If the Jays are unable to afford Bradley, they ought to be scouring the non-tendered arb-eligibles in a couple of weeks for DH options.  The pickings among the free agents are likely to be either pricey or not really appropriate.  Baldelli wouldn't be a bad complementary piece, but really they should be looking for someone who can play every day and need not be as good defensively. 

Something tells me Cito has got to have something to say in all of this payroll and personnel talk.
I think he's the whole reason the Milton Bradley stuff got started......

Jeff Blair chips in today..... Trading Halladay makes no sense, Ricciardi says

Blair: At least they'll be watchable every fifth day, as long as Halladay doesn't become disenchanted playing for a team that goes into spring training waiting for next year.

This statement makes no sense. If the Jays sign nobody and enter spring training looking like a 76-win team (and we're seeing warnings signs of this already), does that mean that Halladay will tank his starts -- the unstated ipso facto -- because he's disenchanted? What an absurd conclusion to draw and what a slag against Halladay's professionalism.

 

Clearly Jeff Blair is not familiar with a typical day in the life of Roy Halladay.

From the brilliant posting on GHOF: "5:45 AM: Begin first set of daily calisthenics. Strap on aerobic truck tire and attach 14 pounds of raw, bloodied steak to said truck tire. Release hounds. Run. Collect and kennel starving, exhausted dogs."

http://www.ghostrunneronfirst.com/2008/11/day-in-life-existence-of-roy-halladay.html 

 

Chuck,

I read that differently.  I thought that Blair was suggesting that Halladay would be there starting every fifth day unless he became disenchanted and wanted to be traded.  The article was about possibly trading Halladay and mentioned that he'd be kept in the loop on the club's direction and also mentioned that the door might be opened for him to leave.  That's just how I interpreted it.

Obviously  Ricciardi is not going to be in the sell Halladay camp. To have any hope of retaining his job he needs some immediate success before his contract runs out after 2010. Why trade Halladay for a bevy of young players if your replacement is going to reap the rewards. This is a very dysfunctional situation that needs to be rectified in some manner  ( does this remind you of another Toronto franchise?) .

I don't envy the decision makers. Part of the reason things are in such a flux is that Ted Rogers is quite ill and has taken a temporary hiatus from the Rogers helm. This franchise walks a very thin tightrope , they are unwilling to spend the resources to win it all ( I can't blame them they're a publicly traded corporation in a very difficult current environment) , but on the other hand if they don't spend enough,and don't maintain at least an illusion of being on the fringe of competition, attendance and T.V. viewer ship  will drop like a stone resulting in a large drop in revenue.

No surprise, I pretty much whole-heartedly disagree with Blair's gloom & doom position.

We certainly can't be called anyone's favorite for a playoff spot or even the "sexy pick"....but naysayers would do well to remember that only eight months ago it was a given that Detroit and Cleveland would battle for their division and the Twins and ChiSox would be lagging well behind.

That sort of thing happens every season and only the truly pathetic teams (which we are not) have their fate sealed before play begins.
I remain intrigued by Cito's interest in Bradley (and suspect that, in the end, it might be mutual) and I remain fascinated by Khalil Greene. I suspect this offseason will not be nearly so quiet as many are assuming.

It does sound as though AJ is probably history. I have mixed feelings about this (he's risky and expensive, and the Jays can use the draft picks; on the other hand, the team's rotation is sketchy without him, and Doc and Burnett would have been a great front-rotation for the playoffs). Either way, the Jays will be an interesting team, though likely destined for a 3rd or 4th place finish. At a minimum, they need at least one more *good* bat to have a fighting chance.

It's too bad the Ibanez (for Overbay and Frasor) trade fell through. We might have had a DH for '09 (or another superabundance of high draft picks as compensation for AJ and Raul).

I think that letting Burnett walk is probably for the best.  If the Jays are convinced that McGowan can recover then they'd have their #2 starter by the end of June.  With Litsch, Purcey and perhaps Janssen already here and lefties Cecil, Mills and Romero on the way, not to mention the eventual return of Marcum, the Jays probably believe that the rotation is in good shape for 2010.  They'd have to commit 4 or 5 years for Burnett when he'd only really be a necessity for 2009.  I'd rather they spend that money on a DH like Bradley.

I'm fine with the Jays' giving the young pitchers a chance, but I don't think we should get our hopes up for playoff contention. Basically, having Halladay and AJ gives the team a lot more leeway to experiment with (and create competition for) the remaining 3 slots. Running Doc + 4 question marks out there every week is going to make it tough, especially given the division the Jays are in. And yes, all the pitchers you mention are question marks:

Litsch: great start to his career (given his age and lack of power stuff), but will the league figure him out? I like him as a #4 or #5
McGowan: shoulder surgery always a big risk
Janssen: ditto
Purcey: still unproven; does he have the stuff and command to win consistently?
Marcum: out for 2009; effectiveness post-TJ surgery remains to be seen
Cecil, Romero, Mills: decent potential (Cecil especially), but no MLB experience. Romero still walks a lot of batters; Mills needs to prove he has enough stuff for the majors

That's fine if you're in the NL West. But the AL East will be a different story in 2009. (I suspect we're going to hear JP talk a lot about how "we're going to need our kids to step up.") And as Boston and New York discovered last year, young pitchers have a tendency to break your heart.

 Robert Macleod speculates on the size of the Jays budget.

They certainly won't try to spend their way out of it.

That much was made clear on Thursday by Paul Beeston, the Jays' interim chief executive officer, who said that the Jays' 2008 payroll of about $99-million might actually be allowed to drop if free-agent pitcher A.J. Burnett decides to sign with another team.

Because Burnett was slated to earn $12-million next season, Toronto's payroll will be cut to roughly $87-million once the pitcher's salary comes off the books.

Steve Simmons gives his estimate.

Bet on it: The Blue Jays payroll will be closer to $80-million US than the $100-million they paid out in salaries a year ago. Part of that has to do with the Canadian dollar. Part of that has to do with the flailing economy. And part of that has to do with the realization that they can't contend at $100 million so why bother to pay that much for a third-place or fourth-place team in the American League East?

 

So, it all boils down to two roads we can travel. Either cheap out as an also-ran, or resign AJ and go for it right out of the gate with the two top pitchers in the league and Litch a promising #3. With some early season momentum (this is Cito Gaston at the helm, after all) it won't take long for Rogers Centre to become a hot ticket, again. The Canadian Dollar was in the same situation in the early '90's and it was a recession with triple tens: inflation, unemployment and interest rates.

Bastian is reporting on the Jays' website that the they'll offer Burnett arbitration (obviously), but that Zaun and Wilkerson aren't in their plans.

It got me to thinking what type of compensation the Jays would get, and it doesn't look good.  Of the teams believed to be after Burnett, the Jays wouldn't get a 1st round pick if he went to the Orioles or Braves.  They also wouldn't get a 1st round pick if he went to the Yankees and they also got Sabathia (likely), or the Red Sox and they also got Tex.  I'm not sure where Lowe fits in if he ends up going to Boston, but if he did then Burnett surely wouldn't be signed by Boston too.  That leaves the Phillies.  Our best hope as fans is that Burnett signs with the Phillies since the Jays would get a 1st round pick and a sandwich pick, and he'd also be out of the Division.  Otherwise it's likely that all the Jays will get for losing Burnett is a sandwich pick and a 2nd round pick. 

Bastian is reporting on the Jays' website that the they'll offer Burnett arbitration (obviously), but that Zaun and Wilkerson aren't in their plans.

Not offering Zaun arbitration is a mistake (that I imagine the Jays will make).  For a team that has to compete more with developing players this should be a no-brainer.

It's pretty clear that Zaun doesn't want to return so he'll only accept if he thinks that's going to be his best payday by a non-trivial amount.  And he would have a week to decide this.  Right now no one is signing players so it's hard for him to gauge the market.  Since he's a type B a team that signs him will give up no compensation (other than money) so there's no restrictions on what teams would be willing to pay him (like there would be if he were an A).  So I don't think there's a very good chance Zaun would accept arbitration.

However, let's say that he does accept arbitration.  Where does that leave the Jays?  With an excellent backup catcher that you would feel comfortable with if he had to start and who's an excellent complement to the starting catcher.  Plus, it's a one year deal for probably about $3 million so it's not unreasonable and you're not blocking Arencibia.

Frankly, I'd offer Zaun arbitration and hope he accepts.  The alternatives are going to be ugly and/or cost more for less production.

That's true Pistol. I think he would have to decline it or lose face big time for all of his snark. However, I really want to see one of the young catchers step up and take the job mid-season. With the bad outlook, it is the perfect year to play as many of the kids as they can.

The other issue with Zaun, of you really dont' want him back, is you should make it absolutely clear that he will have competition, and has a good chance of not getting any playing time. it would make him at least hesitate longer before coming back, and so what if you get an overqualified (but also overpaid) backup?

I think the 'no arbitration' to Zaun is indicative of where the Jays budget is.  They will continue to have talks with AJ but in truth they have to know they aren't getting him back - however making noises lets the Jays look good and will help up AJ's price, especially if AJ says nice things about Toronto now and then. 

I'm betting the Jays have a real budget under $90 million and that $80 million figure tossed around by the Sun (iirc) just might be the real figure.  Sigh.  2009 will be a refocusing year - get Marcum and McGowan healthy, sort out the kids on the farm who will be ready for 2010, find out if Snider is the stud we all hope he is, clear out deadweight on the payroll, prep for a 2010-2014 run (Wells/Rios/Hill and the kids).

It is bizarre to be talking about 4 year contracts for Burnett, at the same time as not offering arbitration to Zaun.  If the club is in a financial crunch, offering Zaun arbitration has sound long-term financial benefits (if he accepts, you don't lose a year of service time for needed development in the high minors; if he doesn't, you get the draft pick) with reasonable short term costs.  With Burnett, the long-term costs would be huge.

The club needs someone in charge. 

"It is bizarre to be talking about 4 year contracts for Burnett, at the same time as not offering arbitration to Zaun"

It's only bizarre if you think the Jays are serious about re-signing Burnett. PR isn't the same thing as actual commitment.

As for making a 2010-14 run: it's hard to see this happening without a much bigger payroll than $80M. Well over half of that could be tied up in just three players: Rios, Wells, Halladay. Even if the Jays dump Ryan, Overbay and Rolen (probably for a minimal return in terms of talent), there wouldn't be a lot left over to build a winning team with. The Rays' winning on a budget was really a one-off IMO - the convergence of all those high draft picks and some astute management over the last few years. Winning in the AL East is all about healthy budgets (both for payroll and farm system development, including overseas talent) and front office excellence.

Oh, I expect the payroll to increase post 2009.  The odds are very, very high that oil will jump over $100 a barrel again within a couple of years (unless the current economic crisis becomes a true depression) and the Canadian dollar jumping back to par with it.   At that point the Jays will have found a replacement for GM as a sponsor and various other new sponsors to bring in revenue.  At that point a $100 million payroll will be easy to maintain and increase. 

2009 is a mess due to the dollar drop, the injury to Marcum (creating a big hole in the staff), and the economic crisis (killing a major sponsor of the Jays).  Right now, with all those factors, the best thing for Jays management is to regroup and figure out how to take advantage of the mess and prep for a run after it.  Signing Halladay long term (after a long talk about how this will work) and getting some of the key kids signed long term would be a great idea about now, thus making payroll for 2010-2014 locked in and for whoever is the GM an easier time planning out how much can be spent on free agents and where the likely holes will be.

Is it ideal?  Heck no.  But these are the cards that are on the table.  If everything goes right the Jays still could make the playoffs (ie: Snider is a stud, Purcey and McGowan both come out of the gate like ace #2 & ace #3, the pen is as strong as last year, Rolen is healthy and productive as are Wells and Rios) but odds are even adding back AJ we would be needing a lot to go right.  There is hope, but it is the 10% hope not the 'woohoo, this is the year' hope.

I get the impresion that a lot of things are being assumed - as they are every November - that might not necessarily bear out...
(all following IMO of course)
1. The AJ noise is ALL P.R. - i think they'd be pretty unhappy if he accepted

2. The "budget reduction" - isn't. Not in the conventional sense. I think the proper interpretation of Beeston's remarks is "we have $100 million to spend if how we spend it makes sense...but we won't spend it just for the illusion that we are not  'cutting payroll' on players that don't help us."  Right now, if the Jays were bringing back every player under their control they are in for about $82 million. They could, for instance, add Khalil Greene and Milton Bradley and stay under $100....I don't think they'd rule that out, or they could add very little in terms of players and give Doc a big front end bonus with the savings to sign an extension, or they could do neither. But what they WON'T do, if I read Beeston right, is make an empty gesture signing if they don't see that player or players making a real difference.
Frankly, it seems to me that JUST as the AJ noise is P.R., in like manner the "we may not spend that money elsewhere" is too. You score much better in public preception if you say "we don't HAVE to spend the money" and then you land an important piece, than you do if you say "we're going to spend the money to get better" and then you come up empty handed. That which is said into a microphone in November often bears little resemblence to that which happens later.

3. in that vein, I think that there are two things at work - first, the Jays are going to only make a move in December if it makes VERY obvious sense, otherwise they will wait until the frenzy is over and look to pluck bargins to fill their needs (in terms of pitching, look for guys who'll sign for one year); Second, the Jays may be giving JP a very short leash against the possibility that the new president will want his own GM and that said new GM should be the person who spends whatever money is available. In this case the only moves made by JP would be those that both Beeston and Gaston were behind.

4. The presistant chant that 2009 is a lost years just reaks in my nostrils. EVERY gorram season SOME team left for dead by the prognostications is right there fighting in September. For instance, eight months ago if I had told you that neither Cleveland or Detroit would finish over .500 and that the Twins would make the post-season (technically forcing a playoff game is post-season) you would have dismissed me for a fool. the Jays are not anyone's sexy pick right now obviously, and likely won't be come march. But there's a reason they actually play the seasons out. If we were the Pirates or the Nationals then yeah, maybe. But we're not. I disagree with any idea of writing off 2009 - while at the same time opposing doing something stupid.

5. I don't think the writers in the Toronto media have ANY idea what the Jays are going to do...I think the info they are getting is spin designed to make a certain impression and not anything the team feels bound to conform to.

oh, and #6....when you make your projections about what kind of salary the Jays will be paying in 2012....don't bet the ranch that you'll be paying Vernon Wells. Everyone calls me crazy but you remember in three years where you heard it first - if he remains healthy and producing at his current level, Wells WILL opt out in 2011.

For his age 34-36 seasons, Vernon is tabbed to make 3/63. I don't think it can be considered probable that a team will want to pay for his age 37-38 seasons in the winter of 2011. To make a comparison, Torii Hunter got paid 5/90 for his age 33-37 seasons, but he was signed as a gold glove CF, whereas Vernon will be lucky to still be playing CF at the age of 33, the season prior to when you think he will opt out. In other words, I doubt a team will pay enough for those extra 2-3 years to make it worth it for Vernon to opt out as opposed to earning the 63m and hoping he can sign himself another 3-4 year deal after that before retirement.

"If everything goes right the Jays still could make the playoffs"

This is what we've said pretty much every year that JP has been GM. The problem with this mindset (IMO) is that it only really applies to certain divisions in baseball. Yes, dark horses do emerge in baseball, but it takes an extremely talented dark horse to prevail in the AL East (as happened last year), where you need a superior team *and* everything to break right. The Red Sox and Yankees (and possibly now the Rays) are so good that they'll wear you down eventually unless you have an awful lot to throw at them over a 162-game season.

The Jays are a respectable team, and they had great pitching last year, but it would take an awful lot to put them over the top. Personally, I don't see how a team whose starting lineup ends with Overbay/Rolen/Barajas/Scutaro can win the AL East.

Actually Rolen - Overbay - Barajas - Scutaro strikes me as being at least average for production potential from the bottom of the order.  I'd be more worried about the contribution from the top 5.  Three of those guys will probably lead our team in OBP.

All four of those players have had good careers. It's more about where they are right now (or more accurately, where they'll be in 2009). All are in their early to mid-30s, and Overbay and Rolen have had some significant injuries.

Two things would make the top 5 a lot better: Hill returning to full health, and the addition of Bradley or Giambi as a DH (although both players carry some risks). Actually, I guess a more realistic lineup would be something like:

Scutaro (Cito seems to like him as a leadoff hitter)
Hill
Rios
Wells
Giambi/Bradley
Overbay
Rolen
Lind
Barajas

Hmm. I see what you mean about OBP issues. It's not the worst lineup, but there's something so...I don't know, 2008 about it. I don't have high hopes. I think it's that average-player thing that the Jays have had going for a while now. Let's hope that Snider will change all that soon. For now it looks like pitching and defense again, relatively low OPS, and a whole lot of DPs.

As expected, Burnett was offered arbitration and Zaun mistakenly wasn't.

For his age 34-36 seasons,

No....33-35

Vernon is tabbed to make 3/63. I don't think it can be considered probable that a team will want to pay for his age 37-38 seasons in the winter of 2011.

36-37

To make a comparison, Torii Hunter got paid 5/90 for his age 33-37 seasons, but he was signed as a gold glove CF, whereas Vernon will be lucky to still be playing CF at the age of 33,

On the other hand, there are 4 years of market inflation between signing Hunter after 2007's season and signing Wells after 2011's.

 the season prior to when you think he will opt out. In other words, I doubt a team will pay enough for those extra 2-3 years to make it worth it for Vernon to opt out as opposed to earning the 63m and hoping he can sign himself another 3-4 year deal after that before retirement.

Consider that the inflation in baseball salaries year-over-year is easily 5% on average if not more,  that means an $18 million salary in 2007 is equivilant to a $22 million salary in 2011. Obviously a dramatic drop in defense makes a difference , but it seems to me the choices are these:

Stay with the $63 million and try to get a new contract when you are 36 (what would that contract be? 3/$45 maybe at best?...a lot of good ball players are essentially almost done at 36 or 37 and Wells has to know, in 2011 that he might not be an eight-figure man in 3 years (to say nothing of potential injuries)

or

Opt out and seek a five year deal...let's say he's discounted for his defense and only get $18 per (the equivilant when adjusted for inflation of getting $15 per last year) - that would give him a commitment of guaranteed money of 5/$90 - in other words he adds $27 million to what he is guaranteed to get if he doesn't opt out -  while risking the fairly small possibility he is still worth significantly more than $9 million a year in his age 36-39 seasons.

Assuming he can get signed after 2011 for $18 per (and barring a dramatic reversal in the baseball inflation of the last 15 years or a significant decline in production, he can) the latter is virtually a no-brainer.

"If everything goes right the Jays still could make the playoffs"

This is what we've said pretty much every year that JP has been GM. The problem with this mindset (IMO) is that it only really applies to certain divisions in baseball.

No, I disagree. A LOT of playoff teams make the playoffs by virtue of "(almost) everything going right" - in all divisions. to the extent that this is not true of the AL East, it is only because Boston and NY are on a different planet. A planet we CAN'T exist on. So it does little good to try to be Boston-lite (in terms of payroll) when Boston Lite isn't good enough - unless almost everything goes right.

 Yes, dark horses do emerge in baseball, but it takes an extremely talented dark horse to prevail in the AL East (as happened last year),

I hope you don't think the Rays are "extremely talented." There's not enough difference in their talent level and ours (on the 2008 major league teams) to sneeze at. compare the stat lines. The Rays are a definitive example of "almost everything goes right"

 where you need a superior team *and* everything to break right. The Red Sox and Yankees (and possibly now the Rays) are so good that they'll wear you down eventually unless you have an awful lot to throw at them over a 162-game season.

Not last year. the Rays had essentially ONE thing the Jays didn't - almost every break went their way. sure you can note that Longoria was on the DL a while and so was Crawford but the aggregate of the team stats still say, there's not much difference in the two teams except in the win column.

The Jays are a respectable team, and they had great pitching last year, but it would take an awful lot to put them over the top.

"awful lot" might be an overstatement but it'd take some surprises, yes.

Personally, I don't see how a team whose starting lineup ends with Overbay/Rolen/Barajas/Scutaro can win the AL East.

OPS+ for those four:
O -107
R - 107
S - 87
B - 86

The lowest four OPS+ figures for Rays regulars in 2008: 98, 92, 87, 82

Hmm.

BTW, the collective OPS+ of the Rays hitters was 99, for the Jays it was 95/ The collective ERA+ for Rays pitchers was 116 - Jays 122...and before anyone cites the loss of Burnett his figure was only 105

We have - depending on who our DH is next year - as much of a chance next year as the Rays had in 2008.
What we need, and haven't gotten, are breaks.

The home nine in 2009 does not have the chance that Tampa (or Toronto) had at the beginning of 2008.  It is not reasonable to expect the McGowan or Janssen will return and perform anywhere near their best immediately.    This added to the loss of Marcum and Burnett from the rotation means that their starting rotation is pretty much certain to be substantially worse. 

To boot, it is very likely that Tampa, Boston and New York will be better clubs in 2009 than in 2008 (although Tampa and Boston may win fewer games). 

Yes, it could all work.  Halladay could be a leading Cy Young candidate again.  Purcey could develop into a solid #2 starter. Litsch could continue as before, edging up his K rate to 5.5 per 9IP and posting an ERA just under 4.  McGowan could come back without missing a beat.  Brett Cecil could arrive at mid-season and establish himself as a good starter immediately.  Brandon League could dominate in a closing role.  Milton Bradley could be added as a DH and the offence could be slightly above league average.  All of this occurring together is more likely to happen on the morning of December 25 than the morning of July 25.

The Yankees declined to offer arbitration to Bobby Abreu.  I wonder what he is looking for.  I suspect that he's got a good couple of years left as a DH. 

I fully agree that the Jays' pitching is likely to be worse in 2009. Even if Purcey, Cecil, Mills and Romero continue their recent progress, I wouldn't be surprised if it takes at least another year for them to consolidate their gains before having success in the majors.

My basic point is that having three very good teams in the division makes things a lot harder for the Jays. It's a lot easier to be a dark horse in, say, the NL West or NL Central (where teams have won their divisions with win totals of 84, 95, 90, 85, 86 and 82 wins over the last few years). The AL East champions over that stretch have had win totals of 97 (Tampa '08), 96 (Boston '07), and 97 (New York '06). And Tampa only emerged as a contender last year. So things are tough all over in the AL East.

A lot did break right for Tampa last year, although the team held its own nicely without Crawford (who had only 29 PA after July) and Longoria (who missed over a month, I think). Carlos Pena also had a huge dropoff in 2008 (OPS+ 127) from 2007 (OPS+ 172), and the team got pretty much nil production from Troy Percival in the second half. So not everything was perfect in the land of Tropicana. But you're right - it was nothing compared to the Jays' losing Janssen, Rolen, Hill, Wells, McDonald, McGowan, Marcum, Zaun (I think), Accardo - am I missing anybody? - for significant periods of time. With a bit better luck (and a semi-decent LF and DH) the Jays would have been right in the mix.

It's been confirmed no arbitration for Zaun.

The Blue Jays also declined to offer arbitration to catcher Gregg Zaun, a Type B free agent who would have fetched them a sandwich pick in compensation.

I prefer to deal with harsh reality as hard as it is to accept sometimes, rather than sugar plums and fairies , and so for me at least, this is an indication that money is tight  as the Jays should probably risk offering arbitration to Zaun , but financial pressures preclude such a  gamble. Even if Zaun signs elsewhere you still have to pony up bonus money for the  sandwich pick. I'm afraid tough times are indeed here.

The home nine in 2009 does not have the chance that Tampa (or Toronto) had at the beginning of 2008.  It is not reasonable to expect the McGowan or Janssen will return and perform anywhere near their best immediately.    This added to the loss of Marcum and Burnett from the rotation means that their starting rotation is pretty much certain to be substantially worse. 

First, what did we know about the Tampa team 9 months ago in regard to their pitching - particularly their bullpen?

Second, I agree there is a higher degree of uncertainty around McGowan and Janssen than there was last year (for either team) but i noticed over the weekend while looking at the Gibbons/Gaston splits, that Gaston went essentially his whole time here with a below average pitcher (McGowan's last 4 starts, then Purcey) in one spot, and another below average pitcher (Marcum's 10 starts under Gaston, then Richmond) in another. So Cito won 51 games out of 88 (a pace for 94 wins on a full season) with three above average starters and two below average starters - and what was (under Cito) a league average offense.
Under Cito, McGowan/Purcey and Marcum/Richmond combined for a 4.73 ERA. It's not asking for much to expect that out of Purcey, Janssen, Richmond, Romero, Cecil, or whoever fills the #4 and #5 spots nect year that those pitchers would combine for something similar to a 4.73 ERA - within a quarter run anyway. throw in Doc and Listch and an overflowing pen and the difference in Cito's staff last year and his staff in 2009 is the difference in McGowan and Burnett (who had a 3.14 ERA under Cito) or, potentially, between who'ever is signed as a free agent or traded for and that level.

That is a noteable difference BUT

The Jays, right now (without a DH, return the same league average offense Cito had - a FA DH, or Snider, might better that offense - the addition of a better SS might do so as well. And that's before you speculate about the sort of manipulation necessary to unpgrade over Overbay (or his simply improving) or discuss the apparent recovery of Rolen's bat.

The question then becomes - will the (potential) increase in offesne offset the (apparent) drop off in the #2 spot in the rotation and allow the teram to preform in 2009 as they did (for Cito) in 2008?

Again, that's a lot of uncertainty but it's far from a slam dunk "no"

To boot, it is very likely that Tampa, Boston and New York will be better clubs in 2009 than in 2008 (although Tampa and Boston may win fewer games). 

VERY likely? How so? I can see a good argument for NY but all their big targets are not rushng to sign with them...they will be better even if they settle for Burnett and Perez or some such - after all they have Wang coming back too.

But why is Tampa VERY likely to be better? Price? Need I remind you of the unrewarded reverance accorded to Buchholz, Hughes, Kennedy and Chamberlain last spring? Sure Crawford will bounce back one assumes, but where's the next Hinske who comes out of nowhere? What's the likelyhood that all those bullpen arms that were so lightly regarded a year ago are so good again?

Boston? Well, hell, I'm not arguing that we're as good as Boston but bad things can and do happen to good teams.

Yes, it could all work.  Halladay could be a leading Cy Young candidate again.  Purcey could develop into a solid #2 starter. Litsch could continue as before, edging up his K rate to 5.5 per 9IP and posting an ERA just under 4.  McGowan could come back without missing a beat.  Brett Cecil could arrive at mid-season and establish himself as a good starter immediately.  Brandon League could dominate in a closing role.  Milton Bradley could be added as a DH and the offence could be slightly above league average.  All of this occurring together is more likely to happen on the morning of December 25 than the morning of July 25.

Why? Almost every team that succeeds and makes the playoffs needs that kind of thing. Last February 1 you or I might have said something like this:

"Sure, Tampa might win the division - IF none of their starters miss time with injury and if Matt Garza is as good as he was last year and if Sonanstinne and jackson don't sting and if that bunch of retreads in the pen isn't the train wreck they seem to be.....if Longoria looks like a young Scott Rolen right out of the gate with a ROY performance - If Carlos Pena wasn't a one year wonder and if they can get some credible offense from right field what with Baldelli still not 100% and if Cliff Floyd manages to hold together for a year...maybe if ALL this comes together they'll be pretty good. But what are the odds of that?"

The difference is that Tampa had gradually been building up a remarkable collection of young talent (thanks in no small part to a string of last-place finishes). Many observers felt that T-Bay would eventually break out, but few thought it would happen so soon. Sort of like an accelerated version of the '83-85 Jays clubs.

Tampa does have some positional issues, but they have a good core (Longoria, Upton, Iwamura, Pena, Navarro) and the pitching to make a trade if necessary. I think it's their starting pitching depth (Kazmir, Garza, Shields, Sonnanstine, Price, Jackson, Niemann, Davis - that's five great starters and three solid depth options) that will allow the Rays to have continued success.

The Jays' front 8 (Halladay, Litsch, Purcey, McGowan, Cecil, Romero, Mills, Richmond) just doesn't compare. Now, if everyone is healthy in 2010, a staff headed up by Halladay, McGowan, Marcum, Purcey, Litsch, Cecil, Romero, Mills looks a lot more competitive. But that is a huge "if" at this point.

Some more cold, hard  reality.

Ted Rogers dies at 75
 

I think it's their starting pitching depth (Kazmir, Garza, Shields, Sonnanstine, Price, Jackson, Niemann, Davis - that's five great starters and three solid depth options) that will allow the Rays to have continued success.

The Jays' front 8 (Halladay, Litsch, Purcey, McGowan, Cecil, Romero, Mills, Richmond) just doesn't compare. Now, if everyone is healthy in 2010, a staff headed up by Halladay, McGowan, Marcum, Purcey, Litsch, Cecil, Romero, Mills looks a lot more competitive. But that is a huge "if" at this point.

I'd suggest-

Doc > Kazmir
Marcum = Shields
Listch = Garza
McGowan > Sonnanstine
Purcey = Jackson (at least)
Cecil < Price (so they say, the results don't say that yet and it's close IMO)
Romero = Neimann (more or less)
Richmond < Davis (but if either team gets down to their 8th option they are in trouble anyway.

You have to remember the unpredictability of prospects. Last year Mason and McGee were prize pups and this year McGee is under the knife and mason isn't protected on the 40 man roster.

Last year Buchholz was going to step right into the Red Sox rotation and be scary. Any kids, ours or theirs,  are unpredictible.

I like Jesse Litsch about as much as anyone, but he's not equal to Garza, either objectively (K rate/FIP combined with ERA+) or subjectively (stuff...). 

McGowan is ahead of Sonnastine, if healthy, but his health is conjectural.  McGowan has previously had TJ and now labrum surgery to repair fraying.  Realistically, he ought to be expected to perform somewhere between his 05-06 lows and his 07-08 highs. That is probably behind a realistic expectation for Sonnanstine. 

McGowan could have been a legitimate ace with his stuff, but I'm not expecting anything from him now.  TJ surgery, labrum surgery, and he already had a tear in his rotator cuff.  When I think of what the Jays' rotation will look like in 2010, McGowan isn't in the picture.  If I had to bet $1 million I'd predict a rotation of Halladay followed by, in no particular order, Romero, Mills (a lot of analysts really like him), Cecil, Litsch and/or Purcey. 

Does the fact that Marcum is not a power pitcher make his recovery from TJ surgery more difficult?  My understanding is that command and control is usually the last to come back after the surgery.

The best long-term recoveries from TJ by starting pitchers have been made by "command and control" pitchers, David Wells and Tommy John himself.  It will be no shock though if Marcum isn't really in good form until 2011.

I think you have to compare apples with apples (in this case, the 2009 starting pitching for each club). The front five:

Doc over Kazmir
Shields over Litsch
Garza over Purcey
Price over McGowan (my criterion is: which player would you want on your team in 2009 and going forward?)
Sonnanstine over Richmond/mystery option

And the depth chart/prospects:

Cecil over Jackson (based on the same criterion as above)
Wade Davis over Romero (Davis had better overall numbers at AA/AAA last year and is a year younger)
Jeff Niemann over Mills (Niemann looks like the better prospect, based on stuff)

So the Jays come out ahead in 2 of 8 slots (in my subjective view). And I think it pays to look at depth over and above the front five, as the Jays have learned over the last few years. As for the Jays' pitching with a healthy Marcum in the picture, let's compare oranges with oranges in 2010.

I meant to make a note that Marcum's injury put us a step behind in 2009 and didn't.  Still, I guess I'm alone on some things. Like the persistant desire to take "stuff" over results (i.e. Litsch v. Garza and Cecil v. Price) and the "assume the worst" mentality regarding McGowan, Janssen, and Marcum.

Maybe there are advanced metrics that I don't follow that Garza is a better pitcher - based on K's he certainly seems to have better stuff. But then if you were looking at those metrics you would have told me two years ago I was nuts if i told you they would have identical ERA+ numbers over the last two years, right?

I guess I understand the psychology over over-compensating against homerism....but doesn't it get depressing?

Why do we believe in Sonnanstine and/or Jackson and not Purcey?
Why do we dismiss Richmond when he had a TEN to ONE K:BB ratio in his time in Toronto?

Why do we ASSUME David Price is going to be ganbusters in his first tour of the majors? How many "next big thing" starting pitchers actually did that in their first year? An easy list of top prospect pitchers who didn't blow anyone's doors off in their first try at a full time rotations spot:

Clay Buchholz
Phil Hughes
Ian Kennedy
Joba Chamberlian
Edwin Jackson
Adam Loewen
Ervin Santana
Jeremy Bonderman
Felix Hernandez
Ben Sheets
CC Sabathia
Homer Bailey

All ranged from mere average to total failure in their first open shot at the rotation...and that's without bringing up the likes of Dewon Brazelton or Bill Pulsipher

Admittedly I prefer an optimistic take...no denying that I prefer to assume that McGowan has a future rather than that he'll be an afterthought this time next year - i don't deny that. But I don't think you have to be a homer to suggest that if Buchholz and Hugues and Bailey can frustrate their teams, that writing Price's name in ink  in as someone to be feared in 2009 might be giving the opposition a bit too much credit.

Oh, it is certainly possible that the Blue Jays win 88 games in 2009 and finish in third behind the Yankees and Red Sox, by scoring as many as they give up and out-performing Pythagoras by 7 games (with the old man returning the favour for 2005).  The point I was making is 93 wins looks a long, long way off.  The path to 93 is much, much easier for the other 3 contenders.  Maybe they'll pick up Milton Bradley and Randy Wolf soon, and the picture will change.

No worries...it's all subjective. As you point out, no one really knows how all these pitchers (young or old) will pan out. But, to answer your questions:

"Why do we believe in Sonnanstine and/or Jackson and not Purcey?"

Sonnanstine certainly could fall back to earth. He's definitely the 5th starter on that staff. However, he had a decent season (ERA+ 102) with solid peripherals (37:124 BB:K, 1.29 WHIP, 21 HR in 193 IP). He made significant gains on his rookie year performance, and he's only 25. No doubt he was helped by his team's infield defense, as were many Jays pitchers. Purcey, on the other hand, has yet to show that he can consistently pitch well in the majors. He's 26 and put together a solid minor-league season after two years of struggles, so he's a bit of a late bloomer. Although he had a couple of outstanding starts against Tampa last year, overall his stats weren't great (ERA+ 77, 1.48 WHIP, 9 HR allowed in 67 IP, etc).

"Why do we dismiss Richmond when he had a TEN to ONE K:BB ratio in his time in Toronto?"

Small sample size. His minor league BB:K ratio is 127:348 in 413.2 IP (which is still quite good). In any case, I wasn't dismissing Richmond, who I kind of like. It's just that the back of the Rays' rotation looks more promising (younger, better pedigree, track record, etc).

"Why do we ASSUME David Price is going to be ganbusters in his first tour of the majors?"

Because he is a tall, built, power 22-year-old lefty who has excelled throughout his professional career (which now includes some high-leverage World Series performances). His career minor league numbers: 109.2 IP, 92 H, 7 HR allowed, 32 BB, 109 K. He didn't miss a beat in the majors, with a 1.93 ERA and 0.93 WHIP in 14 IP. Basically, he rocks. Could he flop in 2009? Sure. Want to bet against him?

overall his stats weren't great (ERA+ 77, 1.48 WHIP, 9 HR allowed in 67 IP, etc)

I.E. very similar to the year Sonnastine had in 2007 - same ERA+, almost identical HR rate, Purcey with a better K rate, Andy with a better walk rate.

I wasn't dismissing Richmond, who I kind of like

Not you personally, I just meant the general tone of the "Rays have more pitching" discussions. Usually when comparisons are made Richmond isn't even brought up.  Absolutely sample size is at issue, and clearly his rations can't stay remotely that good. But on the whole, he's usually considered an afterthought - the guy who's only pitching if things go bad (i have caught myself with that attitude at times)

Basically, he rocks. Could he flop in 2009? Sure. Want to bet against him?

I'd be just as comfortable betting against him now as I would have been betting against Buchholz, Bailey, or Hughes last year.

And everything you said about Price's minor league career you can say about Cecil's but few if any Jays fans dare to suggest Cecil could be a difference maker for the Jays next year (and yes, I know about the innings issues but no one talks about the fact that Price's highest total in one year is only 15 innings more than Cecil's highest total)
Again, for those who have never looked them up...minor league totals:

name - ERA - WHIP - K:9 - BB:9 - IP
Price - 2.31 - 1.14 - 8.98 - 2.64 - 109.2
Cecil - 2.41 - 1.12 - 9.90 - 2.78 - 168.1

Price is 23 years and 3 months old, he's 6'6" 215 and his most innings in one season is 133.1
Cecil is 22 years and 5 months old, he's 6'3" 220 and his most innings in one season is 118.2

And yet from Baseball America on down to you and me, it's a given Price is the Next Big Thing and Cecil is...while good, not really that close. I don't see it. Looks like Hype to me. YES Price has more major league ready above-average pitches. I'm all for giving him his due, but that doesn't mean that we're grading on a curve and Cecil can't be special too. Stuff matters but so does results.

Again, this is not directed at you specifically but the whole tone of the discussion all across the net.

And when I speak of the future, it's results I'm thinking of. Would I, if I could have only one) take Garza over Litsch? Heck yeah.

But when I look at past results and consider 2009, I don't have much basis to assume Garza will get better RESULTS in 2009 than Litsch. Heck, Litsch wasn't too far from Sheilds. Ditto Cecil and Price.

I keep seeing Bradley's name on this site as a reasonably attractive and affordable target for next year. Two points:

1. The Rangers offered him arbitration yesterday. There is significant speculation that he will accept -- he has until Sunday morning to decide -- because the U.S. economy is going to  hammer the free agent market price structure, and not in the players' favor. (I don't know that is true, of course, but it's a theme on talk radio down here.)

2. Unkle Miltie missed about 40 games last year, and while enormously productive when in the lineup, he missed a quarter of the season. That's something of a theme in his career, so you have to wonder -- will the $9M or so he will want per annum (and if he declines arbitration, you can bet that means he thinks he'll get it somewhere) really be worth it?

I think he ends up back in North Texas next year, but if not here, I'd be simply shocked if he ended up north of the border in TO.

I looked into my crystal ball and I saw the Jays off-season:

- Sign Milton Bradley to a 2 year deal
- Sign Brad Penny to a incentive laden one year deal
- Sign Eric Hinske to a one year deal
- Sign Josh Bard to a one year deal
- BJ Ryan to the Mets for Aaron Heilman
- Overbay to the Mariners for a C prospect

If there was ever a time for baseball teams to lowball free agents, this is the off-season to do it. While the economy is struggling, MLB is swimming in cash. Revenues in baseball and creeping up to the NFL. I wouldn't be surprised if some frugal clubs will try to paint players as greedy to the media and fans. While the upper tier free agents such as CC, AJ, Lowe, K-Rod, and Teixeira will get top dollars, I expect the B level guys to get squeezed. By the way, I'm surprised at the lack of interest surrounding Ben Sheets. I haven't seen one team connected to him. While he seems to go on the DL every season, he pitched almost 200 innings last season. Sheets is a much better pitcher than AJ Burnett, yet Burnett gets all the attention. Sheets will only be 30 years old next season and might end up being one of the best bargains of the 08 free agent class.

"Usually when comparisons are made Richmond isn't even brought up."

This is because he's 29. Usually this means a lower ceiling. Other things being equal, teams will take the 22-year-old.

"Purcey with a better K rate, Andy with a better walk rate"

Purcey may end up being as good as, or better than, Sonnanstine. But for now, Sonnanstine has established himself in the majors (no small feat). Purcey has yet to do this.

"I'd be just as comfortable betting against him now as I would have been betting against Buchholz, Bailey, or Hughes last year."

No disrespect, but continually citing Buchholz, Bailey and Hughes seems to me a kind of shorthand for paranoia about any impressive young pitching prospect. What about Lincecum, Danks, Shields, Guthrie, Santana? Sometimes it takes an extra year or two for a prospect to hit his stride. In any case, Bucholz and Hughes (who dominated in the AFL) still have a strong chance at succeeding in the majors.

"everything you said about Price's minor league career you can say about Cecil's"

Price's minor-league career has only spanned one season, which you can hold against him (small sample size) or as further evidence of his ability (from the Florida State League to the World Series in one season). He also has quite the college, high school, and US national team resume. Scouts absolutely love him for his stuff, co. Are they overrating Price and underrating Cecil? Possibly, but most scouts are reasonably high on Cecil too.

No disrespect, but continually citing Buchholz, Bailey and Hughes seems to me a kind of shorthand for paranoia about any impressive young pitching prospect.

Then you misunderstand the point - which is that in their first full season some young pitchers struggle, not that the will NEVER live up to their clippings. I cite those players in the context of 2009 comparisons, not the long range forcast.

 What about Lincecum, Danks, Shields, Guthrie, Santana? Sometimes it takes an extra year or two for a prospect to hit his stride.

Yes, exactly my point.

Price's minor-league career has only spanned one season, which you can hold against him (small sample size)

I don't hold it against him but neither would I call over 100 innings a small sample in the context of this comparison.

The political affairs of this week got me thinking of an All-Ontario team.  It turns out that it would be pretty good:

C-    Russ Martin
1B-  Joey Votto
2B-  Frank O'Rourke
SS-  Arthur Irwin
3B-  John Irwin
LF-  Tip O'Neill
CF-  Goody Rosen
RF-  George Selkirk
DH-  Jeff Heath

Bench- Nig Clarke or George Gibson (C), Jimmy Knowles (UI), Jack Graney (OF), Rob Ducey (OF), Pete Orr (UI)

SP-   Fergie Jenkins
SP-   Erik Bedard
SP-   Kirk McCaskill
SP-   Bob Emslie
SP-   Rube Vickers
RP-  John Hiller
RP-  Jesse Crain
RP-  Paul Quantrill
RP-  Dr. Ron Taylor
RP-  Shawn Hill

The lineup is solid- O'Neill, Martin, Votto, Heath, Selkirk, Rosen makes for an excellent top 6 and the bottom of the order is typical. The rotation is pretty good and the bullpen is fine.  The bench has some useful parts (George Gibson got MVP votes in 1911 posting an OPS+ of 49 and had a career OPS+ of 81, so one guesses that he was highly regarded defensively) So, where would they finish in the AL East of 2008?

Why do we dismiss Richmond when he had a TEN to ONE K:BB ratio in his time in Toronto?

Force of habit. I think a pretty good comp for Richmond is Boof Bonser.

Fabulous bullpen, Mike, for your All-Ontario team.

Not a lot of power in the lineup -- O'Neill and Heath are great hitters and Selkirk and Votto have/had some pop, but I don't think any of them get to 25 dingers in a full modern season.

In the '09 AL East? Jenkins wins 25, the rest of the rotation struggles with injury; Hiller saves 40, and the team slides in ahead of Baltimore but behind everyone else at 77-85.

Votto will probably crack the 25 HR mark at some point in his career. Selkirk (got it spelled right this time....) is an OBP machine.

How to search for BC? I wonder if an all Ontario team would beat an all BC team?

OF  Jason Bay
OF 
OF  Larry Walker
C
1B  Justin Morneau
2B   Dave McKay
SS
3B
DH

SP - Rich Harden, Jeff Francis, Ryan Dempster, Scott Richmond

There's a start... Walker/Bay/Morneau make a fine 3/4/5 but is there anybody to support them guys? The pitching staff isn't brutal. Not good, it appears, but not brutal...

In the '09 AL East? Jenkins wins 25, the rest of the rotation struggles with injury

I figured that with Dr. Taylor right there in the bullpen, the Ontario Grow-ops (isn't that what "a place to stand, a place to grow" means now?) might have a leg up on avoiding trips to Dr. Andrews.  Plus, mild analgesia should be no problem whatsoever.

This is too good... the BC team might take offence with Ontario trying to name itself the Grow-Op's.  Perhaps they could play for the name.

How to search for BC?

Go to this page on BBRef. The hometown/province is on the far right. I just skimmed, and you got all the big nams, with the two best you missed probably a couple of relievers in Paul Spoljaric and Jeff Zimmerman. You could probably fill out a roster if you tried!