McDonald numbers (with marginally more pop).
So, when Zaun needs a rest, and Glaus is out of the lineup (a reasonable expectation), the bottom of our lineup will be as follows:
Scutaro (3B)
Fasano (C)
McDonald (SS)
Thrilling.
So, when Zaun needs a rest, and Glaus is out of the lineup (a reasonable expectation), the bottom of our lineup will be as follows:
Scutaro (3B)
Fasano (C)
McDonald (SS)
Thrilling.
Ricciardi has said that he expects Diaz to be ready by June or July, so a guy like Fasano would only be used for just the first half of the season. At least that's the plan. I wonder why the Jays have soured on Thigpen? Perhaps they see him as a super-utility guy, with Jerolman and Arencibia on the way.
As for throwing in Litsch with Rios, no way unless it's for Cain.
Really? Seeing that Litsch probably peaked last year, I'd jump at that if the throw-in were Litsch. Marcum, now way. Cecil, no way. Purcey, sure. Thigpen, if they toss in some sort of B-grade minor-leaguer back.
Ricciardi has said that he expects Diaz to be ready by June or July, so
a guy like Fasano would only be used for just the first half of the
season.
I don't really get this logic. It doesn't make sense to throw a rookie (who reportedly has an attitude, and with whom pitchers have had some issues), or even Thigpen into a potential pennant race. And unlike someone like Russell Martin, Diaz isn't an impact catcher. He's a .300 singles hitter who doesn't walk. Potentially useful, for a catcher, but not exactly a game-wrecker.
For me, the problem is management's "head in the sand" approach. I understand that there aren't many SS/C/3B options. But we tried out the "rest of the offense will carry the team" theory last year, and the offense was mostly awful.
I don't really get this logic. It doesn't make sense to throw a rookie (who reportedly has an attitude, and with whom pitchers have had some issues), or even Thigpen into a potential pennant race. And unlike someone like Russell Martin, Diaz isn't an impact catcher. He's a .300 singles hitter who doesn't walk. Potentially useful, for a catcher, but not exactly a game-wrecker.
For me, the problem is management's "head in the sand" approach. I understand that there aren't many SS/C/3B options. But we tried out the "rest of the offense will carry the team" theory last year, and the offense was mostly awful.
Also from Sporting News (via Yahoo), it sounds like Gibbons is on the hot seat. Fair, unfair? The Jays don't appear to have a particularly difficult home schedule in April and May, so there won't be a lot of excuses to go around if the team struggles out of the gate, barring injuries of course. I'm actually glad to hear that someone in management is under pressure to succeed, though the manager is a pretty easy scapegoat.
Gibbons is on the hot seat, but the reasoning that they use is faulty (i.e. that Gibbons is only signed through next season). He's on the hot seat because the team is expected to compete and make the playoffs. Mind you, I would also put JP on the hot seat too.
"Fair, or unfair?"
Fair! Gibbons frustrates me to no end. Back to back to back 130+ pitch outings for the walking wounded Burnett, throwing Halladay out there for high pitch complete games when the Jays were already out of it, sitting Lind, Thigpen and Olmedo in September so McDonald and Johnson could play and Zaun could take 6 games a week, bullpen mismanagement, B.J. Ryan's overuse, etc....
But my favourite Gibbons-ism of all came when the Jays were still in it:
Wilner: "When they brought in the lefty, why did you pinch hit with John McDonald instead of Rios? Was Rios available?"
Gibbons: "Yeah, Rios was ready off the bench. I just had a hunch".
A hunch!? Terrible.
P.S. What happened to JP's 5 year plan?
P.P.S. Isn't it time that the Jays get a legimate/proven Manager? To me that would be the first sign of a club willing to contend.
------------------------------------
How many "proven" GM's are sitting without a job? By my count - One...and that one criticized for leaving his farm system almost barren.
How many currently employed "good" GM's will leave there current team to work for the Jays? I don't see even one.
How many currently employed GM's have assembled powerhouse teams that make the playoffs virtually every year? Two...who just happen to run the two teams with virtually unlimited payrolls. Even the best of the rest - Shapero, Beane, Towers...have teams that cycle up and down in the standings - every single one of the teams who are sometimes contenders have had sub .500 records in the last five years except the Phillies.
So, given your profound distaste for JP, maybe you could break your pattern for a second post this year and show us a "proven" (your word) who is available and has better results than JP that he should be replaced with. Absent such an individual, your only choice is to start over with another novice and hope he proves out - 5 or 6 years from now - to be better.
Doesn't sound like a promising prospect to me.
Blair floated Buck Showalter's name the other day as a possibility for our next manager. I like that - though I don't remember particulars about his style or tendencies. He performed well on Seinfeld, though.
I personally think Paul Depodesta got an unfair shake with the Dodgers as their GM, a lot of his moves turned out to be pretty solid, even though they were unpopular (Lo Duca for Penny for example). And he managed 2 pretty good drafts for LA if I recall as well. I think he is either Assistant GM or special assistant to Kevin Towers in SD now.
There is a really interesting article in the Baltimore Sun about David Segui's use of HGH and anabolic steroids. He admits to having used both and succeeds in coming across as a classy and legitimate guy. I think he knows his name is going to come out in the end and he'd rather have it out on his own terms. Of course his confession would be far more controversial if he had ever been more than a good player on average teams...
Blair floated Buck Showalter's name the other day as a possibility for
our next manager. I like that - though I don't remember particulars
about his style or tendencies. He performed well on Seinfeld, though.
--------------------------------------
Showalter would be a disaster, not because he's a bad manager (he's not) but because he's a control freak. I don't think he'd ever agree to work for a hand's on guy like JP anyway.
My recomendations: Davy Johnson, Ken Macha. And my prediction is that, unless there's bad blood from Oakland we don't know about, the next manager JP hires will be Macha.
--------------------------------------
Showalter would be a disaster, not because he's a bad manager (he's not) but because he's a control freak. I don't think he'd ever agree to work for a hand's on guy like JP anyway.
My recomendations: Davy Johnson, Ken Macha. And my prediction is that, unless there's bad blood from Oakland we don't know about, the next manager JP hires will be Macha.
I personally think Paul Depodesta got an unfair shake with the Dodgers as their GM, a lot of his moves turned out to be pretty solid, even though they were unpopular (Lo Duca for Penny for example). And he managed 2 pretty good drafts for LA if I recall as well. I think he is either Assistant GM or special assistant to Kevin Towers in SD now.
Logan White is almost completely responsible for the Dodgers draft success.
As managers that I would have liked to run the team, I would be fine with either Bobby Valentine and Davy Johnson. Showalter I'm not a really big fan of.
Count me in on the Depodesta bandwagon. This article points out some of the other astute moves he made in his brief tenure.
We've been through this many times before. JP never mentioned a 5 year plan. It was Paul Godfrey who did and it's been falsely attributed to JP ever since.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid. J.P DID mention the five year plan on the radio with Wilner. I heard it and that's a fact. Besides, you think Godfrey pulled that term out of his ass? You don't think he spoke to J.P when he hired him and J.P said he would have a 5 year plan as GM for the Jays?
As for managers I would love to see Bobby Valentine here...
Johnson should've been manager back in 98 but our GM at the time got the first name wrong :) Actually, the guy he hired was my #2 choice so I can't really complain too much.
Today I'd lean towards Johnson. Heck, I'd even enjoy seeing Cito back on the managers bench. And not just because it would make my dad's head explode (he couldn't stand Cito). Cito was the type of guy who figured out what he had during the season then used it in the playoffs to the best advantage. Just be sure he recognizes the value of OBP first then he would be fine, although I think Cito really should be with a team that makes the playoffs but has issues once there (the Yanks would've been ideal this past winter, and he'd help Oakland, Cleveland, the Mets, the Dodgers, and quite a few others although most wouldn't want him for various reasons).
Who is likely to be hired if Gibbons leaves? Someone who we haven't heard of who will be easy for JP to control I suspect. The Jays are not a team to spend where it doesn't have to and the manager role is one they don't see much need to blow money on.
Today I'd lean towards Johnson. Heck, I'd even enjoy seeing Cito back on the managers bench. And not just because it would make my dad's head explode (he couldn't stand Cito). Cito was the type of guy who figured out what he had during the season then used it in the playoffs to the best advantage. Just be sure he recognizes the value of OBP first then he would be fine, although I think Cito really should be with a team that makes the playoffs but has issues once there (the Yanks would've been ideal this past winter, and he'd help Oakland, Cleveland, the Mets, the Dodgers, and quite a few others although most wouldn't want him for various reasons).
Who is likely to be hired if Gibbons leaves? Someone who we haven't heard of who will be easy for JP to control I suspect. The Jays are not a team to spend where it doesn't have to and the manager role is one they don't see much need to blow money on.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid. J.P DID mention the five year plan on the radio with Wilner. I heard it and that's a fact.
Oooo. Since you heard it then it must be true. And that's a fact.
Jdog,
McDonald either grounded out or struck out, I don't remember which, but it certainly didn't work out well for the Jays. Imagine that.
Does it matter? I think not. Even if McDonald hit a HR, it was still a bad (percentages-wise) decision. Which means if it did work out, Gibbons simply got lucky.
I'm not that anti-Gibbons, but I do remember watching that game and saying to my roommate: "What is Gibbons doing? Does he forget Rios is on the bench??"
I'm not that anti-Gibbons, but I do remember watching that game and saying to my roommate: "What is Gibbons doing? Does he forget Rios is on the bench??"
To me the Jays have almost always been respectable. While I don't always agree with J.P,s moves he has a better team now than when he started. His 5 year plan is OK if he was in another division however when we improve the monsters in the east seem to spend more than ever. There have been years where we would be in the playoffs in another division. Legitimate proven managers are all working and I believe that we have one even if I don'tlike the way he handles the pen. There are people who say the same thing about Torre and I believe he would be considered a proven manager.
That's a rather rosy way of painting the situation.
Ricciardi took over a team that in its previous four seasons won 88, 84, 83, and 80 games. I believe he described it as a team paying too much money for mediocre talent/results. He comes in, wipes out the entire scouting team, and proceeds to build the same .500-ish team minus the good drafting. The Jays have averaged 80 wins under his watch (83 if you discount 2004). How is that considered progress or a success? That's treading water at best. The Jays were "respectable" under Gord Ash too. That wasn't the goal when Ricciardi was hired.
In fact, Ash was up against the Yankees Dynasty and a Pedro-lead Red Sox team (back when scoring 1 run off Pedro was a miracle), and the Jays still had two seasons where they finished within four games of a playoff spot (1998, 2000), and another season where they lead the Wild Card in August only to blow it in September (1999). The Blue Jays have not sniffed contention that late in the year since. And please don't give me Ricciardi's spin of "we were 5 games out of the Wild Card in September this year", which completely ignores the fact that half the AL was in front of us during that time.
Whether Ricciardi called it a five year plan or not, he hasn't produced anything that Gord Ash didn't before him. Ash at least had competent scouts who drafted well. Being .500 every year isn't something to be proud of, IMO. It doesn't look bad, but it's not a positive either.
Count me in on the Depodesta bandwagon. This article points out some of the other astute moves he made in his brief tenure.
I was actually looking at update the series of articles I wrote including the analysis of his trades, I was a fan of DePo.
The THT article points out that:
Perhaps the biggest reason for DePodesta's ouster revolved around the '05 trade deadline deal involving Penny and fan favorite Paul Lo Duca as the principals. Sure, the Dodgers had a vacuum at catcher for the remainder of the year, but it didn't prevent them from making the playoffs, and Penny undoubtedly remains the better bet going forward.
So you're telling me that DePo was fired because he made an unpopular trade that helped out his team for years to come? That's the kind of decision maker I'd want on my staff any day! Lo Duca was over-rated and Penny has become an ace for the Dodgers (last year's stats: 208 IP, 16-4, 3.03 ERA, 151 ERA+, 21 Win Shares). The Marlins return for him and Choi were three players who contributed 34 Win Shares in their time there and have been let go through free agency, traded for marginal prospects or utilized as a small part in one of the biggest trades of the new millenium (Beckett anyone?). Penny contributed 44 Win Shares to the Dodgers by himself in his time there while Choi contributed 7. The 29 year old Penny has was also being paid under market value ($7.75 million last year) for his valuable work...
Depo is a guy you'd want on any staff, even in an advisory role, to help you make the tough decisions and take the heat for them.
While I don't wholly disagree with what you've said, I think a big difference between the Ash era and the JP era is the unbalancing of the schedule. I'd hazard a guess, that if the Jays teams of the JP era had to deal with a balanced schedule, they probably could have won the WC at least once.
<i>As for throwing in Litsch with Rios, no way unless it's for Cain.</i>
I've seen this message throughout Batter's Box this early winter, and I can't believe my eyes. I can't see how Cain's better than Lincecum moving forward. Sure, he's got more MLB IP under his belt, but he's not the talent Lincecum is.
I think this is an underscored point as well. I'm not a JP fan, but I'm not a basher either. More recently, the talent in the AL has spread out (a little), but I definitely agree that the unbalanced schedule kills the Jays. It's one thing to have an unbalanced schedule in a short season like the NFL, it's completely different if you have 162 games. I think the NBA has got it figured out best (even the NHL has realized that too many divisional games is bad).
Unfortunately, since MLB likes to promote their favourite teams (the NY's, BOS, LA's, etc) of the world, this won't be changing anytime soon.
Unfortunately, since MLB likes to promote their favourite teams (the NY's, BOS, LA's, etc) of the world, this won't be changing anytime soon.
The biggest difference between the Ash and Ricciardi years is this.
Ash was in a job that exceeded his abilities, but inherited a SD that had unearthed more talent than any other organization. With his first draft pick in 1995, he picked 17th and took a HS pitcher named Roy Halladay. It was the best pick of the draft. The next 3 players taken were Ryan Jaroncyk, Juan Lebron and David Yocum.
Here's the first round form 1995.
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/draft/1995/Round-1-1.shtml
In his first year, Ricciardi, like Ash, was a guy in a job that exceeded his abilities. Armed with a few misguided religiously-applied principles, e.g. avoid HS pitchers in the first round, he proceeded to take a player the same SD warned him against, Russ Adams, when he could have taken any one of the following high-impact HS pitchers - Scott Kazmir, Col Hamels and Matt Cain. The next three players taken after Adams were Scott Kazmir, Nick Swisher and Col Hamels.
Unlike Ash, JP knew that you don't take HS pitchers with your first rounder, no matter how skilled and no matter what the options. This drafting strategy is about to cost Toronto it's best player, Alex Rios, to get to where we could have been had JP not wasted his pick on Adams and taken any one of the excellent options available. Now JP is the guy who is tearing up the floor boards to burn them for heat.
Ash drafted when Interbrew owned the team and wouldn't pay slot money. In that time he took Halladay, Wells and Rios with 3 of his first 5 firstrounders, and Koch and Lopez with the others.
Overall, Ash wasn't a good GM but he knew to trust an excellent SD which put the team in a position where JP has someone to trade for the pitchers he didn't draft.
Just for the record, I too have heard JP talk about his 5 year plan during Wednesday Nights with JP after games on THE FAN.
Los Angeles is a pretty baseball-mad market. It's sort of comparable to hockey here in T.O. As a result, they were very reluctant to trust the fate of the "gloried" Dodgers in the hands of someone who's rather revolutionary.
I believe DePodesta was a Harvard graduate in law or stats...stats however was his passion. According to Moneyball, he developed a set of data that pretty accurately describes how any combination of specific position players will field in a full year. Anyway, he trusts his "technology" quite alot...in fact, alot more that scouts. He was fired because he marginalized "purist" staffers like scouts and such.
It's too bad that he got fired before he got to reap the fruits of his labour.
It looks like he's lurking for a bit, waiting for a chance to lead a team in the right situation(combination of autocracy, payroll, current set of talent that he'd have to work with).
Los Angeles is a pretty baseball-mad market. It's sort of comparable to hockey here in T.O. As a result, they were very reluctant to trust the fate of the "gloried" Dodgers in the hands of someone who's rather revolutionary.
I believe DePodesta was a Harvard graduate in law or stats...stats however was his passion. According to Moneyball, he developed a set of data that pretty accurately describes how any combination of specific position players will field in a full year. Anyway, he trusts his "technology" quite alot...in fact, alot more that scouts. He was fired because he marginalized "purist" staffers like scouts and such.
It's too bad that he got fired before he got to reap the fruits of his labour.
It looks like he's lurking for a bit, waiting for a chance to lead a team in the right situation(combination of autocracy, payroll, current set of talent that he'd have to work with).
Every manager in every walk of life has a five-year plan, and no plan ever survives implementation. You're constantly adapting. I don't like JP's loose lips, but other than that, I have no problem with him. He shouldn't be on the hot seat. Unless a GM is making franchise ruining moves, he should be left in his position for a very long time. It takes time to evaluate performance at that level.
Don't forget that DePodesta was to be interviewed for the job here but wasn't interested and referred JP to the Jays instead. I doubt he would be interested if the job came up here again.
A lot of things change John, the Jays ownership back then basically was on par with the KC Royals/Pirates and all their tightfisted antics. If you KNOW you're coming up for a GM job, the Jays would probably have been one of the last ones on the list for positions you'd want to take at the time. With the new budget and money made available for the players, this job has a lot more shine on it than it did back when Depo was offered a chance to be interviewed for it.
If you're an up and comer, do you take a job with the Royals? You know that is suicide.
DePo is also in a different position in his life, he isn't that hot shot whom everyone is considering for their GM vancancy. He has been out of the game for a little while. Different scenarios all around John.
I doubt he would be interested if the job came up here again.
Obviously all I can do is guess, but I'm thinking that his inability to land a second GM job may have awaken him to the realization that such opportunities are not as plentiful as he might have previously imagined. There is less discrimination against young GMs than there used to be, but it still exists.
Obviously all I can do is guess, but I'm thinking that his inability to land a second GM job may have awaken him to the realization that such opportunities are not as plentiful as he might have previously imagined. There is less discrimination against young GMs than there used to be, but it still exists.
DePo ...... has been
out of the game for a little while
He's working for the Padres now and has for maybe about a year and a half now.
He's working for the Padres now and has for maybe about a year and a half now.
I know Pistol, I posted that above (in my initial post). I ment the GM game. As in, he isn't a GM anymore. I should have been more clear.
WillRain:
If you actually read my post, you would see that my comment stated that getting a "proven" MANAGER would be a sign of a team serious of contending.
Perhaps "proven" was the wrong word. I should have said a manager that isn't utterly useless.
As for JP, I don’t recall displaying any “distaste” for the man. I think I actually gave him kudos for almost pulling off the Lincecum trade. All I asked about JP was what happened to his 5 year plan. However, someone stated on the board that Godfrey said this (although I have heard JP say this). I guess JP has no plan. Makes sense.
I hope this clears things up for you.
Oooo. Since you heard it then it must be true. And that's a fact.
I have no reason to lie. J.P's record speaks for itself.
I do not recall hearing JP mentioning a 5 year plan. I know for sure that Wilner has said JP never mentioned a 5 year plan so much as hinted to it. Either way, why rip on the guy? Do you want to run him out of town because it has taken him 7 or 8 years to field a near close playoff team? On top of this, your forgetting that he is getting better and better as a GM every year. His old draft mandate was based on a small market, small payroll team. I am sure ownership had some influence on the non-high school approach. It seems he has already changed this mandate by looking at high school players such as Snider and by gambling on potential Jays like Lincecum (a very risky deal for his reputation). Through all of this, he maintains his strengths from the beginning...looking for on base and plate discipline, overlooking the small ball (which I am no fan of in the AL EAST). And probably most impressive, he is building a contender by not running the franchise into the ground. Think about it, if none of this works out, then we can keep the good young chips we have and be gone with the older money players like Thomas, Glaus, Burnett etc). Not a lot of GM's field contenders without sacrificing the future.
Quote:
"proceeds to build the same .500-ish team minus the good drafting."
Errr....no.
Elaboration here:
http://www.jaysfanz.com/latest-news/drafting-ability-smackdown-gord-ash-vs.-jp-riccardi.html
"proceeds to build the same .500-ish team minus the good drafting."
Errr....no.
Elaboration here:
http://www.jaysfanz.com/latest-news/drafting-ability-smackdown-gord-ash-vs.-jp-riccardi.html
...looking for on base and plate discipline
The league averages for AB:BB ratio in 2006 and 2007 were 10.8:1 and 10.4:1. During that time, Toronto's ratios were 10.9:1 and 10.4:1. It's not clear that Ricciardi is focusing especially hard on plate discipline, though I imagine one could argue that last year's additions of Thomas and Stairs, two walkers, would fuel defense of a counter-argument. (Tangentially, why does Jamie Campbell insist on calling Stairs a free swinger? You want free swingers, Jamie? You've got Wells, Rios, Hill, McDonald, Johnson and Lind. Take your pick.)
I've seen these comments about JP and his "on-base percentage" focus quite a few times the last couple days, and it really didn't jive well with my memory of the teams that JP has fielded. So I did some research to see. I thought I'd share my findings:
2007: Team OBP .327, rank 12th of 14 in AL, League Average = .338
2006: Team OBP .348, rank 4th of 14 in AL, League Average = .339
2005: Team OBP .331, rank 4th of 14th in AL, League Average = .330
2004: Team OBP .328, rank 12th of 14th in AL, League Average = .338
2003: Team OBP .349, rank 4th of 14th in AL, League Average = .333
2002: Team OBP .327, rank 9th of 14th in AL, League Average = .331
So in 6 years with JP, 3 times the Jays have been above the average, and 3 times below. Let's look at the 6 years prior to JP:
2001: Team OBP .325, rank 10th of 14th in AL, League Average = .334
2000: Team OBP .341, rank 10th of 14th in AL, League Average = .349
1999: Team OBP .347, rank 7th of 14th in AL, League Average = .347
1998: Team OBP .333, rank 9th of 14th in AL, League Average = .340
1997: Team OBP .305, rank 14th of 14th in AL, League Average = .340
1996: Team OBP .323, rank 13th of 14th in AL, League Average = .350
So it appears that JP has done a better job with regards to this OBP business than I originally thought. And when you think about the players he has brought in Overbay, Thomas, Glaus - all well above average w/respect to their career OBP it becomes more obvious.
Now, I should be getting back to work. What I would like to do is see how well OBP correlates to having an above average offence. Perhaps tonight...
Wilner's denied JP ever said it numerous times and it's his show he supposedly said it on.
The difference between Ash and JP is that Ash was spending $75M when the Yanks had just cracked $100M themselves. The Jays were in the upper class of spenders. JP worked with $50M from 2002-4 and only got to the $75M area again in 2005 while the Yanks were moving to $200M and the Sox to $150M.
Dean: It's so easy to cherry pick drafts. Why didn't you mention the 2003 draft. Who were the guys picked right after Hill? Why don't you mention the 1993 and 1994 drafts which were disasters. It was the same scouting staff as Ash had in 1995.
Chuck, nice! It took me so long to construct my post that some new ones came up before I posted mine. I'm still not totally sold on the JP focuses on plate discipline idea either, despite what I just wrote (your post helps support what my eyes see). I didn't even think of looking at more advanced stats like that and just went with the basic OBP. Perhaps I will look a little closer into some other things when I'm home tonight...
I have been on record about what I consider to be a lack of focus by the Jays on OBP. It's either not being emphasized in the minors or they're not drafting those kinds of players There is certainly no emphasis that I can see at the major league level.
Errr....no.
Elaboration here:
http://www.jaysfanz.com/latest-news/drafting-ability-smackdown-gord-ash-vs.-jp-riccardi.html
While I appreciate the link, that "article" was not only written by you, but in between the extreme bias and condescending tone, it did nothing to "elaborate" on anything. I couldn't even finish it (hint: good writers don't insult their readers....I hope that's not your future aspiration).
Essentially what you were doing was 1) minimizing the Ash draftees as much as you could without bordering on ridiculous, and 2) saying that we should give the projectable college draftees that Ricciardi picked the same amount of development time as the teenagers that Ash picked. If you can't see the fault in logic with #2, then I don't know what to say. You emphasized that McGowan took SEVEN years to pan out (your capitialization, not mine) as if it was a negative. He had surgery which cost him essentially two years of his career and he still panned out at age 25. If we give Dave Purcey seven years to develop, he'll be 29. The whole point of Ricciardi's drafts was to select guys who could contribute quickly. Ash's regime drafted players based on upside (and cost). There is a clear difference between the two philosophies.
Now, Ricciardi changed his drafting style in 2006, so yes, we should be giving Snider, Ahrens, etc, the same amount of time as we gave Rios, Wells, Roy, etc, from a development standpoint. But to suggest JP's drafting from 2002-05 comes with the upside to justify giving the picks as much time as Ash's picks is lunacy. I'm glad you are content with Ricciardi's drafting. You are entitled to your opinion. I hope you can find more people who side with you, but I don't see what you see.
That article was indeed extremely frustrating to read. Extreme bias, yes. I didn't find it that condesending, but it is clear when you've read it that you are trying your best to down play Ash and play up Riccardi.
Without tearing apart everything, let's pick one: how do you justify comparing Russ Adams and Felipe Lopez's development time period? They are just about the same age now. When Ash drafted Lopez he was ummm, 18 years old.
By the time Adams has 7 years under his belt, which you proclaim to be the same time frame that Lopez needed, he'll be 30 and entering the decline phase of his career (imagine that, Russ Adams getting worse... *shudders*). I can't continue.
Without tearing apart everything, let's pick one: how do you justify comparing Russ Adams and Felipe Lopez's development time period? They are just about the same age now. When Ash drafted Lopez he was ummm, 18 years old.
By the time Adams has 7 years under his belt, which you proclaim to be the same time frame that Lopez needed, he'll be 30 and entering the decline phase of his career (imagine that, Russ Adams getting worse... *shudders*). I can't continue.
>>While I appreciate the link, that "article" was not only written by you,<<
Yes it was. It seemed rather usless to repeat here what I had gone to some length to explain there.
>>but
in between the extreme bias and condescending tone, it did nothing to
"elaborate" on anything. I couldn't even finish it (hint: good writers
don't insult their readers....I hope that's not your future aspiration).<<
Oh...and I have to wonder if it's only "bias" when it reaches a conclusion you disagree with...
>>Essentially what you were doing was 1) minimizing the Ash draftees as much as you could without bordering on ridiculous, and 2) saying that we should give the projectable college draftees that Ricciardi picked the same amount of development time as the teenagers that Ash picked. If you can't see the fault in logic with #2, then I don't know what to say. You emphasized that McGowan took SEVEN years to pan out (your capitialization, not mine) as if it was a negative. He had surgery which cost him essentially two years of his career and he still panned out at age 25. If we give Dave Purcey seven years to develop, he'll be 29. The whole point of Ricciardi's drafts was to select guys who could contribute quickly. Ash's regime drafted players based on upside (and cost). There is a clear difference between the two philosophies.<<
And you apparently missed entirely the foundational premise of the whole piece which was to look at the players cited based on what we knew at that point IN GORD'S CAREER. not in the player's career. Furthermore, you are - intentionally or no - confusing the issue because YOU are mixing a college player and a high school player, not me. I compared McGowan to Ahrens. I did so specificlly because both were very recent High school draftees. Apples to Apples. I did not compare ANY Gord draftee to Purcey because there was no apples-to-apples comparison among Gord's best picks.>>Now, Ricciardi changed his drafting style in 2006, so yes, we should be giving Snider, Ahrens, etc, the same amount of time as we gave Rios, Wells, Roy, etc, from a development standpoint. But to suggest JP's drafting from 2002-05 comes with the upside to justify giving the picks as much time as Ash's picks is lunacy<<
Glad to hear you say it! that's not what I said at all, of course, but still - good sentiment.. >>'m glad you are content with Ricciardi's drafting. You are entitled to your opinion. I hope you can find more people who side with you, but I don't see what you see.<<
I did not say I was "content"...I said the assertion gord did it better as a given, as if it is established FACT, is an incorrect assertion because we do not yet know everything about JP's draftees that we know of Gord's. And if I may be so bold, I think I demonstrated it pretty well. Perhaps you are confused because you THOUGHt you were reading an article which said "JP is a golly-gee-whiz great drafter and all you haters need to recognize!!!"But that wasn't the article you were reading. the point, stated at the begining and the end and explained in the middle, was that all the folks who point to Doc or Vernon and say "When did JP ever draft one of these?" are asking a rigged question because the book is still out on Lind, Snider, et al.
One last thing, you yourself imply pretty overtly that JP's drafting is getting better with time. This too, is relevant to the question of which of the two men will ultimately produce more quality major league talent through the draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bias demonstrated specifically how? Because the conclusion differed from the generally accepted myth? I though BB posters above all loved to see the accepted myth questioned.
>> I didn't find it that condesending, but it is clear when you've read it that you are trying your best to down play Ash and play up Riccardi.<<
Or, I'm trying to take a REALISTIC view of Ash's situation in the year i referred to. Again, you are looking at the situation with the benifit of KNOWING Doc has won a Cy Young award. The reason you see this as "playing down" Ash is because you are unwilling or unable to set aside what you KNOW happened over the last seven years and see how things looked THEN.
Which was, of course, the operative principle of the whole article.
>>Without tearing apart everything, let's pick one: how do you justify comparing Russ Adams and Felipe Lopez's development time period? They are just about the same age now. When Ash drafted Lopez he was ummm, 18 years old.<<
I thought I was pretty clear that Lopez was far more talented than Adams. Homestly, there is no one in JP's draft history that made an apples-to-apples comparison to Lopez in terms of time in the system and proximity to the majors. I only used Adams there, not as a comparison to Lopez on ability (as i stated) but as a n illustration of how far Lopez was still, at that point in time, from being a successful player. to what extent he was still an unanswered question.
that said, I conceed the age difference weakens the comparison on every other term. Still, it bares repeating that, as things stand NOW (and I'm one who'd favor bringing Lopez back and trying to get a rebound out of him - I always liked the guy) neither Lopez OR Adams is a guy you want to be talking about in defense of either GM.
Let me try to get back to - on more simple terms - the point I was trying to make: If you get into the way-back machine and travel back 7 years, and you step out and ask your younger self "What do you think of the players Gord has drafted?" if you were like MOST Jays fans, you would have waxed eloquent about how the Halladay kid had terrible ratios and looked like a bust, This Wells kid looked really good in the minors and might turn out to be a really good hitter, and how he drafted a good arm in the last draft that you had high hopes for, and you were real excited about Koch as the teams closer for a decade. you would have probably mentioned that the Rios kid was playing like the bargin pick that he was, but that you had seen a lot of good scouting reports on Lopez and he looked like he was gonna be as good as anyone not named A-Rod.. You probably woudn't have even given any thought to Hudson or Johnson or Young or Blake. And the only one of those 10 guys you would have been both confident about and right about would be Wells.
And yet, the same people who would have been so confidently WRONG seven years ago have NO hesitation in declaring JP deficent now.
I have no problem saying Adams is a bust...that looks like a given...but I think a confident decleration that Purcey and/or Romero are busts at this point is very shortsighted. and I think you can find a whole train load of good GMs (whether or not JP is good being irrelevant) who blew it with their first 1st rounder. And you can find another trainload who have blown it with more than one first rounder in the last 6 years.
The bottom line is, you have to scrape hard to find 10 respectable major leaguers in Gord's career.
One possible Hall of Famer
three All Stars
One who will be
One nice little starter and 4 more or less flawed but useful players.
If you compare that to JP and allow that for any GM to luck into a Doc Halliday is like winning the lottery, then the potential is certainly there that his first seven drafts will produce a similar or better crop of players.
I really don't see what's so difficult to believe that JP and Gord have been, it seems, more or less similarly successful in the draft room.
Steve Treder's review of the "Value Production Standings" in THT answers this question well, at least with respect to Ash. During the Ash/Wilken years, the Jays led the majors in value produced. Say it loud, say it proud, the Ash/Wilken team did an excellent job of drafting. The early returns on the Ricciardi years, in respect of drafting, do not suggest as good a record although it certainly has not been horrible. On the other hand, Gord Ash's record in the trade/acquisition market was pretty damn poor, while Ricciardi's has not been poor.
We were spoiled for so many years with Pat Gillick in his prime...
We were spoiled for so many years with Pat Gillick in his prime...
I've always thought the popular opinion in the mdea that the jays were nothing special in their farm system sold the Jays short. the sold us short in the late 90's and they do so now.. I'm certainly not trying to drag Gord down because a lot of well regarded GM's screw up a lot of high draft picks. I was more taking exception to the precieved deficencies of JP, which owe a great deal to everyone hating the Adams pick - as anything else. Maybe I should have compared Russ Adams to Gabe Gross....for a first rounder, he certainly could have turned out better....
I loved having Gillick in his prime, but don't forget his draft record makes JP look godlike. In the 80's he missed out on many top talents (Gooden & Clemens to name two big ones - drafted Augie Schmidt and Matt Stark instead) and had to count on the other teams being dumb (see the McGriff trade), very dumb (see George Bell being unprotected in the Rule 5 draft), or amazingly dumb (Doyle Alexander being paid millions by the Yankees to pitch for the Jays with ERA+'s from 110 to 132 over 3 seasons). Not to mention very lucky (he admited that the trade that was most irrelevent at the time as far as he was concerned was the Mulliniks one).
Still, those were the days.
Still, those were the days.
Gillick's ace in the hole was the Dominican Republic (spearheaded by his regional scouting director, Epy Guerrero). The Jays had the inside track in the DR early on--much like the Red Sox and Mariners have in Japan (Suzuki, Johjima, Dice-K, Okajima--so far). A couple of talented players from a foreign market can make a huge difference.
It's funny that despite the horrible drafting record of the Jays in the 80's the team still thrived but when the drafting actually improved in the 90's and the finest Latin American signing ever by the Jays in Carlos Delgado was coming into his prime, the team actually declined.
True, but Damaso Garcia marked the beginning of the rise to respectability. Then Tony Fernandez, George Bell--even Manny Lee (who played on the world champion Jays). So the Latin influence began long before Delgado.
The only one among them signed by the Jays was Fernandez. Garcia came in a trade, Bell and Lee were Rule 5 aquisitions. Even Juan Guzman was traded for. My point was that there many more factors involved in fielding a successful team besides drafting well. The Jays of the 80's were much better at the Rule 5 than they were at drafting.