Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - 15 June: Lilies That Fester

ayjackson - Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 04:28 PM EDT (#187190) #

Well that was frustrating. For the last three innings, I wanted to go through the TV screen and get tossed from the game. And then up 7-1, Pinella has the nerve to argue balls and strikes.

We need a drastic change. We can't just come to work day-after-day with the status quo, anymore. It's big trade, Bonds or bye-bye-Gibby time. I've resisted calls for drastic measures to this point. But it's June 14, and as Scooter said to Fozzy facing 15 minutes of material on the War of 1812, "now is the time to Panic".

krose - Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 04:34 PM EDT (#187191) #

Very enjoyable game to watch on CBC. Jesse and Rance did an excellent job of dissecting the hitting woes of the Blue Jays. Had the feeling Rance would have said more but his bosses at Rogers may not have been appreciative!

This team is definitely Riccardi's. He has set it up as a team that should hit; but doesn't. The dugout has no animation when on offense. Players and coaches do not communicate. They do not appear to have the ability to predict what will be thrown; no matter what the count. There is very little difference in approach from player to player or from one at-bat to the next. This team's offense is hamstrung, but it is a good reflection of the tactic of working pitch counts and striving for a high on-base percentage.

This inability to adapt to different hitting situations is really a reflection of the whole organizations inability to adapt. For that stiffness Riccardi should take the fall. Bring in a temporary general manager, and for a short period of time, see if there are positive changes. Watch to see if Gibbons manages differently. Watch to see which players might be a part of the team going forward, and which ones will bring a good return of young studs for the future.

ayjackson - Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 05:43 PM EDT (#187193) #

I can't imagine how firing the GM will have any affect on the team short term. I'm not sure firing the manager does either, but there is some circumstantial evidence to support that. You said he built a team that should hit, but doesn't. Who's fault is that?

Rob - Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 06:22 PM EDT (#187196) #

This team is definitely Riccardi's

Actually, it's Named For Hank's team. Common mistake, don't feel bad. They were over at NFH's place last night for the monthly Gilmore Girls marathon and about 20 minutes in Denbo said "can you believe how Logan's treating Rory?" and Inglett said "um, it's not his fault she has no time for him" and Whitt said "oh, sure, but she has time to run to her ditzy mother every weekend?" and Rolen said "you take that back, Lorelai has devoted her life to Rory" and that's why players and coaches aren't communicating anymore.

krose - Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 08:39 PM EDT (#187205) #

Good one Rob. Love the drama!!

Very difficult to sort out the comings and going on any soap opera. But if you watch long enough you can easily predict weekly plots. The underlying themes are a little more difficult and mostly unintended; arising from character development and story lines. However, as with the plot, if you watch the show on a regular basis, the themes also become repetitive: Especially because they are unintended. Of course, the killing of main characters, or the addition of bold new ones adds new twists and creates new allegories.

At this point in the show I don't think the Gilmore's really know what they have. A bold move that would cause new unintended themes would help to sort things out. Or, if it's possible, the show could hire a new director who can plan new themes and adjust to unintended themes as characters develop, transform, fade and arise again.

The show is what it is. When new it was entertaining, and perhaps, at times intriguing. It was and is what it was intended to be; but that's just not good enough at this point. The new season will bring new competition in new time slots. The Gilmore's have become moribund!

parrot11 - Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 09:29 PM EDT (#187206) #

You're right ayjackson firing the GM is not going to change the fortunes of this team shortterm. The whole that JP has dug for this team is quite deep. Things are going to get much more difficult in the future seasons. Here's how I see the problem:

1) Jays: have a poor farm system and have locked up most of their payroll longterm to players that quite frankly don't deserve the money and don't produce enough. Many of these contracts have significant salary increases in the coming year, so it isn't as simple as saying that with Thomas and AJ off the books that leaves $20M for the club to spend. Essentially, the clubs is financially hamstrung. It can make a whole bunch of lateral moves (e.g. Glaus for Rolen), but that won't change things much and certainly won't improve the team enough. And with no significant help coming from the minors, this team is on a path to a long slow death with a window of opportunity that never existed (this season would have been their best chance btw).

2) Red Sox: The Red Sox have a well run ship that isn't weak in any one area. They have solid scouting, are willing to spend on the draft and to go after the top Latin American talent, and have the money to spend in free agency. The Jays can't hope to compete with them in any area (i.e. draft, intl free agents, free agency). Their farm system allows them to make Hanley Ramirez and Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett type deals. There's really no shot for the Jays to catch them.

3) Yankees: If there was a year the Yankees were vulnerable, this was it. They were integrating the youth they had into their team. In the coming offseason, they will have Giambi, Abreu, Pettite, Mussina, Pavano, and Farnsworth coming off the books. That's potentially $80M (minus the pay raises for guys like Cano and Wang). So, in short, they're going to have a ton of dough to spend (that's currently being earned by guys not worth it) and could potentially corner the free agent market that includes players like Teixeira, Sabathia, Dunn, Sheets, K-Rod, and Lidge. They're willing to spend on the draft and Latin America and will certainly out compete the Jays in the free agent market. I don't see the Jays catching them either.

4) Rays: Tampa Bay has shrewdly positioned itself to be a major factor for the next 5-7 years at least. They've locked up most of their core to cheap longterm deals (e.g. Crawford, Kazmir, Shields, David Price, Longoria), with Upton and Garza being the lone exceptions. So their team will be intact for awhile and they most likely will have the money to spend to get good players. That's without mentionning that they still have a really strong farm system. They still have McGee, Brignac, Price, Beckham, Hellickson, and Jennings waiting in the wings. That is alot of talent that is going to be there for a longwhile. With a small chance of catching them this season, I don't see the Jays being even close in future years. Tampa Bay is also a well run organization and is fiscally responsible.

So where does that leave the Jays? Competing with the rebuilding O's for the right to finish 4th? Is that really worth it? I'm afraid that this team is better off rebuilding, and the sooner it realizes this and the sooner they can get a good GM the better it's going to be for this organization. If this team keeps heading fooling itself that they have a chance, it will be a long slow deal. As the years go by, players like Halladay will lose their value (he's going to be less and less valuable as '09 progresses) and eventually guys like Marcum, McGowan, Hill will start to lose their value too (usually that happens as players approach their 30's) while the club might get nice production for a non-contending team (so what's the point?). That's where I see this team headed and quite frankly it doesn't leave much to hope for.

scottt - Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 09:30 PM EDT (#187207) #

They do not appear to have the ability to predict what will be thrown; no matter what the count. There is very little difference in approach from player to player or from one at-bat to the next. This team's offense is hamstrung, but it is a good reflection of the tactic of working pitch counts and striving for a high on-base percentage. This inability to adapt to different hitting situations is really a reflection of the whole organizations inability to adapt.

I don't see how that explains the lack of hitting with runners in scoring position.

It's not just the hitting, though, The pen has not been mightier than the sword lately.

krose - Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 09:54 PM EDT (#187208) #

I don't see how that explains the lack of hitting with runners in scoring position. I think the quote to which you refer explains the malady of the jay's hitting in most situations. It's not that the jay's hitters are a bunch of no-talent, over paid bums. Or that they will never hit well again as individuals or as a team. It's just that the current TEAM has proven itself, over and over, to be weak in the hitting department. The cause of that shortcoming is as complicated as a soap opera may appear. My contention is that the team is what it is: Constructed to compete in a different era. Shift the deck chairs if you like; but without a reconsideration of the integrity of the hull, this beast is destined for the deep and the dark.

John Northey - Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 10:30 PM EDT (#187209) #

OK, time to calm down. The Jays just finished losing 2 of 3 to the best team in the NL after losing 2 of 3 to the worst team in the AL. In short they played pretty much the same no matter what level of team they played. What does this mean? That this team is a very, very frustrating one.

Clutch hitting, historically, is nothing more than luck. Record in one run games is, historically, nothing more than luck. Remove the luck items and we have a team that should be - based on runs for/against - tied for the wild card with Tampa Bay, 4 1/2 behind the Red Sox for 1st in the east.

Think about that. This team has the talent, and has shown it, to be tied for a playoff slot. Instead they are 5 under in 1 run games costing them a lot in the standings.

Adding Bonds or someone else will not make the difference. Getting the luck that comes from 1 run wins is what they need. We have all the items that are supposed to help, gritty guys (Eckstein), solid pen, solid pitching, solid defense. So calm down and try to find the good to enjoy.

greenfrog - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 12:15 AM EDT (#187211) #

"Remove the luck items and we have a team that should be - based on runs for/against - tied for the wild card with Tampa Bay, 4 1/2 behind the Red Sox for 1st in the east."

I understand the concept of looking at a team's RF/RA in evaluating its overall performance, but I also think it's a bit crude as an explanatory model. I accept that luck tends to even out, but is a 162-game season long enough for this to take place? Hoping for future wins (based on a favourable RF/RA ratio in a team's first 71 games) seems like an iffy proposition, because there are so many variables in play. I would rather see the Jays playing over their heads (by playing, say, .600 ball when they should be playing .480 ball) than the opposite. I guess I prefer actual wins in the bank to theoretical wins in the future--especially when those theoretical wins seem to get continually postponed.

John Northey - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 12:33 AM EDT (#187214) #

Actually, the main point is that what is killing the Jays isn't so much skill as luck. So unless JP has a magic charm hidden somewhere odds are there is little he can do to change things.

LF/DH is a horrid mess and should be improved, and getting Wilkerson appears to have been part of the solution, while Mench is slowing growing his OPS+ towards the 100 mark. Inglett being mixed in more is also a plus, strangely enough, and now we have to hope Stewart stays away for awhile. The other big holes are 2B and RF due to Hill and Rios having poor starts to their new contracts. Not much can be done there, nor would anyone have pushed for anything to be done.

Starting pitching is WOW, although sometimes it seems guys are left in a bit longer than ideal (see Litsch today for a prime example, even though he was on a low pitch count at the time) and sometimes Gibbons gets a little too quick on the hook (see Jesse Carlson today for another example). The pen too has been extremely good outside of Accardo imploding.

Stay calm, hope the Jays do well against the weaker teams in the NL central and Atlanta (who has worse luck than the Jays this year). Until the AS break the Yankees (3 games) and Angels (3 games) are the only strong teams (and NYY not so much this year) the Jays have to face. Then comes 6 vs Tampa in the week and a half left before the trade deadline which is when we'll know if this team is going to get moving in the race or if 2008 will be a year we go #(@*&! about.

The_Game - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 01:03 AM EDT (#187215) #

Adding Bonds or someone else will not make the difference. Getting the luck that comes from 1 run wins is what they need. We have all the items that are supposed to help, gritty guys (Eckstein), solid pen, solid pitching, solid defense. So calm down and try to find the good to enjoy.

The goal is to do better than just scoring that one more run. The goal is to build a championship team and not accept the mediocrity of a 80-90 win team. You take luck out of the equation by adding Bonds and bringing up Lind immediately. This team would start more winning games, and fast.

It's completetely ridiculous that they've wasted this pitching like this. Another mediocre Blue Jays season on the way, big surprise.

92-93 - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 01:47 AM EDT (#187218) #

TGame, I'm with you on Bonds, but then I don't see why you need Lind as well. I think with Bonds they would be better off with a Stairs/Mench OF platoon then playing Lind every day.

The_Game - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 04:03 AM EDT (#187220) #

Lind would play better defense in LF than that combo, and seeing how Stairs and Mench have seemingly regressed offensively, I would imagine Lind would produce better than them as well. He's a very talented hitter, and they really should give him the time up here. Leave Stairs to the bench role, it would strengthen the overall roster.

Chuck - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 09:52 AM EDT (#187222) #

Noted cap doffer, A.J. Burnett, is happy to be a Blue Jay (honest!) but wouldn't be devastated if he were to become a Cub any time now. Is he to be praised for his honesty or mocked for his misguided presumption that he has successfully masked his transparence?

11MM just doesn't seem to buy the feigned loyalty it once did.

Mike Green - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 10:11 AM EDT (#187224) #

It really is about discretion. There would be nothing wrong with Burnett privately giving Ricciardi an idea of the teams that he would prefer to be traded to, should the opportunity arise. It's not lack of loyalty that is the problem, but immaturity. Sigh.

Ryan Day - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 10:33 AM EDT (#187225) #

Burnett's math skills seem about as advanced as his diplomatic ones:

�Everybody's talking about me opting out and nobody's talking about me staying. There's a one hundred per cent chance of both.�

Anyway, this is all kind of obvious, isn't it? If Burnett were fully committed to the Blue Jays, he wouldn't have that opt-out clause in the first place. Is there really a need for him, or anyone else, to pretend it's not about his own best interests? Even "No Comment" is a pretty significant comment.

Mike Green - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 10:53 AM EDT (#187227) #

Remember all that discussion about the differences between the NL and the AL about three weeks ago. The theory went that there was so many good young hitters (like Chipper Jones and Lance Berkman!) in the NL and that was why scoring was higher in the senior circuit. Well, we've now had some interleague play and the AL is above .500 and outscoring the NL, and it does appear that the main differences are the HR/fly rates between the AL and NL parks. Maybe it's a weather fluke, or maybe it is that there is lesser pitching in the NL.

Anders - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 10:54 AM EDT (#187228) #

Anyway, this is all kind of obvious, isn't it? If Burnett were fully committed to the Blue Jays, he wouldn't have that opt-out clause in the first place. Is there really a need for him, or anyone else, to pretend it's not about his own best interests? Even "No Comment" is a pretty significant comment.

Whether or not Burnett was the one who pushed for the opt-out clause or not is something that we probably won't ever know, but all that can be said is that it was good work on the part of his agent. If Burnett gets hurt or has a bad year, he stays; if he succeeds or is even average, he opt's out, just like J.D. Drew did and just like A-Rod did. The economics of it just make sense for the player - even if he signs for the same amount of money per year, he has the opportunity to extend his deal by another two or three years in effect, while he is both younger and better than he would be come the next time he is a free agent.

The problem with the clause is that the clause was given in the first place; though I recognize that it was probably a necessary evil to get Burnett to sign on the dotted line. I really can't say that I begrudge him the opportunity to make more money. I can be as sentimental as the next guy, but expecting loyalty of players is just foolish in general, and not something we would expect in every day, non-athletic pursuits - why would you give up more money to stay in your current job, where you've worked only three years? On the whole, loyalty is not something that should be espoused by sports teams either. By staying loyal to the players you have, a team is not constantly searching for the upgrade that would increase the talent of the team. I'm not saying this is the Jays problem necessarily - they cut Thomas, released Reed, both seemingly unloyal/sentimental moves.

As fans also we find the guise of loyalty a convenient way to rip on players - player A is not loyal because they were unwilling to accept a below market contract to stay with the club, or because they are realistic about the possibility that they might be traded. If that is what we expect of players we will constantly be disappointed. Yet when players underperform, fans are the first ones to criticize.

I guess my thoughts on the matter are that Burnett can be immature about a lot of things, but that he is realistic about the role money plays in his decision making process and cognizant of and honest about his role with the Blue Jays is not something I would fault him for.

the mick - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 10:55 AM EDT (#187229) #

While I understand that one cannot blame J.P. for his team not hitting in the clutch, or the bullpen melting down this month, the reality is he has said that this was the team he wanted and if it failed, blame him. Seven years into his regime the Jays are not demonstrably better off than they were before he showed up. His better drafting of late does not make up for the huge holes in the earlier drafts. After seven years of mediocrity, should he not be accountable for the state of the Jays and their minor league teams?

China fan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 11:00 AM EDT (#187230) #

The same article by Jeff Blair hints that Gibbons is still facing a possible mid-season sacking. A quote from the article: "A club source said that 'at this time, no decision has been made' about the manager's future." From the way he phrased it, Blair seems to be emphasizing "at this time" -- meaning it could still happen soon.

greenfrog - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 11:09 AM EDT (#187231) #

For the most part, Burnett's comments don't bother me. Just AJ being AJ--you take the good with the bad. However, he does seem to suggest that the team is less than fully committed to winning ("if something were to happen and I'd have the opportunity to go to a place where baseball is breakfast, lunch and dinner, that would be awesome"). What troubles me is that his comment echoes some others we've heard in the last few years (from Zaun, Halladay, Towers, Hillenbrand, Thomas, to name a few).

Yes, some of these comments came from disgruntled or departing players. But the overall implication seems to be that something is amiss with the team. Lack of intensity or commitment seems to be a recurring theme, and AJ's comment fits this pattern.

Chuck - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#187232) #

However, he does seem to suggest that the team is less than fully committed to winning ("if something were to happen and I'd have the opportunity to go to a place where baseball is breakfast, lunch and dinner, that would be awesome").

A #2 starter with an ERA just south of 5.00 is high on the list of this year's problems. Sounds like Burnett could use a good mirror.

John Northey - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 11:24 AM EDT (#187233) #

Oh agreed, JP is the one who built this team and is responsible for results, or lack thereof. However, one should always factor in what was luck based and what is controllable.

Luck: clutch hitting, 1 run games, some other items
Controllable: putting Stairs/Stewart/Wilkerson/Mench in DH/LF while Lind is in AAA and Bonds in purgatory. Weak prospects in the higher levels of the minors (due to '02-'05 drafts), strength (or lack) or prospects in lower levels ('06-'08 drafts). Signing Frank Thomas then releasing him.
Hard to say: Hill & Rios - should he have seen them getting off to weak starts before signing long term? Were there indicators we all missed?

Right now we have a team built on pitching and defense, no doubt on that count with the 118 ERA+ and 10th in defensive efficiency in the majors (worse than normal, #1 last year, #8 in '06). The hitting has an OPS+ of 95 but is 4th in OBP, which we'd have all been happy about not that long ago. Frustrating times. Only Atlanta has worse luck according to Baseball Prospectus (Jays lost 4.8 games they shouldn't have, Atlanta 5.1). Meanwhile the Angels have made a deal with someone, as they are 8 games to the good on the luck side, #1 by far (5.9 games is #2 by St Louis). Switch that around and give the Jays those 8 games and we suddenly are in first place ordering playoff tickets. Sigh.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 11:26 AM EDT (#187234) #

For the most part, Burnett's comments don't bother me. Just AJ being AJ--you take the good with the bad. However, he does seem to suggest that the team is less than fully committed to winning ("if something were to happen and I'd have the opportunity to go to a place where baseball is breakfast, lunch and dinner, that would be awesome"). What troubles me is that his comment echoes some others we've heard in the last few years (from Zaun, Halladay, Towers, Hillenbrand, Thomas, to name a few).

I read that comment as a reference to the city, not the actual team. In other words, baseball is more important on Chicago's North Side than it is in Toronto's downtown. I wouldn't disagree with him at all there. I mean, the Leafs not hiring a GM was the biggest sports news in Toronto over the last few weeks. In other words, the hockey team, in it's offseason, making no change, is bigger news than the baseball team actually playing games.

However, it could be interpreted your way as well - hard to tell with not being there for the actual discussion. This is precisely the reason I don't read much into articles like this that try to demonstrate players thoughts / feelings. It's so easy for a reporter to take something out of context or a player to say something that doesn't quite represent what he's feeling to one reporter during the thousands of interviews they'll give in a year that I think these stories in general are just a way to push newspapers and nothing that should be thought of as informative.

ayjackson - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 11:28 AM EDT (#187235) #

he does seem to suggest that the team is less than fully committed to winning ("if something were to happen and I'd have the opportunity to go to a place where baseball is breakfast, lunch and dinner, that would be awesome").

To me, this is a Chicago versus Toronto comment, not a Cubs versus Jays comment - Chicago eats, drinks and breathes baseball, while Toronto does not. I don't think this was a comment on the Jays' committment to winning whatsoever.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 11:59 AM EDT (#187236) #

After seven years of mediocrity, should he not be accountable for the state of the Jays and their minor league teams?

What do you mean by held accountable? Do you mean fired? If so, I disagree with that type of decision making. Fire, or retain, JP based on whether or not you think he is the best man for the job going forward - don't hire or fire him for decisions that were made 4 or 5 years ago (those 4-5 year old decisions are what impact the minors the most).

We hired a first-time GM - we had to expect some errors when he first took over the team. I think now you have to evaluate whether or not he has learned enough to be able to lead this team to the promised land.

I think he has shown progress in his decision making. Specifically:

his drafting seems to have improved a lot
He's improved his ability to identify good and undervalued pitching (compare his recent bullpen pick-ups to guys like Jeff Tam).
He's realized the value of depth (Scutaro and Barajas being two examples that wouldn't have been here in the era of Dave Berg and Tom Wilson)

He still has some warts, though:

I think he extends people too early in their career - Rios and Hill being examples.
He hasn't appreciated his ability to assemble bullpens so he gives out bad contracts to relievers - Downs being a specific example
He overvalues pitching - I thought when he came here he said that pitching could be moved for hitting easier than vice versa (I agree with him), yet all his moves are focused on getting pitchers 2 or 3 notches above what's needed (i.e. going after Lilly and Meche, with one as a #4 or 5, trying to get Lincecum for Rios) - I don't disagree with these individually, but the organization has pitching depth - at the majors and coming up, and should be focusing moves the other way (i.e. looking at Marcum for a LF or SS now)

I don't know if his strengths are enough to overcome his warts, but I hate the idea of evaluating a GM based on decisions he made 4 years ago.

the mick - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 12:20 PM EDT (#187237) #

I apologize for not being explicit enough. I do not wish to judge J.P. strictly on decisions he made four years ago but on the totality of his decisions. J.P. has had seven years to improve the Jays. The Jays, due to luck, injury, and design, have not made the playoffs during that time. While there have been some improvements, there continues to be mistakes, like the Wells monster contract. At what point does ownership say, "Enough is enough?"

Pistol - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 12:29 PM EDT (#187238) #

He still has some warts, though:

I'd add that he is largely a buy high, sell low GM, particularly with position players.

He panicked with Vernon Wells, paying him for his career year.
Frank Thomas could have been picked up off the scrap heap for next to nothing in 2006. Instead the A's picked him up, he had a great year, and then the Jays went out and signed him for big money. Then Thomas got off to a slow start this season and they released him. Prior to getting hurt he was hitting .319/.417/.516 for the A's after his release from TO.
Lyle Overbay has a career year at age 29 in his first year in Toronto. Despite having 2 years of arbitration available the Jays sign him to a 4 year deal for a 1B who can't slug .400.

He also can't find a decent SS and insists on Wilkerson/Mench when Lind is a better option. Lind hit poorly last year, but he still at least slugged .400.

And he's yet to convince whoever is in charge of the money that breaking from slot in the draft where appropriate can be helpful, and much more cost effective, in the long run.

The problem to me is that Ricciardi is good enough to keep his job, but bad enough where the Jays are never a serious contender.

Dan Daoust - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 12:38 PM EDT (#187239) #

Sorry, I don't get the idea that the Jays' record in one-run games, and by extension their overall record, is attributable to luck. Maybe if they had a league-average (or slightly better than average!) offense, some of the one-run losses would be two- or three-run victories and some of the two- or three-run losses would be one-run losses. In other words, the one-run record might be the similar, but the team would still be better.

I don't see how this is the time for calm. Not pressing the panic button when the whole operation is falling apart is itself a panic move, a panicked attempt to demonstrate that everything is cool when it so clearly is not.

Time to trade Burnett for Reed Johnson!

John Northey - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 01:02 PM EDT (#187240) #

JP does seem to have learned from his first few years here, which is a good sign.

His 2002 draft produced 1 everyday player - for one season (Russ Adams), and one average ML pitcher (David Bush for about 700 IP) plus 3 other pitchers who are 0-1 with ERA's of 8.00 and up. This draft was to produce players quickly, thus the first 6 picks being college players. Safe to say this was a flop draft in the end, although still better than most Gillick ones.

After a few more college based drafts he finally changed direction in 2006 in a visible way with a HS pick as #1 (Snider) but his next 5 picks were all college kids. 2007 though saw 4 high schoolers in his first 7 picks, with higher quality college kids taken as well (Brett Cecil and JP Arencibia). 2008 saw 3 college and 3 high schoolers as the first 6 picks. More balance, more watching for the best players and (it seems) a better job finding them.

The fact no one from the 2005-2007 drafts has made the majors yet is a negative, but '06/07 looks about ready to produce some quality for 2009 and beyond is a positive.

What killed off Ash was playing 500 ball while promising more (pythagorean W-L was never better than 85). JP appears to be doing the same but the team has had pythagorean W-L records of 87 wins (2003), 88 (2005), 86 (2006), 87 (2007) and is on pace for 87 again. Thus 5 years with a fundamentally better team than any of Ash's yet with no luck - normally a team gets an extra 5-10 wins at some point by dumb luck. FYI: 2002 was 80 wins and 2004 was 71 wins. Ash had a 68 in 1995 (adjusting to 162 games).

JP has done a good job, and tried to get the 'grit' added in via Eck but what is needed is to get another 5 wins added by skill (such as upgrading LF/DH) and another 5 by luck to get a playoff team here.

It wouldn't hurt if MLB expanded the playoffs too of course :)

Anders - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 01:57 PM EDT (#187241) #

He hasn't appreciated his ability to assemble bullpens so he gives out bad contracts to relievers - Downs being a specific example

Of all the possible indictments of JP Ricciardi, I wouldn't say signing pen guys to bad contracts is one of them, at least not in the last three years. The Jays current crop of relievers are, with salary figures for this year:

BJ Ryan: 10.0 m
Scott Downs: 2.25 m
Jason Frasor: 1.13 m
Brian Tallet: 0.64 m
Shawn Camp: ??? (signed to a minor league contract, making ~0.4 m at a guess)
Casey Janssen: 0.40 m
Brandon League: 0.40 m
Brian Wolfe: 0.40 m
Jeremy Accardo: 0.39 m
Jesse Carlson: ??? (minor league deal, ~.35 m)

So thats ~16.36 for 10 relievers. If you take out BJ Ryan its 6.36 million for 9 relievers, so I don't really get where the bad contracts thing is coming from. I guess you could say BJ Ryan is overpaid, I wouldn't quibble with that. Scott Downs has now allowed 19 earned runs in 87 innings the last two years, with and 82/37 k/bb, which seems worth the 10 million dollars over three years he is making.

For all his faults, JP's strength as a GM has been assembling various parts into a good pen. He's taken fliers on guys who haven't worked out (Benitez, Zambrano) but those have been minimum wage type guys. He let Speier go as opposed to paying him a big contract as well. In fact, the biggest free agent RP signing Ricciardi has had in the last four years was Scott Scoeneweis in 2005-2006, for 5.25 million. He was great one year, terrible the next, and that was that (though Batista was signed as a starter and turned into a closer). There was indeed a time when Ricciardi gave a bunch of contracts out to older, not so good relievers (Adams, Lightenberg, Tam, etc.) but those days have long passed. Bullpen management has been a definite strength of Ricciardi's, I would say.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 03:03 PM EDT (#187246) #

Anders - it wasn't the value of Downs contract that made it bad, it was the length. For instance, in the case of Scott Downs, he'd bring in more to the time as a free agent this offseason than he likely will through trade (he's going to be a Type A). However, we signed him for 2 years, even though we have about 7 bullpen lefties on the 40-man roster and since we owned Downs' rights, there was no reason to sign him to a multi-year contract.

Asking for consistency from relievers is a fools' game, so if you have one that's going to be a Type A, it's generally best to let him hit the market and get the compensation. For anecdotal evidence of a similar case - not re-signing Speier was a great move.

Mike Green - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#187255) #

I absolutely disagree with the criticism of Ricciardi for extending Rios and Hill "too early". Judging a long-term contract based on 2 months of performance is unwise. Three of the bottom four second basemen in the league in offensive performance are Hill, Pedroia and Cano. Those numbers will not hold. Hill has over his career delivered almost league average offensive performance plus great defence. That is very, very valuable, and the price the Jays had to pay to get extra option years was negligible.

Pistol has, as usual, hit the nail on the head.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 03:50 PM EDT (#187256) #

I absolutely disagree with the criticism of Ricciardi for extending Rios and Hill "too early". Judging a long-term contract based on 2 months of performance is unwise. Three of the bottom four second basemen in the league in offensive performance are Hill, Pedroia and Cano. Those numbers will not hold. Hill has over his career delivered almost league average offensive performance plus great defence. That is very, very valuable, and the price the Jays had to pay to get extra option years was negligible.

I'm not basing my criticism of those contracts at all on their performance so far. Any time you extend players this early in their career I think it's unwise unless you get some massive savings - I don't think the Jays got that in these cases. There is value in simply having an option on those players and not having the long-term commitments and I think teams give up the value of those options too easy.

parrot11 - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 04:37 PM EDT (#187268) #

ChicagoJaysFan, you're right that middle relievers are the most volatile players in the game and as such it's a bad idea to sign them longterm. Good example with Speier. I think that teams are better off using them maybe not to the same extent as a rented mule, but to get the most value possible and when their contract is up, let some other team sign them and pick up the draft picks.

One of JP's problem is that he's been a buy high type of guy. They have tied up large amounts of money in players coming off of career years (e.g. Thomas, Wells, Overbay, possibly Rios) or gone after very high risk guys (e.g. AJ, Glaus/Rolen, Ryan (questions about his mechanics were around for a long time)). Both strategies resulted in poor return on the large money invested.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 04:56 PM EDT (#187270) #

One of JP's problem is that he's been a buy high type of guy. They have tied up large amounts of money in players coming off of career years (e.g. Thomas, Wells, Overbay, possibly Rios) or gone after very high risk guys (e.g. AJ, Glaus/Rolen, Ryan (questions about his mechanics were around for a long time)). Both strategies resulted in poor return on the large money invested.

I think we're saying the same things with different words, so I agree in general and am just building on what you said.

When I look at those names and the roster, I see a lot of instances where JP makes commitments that he doesn't need to. Wells, Rios, Hill, Downs, Stairs, Scutaro, MacDonald, and Downs are players that come to mind where the team made multi-year commitments when there was no reason to. They don't break the budget individually, but they do remove a lot of flexibility. Someone needs to teach JP what real options are.

Mike Green - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 05:15 PM EDT (#187271) #

CJF, the Hill contract was favourable to the team. It provides for .41M in 08, 2.59 in 09 (1st year of arb), 4M in 10 and 5M in 11 plus club options at 8, 8 and 10 million for 2012-14. The worst case scenario for the team is that they paid 11.59 million for 2009-11, and Hill does not play due to the injury. The risk of that at the start of the season was very small. Assuming 35th percentile performance for him (which is about what he has delivered so far), the team would still being paying the figures that he got in the contract in arb.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 05:27 PM EDT (#187272) #

the team would still being paying the figures that he got in the contract in arb.

That's my issue - if you're paying close to what you'd pay in arb - you're not getting any benefits from the contract. It's not in the team's advantage to commit long-term when they've already got arbitration, which strongly dampens the impact of monster years.

In an ideal world, teams should be expected to get significant discounts from the players based on player's risk aversion and the ability of teams to diversify risk versus. In such a situation, both sides would win.

However, players aren't the decision makers - their agents are. And the agents represent enough players to spread their risk around that when you sign these pre-free agency long-term contracts, you're not getting much of a discount, if any, versus what the player would be expected to get in arbitration.

If a team commits to paying a player what they're expected in arbitration, all the team has done is give up flexibility without getting any benefits. That's not a good deal. With agents, teams should just let the arb years run and then evaluate the players as free agents.

Anders - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#187274) #

Anders - it wasn't the value of Downs contract that made it bad, it was the length. For instance, in the case of Scott Downs, he'd bring in more to the time as a free agent this offseason than he likely will through trade (he's going to be a Type A). However, we signed him for 2 years, even though we have about 7 bullpen lefties on the 40-man roster and since we owned Downs' rights, there was no reason to sign him to a multi-year contract.

Asking for consistency from relievers is a fools' game, so if you have one that's going to be a Type A, it's generally best to let him hit the market and get the compensation. For anecdotal evidence of a similar case - not re-signing Speier was a great move.

I have to disagree with your assessment on multiple levels. Firstly, while on the whole reliever performance is often variable, and there are definitely hazards to signing relievers to long term deals, it is certainly not the case that individual relievers never succeed over an extended period of time. ERA is a fairly meaningless assessment of relievers to be sure, but Downs has been consistently above average in many metrics - he's had a good k/bb, hr/fb and gb rate for several years. Secondly, Downs has value to the Jays in terms of what he can contribute on the field, not just what he can contribute in potential future draft picks. Downs has been the team's best reliever this year, one of the 10 or so best non-closers in baseball, and has the second highest leverage index of any Jays reliever. At a certain point you need players who are likely to be successful at the major league level playing if you want to be successful as a team.

If you want to be the Montreal Expos 2.0 and trade away all your good players for future returns, then trade away those future returns when they get too expensive for more future returns, and so on, then really what is the point of having a baseball team? I believe Downs was one year away from free agency, and now that he has re-signed he is making what he would have made in arbitration anyway, which is certainly not that much given some of the crazy reliever contracts out there.

John Northey - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 05:49 PM EDT (#187275) #

With Hill I'd say the Jays are paying what they'd pay if Hill played at the bottom end of his potential for the next few years. So if Hill does any better than the worst one could expect (outside of serious injuries) the Jays save money, perhaps mega money ($10 mil a year seems to be the price for a mediocre player lately).

With Rios there was a much higher degree of risk due to his first two years in the majors being just a bit worse than he is currently doing. However, the potential reward was also there due to his 120 OPS+ and potential to be a 140+ guy and being signed throughout his prime now.

The key is to do as many Hill/Hinske/Wells deals as possible without getting caught with too many Hinske's. Then you pay as little as 1/4 of what the player is worth by the end, providing massive payroll room. If your key young guys aren't going to be worth a low end (under $8 mil per year) contract for the next 5 years then you have a bigger issue than payroll flexibility.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 05:56 PM EDT (#187278) #

I believe Downs was one year away from free agency, and now that he has re-signed he is making what he would have made in arbitration anyway, which is certainly not that much given some of the crazy reliever contracts out there.

Correct - he was one year away from free agency - so why sign him to a 2-year deal when he's already under your control? Use the year to gain knowledge on the situation.

If you want to be the Montreal Expos 2.0 and trade away all your good players for future returns, then trade away those future returns when they get too expensive for more future returns, and so on, then really what is the point of having a baseball team?

Serious? Is that at all representative of what I posted?

Can I make a similar accusation to you and say that you want to spend money like a drunken sailor like the Cubs in 06 so that we end up with a winning % under .450 while still being in the top-spenders?

Anders - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 05:59 PM EDT (#187279) #

the team would still being paying the figures that he got in the contract in arb.

That's my issue - if you're paying close to what you'd pay in arb - you're not getting any benefits from the contract.

You are either mis-characterizing or misinterpreting what Mike said, which is that:

Assuming 35th percentile performance for him (which is about what he has delivered so far), the team would still being paying the figures that he got in the contract in arb.

Hill would have to perform as poorly as he currently is now over the first three years of his new contract for his arbitration figures to (roughly) match the amount of money he is making in the contract. I'll speculate that he will improve, but even if he doesn't, by signing a deal you are assuming the risk that he doesn't not play again, which costs you about 11 million dollars and is fairly unlikely. However, you are potentially gaining from any performance above the 35th percentile, which could be worth anything from a few million to tens of millions, and is (to whatever extent) more likely. So the potential benefits to the contract are not insignificant, as the Jays are betting on Hill improving as a second basement, and will capitalize on him doing so.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 06:08 PM EDT (#187280) #

With Hill I'd say the Jays are paying what they'd pay if Hill played at the bottom end of his potential for the next few years. So if Hill does any better than the worst one could expect (outside of serious injuries) the Jays save money, perhaps mega money ($10 mil a year seems to be the price for a mediocre player lately).

I don't agree with that statement. $10 mil per year is rather inflated - look at Eckstein - low-to-mid 90s OPS+ playing a premier defensive position signed for $4.5 MM or so.

I'm not making a claim that Eckstein is identical to Hill (although offensively, I don't think there is the huge difference a lot of people do), but you can get similar caliber players to Hill for a lot less than $10 mil (Eckstein playing a more valuable defensive position, albeit at a lower, although underappreciated, level).

With $5 mil being the going rate for a MI with a low 90s OPS+, I don't think you get much savings, if any, in Hill's contract. And it's not just payroll flexibility you're looking at - it's also roster flexibility. Look how hard it was to get Hinske off the Jays roster towards the end.

If your key young guys aren't going to be worth a low end (under $8 mil per year) contract for the next 5 years then you have a bigger issue than payroll flexibility.

You don't sign players because they're you're key young guys - you sign them because it's worth it. I also don't consider Hill to be one of the key young guys. Rios, Marcum, Litsch, and McGowan are 4 young players I would put as more important than Hill. With Snider and Cecil potentially not far behind, I think Hill is going to be a mid-range team player. He actually reminds me a lot of Devon White - good player who is greatly overvalued by the home-town fans.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 06:16 PM EDT (#187282) #

Hill would have to perform as poorly as he currently is now over the first three years of his new contract for his arbitration figures to (roughly) match the amount of money he is making in the contract. I'll speculate that he will improve, but even if he doesn't, by signing a deal you are assuming the risk that he doesn't not play again, which costs you about 11 million dollars and is fairly unlikely. However, you are potentially gaining from any performance above the 35th percentile, which could be worth anything from a few million to tens of millions, and is (to whatever extent) more likely. So the potential benefits to the contract are not insignificant, as the Jays are betting on Hill improving as a second basement, and will capitalize on him doing so.

Perhaps I misinterpreted Mike, but when he said 35th percentile performance for him (which is about what he has delivered so far) - I assumed he was talking about his career. Hill only has the one year with an OPS+ higher than 92, so I thought that's a pretty reasonable expectation.

However, you are potentially gaining from any performance above the 35th percentile, which could be worth anything from a few million to tens of millions, and is (to whatever extent) more likely.

Arbitration already protects you from those big gains since you only pay a fraction of what the player would get in free agency. It's not like you're saving yourself from $15 million payouts to Aaron Hill. The downside is also bigger than Hill not playing due to injury. There is a chance of stagnation / decline. Look at some of Hill's comp's on bb-ref: 5 of them have an OPS+ below 100 for their career from age 25 through retirement.

Mike Green - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 07:42 PM EDT (#187285) #

Comparing the OPS+ of a second baseman with the league average OPS+ does not give you a useful description of the player's value, because of positional scarcity and the importance of defence. What can be said is that the market does undervalue second basemen, but all that does is explain why the arb figures are so low for a second baseman who hits .270/.335/.385 and plays GG quality defence.

VBF - Monday, June 16 2008 @ 10:17 PM EDT (#187295) #

Gibbons has always annoyed me with things like Jason Frasor and his man love for some players, but I really don't know if there exists a better replacement out there. He knows his team very well and he has definitely figured out his bullpen. He got burned hard enough for putting Eckstein out there on Saturday that I think he's learned his lesson. I guarantee you that the first thing any new manager does here is stick Eckstein back in the first spot full-time. His lineup construction isn't really that bad and back in the day when we actually had a good bench, I recall he used it to some effectiveness. I don't think this team improves with the firing of Gibbons unless there's some unpublicized team leader hatred for the guy. And moreso, I don't feel like going through the motions of a new rookie manager, nor do I want to put up with some grumbly old Joe Morgan type.

I think if there's any change that comes, it's a clean wiping of the entire front office. Brad Wilkerson has got to be the textbook definition of mediocrity from a position that needs a solid power contribution.

ChicagoJaysFan - Tuesday, June 17 2008 @ 09:12 AM EDT (#187302) #

What can be said is that the market does undervalue second basemen, but all that does is explain why the arb figures are so low for a second baseman who hits .270/.335/.385 and plays GG quality defence.

I wasn't saying that we should cut Aaron Hill - arguing against the contract is not arguing against the player.