The team's offensive line is now 250/338/360. The league is at 260/334/398.

They are last in the AL in slugging and their once vaunted OBP is now little more than league average.

On the plus side, he says, grasping desperately for a silver lining, the team is allowing just 4.00 runs per game, tied for second best in the league.

The team doesn't actually look bad at all in my view, the current losing notwithstanding.  They look like quite a good team, and the pitching looks as good as anyone in the majors, except there are two brutal holes in the lineup and field that are eating them alive - shortstop, and left field/DH wherever Stairs isn't playing.  Both of those holes are self-created.  (Plus they had a torrid time when Rolen was out.)  Obviously, the V-Dub situation looms fairly large over the team as well but CF isn't a "hole" yet.

One solution is already on hand in McDonald, who isn't a complete solution but would at least solidify the defense - Eckstein's been shocking to my eyes although it's not borne out in the early ball-tracking numbers.  One solution might well be on hand in Lind, but only time will tell there.

Anyway, the team looks pretty fine to me.  One would back them, I think, to turn it around, although there's a danger in the offense never quite coming around.  There are a few guys in the lineup I'm very worried about - Wells and Overbay and Lind.  Stairs, Rios, Hill and Zaun all look just fine, but if you end up with five guys not hitting (unlikely though that is), nothing in the world can save you, you're going to stink.

game 28- WPA heroes Zaun (5), Accardo, McGowan (3)          WPA let downs  Downs (3)*, McDonald, Eckstein (10), Rios (6), Overbay (5)

*= more than +-0.300

A propos of nothing, how some ex-Jays are doing...

Hinske, RF/1B/DH (TB): 292/407/639, 6 HR
Johnson, CF/LF (CHI): 296/379/333
Lilly, SP (CHI): 31 IP, 13 W, 25 K, 6.46 ERA
Glaus, 3B (STL): 260/345/410, 12 2B, 1 HR, 0 pinatas
Delgado, 1B (NYM): 198/297/323, 3 HR, 1 fork?
Thomas, DH (OAK): 217/379/348, 0 HR
Lyon, RP (ARI): 14 IP, 2 BB, 11 K, 2.57 ERA, 9 SV
Tabler, announcer (TOR): 1.000 CA (cliche average: ratio of cliches to phrases uttered)

Almost Jays...

Cain (SF): 33 IP, 23 BB, 29 K, 4.41 ERA
Lincecum (SF): 36 IP, 15 BB, 40 K, 1.73 ERA
Meche (KC): 34 IP, 15 BB, 23 K, 6 HR, 7.22 ERA
Giles (SD): 267/361/446, 1 second wind
Clemens, love machine (retired): Barry who?

So AWeb....my cocktail napkin scrawlings (I know it's early) tell me that an 17 game winning streak would contain 'roughly' 12 6-game winning streaks.  So with five years of 0 6-game winning streaks in the books, and being due a minimum of 2 per year, I can conclude that an 17 game winning streak in 2008 at a minimum would make up for their 6-year absence.  Bring it on!

Though it would also seem that despite what has happened to date, the chance of an 17-game winning streak occuring this year is remote at best.

The good news is that our balance sheet is building a large base of "winning streak receivables".  Can we collect on it this generation?  Or are we merely paying off debt from better times?

If Wells finishes this season hitting around .300 / .360 / .540 (.900 OPS), do you think people will still believe it's a bad contract?  I don't think so.  You see a lot of knee-jerk reactions.  I don't think Wells' contract will ever be considered a bargain like Halladay's, but if Wells averages an .850 OPS over the next 4-7 years along with above average defensive at CF, his deal is fair based on the market.  That's just my opinion.  I also like how the contract is structured, with a pay-cut immediately after the option year.

A lot of people thought Burnett's deal was terrible at the time, now just three years later he'll almost certainly be opting out for more money (unless his arm falls off).

If Wells finishes this season hitting around .300 / .360 / .540 (.900 OPS), do you think people will still believe it's a bad contract?  I don't think so. 

Wells has put up a 900 OPS just twice in his 6-year career (counting his .899), so the likelihood of another one this year, particularly after 100 AB of 700 OPS, is not huge. Not impossible, but not likely.

I don't think Wells' contract will ever be considered a bargain like Halladay's, but if Wells averages an .850 OPS over the next 4-7 years  

His career OPS is 800, so an 850 average from ages 29-35 is unlikely unless he pulls a Paul Molitor and improves in his 30's.

But this Wells argument has been done to death around here. He's being paid to be 2003/2006 Wells, a man I fear we may never see again.

For the sake of comparison, Wells makes an average of $18 million per season, Hunter $18 million, Suzuki $18 million, Beltran $17 million, and Andruw Jones $18.1 million.  Soriano and Lee make similar money but play LF, which is a much easier position to fill and defense is not nearly as important.  Damon makes $13 million, but doesn't hit as well as the above mentioned outfielders and had to be moved to LF also.

Wells' deal is probably better than Hunter's and Suzuki's when considering both offence and defense, is probably at par with Jones' deal, but Beltran is a steal for the Mets right now.  He's the best CF of the bunch and is getting paid the least.  It just goes to show you that what may have looked like a lot of money at the time sometimes proves to be a bargain during the final years of the contract.

The point is, Wells' contract is fair, based on the market.  If Wells ends up hitting closer to 2003 and 2006 than he does the years in between, the deal actually favours the Jays in my opinion, especially since Wells is a plus defender in CF.

Over the last while, the team has struggled with fastballs, breaking balls and changeups. Maybe they'll have better success against a knuckleballer tonight.

Next up - the Blue Jays petition the league to let the batters stand at the plate and toss the ball up in the air for themselves.

For the sake of comparison, Wells makes an average of $18 million per season, Hunter $18 million, Suzuki $18 million, Beltran $17 million, and Andruw Jones $18.1 million.  Soriano and Lee make similar money but play LF, which is a much easier position to fill and defense is not nearly as important.  Damon makes $13 million, but doesn't hit as well as the above mentioned outfielders and had to be moved to LF also.

Wells' deal is probably better than Hunter's and Suzuki's when considering both offence and defense, is probably at par with Jones' deal, but Beltran is a steal for the Mets right now.  He's the best CF of the bunch and is getting paid the least.  It just goes to show you that what may have looked like a lot of money at the time sometimes proves to be a bargain during the final years of the contract.

The point is, Wells' contract is fair, based on the market.  If Wells ends up hitting closer to 2003 and 2006 than he does the years in between, the deal actually favours the Jays in my opinion, especially since Wells is a plus defender in CF.

This is true.

What's funny is that it also means that paying Frank Thomas what turns out to be around $17 million for one season (one season where he was a top-50 MLB hitter), actually turns out to be no-so-awful value, relatively speaking.

Getting that season for the $10 million annual salary last year was actually quite a good deal, for a free agent contract.

Chuck,

you make a good point (except that Wells was playing on his old contract in 2007 and the injury likely contributed to that terrible year).  And for the record, I didn't agree with the Wells deal and was pretty open about thinking he should have been traded for pitching and a SS prospect at the end of 2006.  The Jays don't have the budget of the Yankees and I don't think they can afford to spend 20% of their payroll on one player, unless it's an exceptional player signing under market value, a la Halladay.

My issue is with those who talk about the Wells deal as if he's Hampton, Zito, Brown or Mondesi, and call it an "albatross" and a terrible mistake.  The fact remains that if a 29 year-old centerfielder with plus defense and a career OPS of .809 hit the market right now, he'd be getting about $18 million per year.

John Northey, you are correct about the bracketed number. If there is an asterisk beside the player, it means that they significantly contributed to the win or loss by their clutchness. It is scary that Eckstein is the first to double digits. He has had 10 out of 28 games to be among team leaders for being "unclutch" in a game. The more playing time you get, the more chances you have to fail.

With 20/20 hindsight if JP was even thinking about dumping Thomas in the past offseason or spring training, why wouldn't he have kept around both Stewart and Johnson? The timing was only three weeks apart. Where is Denbo in all of this. I see no media comments from him. Further, I guess there were a few more problems that Brantley had than just that the players weren't healthy enough last year. I hope Denbo can do something with the hitters by June.

The Jays payroll is around 100 million with almost 10 million (Thomas + Johnson) being eaten (JP made it a sunk cost). In this division, you can't be eating contracts every year. A sunk cost is a sunk cost yes. However, injuries happen and are not very predictable yet, so on players like Koskie, he can get a pass on. Sunk costs because of ineffectiveness or poor roster construction is on JP. I think he is still a top 15 GM. I would rather have him than the bottom half of the league. I don't think people should judge this season until the trade deadline to see where this team really is. He gets two months to see the team and two months to fix the team. If the higher ups have already decided the axe will fall, then please let it be before the amateur draft to let the new GM pick his players. Anyone can definitely point out mistakes he's made, but has he learned from them? I think the Rios and Hill deals are much better than the ones given to Wells and Overbay. His drafts have been considered improved by just about everyone. Also, I think he signed Scutaro and McDonald to two year deals to get a lower price on them overall. One year deals could have cost almost the same.

The fact remains that if a 29 year-old centerfielder with plus defense and a career OPS of .809 hit the market right now, he'd be getting about $18 million per year.

Perhaps, but not a 6-7 year contract.

Andruw Jones, at the age of 30, after a season much like Wells' 2007 "settled" for a 2-year deal at $18M per. LA was hoping for a return of the guy who hit 92 HR in 2005-2006 but was not willing to commit to more than two years to find out if that guy still existed.

Would a 29-year old Wells, coming off his lousy 2007 season, with a less impressive CV than Andruw Jones, have commanded $18M per year?

Eckstein still batting 2nd, Wells clean-up, Scutaro starting instead of Overbay, and Stewart starting instead of Lind. 

Gibbons must have another job waiting for him.

Eckstein still batting 2nd, Wells clean-up, Scutaro starting instead of Overbay, and Stewart starting instead of Lind. 

Gibbons must have another job waiting for him.

Campbell just pointed out Scutaro's .417 clip against Wakefield lifetime.  So you gotta give Gibbons a break there.

Fair enough, and Blair's blog had Wells batting 4th, but it's Stairs at clean-up afterall.

On another note, what have the Jays done to anger the God of baseball?  Wells and Rios both just smoked the ball right at Ramirez.  That's six (that I've counted) very well hit balls by Wells since the beginning of the KC series that have been right at guys (including Pedroia's snag).  Rios' liner was with the bases loaded for crying out loud.  No luck at all for the Jays, and they've scored 116 runs and only allowed 112 against, yet they have an 11-17 record.  Make it stop!

I realize it's a tad early to start down this path but for arguments sake a few more outings like tonight by Burnett certainly increase  his potential trade value. Assuming that any trading partner would be looking to sign him to extension, you'd think the NL would be the likely destination. Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta,.... All of which have some young players who would either look good in the rotation or on the field.

If you're JP you have a very volatile asset that might opt out if he has a good year. Given the yo-yo performances, and the potential haul (with extension) my vote is trade. Your thoughts?

I am turning off RSN and deep sixing the baseball page until this team shows some character. Who else is in?

I'm tempted to follow your lead, but if we turn off all those things, who will be able to tell us when to turn them back on?
 

1. Jays 10+ out of the playoffs or sub-500 and not looking good
   
2. AJ healthy and doing reasonably well (under 4.25 ERA, ideally below 4.00)
3. Offered at least 2 solid prospects (at AAA and likely to reach majors in '08 or '09)
   
4. Litsch, Marcum, McGowan all solid (4.50 or less ERA's with at least one sub 4)
5. Purcey keeps knocking on the door, hard (ERA under 3 in AAA with solid K-BB ratio)
   
6. Someone else emerges as a solid 6th option (Chacin, Cecil, Romero, etc.)
   

Hell, if McGowan and Marcum continue to make Burnett look like our 4th starter (and Litsch and Purcey keep performing well)....considering that if we ARE in the race, we're all going to be clamoring to get a big bat at the deadline for the playoff push......we might be looking at trading Burnett EVEN IF WE"RE STILL IN IT.

Trade a #4 starter, no matter how good, for a key playoff bat, instead of trading quality kids....especially if Burnett's opting out anyways....

Albatross maybe a strong word but in the sense that the resources could have been used elsewhere with potential for better returns, he is not anymore off base than you are with your exaggerated rationalizations of V Dub's game.  

Wells hasn't lived up to his contract.   This isn't hindsight.  Many of us recognized it at the time.   He is an inconsistent offensive player with good to great d and that's a lot to pay for one of those types, especially for this Jay team given it's makeup and competition.  I believe he is a great supporting cast player, not a tier 1 player to build around an offense on, but a good #2 and a great #3. 

"I am turning off RSN and deep sixing the baseball page until this team shows some character. Who else is in?"

"I'm tempted to follow your lead, but if we turn off all those things, who will be able to tell us when to turn them back on?"

You will know the next time the Bandwagon pulls up outside your door?

"Wells hasn't lived up to his contract"

Right now, Wells has played exactly 28 games and has accumulated 110 at-bats on his 7-year $126 million contract.  So, for less than 2.5% (approximate) of the length of the contract he has underperformed, I'll agree.  But he's had some bad luck, as I've mentioned before, since he's smoked the ball several times during the last two series and has come up with nothing.  Personaly, I'd rather have Wells in CF for my team than Suzuki, Jones or Hunter who are getting paid almost the exact same.