Frasor's still on the team, right?

Can you be sure?  Maybe he has gone on a bender and the team are covering up for him?  Or he discovered a drug ring within the Rogers centre and he has been "disposed of" because he knew too much.

Frasor's still on the team, right?  Seems like up 6 at home in the 9th would be a good chance for him to get some work in.

My thoughts exactly. If this isn't a situation where you pitch Frasor -- currently on track for about 40 innings this year -- then what is? Maybe, just maybe, you don't need 7 relievers, at least when the starters are pitching as well as they are?

The Jays should do Frasor a favour and let him move on. Someone, somewhere will give him 70 innings.

If you have a pitcher who's pitched an amazing game, and he's very keen to get the complete-game shutout, wouldn't it be a little demoralizing to him if you yanked him from the game without at least giving him a crack at those last three outs? 

How would it be demoralizing? He knows he did a great job (8 innings, 1 hit). His manager is telling him he did a great job. He knows he's having a great season. Everyone around him is telling him he's having a great season. It's all sunshine and rainbows. Not a negative comment to be heard.

Demoralizing would be to yank him in the 5th inning, say, of a 2-2 game with the bases loaded and nobody out. That would be a sign that his manager doesn't have confidence in him. That might play on his psyche.

• Boston had no one over 70 and one over 60 (Hideki Okajima)
  
• New York had 2 over 70 (Rivera and Vizcaino) and one at 60 (Farnsworth)
• Toronto had one over 70 (Janssen) and 2 over 60 (Tallet and Accardo)
• Baltimore had no one over 70 and two over 60 (Walker and Bradford)
• Tampa had one over 70 (Glover) and 2 over 60 (Reyes and Stokes)

CJF: I would be very, very, surprised if Marcum decided to stop doing the preparation work that has made him so successful to date  because he didn't get his shot to finish the game. I know that's just an example you created to make your point, but it's the one point I disagree with in your argument.

I agree with your point that letting him try and finish the ball game was the right move.

It's Marcum. He's been lights out this year but he's not known for pitching deep into games (6 dominant innings is typical for him), and then when he's really mowing them down he can get into the 7th and 8th innings. Here he had a nice little lead, had been really dominating the Rays and was at 98 pitches after 8 innings. At some point, you have to give him a chance to pitch over 100 pitches. Last night seemed like a fine time to try. He could easily throw a 10 pitch inning and be done within 110 pitches and his first CG SO. It didn't work out this time.

My understanding was that you meant we don't need 7 relievers if we're getting the pitching we are right now and that we should thus shorten our bullpen.  I think in order to suggest such a move, you have to imply that the starters' performances will continue.

I don't believe those performance will continue indefinitely. Who does? For the short term, act on the assumption that they will continue and shorten the bullpen. When the starters come back to earth, summon reliever #7 from Syracuse.

I'm not sure it's inevitable that the starters' efficiency will drop off precipitously at any point.

Alex, you may be right, but here are my counter-arguments.

Three guys currently have ERAs of 3.00 or better. This level of performance likely will not continue, meaning higher pitcher counts in future starts, meaning lower IP/GS.

McGowan and especially Burnett are walking a lot of guys. Until they show improved command, it's hard to see their IP/GS increase.

Jesse Litsch looks like the bride of Josh Towers at the moment. The good Josh Towers, that is. I foresee the occasional start where he gets shelled early (a la Towers), making it difficult for him to appreciably improve his IP/GS (I concede that you said "a bit", I am not trying to put words in your mouth).

The warm weather is coming. League-wide hitting is going to improve. That will mean pitch counts will go up and that will shorten starts.

But I've been wrong once or a thousand times before.

McGowan and especially Burnett are walking a lot of guys.

If you take out McGowan's 7-walk start, which you should being a career outlier, he is walking 2.87/9IP, which is not a lot of guys.

And we all know AJ's situation with the curveball.

"As a precautionary measure, Toronto purchased the contract of infielder Jorge Velandia from Triple-A Syracuse to add some depth to the infield. For the time being, Jays utility man Marco Scutaro will man short, but Velandia provides a backup solution."

"In order to clear room on the active roster for Velandia, the Jays optioned struggling outfielder Adam Lind to Triple-A. Shannon Stewart had recently garnered the regular job in left field, leaving little playing time for Lind, who was 1-for-19 at the plate since being promoted on April 26. "Velandia takes Lind's spot," Ricciardi explained. "Because we have to have someone here. Lind's just got to play. He's a young kid and he has to get at-bats. It's not going to do him any good to sit up here and not play."

I like Lind, but this actually makes sense.

Interesting ERA+ figures. I do hope AJ gets going, because he has definitely regressed from last year. I'm starting to wonder if this is a focus issue - when Doc went down, he did seem to focus more and rise to the challenge. I do hope he turns it around... because if we're thinking "I hope he makes room for (unproven) Purcey in 2009," we've given up on 2008. If he continues to struggle, our bullpen does need a kick-butt setup guy and closer option who can go in and rise to the challenge of tight situations. Right now we do not have one (Accardo stinks, Downsie I love ya but you're not that guy). Besides which, I'm still not confident Ryan won't blow up or blow out.

Prior to tonight’s game, the Blue Jays placed both IF David Eckstein (strained right hip flexor) & IF John McDonald (sprained right ankle) on the 15-day DL, both retro to May 6…The Jays have also recalled IF Joe Inglett from Syracuse (AAA).

The Globe report said to expect another roster move tomorrow.  Could be close to a trade, I guess.

What would it take to get Bay out of Pittsburg - they'd probably prefer a July bidding war to a May trade, but they can't keep Pearce and McCutcheon in the minors forever.

I would say the other move is likely to result in an outfielder/bat joining the team. With Scutaro getting most of the starts, the Jays still have Inglett as the main infield reserve and Velandia as the backup SS. Inglett can serve as the spare outfielder, but another infielder would slot behind both of those two guys on the depth chart. With the Jays going to Philly this weekend, they need an outfielder/pinch-hitter or two on the roster.

I think it's very tough to say Gibbons did anything wrong yesterday. Marcum's never had a CG and was working on a CGSO. His pinch count wasn't unreasonably high and there was no other pressing reason to pull him. In that scenario you give your guy every opportunity to finish the game and get the shutout. He was also working on a one-hitter. Given what finishing that game meant to Marcum, I don't see how any manager could pull him.

"Someone from outside the organization" will be added to the team, reports Jamie Cambell, quoting JP Ricciardi.

Brad Wilkerson? Jacque Jones? Jason Michaels? Barry Bonds?

Okay, I'm kidding about the last one.

According to Blair, Wilkerson will likely be with the team tomorrow.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/baseball

Wilkerson probably won't light the world on fire, but he's one of those rare left-handed hitters who is actually better against left-handed pitchers.  If he's signed he'll probably DH against lefties and he provides insurance in the OF.  He hasn't had an OPS+ over 104 since 2004, and he's not Jason Bay, but he does make the team a little better so I won't have a problem with it if the Jays do in fact sign him.

I'd still prefer the Jays give Lind a longer look, though.

There's never been any convincing evidence that there is an increased injury risk of injury for a mature pitcher at the 110 pitch mark.

Agreed.  I highly recommend the Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers, and in particular James' critique of Pitcher Abuse Points.  He coupled a broad selection of starting pitchers comparable in every way except PAP, and found that (a) the "abused" pitchers were not more likely to get hurt, and (b) the "abused" pitchers were not more likely to become less effective.

James' main point was that most arm injuries are violent, like when you sprain your ankle or break your leg.  They are very seldom caused gradually by ordinary wear and tear.  They can happen when throwing pitch 115, but they can also happen when throwing pitch 5.   Mike Marshall has made the case that an arm will become more resilient by throwing more, not less (at least when the pitcher is mature).  Then again, Marshall hates the traditional pitching motion.

Warmups and pregame/postgame/off-day maintenance are also very important to a pitcher's health.  All this is to say that there isn't a linear relationship between in-game pitch count and risk to a pitcher's arm.

game 36- WPA heroes Hill (6), Overbay ((7), Accardo (3), Downs (4)      WPA let downs Camp*, Stairs(10)*, Stewart (8), Scutaro (4), Barajas (9)

* means more than -.300

The Jays have had 3 consecutive games and three out of four games with -.300 WPA before. This was their first game with two players in the same game do it.