Well, just an hour later and it looks like the Dye - Bailey trade wasn't even talked about.

http://hotstove.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/12/jocketty_denies_dyebailey_rumo.html

They have a great sense of humor over at Rotoworld.  I laughed out loud when I read this:

"A pair of game-worn spandex, allegedly worn by Alex Rodriguez, have shown up on Ebay.
Just what all you ladies were looking for this holiday season. "They are marked with Alex's uniform number and came directly from the Boston Red Sox visitors clubhouse," says the ebay listing. Not surprising, this is a a regular season pair. The postseason underwear may be too soiled for sale."

Milton Bradley declined arbitration and Rotoworld is again suggesting that he's the Jays' top priority.  Perhaps they're reporting on old news and didn't hear Ricciardi say that the Jays wouldn't go after Bradley or Giambi.  Or maybe we're being mislead by Ricciardi?  Either way, I don't see the Jays signing a DH unless they are able to deal Overbay and all or most of his salary.

Rumor has the Mets and Jays talking about B.J. Ryan.  With the Mets looking for a closer and set-up man, I wonder what kind of value Ryan packaged with someone like Accardo or Frasor could return.  I'm sure the Mets would still rather sign a free agent so they don't have to give up talent.

 http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2008/12/fear_and_loathing_at_the_baseb.html

Would BJ to the Mets for a nobody prospect really be that bad a deal for the Jays? Is BJ worth $10,000,000 to the Jays? Wouldn't Milton Bradley be significantly more valuable to the Jays?

My thoughts exactly, Zep. While I can recognize that Ryan at 2/20 has value to teams shopping for a closer and likely going to need to guarantee at least a 3rd year to someone else, I still think his value to the Jays on a sub-100m payroll is pretty small. Asking the Mets for their best prospect is completely absurd, and I too would take any decent prospect that allowed me to then go spend that same 10m on Bradley or another hitter of his ilk.

Carl Pavano?  Really?

http://hotstove.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/12/jays_to_meet_with_pavanos_agen.html

Fascinating. i have mixed feelings about Furcal but at this point I'd almost welcome such a signing just to put the lie to all the doom and gloom lately.

I also wondered if it might be another "creative contract" if we did so - for instance, a big signing bonus, and/or the 4th year being an option but one with a prohibitively high buyout so that Furcal feels he's protected either way.

But in considering that, it provoked in myself a question - for you economists and accountants - if the Jays sign a player with a big signing bonus on the front end, like they did with Thomas (or even one "paid" on the front but actually delivered in instalments like Ryan's)...would such a bonus be considered, under Canada tax law, as income recieved before being employed in Canada and thus not subject to Canadia tax? Could something like that have something to do with why we've seen more such deals lately?

In today's Star, Mr. Griffin is talking about the Jays having to clear payroll room to sign Carl Pavano.

It would be interesting to know what exactly would be going on right now if Frank Thomas had stayed with the team all year and had vested his option. I really hop we're not talking about subtracting 2 big contracts (and some small ones) and then having to clear room to pay Pavano a (presuambly small) amount.

While I take everything the man says with the pinch of salt it deserves, that really does sound serious, and could VW be 20m of a 90m payroll going forward?

over 20% of the salary going to VW is a terrible idea, and puts lie to Riccardi's arguments back in the day re: Delgado's contract ...

Could we possibly trade Vernon to the Yanks?  They need a centrefielder and can swallow some or all of the salary ... at this point, I'd take Melky back if they'd take on most of the salary.  Pipe dream? 

I have nothing concrete to go on but my gut says the 2009 payroll cut is a reactionary thing that is a result of the market and economy at the current time. I think they're just trying to tighten up the ship right now (in light of guys like Marcum being gone all year and McGowan missing time and Burnett leaving) and then will (I pray) get back to being more competitive next year.  Not that the 2009 team is a bunch of scrubs and pushovers, but I think we should analyze the 2009 budget in a vaccum, and then reevaluate next year. I think that's what the Jays are doing.

Paul Kinzer, the agent for Rafael Furcal, said four teams remain in the running for the free-agent shortstop — the Dodgers, Blue Jays, Royals and A's.

"Toronto and Kansas City told me the only guy they would go to ownership for is Furcal," Kinzer said. "They're serious."

If you want the Jays payroll to go up, better start hoping for a global economic recovery and a big move back up for the price of oil.  The crash of commodity prices has dropped the $Cdn from par (or better) to only about 78 cents U.S.   A $100 million U.S. payroll at 78 cents is the equivalent of $128.2 million $Cdn.   That's a huge increase, without adding anything in actual salaries.  Even if the payroll drops to about $90 million U.S., that will still be a lot more than last year when we were about par. 

Also, with the major debt loads the U.S. is building up, that could very well bring about a major slide in the U.S. dollar once some semblance of stability returns to world economies.  2009 may have to be a bit of a watch and wait year for the Jays, and hopefully the financial picture looks better in 2010. 

Furcal, quite possibly, is going to look bad in 2 years. But he is what we have needed for years...a SS/leadoff hitter. A lot of people on this site wanted to spend the Burnett money on Furcal this offseason like 9 months ago. Then a typically injury-prone Burnett stays healthy and a typically healthy Furcal gets hurt. I'm guessing 4/44 will get it done for Furcal, and that is better than 5/75 on Burnett, in my opinion.

VW could be traded next offseason if he has a strong year, depending on the economy of course. 5/107 for an allstar CF (which he is capable of being) wasn't completely insane a few months ago. And we all know that many GMs care more about past gold gloves over present defensive abilities...

The Dodgers wanted him badly 2 years ago and would have given up Kemp and either Penny or Billingsley at the least (sigh). How about Wells for Juan Pierre? Is that completely impossible? Obviously Wells has the bigger commitment, but he also has the (considerably) higher upside. If Wells were coming off an allstar year like in 2006, wouldn't he be tradable right now? Would a team rather give 10/200 to Teixiera or 6/117 to an allstar CF like Wells? And Wells would quite possibly become the Dodgers best hitter (in terms of how GMs seem to evaluate hitting). Wells is a bad contract simply because a $100 mill payroll would be far more efficient carrying two $10 mill contracts over one $20 mill contract (unless it's Halladay's contract of course).

I simply want JP to be active. If all he feels like doing is making under the radar moves like trading for Bailey, Andy Laroche or Brandon Wood then fine. I just hate him using the economy as an excuse to be inactive, though it is a reason to be more fiscally responsible...

Of those two, the Blue Jays have paid the most attention to Clement, who Ricciardi courted before the right-hander signed with Boston before the 2004 season.

"From what we understand, he's healthy," Ricciardi said of Clement. "We've talked to him, and we don't know where he stands on some things."

The myth that the contract is a bad one is largely a media and fan created illusion.

The Jays gave an above average player with an extremely inconsistent career one of the richest contracts in baseball history. The economy has hit the tank since then, to the point where players who are better than Wells will be getting far less than him (annual salary and in years). Yet stating it's a bad contract is based on media and fan illusion? Seriously? Where do you draw the line?

I hate the argument "that's what the market is". I mean, that's just a cope out. If the market is $20 million a year for ace starters, then give that to Halladay without blinking. He's a bonafide ace. If the market for elite position players is $20 million a season, then DO NOT give that to Wells. He's not an elite player. An above average or very good one? Absolutely. But that's it. Giving a player like Wells a huge contract after a big year because the market at the time dictates it, then watching him not live up to it years later doesn't justify the contract. Hunter's contract was bad. Vernon's was bad. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the team had a replacement for Wells already on the roster (Rios) makes it worse.

With that said, I think Vernon's contract has more of Godfrey/ownership's fingerprints on it than Ricciardi's.

The Yankees Just got CC, they are going hard after Lowe and Burnett and could get both but almost certainly will get one. The Rays are a good young team and the Red Sox are a 90 win team going after Mark T.

At some point dont we have to get a little more serious about looking to trade Roy and Building around Rios/Snider/Lind and McGowan/Cecil?

I dont konw what the level of intrest is in Roy but he is not a half year rental like CC, he is 2 years and he is as good as if not better. The Dodgers will lose Lowe and miss out on CC. Shopping Roy for Kershaw and Kemp seems like a good idea to me and getting Kuo and Choo in there would be great for us too. The dodgers seem to have given up on Choo and they wont start Kuo and he is a power lefty who has started in the past. Maybe we have to throw something back to get those 4.... like Overbay and then take Loney instead of Kemp but I think we have to be looking at something like this.

Every year I think 'this is the year the Yank's bad contracts burn them'.  And, so far, every year I'm disappointed. 

For those who do love them some statistical comparisons, note that even with the recent semi-slide, Wells' c "Most Similar" player (re: BBRef) has "fallen" from Andre Dawson at 26 to "just" Reggie Smith -- a hell of a player who, at Vernon's age, still had four All-Star appearances (one start) and two Top-5 NL MVP finishes ahead of him.

Nice comp to have! 

The Jays gave an above average player with an extremely inconsistent career...

You need to remember that Wells was signed after the end of the 2006 season. At that time he was not "extremely inconsistent." He'd had two outstanding years and two above average years in the previous four.

one of the richest contracts in baseball history. The economy has hit the tank since then, to the point where players who are better than Wells will be getting far less than him (annual salary and in years).

Such as? I see the free agents who are better than Wells, among position players this year, as Tex and Manny, for sure - and both will get plenty of money (only Manny's age might dictate he get's less). Who else is better than Wells? Dunn? Burrell? Better hitters but no one wants them in the field (And Dunn's still probably going to get 16 or so which isn't "far less" than Wells' $18 annual average) Bradley? Not if you are going to sue the word "consistancy" as a measure of quality.

Yet stating it's a bad contract is based on media and fan illusion? Seriously? Where do you draw the line?

I hate the argument "that's what the market is". I mean, that's just a cope out. If the market is $20 million a year for ace starters, then give that to Halladay without blinking. He's a bonafide ace.

It's probably more than that, and yes, when it comes time to extend him anything less than $20 is Doc giving up money he could get and is entitled to in order to stay. But not everyone is Doc. In fact, when it comes to contract time, 97% or more of players are not Doc.

If the market for elite position players is $20 million a season, then DO NOT give that to Wells.

Wells' contract averages $18 million a season.

He's not an elite player.

Again, you are not thinking about what appeared to be the case on the day he signed. He had just completed his age 27 season and posted a 129 OPS+ and had been as high as 134 at the age of 24. He was also playing, by reputation, impecable defense. Except for the stolen bases, that was much like what Beltran had done through that age. For any GM, or any fan base, you would assume that a guy who's that good at that age is a guy you want to lock up long term.

At THAT TIME he was regarded as easily one of the 4 or 5 best players in baseball at his position. That IS being an "elite" player. Of course, when you sing a long term deal you run the risk that circumstances will change - I covered that. but in December 2006, there was every reason to think Wells was and would contiue to be an elite CF.

An above average or very good one? Absolutely. But that's it. Giving a player like Wells a huge contract after a big year because the market at the time dictates it, then watching him not live up to it years later doesn't justify the contract. Hunter's contract was bad. Vernon's was bad. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the team had a replacement for Wells already on the roster (Rios) makes it worse.

Any contract ever given out in which the player's value declines (and make no mistake, it's only because he had a bad defensive year this year and some injury difficulty that it's even a question) after he signs can be called bad in hindsight. That's the risk of signing anyone long term. You either accept that risk or you let everyone walk before you take that chance. If we renegotiate doc this winter for a five year extension for $18 million per (way under his market) and in 2011 his abilities decline to the level of, for instance, Gil Meche, then he'd be over-paid. You either assume that risk or you don't keep the player.

Even in this season, when he was down some, but not a lot, from his peak, Wells was the 6th best CF in the majors in terms of OPS+

The player who was #2 - Beltran - had exactly the same OPS+ that Wells had in 2006 just before he signed that contract.

A top defensive CF with a 129 OPS+ IS an elite player.

Now - was the defensive decline a fluke, or a trend? if he's not a top defender any more he's lost value (although not as much as some might think - his OPS in 2008 would have ranked 11th among all left fielders with at least 450 PA - just above Raul Ibanez). In fact, given that Ibanez is  5.5 years older than Wells and has poorly regarded defense, what he gets this season as a FA would be a good rule of thumb - in the sense that Wells in the same market would get several million more than what Ibanez ends up signing for. Even as a left fielder. But I digress

The point is -  you can judge any deal in hindsight and it will look good or bad depending on how the player held his value. If Wells continues to be an average or better CF defensively, and a top 10 bat at the position, he'll be worth what he's getting paid. He might not be worth it TO US - just as Delgado wasn't worth it TO US to resign him when the time for choosing came. But he's not overpaid, or if he is it's by so small a precentage as to be irrelevant.

He's Gold Glover, although he hasn't won in the last couple of years(due to injury and lack of flashiness), he's just as good if not better than the guys who have won Gold Gloves in the outfield in either league. And please don't bring up defensive stats! Those stats are not very good owing to their primitiveness and the fact that defense is mostly subjective and can't ever be objectified!

So we're to accept your subjective evaluation over the objective, albeit flawed, evaluations of others?

Wells could repeat his 2006 season every year of his 7 year extension and it would still have been better to have traded him for Kemp and Billingsley. Or even to have traded him for nothing instead of paying him $126 million. Sure it was a "market" contract, but there is no point in having ANY market contracts if one can avoid them. And as for trying to determine whether or not Wells is "elite" it doesn't really matter. He was replacable (Rios). He has never been able to lead a quality offence and needs protection (i.e Delgado/Glaus). He has never been a top 10 player in all of baseball and has never shown he can be an MVP hitter by any stretch of the imagination.

Sure Wells was a GG defender, but if he can't lead an offence then he simply isn't good enough to make as much as the other 8 hitters in the lineup combined. Calling him "elite" because he is a top 50 player or whatever is like saying that there are 90 first-liners in the NHL. The word loses meaning if "elite" describes Halladay and Wells equally...

melondough,

Willrain wrote under the "Prospect Season Is Heating Up" thread that if the Yanks got Sabathia and Burnett, the Jays would get picks 20, 37, 67 and 72.  Let's hope they don't get Tex too!

Yuck......  37 and 72?  Not much of a deal for losing Burnett.  The Jays really need to get more competative by drafting out of slot, especially when the Yanks toss $161 million at Sabathia and offer Santana money to friggin Burnett.  Ridiculous.

Apparently, Vernon Wells' '08 season doesn't prove that he can lead an offense!?

 Congrats for showing that Wells was the best hitter on a poor offense. I already said that Wells is not good enough to lead a QUALITY offence. I didn’t think I needed to state quality offence every time I say that he is not good enough to lead an offence. Leading a poor offence should not be used as evidence that he is a good hitter.

 I have no doubt in my mind that if Wells is surrounded by quality hitters that he will be able to produce seasons like 2003 perennially.

 Well, duh. That is the point. He needs to be surrounded by better hitters because he is not good enough to lead a quality offence. Please explain (preferably with logic and not unsupported claims) how Wells can simultaneously be good enough to “lead an offense” and need to be “surrounded by quality hitters.”

 Congrats for showing that Wells was the best hitter on a poor offense. I already said that Wells is not good enough to lead a QUALITY offence. I didn’t think I needed to state quality offence every time I say that he is not good enough to lead an offence. Leading a poor offence should not be used as evidence that he is a good hitter.

 Well, duh. That is the point. He needs to be surrounded by better hitters because he is not good enough to lead a quality offence. Please explain (preferably with logic and not unsupported claims) how Wells can simultaneously be good enough to “lead an offense” and need to be “surrounded by quality hitters.”

You are twisting his argument. YOU said, as you state in this quote "Wells is not good enough to lead a quality offense"

HE said "If Wells was part of a quality offense he would have "seasons like 2003" (which he described as an MVP quality - and indeed Vernon got an MVP vote, a Silver Slugger,  and an All Star appearance that year), a year in which he had the 15th best OPS+ in the majors and the best among all Center Fielders -  which IS the type of year which can and most times would "lead a quality offense"

Then you reply that this somehow proves that Wells can't lead a quality offense? How can you call him wrong for saying Wells would be a leader if surrounded by quality hitters when you yourself set up the goal of leading a quality offense?

How, pray tell, does one "lead a quality offense" if one is not surrounded by quality hitters?

It certainly looks very much here like you have set up a slippery moving target that can't be falisfied, logic be damned.

Plus, you must take into account the fact that we hardcore baseball fans are an inter-subjective community and as such, we need to intersubjectively accept each of our subjective evaluations of Wells' talent. And quite, frankly, the overwhelming majority of these people believe Wells is one of the best centerfielders in the game.

Dismissing the likelihood that you've actually polled enough people in your inter-subjective community (???) and can thus draw conclusions about what the majority think, you're basically saying that Blue Jay fans think Wells is an excellent defender. And you see no bias at all in home town fans liking a home town player?

As for these seemingly objective defensive stats which you yourself agree are flawed, just think about it! Objectivity means perfect, pristine... so if something is flawed, guess what, it's not objective!
So your stats are subjective.

I'm not sure what dictionary you have been consulting, but objective means dispassionate and unbiased. It says nothing about the quality of interpretations made in that vain.

Defensive stats are junk!

Measuring defense is tricky business, to be sure. But when several different metrics align, even if they all don't, then perhaps meaningful conclusions can be drawn. A hand waving dismissal is not an especially sophisticated response when such findings contradict a seemingly intrasigent personal viewpoint.

Wells' 2008 UZR is consistent with the other ratings.

Yes, which isn't surprising really.  They're not all that dissimilar.  But how does a guy go from being one of the best CFs in Baseball in 2006 to one of the worst in 2008 - and this in his physical prime.  These defensive metrics don't tell us much about how the balls were hit into CF, just that they were hit into CF.  It's at least as likely that it was an anomalistic year for the difficulty of Balls in Play to CF.  Do we expect that there wouldn't be any variance in this from season to season.

Like Tango said, 160 games is not much of a sample on which to judge a defender.  Lets look at his career - poor numbers in his first two seasons (not unexpected for a young CFer), then four years of solid defensive metrics, and then a cliff at age 29.  I'd like to see a few more years of data before making any rash judgements on Vernon's defence based on UZR and similar metrics.

My eyes tell me that he's slowing down a bit - I'd like to know if that could cause such a drastic dropoff in UZR, and maybe the next couple of years will tell us.  I can't completely discount pro scouts who watch these guys everday and feel he has good reactions and takes good routes to balls because one year of UZR and other metrics tell me he's crap.

I should add that it's also possible that Vernon's 2007 was anomalistic and UZR inflated the quality of his defence.  If this were true, I'd have an easier time accepting his 2008 rating.

From what I've seen of these defensive metrics, they seem to have a fair amount of volatility from year to year.  Has this been confirmed or refuted anywhere?  Wildrose, where are you?