Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
It's safe to say that the Vernon Wells contract has turned into a millstone that will weigh the Jays down well into the next decade. However the situation would not be as dire if Vernon was still a solid, if unspectacular, major leaguer. However even that faint dream has become a nightmare, as Vernon has turned in an awful season so far. All of which begs the question - is Vernon Wells the least valuable regular in baseball?

Calling anyone the worst at anything can be pretty harsh, and such terms are bandied about too lightly. Being the worst is, at the very least, different than being the least valuable, or biggest negative if you will. For example, the worst player in baseball this year was probably the Royals' Tony Pena, who was both a poor shortstop and a poor hitter - he reached base in 7 of 53 plate appearances. However there is a limit to what even teams like the Royals can take, and even they, mercifully, got rid of him.

So Tony Pena may have been the worst player in the majors this year, but he did not hurt his team the most, simply because players that bad rarely stick around in the majors. No, to really be the worst overall, or the least valuable you have to be good enough or fortuitous enough to play pretty much the entire season, so your lousiness can have the most impact. Generally there are three types of players who fit this bill - young, theoretically promising players, great defenders or players at important positions (see MacDonald, John), or players whose terribleness is not widely known.  This year the worst hitters that qualify for the batting title mostly fit these bills. (Note: I used OPS as a cut and dry counting method, but stats like wOBA and GPA produce essentially the same lists of players and orders)

Worst Hitters in Baseball
Hitter                      OPS  Other
Willy Taveras         .555   (Fast, centre fielder)
Jason Kendall        .598  (Catcher)
Emilio Bonifacio     .611  (Young)
Edgar Renteria      .625  (Shortstop)
Kazuo Matsui        .645  
Chris Young          .655  (Young, centre fielder, demoted)
David Eckstein      .663
BJ Upton               .666 (Young, centre fielder)
JJ Hardy               .667 (Youngish, shortstop, demoted)
Randy Winn          .677
Jeff Francoeur       .682 (Youngish)
Daniel Murphy       .683 (Young)
Adrian Beltre         .686 (Good defender)
Russell Martin       .692 (Youngish, catcher)
Rafael Furcal        .692 (Shortstop)
Ryan Sweeney     .695 (Young, centre fielder)
Elvis Andrus          .698 (Young, Shortstop)
Orlando Cabrera   .702 (Shortstop)
David Ortiz            .704
Andy Laroche       .705 (Youngish)
Vernon Wells        .706 (Centre fielder)
Bengie Molina      .709 (Catcher)
Jimmy Rollins       .709 (Shortstop)

On the hitting side of the equation then, Vernon Wells is one of the least valuable players, although he isn't that close to being the worst hitter in the bigs. An interesting note is that pretty much all of these players play in the National League... Anyway, as you can see, with the exception of a few washed up veterans (David Eckstein, Kaz Matsui, Randy Winn), pretty much all the worst hitting players in baseball are young or play short, catcher or centre field - ie there is a reason why they are still in the majors despite their poor hitting: their defense or their potential. However not all of these players are good defenders, nor do all of them have potential. We'll take a look at the worst fielders in baseball this year. (We're using UZR here, prorated to 150 games, because it's one of the more available and reasonably reliable stats out there. Catchers are not included.)

Worst Fielders in Baseball (now including Adam Dunn!)
Fielder                       UZR 150
Adam Dunn  approx. -32.9 (1B, RF, LF combined)
Vernon Wells             -24.4
Chipper Jones           -20.7
Yuniesky Betancourt -18.8
Dexter Fowler            -18.3
Andre Ethier              -18.1
Brad Hawpe              -17.2
Jermaine Dye            -17.1
Mike Lowell               -16.1
Jason Bay                 -14.5
Carlos Lee                -14.5
Michael Young          -13.8
Jacoby Ellsbury        -13.2
Skip Schumaker       -12.8    
Johnny Damon         -12.2
Orlando Cabrera       -12.2
Alberto Callaspo       -11.3
Michael Cuddyer       -10.9
Shane Victorino        -10.1
David Wright             -9.8
Alex Rodriguez          -9.7

So if you were paying close attention, you'll notice that only two of these names overlap - Orlando Cabrera and Vernon Wells. Wells has been a spectacularly, historically bad fielder this year, easily the (second) worst in baseball. This isn't a fluke either, he was exactly as bad last year. Orlando Cabrera's in a similar boat, though he isn't as bad a fielder and he's also a shortstop. Does this make them the two worst players in baseball? Well, no. There are a lot of guys who are both bad hitters and bad fielders who maybe show up on one list but not the other - Emilio Bonifacio comes to mind, and David Ortiz doesn't really defend enough to qualify. Some of these defenders also don't qualify for the batting title, my fairly arbitrary cutoff for hitters, like Yuniesky Betancourt. If we take a look at a measure that combines both offense and defense though, we get a better picture of overall lack of value. (We're using runs above replacement here, which includes offense and defense, position and league adjusted, with no minimum at bat threshold.)

Least Valuable Players in Baseball
Player               Runs Above Replacement
Jose Guillen         -17.8
Brian Giles           -17.0
Yuni Betancourt   -15.8
Alexi Casilla         -13.8
Delmon Young     -13.8
Gary Matthews Jr.-12.5
Conor Jackson     -10.5
Eric Bruntlett        -10.4
Aaron Miles          -10.4
Mike Aviles           -9.8
Vernon Wells        -9.6
Matt Tolbert          -9.2
Emmanuel Burris  -8.6
Garret Atkins        -8.3
Chris Davis           -8.2
Reggie Willits       -8.0
Josh Fields           -8.0
David Ortiz           -7.8

As you can see, most of the names here don't appear on either of our lists above, because pretty much every player on the list has been demoted, injured or consigned to part time duty. In fact, the only regulars on that list are Yuniesky Betancourt, Vernon Wells and David Ortiz (well, and sort of Garrett Atkins.) In our quest to find the least valuable player in baseball then we have three finalists and one clear winner... Yuniesky Betancourt. (What, you thought I was going to say Vernon?) Betancourt really has been the best of the worst, at least amongst those currently employed. He's a terrible fielder and an even worse hitter. After that though it's a bit of a toss-up between Vernon and Papi, as they've both hit about the same, and deciding whether not fielding or being a terrible fielder is worse is mostly academic. Still, even if you quibble with particular stats, methodologies and data, its hard to argue with what is a pretty broadly painted picture of Vernon Wells' value

So there you have it folks: Vernon Wells, (second) least valuable every day player in the majors. And hey, he's only being paid a bajillion (or 85 or whatever) million dollars more.

All stats courteous the ever fantastic Fangraphs.

Is Vernon Wells the least Valuable Every Day Player in Baseball? | 145 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Bid - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 09:01 AM EDT (#204695) #
Vernon's got to get out of town. For the sake of his own career/peace of mind, and in order for the Blue Jays to move on without the concrete footwear of his contract.

Certainly it's too much money for any ownership to eat. How about a taster year in Texas or some other environment...an opportunity for V to display his true value? Jays prepay Vernon for the year...Rangers maybe learn to love him (Vernonlicious), and the Jays, Rangers and Wells find mutually satisfying numbers to restructure the balance of the contract.

Is this too reasonable and thus impossible for baseball as we know it?



jerjapan - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 09:15 AM EDT (#204696) #
Wow ... disturbing.

What I'm curious about is, how does a player's defense decline so quickly and precipitously?  Presumably, a lot of playing D is anticipation and a feel for the game, qualities which don't diminish much with age - Rolen and McDonald aren't young, spectacular athletes, but they are as smooth as it gets with the glove.  

Admittedly, I've watched a lot less of the Jays since the big losing streak killed our chances, but Wells doesn't look so terrible out there to me ... certainly not good, and I've seen lots of fly balls get past him when in years past he'd have flagged them down, but his steals would indicate his speed hasn't slipped too much, and he's been healthy all year.  What happened? 

RhyZa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 09:34 AM EDT (#204697) #
Restructure?  Has that ever taken place, or even allowed in baseball, I'm assuming no.

Anyway, I wonder where he would rank all time overpaid:performance at his contract / length. 

I have to say I was never a fan of his, even during his best seasons, but even I didn't think his guesswork approach at the plate would lead to a tank of this magnitude and this quickly.  The fielding stats, as questionable as they can be at times (I read somewhere Robbie wasn't that great a fielder, they lost me from then) is even more mind boggling.

RhyZa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 09:41 AM EDT (#204698) #
Also, Vernon is listed as the worst by Posnanski.   3 JP signings in the top 11, you can read it over at CNNSI :

1. Vernon Wells
2. Jose Guillen
3. Barry Zito
4. Carlos Silva
5. Alfonso Soriano
6. Gary Matthews
7. Alex Rios
8. Kerry Wood
9. Travis Hafner
10. Jeff Suppan
11. B.J. Ryan

AWeb - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 10:08 AM EDT (#204699) #
Actually, Adam Dunn has been the worst fielder in the majors this year - he's a stunning -42.5 at first, -24.4 in Left, and -34.5 in Right (UZR/150 numbers). This is how a player can be an elite bat (top 10-15 in MLB this year) and still only be an average player. People are willing to believe Dunn sucks in the field though, that's always been the knock on him, and he's been a DH-to-be for a long time.

Wells though...just two years ago he was fine, and it's hard to figure out what's gone wrong. He's just lacking the top speed he used to have I guess (top speed does not affect stolen bases, that's quick speed). Also, he's dropped/just missed several balls after long runs this year. That would possibly indicate that he's labouring while running more, which causes more "bouncing" when running, and makes catching the ball harder. Either way, Wells should be moved to a corner (or traded, but that's not happening) and someone else brought in for CF. Seems like this team had a solution to that problem ready to go...and has now added another thing to it's wish list (needs for 2010: SS, C, CF).

Thomas - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 10:26 AM EDT (#204700) #
Also, Vernon is listed as the worst by Posnanski.

Posnanski is one of the best baseball writers around, but that article was one of his worst in recent memory. I don't disagree with Wells' place on the list, but putting Rios on there makes little sense and the reasoning for excluding Eric Byrnes and Aaron Rowand, for example, was flimsy.

RhyZa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 10:45 AM EDT (#204701) #
Agreed, he should stay away from lists and focus on stories. 

Like his top 50 players list, any list is a recipe for disaster.
Mike Green - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 11:19 AM EDT (#204702) #
Synchronicity on Friday.  I click on this article while the Yeah Yeah Yeah's "Zero" plays. 

I am not sure that Wells' current defence in CF is as poor as UZR has it.  Last year, Total Zone had him at -5. I am guessing that TZ will have him at about -10 this year; if you interpolate the two ratings, you'll probably get a more accurate figure.  And if that is right, Wells is not one of the least valuable players in baseball.  He is simply a corner outfielder wrongly assigned to play centerfield.  Bernie Williams says hello.
jmoney - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#204703) #
On a baseball card forum I read there was a thread that linked a bunch of the names that were on the 2003 failed drug test report. (The one A-Rod was on)

Wells was on that list, but since nobody is really talking about it I have assumed it was just bs. (Although seeing almost the entire Red Sox team on the list was pretty funny)

Anyways, watching this man's game fall off a cliff. Maybe there is something to the performance enhancing rumours. Regardless, he's terrible and makes it very hard for me to get excited about the Jays chances in the next half decade.

Mike Green - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 11:22 AM EDT (#204704) #
Wells has been pushing for release of the 2003 list, FWIW.
Grimlock - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 11:48 AM EDT (#204705) #
Maybe Vernon should start roiding up. If he gets caught, the Jays save money during the suspension. If he doesn't, he at least plays better!
electric carrot - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 12:03 PM EDT (#204706) #
I won't defend the signing because I remembering thinking it was a panic move.  But isn't it possible that Wells still isn't fully recovered from his injury -- sort of like Overbay last year.  Myself, I expect to see Wells do a lot better offensively in '10 -- near career average.  Still a bad deal -- but not such a bad player.



Parker - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 12:38 PM EDT (#204707) #

But isn't it possible that Wells still isn't fully recovered from his injury -- sort of like Overbay last year.

I thought this had been debunked already.  Just to summarize what I've said in several posts:

-Wells' offence was fine last season after he came back from injury

-Wells' offence is fine THIS SEASON except at Rogers Centre

Jevant - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 12:49 PM EDT (#204708) #
That article, along with a bunch of ones at SI (specifically including Heyman) go out of their way to hate on the Jays.

I've said it before - at the time Wells signed the contract, few thought that it was THAT bad.  Bad, but not THAT bad.  And as seems clear now, it wasn't JP's call. 

Blame him for the Ryan deal, the Thomas deal, whatever.  But I don't feel that Wells deal was totally his control.  Furthermore, although perhaps one should have predicted the economic downturn, I don't think anyone could have anticipated it being this awful this quickly.

Mike Green - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 12:52 PM EDT (#204709) #
The difference between Wells home and road splits in 2009 is likely due mostly to a small sample size fluke.  His W/K/IsoP rates are as good or better at home, but his BABIP at home is 150 points lower.  Over his career, his BABIP at home is 4 points lower. 

I'd make him mediocre both home and road in 2009. What is notable is his below average HR/fly rates in both 2007 and 2009, and above average figure in 2008 and every year prior to 2007.  Is this due to the fluctuations from his injury, as it was for Rolen over the last few years?  Conceivably.  Is an adjustment necessary?  Quite possibly.  Can Wells make it?  Time will tell.

John Northey - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#204710) #
Just for fun I checked the archive.
http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20061213081217900&query=wells%2B126 appears to be the earliest story where the $126 7 year figures were known. 
http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20061216091026152&query=wells%2B126 was the thread with final figures.

Comments they might regret today...
  • Jordan: If he accepts, the Jays have locked up a very good player and "face of the team" for a lot of years, and since there's absolutely no reason to think that salaries will go down anytime soon, it will not be a bad deal, even though wells will probably be playing right field no later than 2009.
  • Jim: I know some people already have a problem with the offer.  I am not one of them, this is what players like Vernon wells get paid in 2006 and beyond, so count me in support of this deal if signed.
  • ChinaFan: I don't see how this "handcuffs" the team in any way, unless you have a crystal ball and can predict the team's budget in 2010 or 2011.  Rogers has shown that he's willing to spend money, and obviously he must have approved any offer to wells, so why should we assume that he can't afford the offer that he's willing to make?
  • Dave Till: if the guy is among the best in the league, spend what it takes to get him (within reason). Otherwise, don't bother. wells is among the best in the league. What's more, he has a broad range of skills. He's worth the money. It's better to spend $20 million on Vernon wells than $11 million on Gil Meche. (Gil Meche?!)
  •  
Good calls on the future...
  • Rickster: I love Vernon, but this has Todd Helton, Bobby Abreu, and Mike Hampton written all over it. Good players signed to massive contracts that they are simply not worth, rendering them untradeable unless a large part of their contract is picked up.
  • CaramonLS: Heck, at least Todd Helton and Abreu for the most part had the offensive numbers to support such an extension.  wells on the other hand simply does not have the track record for a deal.
  • RhyZa: I think the danger in the current climate is that it is natural to compare some of the other ridiculous contracts this off season and figure we would much rather give Vernon that kind of contract over any of those players, but I don't think this should necessarily be confused as being the prudent move either, simply because of this fact
  • jjdynomite: if V-Dub does sign the mega deal I have a feeling Rios is going to be the one on the block (a few years early, but it did work out that way)
  • Achtungbaby: My biggest worry is that Jays gravy train might go off the rails at some point and we suddenly find ourselves with a lot of high priced talent to move.  At 18 million per season, would anyone give us fair value for wells if we ever decided to trade him.  Not mention if his performance level goes down or (shudder) he is injured.
  • Malcolm Little: All we need is a market shift, a payroll change from ownership, or a change in ownership for this to become far worse than Delgado's big deal
Interesting mix of good and bad or just plain interesting...
  • timpinder: I'd rather have wells than Lilly and Meche.  I'm just worried about the length of this contract.
  • MyLegacy: My wife, aka She Who Must Be Obeyed (see I'm trainable), has a different take on the wells deal. She thinks this is all about the NFL. She thinks Godfrey and Teddy Boy are doing this to show the NFL that they are serious players.
  • MatO: On the FAN590 a number of times with McCown, Blair said that he believed there were two budgets.  One with VW and one without.
And in the interest of being honest, what I said...
  • Not a bad bunch (guys he was comparable to), all above 100 OPS+, but clearly two levels.  Thompson/Mondesi or Dawson/Beltran/Green.  If he produces at the first level he will be at his 04/05 level and the Jays will be overpaying by about $8 million a year based on what we've seen this winter, the second level would make him worth his contract.
  • If I had to pick a guy who wells is most like I'd go for Dawson who played in a lower offensive era but hit at a similar level, was a center fielder who had to move to RF as his legs weakened (thanks in large part to the horrid turf in Montreal).
  • In the end I feel 100 times better about the odds of wells producing at the level hoped for over his contract than I do about Zaun (for example) but of course the financial risk the Jays took is many times as high too.  Still, I now feel this contract is much like Delgado's, it could make it hard on the Jays should salaries drop (which I doubt will happen this time) but odds are wells will produce regardless and keep CF from being a hole.
Chuck added: John, while I don't dispute your argument, I'd just like to add one more piece to the puzzle that I don't think is in wells' favour: his body type.

This all happened while Dice-K was being signed for over $100 million (including transfer fee), Soriano getting $136/8 years, losing out on Meche and Lilly, and rumours of a budget of $100-$120 million for the Jays going forward.
Mike Green - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#204711) #
I said back then:

"The size of any offer to wells is a function of the projected long-term payroll of the club.  Assuming that a choice must be made about whether wells or Rios or Hill can be afforded in 2012, I would personally rather have Rios or Hill.  Whether the assumption is true is of course entirely unclear."

I am comfortable with that still.  Wells' contract was back-end loaded and he has not performed up to reasonable expectations due in part at least to injury, but even if he had, it looks like the Wells' contract effectively forced the Jays to jettison Rios due to payroll concerns and this trade-off is not one that I would have made.

AWeb - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 01:14 PM EDT (#204712) #
One thing with Wells this year is that his level of hitting has been so consistent. It's stunk, but since starting June with an OPS of .716, it's gone as low as .665, and as high as .731. No hot streaks, and since bottoming out in June, no particularly cold ones. Wells has had 7 "streaks" this year where he had consecutive games with an extra-base hit. Only once did a streak reach 3 (late June, 5 games with 4 doubles and 2HR). Only 3 times this year did he have more than one XBH in a game. He hasn't merely been bad, but has only shown a rare glipse of the player he used to be, all of two-three years ago. Strangely, he still hits long homers when he hits them, averaging over 404 ft, which is pretty much what he's always done, at least since 2006. Even a blind squirrel...
China fan - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 01:24 PM EDT (#204714) #

Okay, fair enough, my original comments on the Wells contract were wrong, but who could have predicted that Wells would become one of the weakest-hitting outfielders in the majors by 2009?  Hands up, anyone who predicted THAT.   As for the size of the contract, it wouldn't have handcuffed the team if Rogers had continued to spend money as they did at the time of the contract.  Instead they've done a bizarre 180-degree turn:  open up the vaults, spend generously for a couple years, then slam shut the vaults and start dumping salaries at a panicky rate in 2009.   Again, few of us could have predicted such dysfunctional schizophrenic ownership.  As I've said before, I would have thought that the Rogers corporation -- whose profits are entirely due to oligopolistic privileges in cellphones, Internet and television -- would have wanted to invest enough of these windfall profits on the Jays to make them a contender.

But, yeah, the Wells contract is a huge problem today.  If Rios and Wells had played as well in 2009 as they did in their best seasons, the Jays would be contending for a playoff spot today.    I still think that Cito and JP made a reasonable assumption when they put Wells and Rios high up in the lineup and sent them out there every day for the first half of the season.  As Cito always told everyone in the early months of the season:  for the Jays to succeed this year, Wells and Rios have to do well.  That's what 2009 boiled down to.  The Jays gambled on Rios and Wells this season, and -- based on the history of those two players -- it was a pretty justifiable gamble.  They lost the gamble, but I don't believe anyone who says they fully expected those two players to be so terrible this season.

snider - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 01:54 PM EDT (#204716) #

So given that Wells is one of the least valuable players in baseball, when do the Jays start reducing his playing time?  If the Jays somehow get into contention next year and Wells still stinks is it possible that he becomes less than an everyday player?  Maybe if he's benched for a year, he'll consider ripping up his contract so he can be traded?

Wishful thinking I guess...

Anders - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#204718) #
Actually, Adam Dunn has been the worst fielder in the majors this year - he's a stunning -42.5 at first, -24.4 in Left, and -34.5 in Right (UZR/150 numbers). This is how a player can be an elite bat (top 10-15 in MLB this year) and still only be an average player. People are willing to believe Dunn sucks in the field though, that's always been the knock on him, and he's been a DH-to-be for a long time.

Whoops! Dunn shows up weird in the Fangraphs list because of his multiple positions, but yes it is fair to say that he would be a worse fielder than Vernon. I can't believe he isn't a DH...

Also with regards to Vernon's fielding, John Dewan's +/- has him at a ridiculous -29 this year (per the Posnanski article), and subjectively I can't say that I disagree. I've only been to a couple of games this year but have seen most of them on tv, and I think Vernon might have made 5 plays going back to the wall all year. Alex Obal and I have a running joke, "Rios would have gotten it" on balls to Wells... guess that one doesn't work as well anymore.

TamRa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 02:11 PM EDT (#204720) #
1. Vernon Wells
2. Jose Guillen
3. Barry Zito
4. Carlos Silva
5. Alfonso Soriano
6. Gary Matthews
7. Alex Rios
8. Kerry Wood
9. Travis Hafner
10. Jeff Suppan
11. B.J. Ryan


That list is automatically fail because neither Mike Hampton, or Todd Helton is listed (particularly Hampton)

To say nothing of the fact that anyone who seriously thinks Rios' deal is worse than Ryan's or Hafner's or Hampton's is clearly out to lunch.

And there are other examples - Juan Perrie, Darren Driefort comes to mind, as does Carl Pavano, JD Drew (in LA), various Japanese pitchers, Jaret Wright, Kevin Brown,  Magglio Ordonez (36 mil this year and next when the option vests), Dontrell Willis (22 million this year and next), Jason Schmidt.....JP has hardly cornered the market and a lot of these deals were made by GM's who are well regarded in the press.

Color me unimpressed with Joe Po.
 
AWeb - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 02:27 PM EDT (#204723) #
Never sure why Helton's contract get's lumped in there. It's not a bad contract, it's just a team not willing to spend anymore. The Rockies got more than fair return since the contract kicked in in 2003, he had some huge years. There are a few years left, and Helton isn't likely returning to superstar hitter status, but at least the Rockies got the upfront production they were looking for. And Helton remains productive, if not worth 17 million/year anymore.

Long term big money contracts often overpay at the end, while underpaying at the beginning - teams know this going in, or at least they should. Why would a team ever pay more for 37 Years old Todd Helton that 29 year old Todd Helton? Because that's how they structured it - their choice, eyes open. I think the thought process is "sign superstar, win games, bring in money, then have more money to spend later when syuperstar declines". It doesn't often work, but that is the idea.  The problem with Vernon's contract is that he's under-performing already. The Jays are not getting the good production on the (relative) cheap the last two years like they were supposed to, to justify overpaying Wells later.
TamRa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#204724) #
A couple of things:

1. It is not a given that Wells will continue to hit at this level going forward. As much as one could overstate "he's worth it" when he was signed, one can overstate how bad he can be expected to hit going forward - he might be done and he might not.

2. Defense, on the other hand, is almost certain NOT to recover. If the Jays open 2010 with Wells in CF it's a good sign that they are either (a) not really trying; or (b) too incompetent to confront Wells with reality. It's not like they can salvage any value out of him by preserving some illusion that he's a good CF. If he's immovable it's because of his hitting. So go out this winter and get a good CF and let Wells DH, or at least play LF (if he's even better than Lind for that job which he might not be)

This team can't handle a bad defender in CF with Lind and Snider on the corners (I don't think Snider is bad in RF if he gets to play there all the time but he's not good enough to cover for Wells as Rios was) to say nothing of the questions surrounding 3B.


Thomas - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#204725) #
And there are other examples - Juan Perrie, Darren Driefort comes to mind, as does Carl Pavano, JD Drew (in LA), various Japanese pitchers, Jaret Wright, Kevin Brown, Magglio Ordonez (36 mil this year and next when the option vests), Dontrell Willis (22 million this year and next), Jason Schmidt

About half of those contracts have expired, so I'm not sure why you raised them.

Jim - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 02:39 PM EDT (#204726) #
Joe is the best sportswriter working currently.  You may want to read the rules though before you wonder why some contracts aren't on there. 
TamRa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#204727) #
Never sure why Helton's contract get's lumped in there.

Same as Wells, mostly - it's immoveable.

They DID get good value the first three years where the Jays haven't, but begining in 2006, the combination of the obligation and the impression that they were Coors-enhanced stats made him untradeable and not hitting enough to justify the pay. The question is - is three years of great value enough to justify seven years of overpaying? Maybe if you are the Yankees but most teams would say no I think.

Helton's annual pay went to $16.6 in 2006 and continues at that level through 2010. So far, his OPS+ over that span is 122. not a BAD player like Wells, but not really at that pay level.

Mind you, I'm not saying Helton's deal is in the same neighborhood as Wells at all - but if you don't like the Rios deal, you shouldn't like the Helton deal either.

On the other hand, there are enough bad ones that i wouldn't put Helton in the top 10.

TamRa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#204728) #
About half of those contracts have expired, so I'm not sure why you raised them.

There wasn't anything in the post about the list being restricted to current deals, and no link to the article.

Obviously that makes a difference.

Joe is the best sportswriter working currently.  You may want to read the rules though before you wonder why some contracts aren't on there. 


I just took the post here at face value - it doesn't say "current deals" nor does it list any "rules" at all.

Still, I should have said "unimpressed by Joe Po's opinion here" rather than imply I wasn't impressed with him at all.

I'm skeptical that he's "the best" though.

Thomas - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 02:51 PM EDT (#204729) #
I'm skeptical that he's "the best" though.

Then which mainstream media sportswriter is, in your opinion?

TamRa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 03:00 PM EDT (#204730) #
Ok, so I googled it up and took a look at the rules. He allows for injuries...yet Wells lost one whole year of effectivness to injury (probably doesn't save him from making the list but could be noted)...more to the point though, when he limits himself to on-going contracts he creates a false premise.

His whole thesis is - "Ricciardi is the master of bad contracts" - based on...

Based on the fact that he has three CURRENT deals on the list. What? You are absolved of making a dumb deal after it expires? If so, why does he make referance to Frank Thomas?

In the article he waxs eloquent about how BAD the Rios deal is, yet throws no stones at Kenny Williams for claiming it.

Anyway, that's a digression - the point is that if you want to say "these are the ten worst current deals" fine - If you want to say "Poor JP managed to make that list three times" fine (even if I disagree Rios belongs there) BUT

To say JP is the master of the bad contract because he HAPPENS to have three guys on the CURRENT list and conveniontly ignore all the other bad deals made by currently employed and well regarded GM's is seriously flawed logic.

I remain unimpressed.


TamRa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 03:03 PM EDT (#204731) #
Then which mainstream media sportswriter is, in your opinion?

There are a lot of guys I like but I'm terrible at remembering the names of who wrote something I like.

I just don't make a point of cataloging that kind of thing and I can't name names.

I don't say that meaning any disrespect for the guy - but "the best" is highly subjective in any case.

Say "among the best" and I won't quibble.

Jim - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 03:12 PM EDT (#204732) #
Sorry didn't realize there was no link.  By best, I meant my favorite, obviously with writers it's just an opinion.

If you haven't been reading his blog it's tremendous and there is a ton of content.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/08/11/ricciardis/

Lots of great posts on the Royals and TV Infomericals if you find those two things funny.



Parker - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 03:14 PM EDT (#204733) #

In the article he waxs eloquent about how BAD the Rios deal is, yet throws no stones at Kenny Williams for claiming it.

I wouldn't think that one would have to look any further than the fact that the Jays gave Rios away for nothing to realize it was a horrendous contract, especially given that Rios would otherwise still be playing for the Jays for significantly less money.  I think what makes a lot of people think the Rios and the Wells contracts are so terrible is not only the monetary commitment offered to non-superstar players but also that it was offered in non-walk years.  It's not just that the Jays overpaid, it's that they overpaid when they didn't even have to.

It's not neccesarily a bad contract for the team who essentially gets him as a free agent without giving up any compensation whatsoever... other than the obligation to pay his contract, obviously.

Jim - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#204734) #

It's also different when you are 2 games out of the division lead and you lack a centerfielder.  It's still a bad contract, but when you are chasing a flawed team like the Tigers and you have terrible centerfielders (notwithstanding the good streak from Podsednik), the decision is a bit more defendable. 

I do think the Rios contract talk has gotten overblown, this contract is not great, but it is just a blip for a high payroll team.

Gerry - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 03:39 PM EDT (#204735) #
Per Bastian, Casey Janssen up to replace Accardo.
Denoit - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 04:09 PM EDT (#204736) #

Kevin Millar has taken #15....bad move Kevin... you must really want to be next?

John Northey - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 04:20 PM EDT (#204737) #
Given EVERYONE loved the Rios contract at the time (can anyone find a negative comment about it for the first month after it was signed) it is very, very hard to claim it was a bad move by JP today.  That would be like saying the Hill deal was terrible last year after his freak injury (today I suspect everyone loves that deal again, but watch out for Eck). 

All deals have the potential of becoming bad in retrospect.  If Evan Longoria is hit by a truck tomorrow and never plays again does that mean that Tampa was dumb to sign him to that amazing deal they have him on or that some bad luck occurred?

There are two ways to look at deals.  First, how it was at the time it was signed to judge how good the GM was at judging market conditions.  Second, at the end of the contract to see if things changed and to try to understand why a deal that looked good to all at the time fell apart.

Rios cost the Jays a total of $14.215 million (via Cot's) from the day he was drafted until they let the Sox take him away (counting his full 2009 salary rather than trying to pro-rate it).  Not bad for 2 all-star seasons and a few very frustrating ones.  The White Sox will now pay Rios $59.7 million for 5+ years (plus their part of this years salary) or $72.2 million for 6+ years.  If Rios plays great defense with a 100 OPS+ in CF he is worth it.  If he plays half asleep in RF with a 93 OPS+ (like this year) then he will not be.  For the Jays he was a cheap solid RF'er for a good stretch and they got rid of him right as he became expensive ala Beane except they failed to get anything for him (ah, if only that Rios/ Tim Lincecum (or Matt Cain) deal had happened).  If MLB salaries had kept growing last winter/this year (via no recession) then the Jays would've been fine.  And if I had the winning lottery ticket I'd be a lot more relaxed right now.

As to Wells... sigh.  A deal that was a high risk one due to number of years from the start.  Lets just hope the Jays survive it and learn to NEVER give out 7 year deals as too much can/does change over that length of time unless you have a crazy cheap deal.

Paul D - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 04:20 PM EDT (#204738) #

Keith Law' just finished a chat at ESPN where he's made  a few comments on the Jays.  He says Rios was a clear win for Chicago, that Toronto will sign 4 of its5 unsigned draft picks, and that Dopirak is a non-prospect. 
Chuck - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#204739) #

He says Rios was a clear win for Chicago

Rios has more value to Chicago than he did to Toronto because the White Sox will play him in centerfield whereas the Blue Jays wouldn't. Given the lower offensive bar for center field, Rios doesn't have to hit nearly as much at that position to be useful than he would have to hit to be useful as a right fielder.

And given his build, especially compared to Wells', one would imagine that he could play a reasonable centerfield into his 30's.

Given the bizarro love affair Chitown has with Podsednik, and his link to their World Series win, Rios may not get to become the center fielder until 2010.

TamRa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 05:19 PM EDT (#204743) #
I wouldn't think that one would have to look any further than the fact that the Jays gave Rios away for nothing to realize it was a horrendous contract, especially given that Rios would otherwise still be playing for the Jays for significantly less money.

A. Being a "bad deal" now in light of an unpredictable market reversal is not the same thing as a "bad move" when it was signed.

B. and more importantly, Rios wasn't moved because he had a bad deal, he was moved because Wells has a bad deal.

It's not neccesarily a bad contract for the team who essentially gets him as a free agent without giving up any compensation whatsoever... other than the obligation to pay his contract, obviously.

No, if it's a bad deal, it's a bad deal for Chicago just as if they had simply signed a Free Agent to a 5/60 deal...every bit as much as it would be for the Jays to owe him the same amount over the same time.

It's not a bad deal for one unless it's a bad deal for either.

It only becomes a bad deal for the Jays in the context of things that have nothing to do with his deal - (1) Wells contract dominating the payroll; (2) the mystifying reluctance to move Wells out of CF

Which is to say - it's not a bad deal in the abstract, it's just not one we could handle. Those are not the same things.
ramone - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 05:36 PM EDT (#204744) #

"Keith Law' just finished a chat at ESPN where he's made  a few comments on the Jays.  He says Rios was a clear win for Chicago, that Toronto will sign 4 of its5 unsigned draft picks, and that Dopirak is a non-prospect. 

Too bad, I was really hoping the Jays signed all 5, hope it's not Paxton who's the odd man out. 

jerjapan - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 07:06 PM EDT (#204745) #
That article, along with a bunch of ones at SI (specifically including Heyman) go out of their way to hate on the Jays.

Do people still think there's an anti-Jay bias?  This kind of comment was popular when the Jays were hot to start the season and the BP types were calling for them to cool off once the competition increased.  I think it's clear that the 'haters' were correct in that case.  I do most of my baseball reading here and at BP so I could be wrong - but I don't see any bias.

The 'Riccardi has the worst contracts' meme is very popular these days - but sportswriters need to have something to write about everyday, so who can blame them for looking at this topic, especially in economic hard times?  Quibble all you want with the list and the rankings, but JP has released one bad contact and waived another in the last few weeks because the third bad contract, one that seems to be acknowledged as at least a top candidate for the worst in the game, is unmovable.  That is a spectacularly bad run for any GM in an optical sense - even if cutting Ryan and waiving Rios were good moves at the time (which I think they were).  The average ball fan doesn't spend as much time analysing JP as we do - I'm sure his reputation is pretty low right now.
binnister - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 07:13 PM EDT (#204746) #

I've been following the Draft Signing reports on MLBTR and I've been stunned and amused by the way the majority of the clubs are ignoring the 'slot' rules and are signing picks to historically high bonuses.

This practically screams out to me that we are likely to see another depressed market for Free Agents next off season, as many clubs are making sure that they get their draft picks signed...almost at any cost.

This also makes it pretty clear that Veron Wells will be a Blue Jay for the full duration of his contract (baring injury, retirement, etc).

TamRa - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 07:13 PM EDT (#204747) #
Check out the latest entry on Sports and the City

http://www.sportsandthecity.com/2009/08/man-of-hour.html

wherein he links an article from Uncle Dick about Wells' new deal written in December 2006

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/149052

Most fun - The Hyper-critical Griffin LIKED the move to sign Wells, and at that price...even as he's unhappy constantly with JP, he's basically saying "I know this will happen in spite of what JP wants to do but i like it" (and that after listing off the three previous occasions when Godfrey's meddling produced a bad deal)

eyebleaf notes that Joe Po acknowledged his post and rebutted too.


I think a lot of Joe's reasoning there is strained (like citing the fact that AJ opted out being a sign of a bad move while in the midst of criticizing too-long deals, or judging Rios as in decline based largely on one season as if other good players - Bay, Cano, among others - haven't had one crazy-bad year without being done) but the main thing I tak exception to is the notion that if a GM can't controll the bad impulses of his GM he's a failure as a GM.

I disagree pretty much 100% with that. if the GM doesn't TRY he's failed, but ultimately, it's a chain of command issue - if the big man wants it, the big man is entitled to get it. Once the GM explains the baseball realities and the alternatives, if the President wants to do it you do it.

Making a convincing case is only applicable if the person you are talking to WANTS to be convinced. A person who makes emotional decesions makes a bad leader (or voter) a is often unresponsive to sound argument.

Jays2010 - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 08:54 PM EDT (#204748) #

Isn't the belief that a VW in RF (for example) would be, at worst, an adequate defender? Watching him the last couple of years, he just looks like his body will not allow him to get to balls the way that it used to...but if you stick him in a corner OF spot and he has an .840 OPS like he did last year, can't he earn half the value of his contract? I just don't buy the notion that this team can't win because of VW's contract...it can, if he moves to a corner and Rogers concedes the fact that he is making twice as much as he should (if his hitting does, in fact, improve).

And the notion that the Jays would contend with Rios/Wells playing up to expectation...it's only true if you blame Rios/Wells for the fact that the Jays have not performed as well as their run differential would indicate, along with their respective stats. And that simply isn't fair...

I'd like to see the Jays acquire a young CF...possibly one who isn't being fully utilized by his current team. Carlos Gonzalez (blocked by Fowler) or Jordan Schaefer (injured, former HGH user, blocked by McLouth) are possibilities. I mean, if all of JP's pitching breaks down, might as well trade the #4-type starters before it happens (I'm looking at you Scott Richmond)...

lexomatic - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 09:03 PM EDT (#204749) #
i was looking at the stats earlier today and it occurred to me.. if vw and aaron hill's stats were switched.. would anyone really be upset or would it change anything (other than vw being more moveable)
i wouldn't have been surprised if hill was hitting 250 ish with pace for high teens in hr. it would be understandable with a year of rust.
if vernon was on pace for 280 with 30+ hr.. even with his defence... no issues. other than the team needed everybody to perform at or over established levels to contend.
Mylegacy - Friday, August 14 2009 @ 10:32 PM EDT (#204750) #
An open letter to Vernon Wells the Third from Mylegacy the One And Only.

Dear Vernon 3

I'm a fan. Have been for years - hopefully, will be for years to come.

Last off-season you hired a personal trainer to help you get through the season without injuries. Congrats - it mostly worked. May I suggest this off-season you move in with Scott Rolen or your friend Michael Young or your teammate Arron Hill and re-learn how to hit. Your swing is DIFFERENT than any other players' swing I've seen. The way you finish up your swing is unique. Unique is not bad - however in your case it is pretty much a disaster. You have to do something. I KNOW you know it.

In the mean time - in what is left of this, your personal year from hell - may I respectfully suggest you try to 1) hit the other way and 2) try as manfully as you can to pop up no more than 3 times a games. As to you being worth 23 million a year - don't sweat it - no one is - not even my precious wife (she who must be obeyed) - however next year come to camp READY with a NEW swing and determination to show the world - even Keith Law - that you are a man among boys. If you don't - it's gonna be a looooong five years.

All the best to you, the wife and Vernons 4 & 5. Make us proud!

Your last true fan, Mylegacy

China fan - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 06:27 AM EDT (#204754) #

Casey Janssen says his latest injury was caused when he had a nap.  Is this anything like Ricky Romero's injury from sneezing?  What is it with pitchers?  They nap, they sneeze, and they get injured.    I'm not blaming Brad Arnsberg for this.  I think it just says something about the fragility and unpredictability of pitchers.  You can coddle them, you can limit their pitch counts, but something will happen, whether it's a sneeze or a nap.

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090814&content_id=6424028&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

Dave Till - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 08:25 AM EDT (#204755) #
I'm going to ask a dumb question here: if you have one guy who is playing CF and another who is playing RF, and the RF has more range, does it really matter where they play? Why can't you just ask both of them to play one or two steps over in left? They'll wind up covering the same ground, won't they? I don't think there are more balls hit over the centre fielder's head than over the right fielder's head, if going back on the ball is a problem - it's farther to deep CF, after all.

My $.02 on the Wells contract is that it is fallout from the steroid era. One of the benefits of steroids, for those that used them, was that they could play effectively well into their 30s. In the pre-steroid era, players peaked at 27 and started to go downhill from there, sometimes rapidly.

With so many players on steroids a few years ago, the unspoken assumption might have been that teams could afford to sign a 30-year-old hitter to a 5-year or even a 7-year deal - the player, if juiced up, would likely retain his effectiveness for that long. Now that steroid use appears to be decreasing, hitters are returning to their normal aging patterns: Wells is aging at the rate that normal non-steroid users age, and this rate of aging is greater than what the Jays expected when they signed him. (I'm not saying that Wells was using steroids - I'm saying that the norm was that most hitters in their 30s were using steroids, which influenced expectations.)

I don't blame Vernon Wells for Rios's departure: I blame Ted Rogers, for being mortal. When Ted was alive, he was keen on putting more money in the team; presumably, he signed off on acquiring Thomas, Ryan and Rolen, and on signing Wells and Rios to their deals. Now that he is gone, the company is pulling back on spending on ballplayers, and is concentrating on spending their money on mass mailouts to try to get everybody in Toronto to switch to Rogers Home Phone. They've looked at the payrolls of the Yankees and the Red Sox, and the Jays' position in the standings, and they've decided that investing in an AL East team is a waste of money. So it goes.

As for Wells himself: I haven't been watching games closely enough to really notice the decline in his fielding. I'm assuming that it is there. He has, more or less, Joe Carter's skill set and general body type; Carter started his career in CF and eventually had to move, and I guess Vernon will have to move as well. Like Carter (and like Jesse Barfield), Wells has trouble covering all of the plate, and is vulnerable to breaking pitches low and away; this is what drove Barfield out of the big leagues. Wells will have to continue to adjust to try to cover this weakness.

But, as I said in another thread, I think we should cut Vernon some slack. It's not his fault that he's being paid so much: do you expect him to give back millions of dollars? I don't think I would; would you? As long as he is working hard - and I believe that he is - you can't ask for anything more. Take the weight off his shoulders, and he might actually do a bit better out there.


Jim - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 09:16 AM EDT (#204756) #
Imagine how bad things would be if Burnett didn't opt-out?  Say he gets hurt last August and needed surgery.  Can you even imagine how bleak things would look? 

I think it's pretty clear that management knew the payroll was going to be an issue.  Stopping the free tickets allows them to show an attendance drop which in turn gives them an argument as to why they can't add salary going forward.   I can't see how Riccardi is going anywhere, he's been made their patsy and you are going to have a hard time attracting anyone better. 

Halladay is just a man amongst boys.  I'm not really into the Hall of Fame and don't pay much attention to the constant arguments, but if there isn't a place for Halladay in Cooperstown there is really no point in having a Hall of Fame. 

If Anaheim really wouldn't trade Aybar, Wood and Saunders for him then they are just plain stupid.  I hate the teams that refuse to try to get over the hump.  Anaheim and Minnesota in particular.  I never used to like the White Sox, but Ken Williams gets it.  The trade for Peavy is exactly what teams like Anaheim should be doing, instead they are going to show up for a gun fight against the Yankees and Red Sox with a couple of slingshots and some pebbles.


Ducey - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 10:07 AM EDT (#204757) #

Re: JP

Maybe I just like swimming upstream but I am thinking maybe the Jays should consider KEEPING JP past 2010.

No, I am not his mom.  I know he has a poor drafting record, signed all these bad deals, has a .500 record, has a big mouth and ego...

BUT maybe a guy becomes a better GM because of it.  If the old saying about learning more from your mistakes is true, JP must have learned a lot.  He has already adjusted his drafting strategy, he has always been good at picking through the bargain bin for bullpen arms and depth players, and I imagine his ego has shunk to more manageable proportions.  Finally, he is likely going to be very careful about signing any more Rios/Wells/BJ/ Thomas type deals.

My fear is that we get a new GM who has to learn all the lessons that JP already has.

pooks137 - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 11:26 AM EDT (#204761) #

I was looking at the predicted Elias Rankings on MLBTR and I noticed that Barajas is predicted to be a Type B free agent.

Do the Jays offer him arbitration in hopes of getting a sandwich pick and risk having to employ him next year at 2.5 million for a sub .700 OPS?

I doubt Rod is worth 2.5 million on the open market, although the list of free agent catchers isn't impressive iirc.

Jevant - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#204765) #
The way several SI writers blasted the Jays for having a terrible deadline day (when by all accounts they conned the Reds into the worst deadline deal of all the ones that went down that week), and then shredded JP for not taking the Phillies bad offer for Halladay (after a smart guy like Keith Law said that it should be IMPOSSIBLE for the Phillies to come up with a Halladay package) shows to me that the anti-Jay bias is not restricted to their hot start. 

I don't mind writers saying that a team is playing over their head (clearing the Jays were), but the recent articles that I've been reading seem just plain wrong to me.  How do you rip JP for signing Rios when everyone said it was good at the time, and then rip him for dumping him when it turns out that everyone was wrong on that front?  Bizarre.

TamRa - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#204766) #


I know he has a poor drafting record,

No, he really doesn't. Sure 2002 was a write off but you won't find a GM out there who hasn't had a draft class that totally bombed.


Do the Jays offer him arbitration in hopes of getting a sandwich pick and risk having to employ him next year at 2.5 million for a sub .700 OPS?

I expect they will risk it. He's not hitting much but they didn't seem to be unhappy when he didn't hit last year or this year so I think they know what they are getting there.



Mike Green - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#204768) #
Dave Till,

You can't just move your right-fielder and centerfielder over a few steps without unintended consequences.  Let's say you've got a soft-tossing right-handed pitcher throwing to a speedy left-handed hitter.  If you played Rios well over into right-centerfield, a ground ball down the line ends up as a triple.  Pitching patterns change and the results are often not pretty.

Parker - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 04:28 PM EDT (#204772) #

Maybe I just like swimming upstream...

The Jays are already swimming upstream against the Yankees and the Red Sox.  Keeping Ricciardi is more like trying to swim upstream with a bag over your head and both hands tied behind your back.

TamRa - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 06:27 PM EDT (#204775) #
MLBTR links this fun series:

http://bases.nbcsports.com/2009/08/restoring-the-rosters-no-23---pittsburgh.html.php

Dude is seeing how each team fits together with the players it originally signed. So I jumped the gun on him a bit to take a look at what the Jays would look like on that score.

SP-
Doc
Carpenter
Romero
Cecil
Bush/Richmond/Zep < your choice

BP-
League
Lyon
Hendrickson
Janssen
Whichever guys you don't have as the #5 starter above

C- Robinson Diaz
1B- Josh Phelps
2B- Hill
SS - Michael Young
3B - Casey Blake
LF - Lind
CF - Wells
RF - Snider
DH - Felipe Lopez

Bench-
Guillermo Quiroz
Chris Woodward
Gabe Gross
Ceasar Izturus

Lineup?

1. Lopez
2. Young
3. Lind
4. Hill
5. Snider
6. Wells
7. Blake
8. Phelps
8. Diaz

The bullpen gets a lot thinner but that's a pretty good overall team.


jerjapan - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 06:33 PM EDT (#204776) #
I know he has a poor drafting record,

No, he really doesn't. Sure 2002 was a write off but you won't find a GM out there who hasn't had a draft class that totally bombed.

This is an interesting question, so I took a closer look at the drafts since JP took over.  I'm sure there are some players I've overlooked, but for what it's worth... 

2002 - Russ Adams, Dave Bush and Adam Peterson are the only significant players, although JP was able to package Bush and others to get Overbay and Peterson yielded Hillenbrand, who got us Accardo.  Several years of adequate contributions, but a bad draft overall.

2003 - Hill - Marcum, Mastny - who was swapped for Johnnie Mac.  Ryan Roberts and Josh Banks are still kicking around with other teams but netted the team nothing. 

2004 - Jackson, Purcey, Lind, Jansenn, Litsch.  Jackson was swapped along with Bush and outfielder Gabe Gross for overbay, so he had some value to the team.  Lind is a star, Litcsch and especially Jansenn are promising young pitchers coming off injuries.  Purcey might make a reliever some day.  JP had the advantage of two first rounders this year.

2005 - Romero, Ray.  Reidier Gonzalez is a low-upside AA pitcher who continues to post solid numbers, and Sean  Stidfole if a decent AAA reliever and organizational soldier type.  JP had no 2nd rounder but this year would still have been an utter bust if not for Romero's surprise emergence this year.  He was a high pick (6th overall I think?) so it's fair to expect a lot from him. 

2006 - Snider is JP's one homerun of a draft pick.  Brandon Magee was the next pick in the 4th round, and has shown little thus far in AA.  Jeroloman and Campbell are solid prospects having tough years.  Ginley and Dials are lower round pitchers with some success in AA / A. 

2007 was quite the bonanza, with a raft of extra picks from free agents.  1st pick Kevin Ahrens has been disappointing so far but is still young.  JPA tore through the minors but is struggling at AAA this year.  Cecil is another great pick and has a bright future.  Magnusson, Jackson, Tolisano and Eiland are talented young players who have yet to really blossom but have pletny of potential.  Mills and Rzepcynski have already pitched with the Jays and look good.  Eamus and Mastroianni are later picks with some promise.

2008 a bit early to tell yet, but the top picks - Cooper, Wilson, Liebel and Sobelewski -  have not dominated yet.  Pastornicky from the 5th round and Farquhar in the 10th have looked great, others still have promise. 

2009 was a well-regarded draft, but again, much too early to rate.  Much will depend on whether JP signs his top picks, in particular Scott Boras client James Paxton. 

Overall?  This seems like a pretty average crop of drafts to me right now, although several years will look better if key pitchers can recover from injury, or if the youngsters of 2007 / 2008 start to show more signs of promise.  2007 was a banner year, and even though JP had extra picks, he still scored promise in the later rounds. 

So Bauxites, how does JP rate as a drafter? 
zeppelinkm - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 06:57 PM EDT (#204777) #
Aaron Hill isn't a home run of a draft pick...

Maybe a triple?



TA - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 07:40 PM EDT (#204778) #
WillRain, surely Delgado will have a place on the Jays team.

Jim - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 08:46 PM EDT (#204780) #
The GM isn't making all the picks.  He is going to weigh in early and then turn it over to the guys who run the system. 

Riccardi probably knows as much about who they take in the 8th round as some of the people who post here.  Hell, I'm pretty sure some of the people here care more about who they take in the 8th round.

Jim - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 08:48 PM EDT (#204781) #
I do like that you note it's too early to rate the 2009 draft.....  since they haven't even signed any of the top picks, I think that is fair :).
greenfrog - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 09:09 PM EDT (#204782) #
Chad Jenkins recently signed. I'm kind of hoping that some of the Rios and Rolen cash can be used to sign all of the remaining draft picks.

The 2007 draft is weird. All those high picks, but the results are extremely mixed. Cecil was a brilliant selection. Rzepczynski is doing extremely well for a 175th overall pick. Magnuson is having a nice rebound season, albeit for a 24-year-old in A-ball. Mills is holding is own at AAA, although he got rocked in the majors.

On the other hand, most of the top picks are struggling mightily: Ahrens, Arencibia, Jackson, Eiland. Tolisano's numbers are a bit better (727 OPS) but nothing to write home about. Emaus's star was rising after last year but he seems to have stalled.

I would call the '07 class a success overall, based on the fact that Cecil and Rzepczynski have already made the big club and enjoyed some success, and the possibility that Mills and/or another player or two (Magnuson? Tolisano?) may yet take it to the next level. But it's striking that so many high (and highly touted) picks have fizzled so dramatically. I mean, Jackson is hitting 213/321/269 for the year. It's hard to put a positive spin on that.
PeterG - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 09:47 PM EDT (#204783) #

I thought this thread was supposed  to be about Wells.  Perhaps placing him at the top of the order might force him to change his hitting approach. Wasn't it tried  earlier in his career(for a few games) with some success.

jerjapan - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 10:02 PM EDT (#204785) #
The GM isn't making all the picks.  He is going to weigh in early and then turn it over to the guys who run the system.

Absolutely.  But he does assemble the team that makes those decisions, play a role in any organizational drafting philosophy, and have input on financial / budgeting decisions re: paying over slot.  If you feel that the Jays safe college pick approach earlier in Riccardi's regime was detrimental to the farm team, Riccardi bears a share of the blame.  If the higher ceiling young players drafted the past few years start to pan out, he deserves credit - even if he didn't have much input at all on some of the individual picks. 


Jim - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 10:23 PM EDT (#204786) #
Without being in the organization it's hard to know exactly how much direct influence Riccardi has on the individual drafts past the first round.   Since I am pretty sure nothing that Riccardi says can be taken at face value even if he told us how much influence he exerts on the staff I probably wouldn't believe him.  They have done a decent job in the draft anyway, plucking Hill, Lind and Romero is a pretty nice haul at or near the top and they have done what seems like a decent job from the 3rd-4th round on.

Why wouldn't Rios be on the Blue Jays team?  Haven't we spent the last month talking about how he's better then Wells?

Jays2010 - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 10:29 PM EDT (#204787) #

Instead of bothering with Barajas, why not (as suggested on The Southpaw) go after someone like Chris Snyder. He doesn't have a scary contract and he probably doesn't have a ton of trade value at this point either. He has a nice walk rate and some pop, though he also has high K rates and has never hit for much average. But a .775-.800 OPS from the catching spot would be nice and he seems more than capable of doing this going forward. I guess this depends on the direction of the team, but presumably the Jays would pay a starting catcher between $3 to $5 million over the next 2 years...so $11.25 million for a premium defensive position over the next two years (including a buyout for a 2011 option) isn't that much more.

If McCown's best guess is to be believed (though it seems high unlikely), Figgins over Rolen at 3B, Snyder over Barajas at C, Snider over Rios in RF and a host of replacable DH options (i.e. Delgado, N. Johnson) would likely produce a considerably stronger lineup in 2010 without costing a whole lot more financially (espescially since Figgins is the only player who would require a long term deal, and it won't eclipse the money owed to Rios, I would think). Of course, Figgins is likely a longshot, but even someone like Beltre would along with the other additions would probably improve the lineup as a whole.

Jim - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 10:33 PM EDT (#204788) #
I'd have Hudson and Marcum on that team, and if he's ever healthy again Kelvim Escobar could help your staff.  They listed Bedard as Baltimore's top starter and Barry Bonds as a pinch hitter for the Pirates, why not take Kelvim. 


TamRa - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 10:34 PM EDT (#204789) #
Emaus's star was rising after last year but he seems to have stalled.

Actually, while it's not as good as last year, if you take away his astoundingly bad June, Emaus has been pretty good this year. It's a bit of a slowing down but I would say he's stalled.

Jackson's apparently been fighting a shoulder issue all along. Hopefully we haven't had a fair look at what he can do with the bat yet.;

Darin Mastroianni is coming along okay for a 16th round pick. Although he's only recently begun to catch up to AA pitching;

Mills is losing a lot of time to that injury but it's not an arm injury. Still have to consider him a good pick obviously, along with your correct comments on Cecil and Zep;

It could still be a draft with 4 or 5 major leaguers and that's pretty freakish.

TamRa - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 10:47 PM EDT (#204790) #
WillRain, surely Delgado will have a place on the Jays team.
***
Why wouldn't Rios be on the Blue Jays team?  Haven't we spent the last month talking about how he's better then Wells?

Id have Hudson and Marcum...

D'oh!

Actually, I was looking at a spreadsheet I have that has injured players listed in a different place so I understand overlooking Marcum and Delgado....but Hudson and Rios were just brain cramps of epic proportions.

Sooo.

SP-
Doc
Carpenter
Marcum
Romero
Cecil
(Bush)

BP-
League
Lyon
Hendrickson
Janssen
Richmond
Zep

C- Robinson Diaz
1B- Carlos Delgado
2B- Hill
SS - Michael Young
3B - Casey Blake
LF - Snider
CF - Wells
RF - Rios
DH - Lind

Bench-
Orlando Hudson
Guillermo Quiroz
Gabe Gross
Felipe Lopez
(Ceasar Izturus)

Lineup?

1. Rios
2. Young
3. Lind
4. Delgado
5. Hill
6. Wells
7. Blake
8. Snider
8. Diaz

That's definatly better

TamRa - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 10:49 PM EDT (#204791) #
I'd have Hudson and Marcum on that team, and if he's ever healthy again Kelvim Escobar could help your staff.  They listed Bedard as Baltimore's top starter and Barry Bonds as a pinch hitter for the Pirates, why not take Kelvim.

I might have to put Esco in the bullpen there, or Cecil one. It's an overloaded starting staff for sure. Esco is another guy I had in mind but overlooked because he was on the injured list.

Jim - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 10:50 PM EDT (#204792) #
Freakish?  I thought I'd check to see how common it is to have 4 or 5 major leaguers in a draft.  Red Sox '05.  Top 5 picks have already made the majors.  They also took a high school player in the 14th round they didn't sign.  You've heard of him... Pedro Alvarez.

Ok, must have just been the Red Sox right?  Yankees in 05... Gardner and Doug Fister already in the majors.  Austin Jackson probably next month.   Zach Kroneke has a 1.07 era at AAA.  I like their chances to get 4.

How about our friends in Tampa.  2004.  Neimann, Brignac, Perez, Sonnanstein... still have Wade Davis and Jason McGee coming.  At least 5, maybe 6.

How about the Rays in 2002?  Upton, Dukes, Pridie,  Bankston, Hammel.  5.  Plus they drafted Ellsbury and Pelfrey.

Red Sox as recently as 2006?  Bard, Masterson and Reddick.  Kalish and Lars Anderson coming.  They also took Matt Laporta.

I don't think I'd call the Jays draft 'freakish'





TamRa - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 11:00 PM EDT (#204793) #
Try this again...

P-
Doc, Carpenter, Escobar, Marcum, Romero
(Bush)

BP-
League, Lyon, Janssen, Cecil, Richmond, Zep

Lineup? (with OPS+)

1. Rios - 94
2. Young - 133
3. Lind - 135
4. Delgado - 139 (injured)
5. Hill - 113
6. Wells - 94
7. Blake - 117
8. Snider - N/A
8. Diaz - N/A

Bench-
Orlando Hudson - 108
Guillermo Quiroz
Gabe Gross - 104
Felipe Lopez - 99
(Ceasar Izturus) - 70

Okay, this is what happens when you can't edit your posts...


TamRa - Saturday, August 15 2009 @ 11:44 PM EDT (#204794) #
Red Sox '05.  Top 5 picks have already made the majors.

You're counting Hansen? That's less of a success story than Russ Adams. I'm thinking of guys who actually stick and contribute. Let me set an arbitrary minimum of 200 at bats and 50 IP to count as being worth our notice - I wouldn't consider it worth our notice of Emaus or Jackson got less than that.
Hansen still makes that cut, by the way, but yes - that's the Red Sox and that draft IS an exception to the rule.

But to be perfectly clear, I don't mean freakish that that many players get a cup of coffee or spend a couple of seasons coming up with 150 at bats off the bench. I mean starters, quality players.

The Jays got 17 players to the majors out of JP's first three drafts but no one is bragging because Jamie Vermillyea or Dewon Day got a cut of coffee. And that's not the sort of apperances I was thinking of when I suggested the '07 class was abnormally good.

Yankees in 05...

For now, I'm looking at three - I'll wait and see if Fister sticks, he doesn't have the track record of the others. But even if they get four there, you have to go all the way back to '97 to find another year where even two players met those rather soft cutoffs I mentioned above.

How about our friends in Tampa.  2004.

A good one, no doubt. Of course, 2003 produced one and 2005 look like it might be a complete wash out. 2006 has one and should get another in Jennings.

How about the Rays in 2002?

Pridle has FOUR AT BATS and doesn't have a minor league record which suggests he'll get many more.

Bankston isn't much better - 59 at bats - LAST year isn't really having "made it" in any but the most technical sense.

Red Sox as recently as 2006?  Bard, Masterson and Reddick.  Kalish and Lars Anderson coming.  They also took Matt Laporta.

Again, that's the Red Sox and it's stil rare - and LaPorta doesn't count unless you sign him which they didn't.

Unless the Jays get credit for Brett Wallace?




Let me rephrase for clarity - the Jays might get as many as 5* (or more) regular, long term, productive players out of one draft which is freakish

*Cecil, Zep, Mills, JPA, Emaus, and maybe Mastoronni, Jackson, and others.

I can't really take the time to run through the data base and quote specific totals it but the point should be obvious - every year 30 teams go through the draft and in any one of those drafts MAYBE there's a team that produces 4 important players out of 50 or more players they select. It's more common for a team to produce NO important players than it is for one to produce 5 or more.


greenfrog - Sunday, August 16 2009 @ 12:06 AM EDT (#204795) #
At the moment Arencibia (229/281/409) resembles Guillermo Quiroz a lot more than he does Mike Piazza. Emaus is a 23-year-old second baseman hitting 251/333/382 in AA. I'm not writing off these players but their 2009 stats aren't encouraging. Both have taken a step backward from last year.

I have no complaints about the '07 draft. At the moment it's looking at least average, and who knows what will happen over the next few years. Sometimes players take a step backward before they move forward (see: Romero, Ricky).
Spifficus - Sunday, August 16 2009 @ 12:23 AM EDT (#204796) #
There are definite positives in Emaus' numbers. The only thing that really knocked him off last years' pace was a terrible-is-an-understatement June. Ignore it for a sec, and he's at about .285/.360/.435, which shows shades of last year. Throw in the near 1:1 BB/K rate on the year, and I can throw on the blushed bifocals when I look at his year.

I don't really have much to say about Arencibia's year other than he probably shouldn't have been in AAA to begin the year anyway. At least he apparently didn't let his offensive stagnation hurt his defensive development.
92-93 - Sunday, August 16 2009 @ 02:56 AM EDT (#204797) #
Let me rephrase for clarity - the Jays might get as many as 5* (or more) regular, long term, productive players out of one draft which is freakish

*Cecil, Zep, Mills, JPA, Emaus, and maybe Mastoronni, Jackson, and others.

I'd be happy if the Jays managed to get 2 players that match your expectations from that group, and that's from hoping that one of Zep/Mills provides value as a swingman in a Tallet-ish fashion. Your expectations for JPA, Emaus, and the rest seem a little high to me - at this point it appears the Jays will be lucky if any of them become viable MLB backups.
Jim - Sunday, August 16 2009 @ 08:50 AM EDT (#204798) #
Or at this point it could still be a horrific draft.  Could be 7 picks in the first 88 and they get one player out of that.

They took 5 position players in the top 88.  How is that working out?

Ahrens .579 OPS High A
Arencibia .690 OPS AAA
Jackson .590 OPS High A
Tolisano .734 OPS High A
Eiland .571 OPS Short Season

I think I'd hold off on a parade for this draft for a little while.  The best offensive player they got was in the 11th round and he's only got a .714 OPS in AA.  They had a 16th round pick have a good have season in Dunedin then crater upon promotion.  They had a first round pick at 23 years old go 0-9 with a 5.40 ERA in the Midwest League.

Maybe Mills is something?  He walks a lot of guys though, almost 4 per 9 now at AAA.  The jury is still out on him. 

There is just as much chance that this draft is a total and complete disaster as it is that it's 'freakish'.


MatO - Sunday, August 16 2009 @ 10:43 AM EDT (#204802) #
When it comes to the 2007 draft call me in about 5 years for the HS players and in about 2 years for the college players.  Any discussion today is just for the sake of arguing.
Mike Green - Sunday, August 16 2009 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#204808) #
I agree.  It is too early.  We might have a better idea in 3 years or so for the high schoolers and in a year for some of the collegians, like Cecil and Zep. 
Gerry - Sunday, August 16 2009 @ 02:38 PM EDT (#204810) #
Henderson Alvarez has gone on the DL for Lansing.  I am not sure yet if it is innings related or due to his reaching his innings limit for 2009.  Ryan Shopshire has been called up to start.
TamRa - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 01:29 AM EDT (#204825) #
There is just as much chance that this draft is a total and complete disaster as it is that it's 'freakish'.


Ummm....yeah.

That's why I said it "would be" freakish, not that it IS.

Nothing in my comments implied certainty, only a chance.

But, as usual, feel free to dwell on the most negative possible impressions you can find.

I speak of these players in terms of what they have the CHANCE to do - one need only look at past lists of Jays (or anyone elses') "Top 10 Prospects" in order to know that MOST who "have a chance" don't make it.

I hardly needed you to tell me that.

TamRa - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 02:01 AM EDT (#204826) #
I'd be happy if the Jays managed to get 2 players that match your expectations from that group, and that's from hoping that one of Zep/Mills provides value as a swingman in a Tallet-ish fashion. Your expectations for JPA, Emaus, and the rest seem a little high to me - at this point it appears the Jays will be lucky if any of them become viable MLB backups.

That depends on what you think my expectations are.

Aherns? i figure he fails, frankly, though it's too early to call him a bust.There's still a glimer, just based on the initial scouting, that he blooms into a Mark Tehan type at best

JPA? Ceiling AJ Pierzinski....more likely not unlike Rod Barajas with a bit more homers and not so much throwing arm. He's still young for the level and I think he's still got a reasonable chance but you shouldn't assume i think he's Piazza or something; But I admit I don't think he's gonna be a guy who can't stick in the majors at all.

Cecil? legit. Ceiling is maybe Jon Lester-ish.

Jackson? My guess is something not unlike Alex Gonzalez. Failure would look something like Angel Berroa or some such I imagine - a guy who can field enough that teams keep taking chances on getting him to hit.

Magnuson? I'd be real surprised if he got more than a cup of coffee

Tolisino? Fringy at best, IMO. Ceiling is maybe Scott Hairston but I don't thing there's a lot of chance.

Eiland? Making no progress at all - maybe a Miguel Negron clone

Farina? Fail

Mills? A Tallet type is one way to look at it, I could see him as a back of the rotation guy in the NL or on a bad team - think Paul Maholm maybe...(of course I think Tallet could do that too)  - again, the ceiling is higher than that. But you seldom assume a guy will hit his ceiling.

Zep? I actually think he's a bit of a sleeper still. I could see him as something like Jon Sanchez or maybe as good as Jon Danks for several years - injuries permitting of course.

Rest of the draft:

Emaus - my expectation is a Craig Counsell/Ty Wigginton type and my hope is he's one of those guys like Zobrist who just continues to get better but I'm not holding out hope because that itself (Zobrist) is freakish.

Mastroianni - Ceiling is Reed Johnson-ish. Most likely hes a career AAA guy who occasionally gets a small taste of the majors...Buck Coats or some such.

So I'm not suggesting a bunch of stars - But my hunch is that out of  Cecil, JPA, Jackson (based on defense alone), Mills, Zep and Emaus at least four will have reasonably productive major league careers and one (Cecil) has all Star potential.


(and yes, it's true a fan tends to see a bit more in his own team's prospects than in other teams' prospects....but some go to the other extreme to be "fair" so I don't think anyone here speaks without bias)


But, as was said above, it really is way too early to tell. Little more than a year ago the great majority of "unbiased" jays fans were positive Ricky Romero was an utter bust who'd never amount to anything.


MatO - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 10:15 AM EDT (#204830) #
A guy who's generated a ton of discussion here in the last week and a half was a bust at the age of 20.
Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 10:36 AM EDT (#204831) #

But, as usual, feel free to dwell on the most negative possible impressions you can find.

You are right, I should be praising a draft that had 5 position players in the top 88 picks and none of them get on base at a .300 clip in the minor leagues 2 full seasons later.  

When you've got 2 first round picks that can't slug .300 in A ball, I think I'd stop talking about how great things are and how potentially 'freakishly' well they did.

How  about some peak translations from BP for fun on a Monday morning:

Ahrens - 214/301/301

Jackson - 224/339/282

Arencibia - 211/264/390

Better hope the scouts are right, because the numbers are a joke.  But I guess that's me being negative, because I program BP's translations.

 


 

zeppelinkm - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 10:55 AM EDT (#204834) #
Jackson must have a pretty decent eye to be getting on base at that clip with that BA. With some improved ability to make contact, his OBP could hit the .350+ range and with superior defence, he could be a useful SS yet.  

He needs to have a break through, tho, to get there. If he does, and Cecil continues to develop and Zep turns into a decent back of the rotation starter or good reliever, and I would call this draft a great success.

As has been stated, it will be a couple years yet till we can make that call.  Look at how much JPA's stock has fallen in one year. It's just as easy for a players stock to go the other way with one good year.

Chuck - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 11:35 AM EDT (#204839) #
Emaus - my expectation is a Craig Counsell/Ty Wigginton type

Huh? These guys have two very different profiles. Counsell is a good-OBP, poor-SLG, good fielder. Wigginton is a poor-OBP, good-SLG, crappy fielder.
John Northey - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 01:02 PM EDT (#204847) #
When it comes to the draft and how many you should produce you should factor in how many it takes to keep things going.

Assume the median ML career is 6 seasons (I think that is what I worked it out to a few years ago, using only guys who played semi-regularly and counting only seasons where they did play semi-regularly ie 300+ PA or 150 IP ignoring relievers as they are their own world).

If that is the case then you need to replace all 9 hitters and 5 starters every 6 years (for every Halladay you will have a few guys who last only 2 to 3 seasons).  So that means 14 regular players must be developed every 6 years to be a 'self sustaining' team, more if you wish to have depth and guys you can trade.  Thus every draft should produce 2 1/3 players (ie: 2 a year with 3 every 3rd year - please don't cut a poor guy into 3 parts) not counting relievers.

For the Jays you get... (# is seasons is with 300 PA or 150 IP)
2002: 1 hitter (Adams, 1), 1 pitcher (Bush 3)
2003: 1 hitter (Hill 4), 1 pitcher (Marcum 2) [Mastny for pen]
2004: 1 hitter (Lind 2, 10 PA shy of 3), 1 pitcher (Litsch 1) [Janssen for pen]
2005: 0 hitters yet, almost a pitcher (Romero is at 121 2/3 IP)
2006: none yet, Snider soon (192 PA shy this year so far)
2007: none, Cecil and Rzepczynski are a long ways away for this year, but easily could reach next year
2008/2009: far too early

So, the first 3 were 'normal' drafts with 2 guys a year, but overall short one regular and with 2 pen guys.    Those were JP's learning years.  2005/2006/2007 should produce at least 7 guys if JP has 'normal' success with 4 guys looking likely to make it in 2009/2010.  If JPA, Mills, and Jackson can become regulars and Cecil/Snider/Rzep/Romero can do it then JP reaches the 'expected' success level.  It is going beyond that is needed though.  IE: guys like Jeroloman, Campbell, etc. that are needed for JP to look good.
TamRa - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 02:21 PM EDT (#204858) #
Huh? These guys have two very different profiles. Counsell is a good-OBP, poor-SLG, good fielder. Wigginton is a poor-OBP, good-SLG, crappy fielder.

More Counsell than Wigs but what I was doing there was just naming a couple of guys who were something more than bench players but not quite what you'd really want from a full time starter - but still good enough to have 5-10 years of reputable play.

I think Emaus will be a decent glove at 2B and 3B, not special just good enough to get to play, and be a good contact/ops guy (relatively speaking) who'll have a bit more power than Counsell and noticeably less than Wiggy.

Buit again, I wasn't thinking so much about the type of hitter those two are as the type of career they were having.

vw_fan17 - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 02:34 PM EDT (#204860) #
Ok, didn't find a TDIB thread to post this in, so I just wanted to vent here.

What the (*&@(*#$ was with the Jays batters yesterday? Since I cancelled my MLB TV subscription, I just get to watch the "condensed" games. It looked like 2nd-3rd inning was just Garza getting people to whiff or pop up on high fastballs. EYE-HIGH fastballs. One after the other.

At some point, shouldn't CIto say "look, next guy who gets out on a high fastball puts $100 in the kitty." (or the equivalent)?? That was a useless display of no run support for Zep who pitched well.

I did like the play Encarnacion made, throwing from his knees - looks like he has a decent arm. Couldn't tell if he made an error on the previous ball, due to how little the condensed game showed (I think he got charged with an error on that).

TamRa - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#204861) #
You are right, I should be praising a draft that had 5 position players in the top 88 picks and none of them get on base at a .300 clip in the minor leagues 2 full seasons later.

Alex Ris had an OPS of .650 at LOW A at age 20 in his second full year in the minors. Jackson and company are advanced (rushed?) one full level higher than Rios was at the same age. It's not uncommon at all for high school players to put up less than impressive averages in their first couple of years.

 When you've got 2 first round picks that can't slug .300 in A ball, I think I'd stop talking about how great things are and how potentially 'freakishly' well they did.

The other two first rounders are in the majors and AAA respectively.  but those two don't count because they have been relatively successful (yes, JPA is having a really bad year but given how fast he advanced that's mitigated some too)

How about some peak translations from BP for fun on a Monday morning:
 Ahrens - 214/301/301
Jackson - 224/339/282
Arencibia - 211/264/390

Better hope the scouts are right, because the numbers are a joke. But I guess that's me being negative, because I program BP's translations.


I suspect BP's translations of Rios's age 20 stats never said anything about being an Al Star either.

And, by the way, given that Jackson has been fighting a bad shoulder for who knows how long we probably don't have a good read on him yet anyway.

Aherns has no such excuse and you don't see me defedning Aherns.

Look - at some point this gets tedius. I say black, you say whithe, and we go around and around and no minds ever change.

I get it - I'm a polyanna and you're an eyeore and both of us thing we have the sane view and the other is hopelessly unrealistic.

Let's postulate for the sake of future discussions that these things are true and quit wasting each other's time.

From now on, whatever I post that is in any way positive about the Jays, I'm going to ASSUME as a given that you strongly disagree and not bother to try to rebut your counterpoints. After a while it just gets tedious to have the same conversation over and over.

I agree to disagree.

TamRa - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#204862) #
Jackson must have a pretty decent eye to be getting on base at that clip with that BA. With some improved ability to make contact, his OBP could hit the .350+ range and with superior defence, he could be a useful SS yet.  

He needs to have a break through, tho, to get there.

I don't think we'll have an accurate read on Jackson's actual abilities with the bat until his shoulder is healthy. I think it's impossible to asses how much effect it may have had on his hitting this year.

That said, the thing that worries me most about him beyond the shoulder is "Alex Gonzalez Syndrome"

the strikeout totals suggest to me that it's POSSIBLE he's in love with the idea of being a slugger instead of playing to his strengths. how coachable he is on that point might make a huge difference.

Or, I suppose that if the injury is screwing up his mechanics, that could lead to a lot of swing-and-misses too.

We'll have to give him a couple of years to find out.

Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 02:53 PM EDT (#204863) #

It's fine by me.    I'll leave you alone to say ridiculously glowing things about a draft that are far away from reality. 

I'll just ignore your twisted pretzel logic.  Oh this is a good team because the third order winning percentage is good...... but these prospects are still really good even though the translations are bad.   This set of numbers has value because it matches what I want to be true... this other set of numbers doesn't have value because it isn't what I want to be true.

One time a player was bad in A ball and turned out good.  That means we can ignore back to back seasons of 35% strikeouts!

 

MatO - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 03:14 PM EDT (#204867) #
Jim.  You don't know, I don't know and BP doesn't know how good or, in your case, how bad these players are going to be.
Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#204869) #

Of course we don't know.  But we do know that most players that end up being good major league players don't strike out 35% of the time in the FSL.

I'm constantly reminded by Will of the Jays run differential being a mark of the teams quality. Well, guess what, minor league stats are a mark of a prospects quality. So you can't make one argument and ignore the other because it doesn't fit your worldview.  Yeah Cecil is a good prospect, and Arencibia isn't a bust yet, but their return to date on 5 picks in the top 88 is well below average, quite the opposite of a 'freakish' draft.

If the 2007 draft was so great for the Blue Jays why don't they call Detroit and see if they can trade every player they got in that draft for Rick Porcello. If the draft has so much potential why would Detroit hang up laughing?

MatO - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 03:54 PM EDT (#204870) #

most players

Thanks for making my point.

John Northey - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:00 PM EDT (#204872) #
Judging minor league players can be a heck of a challenge.  Tony Fernandez in his first cut at AAA hit 278/328/391.  Doesn't sound like a super prospect eh?  Of course, he was only 19.  George Bell in AAA at 22 hit 200/217/376 which isn't impressive either.  Of course, back then the Jays were really pushing players hard through their system.  For some (Fernandez, Bell, Stieb, Jimmy Key) it worked fantastic. 

The big question is do we have anyone who has the growth potential?  As mentioned a 35% strike out rate is not a promising thing.

Checking the most famous draft, the Moneyball one, we have...
Hitters:
Nick Swisher: over 2400 AB's
Mark Teahen: over 2300 AB's
John Baker: 545 PA so far, a regular this year (over 300 PA for Florida)
Pitchers:
Jonathan Papelbon (did not sign, signed with Boston the next season)
Joe Blanton: 5 years as a regular starter so far (including this year) with a 102 ERA+
Jared Burton: 124 ERA+ in 3 seasons in Cincinnati's bullpen (A's lost him in the Rule 5 draft)

Not bad.  3 hitters, 1 starting pitcher, 1 relief pitcher (who signed) from one draft.  Not the amazing haul though that one would expect from the hype.  3 other pitchers and one other hitter made the majors but didn't play enough (yet) to count as more than filler.  Given what I said earlier, about needing to get 2-3 regulars per draft, suggests it was a good but not great draft.
.
ayjackson - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:01 PM EDT (#204873) #

their return to date on 5 picks in the top 88 is well below average

How have you measured this? 

Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#204876) #

Thanks for making my point.

Well of course nothing is absolute.  Why bother talking about minor league players at all then?  Since we don't know how it turns out what's the point of discussing it at all? 

You don't know exactly what's going to happen so no matter how ridiculously optimistic a viewpoint is, it can't be argued with the realities of probability and the statistical experiences of thousands of minor leaguers in the past.    You may as well close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ear and scream "na nah nah nah nah na". 

MatO - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#204878) #
Jim, do you have another note?
Mike Green - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:15 PM EDT (#204879) #
pretzel logic

Don't worry.  The sabermetric crowd will never lose that number. 

People forget how rare success in the draft is.  Take a look at Minnesota's picks in the top 100 from 1998-2002.  They chose Mauer with the first overall pick, got Morneau in the 3rd round and bupkes with the remainder of their top picks, with a couple of high first round picks netting nothing. And yet, the team has been a perennial contender. 


Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:26 PM EDT (#204882) #

How have you measured this? 

The value of draft picks has been measured.  Have I looked up what the expected WARs are for those exact picks?  No, I haven't bothered yet, because there is no point because we'll never agree on what Jackson, Ahrens, Magnuson are worth going forward so it's a waste of time to do until the outcome is more certain. 

I did make a mistake saying 5 picks in the top 88, it was 7.

Take a second and ask yourself this.  If you picked 7 times in the top 88 picks including 16th and 21st overall, wouldn't you think you could do better then Cecil, Arencibia and Tolisano.  That's about what they have right now.  That draft was a huge opportunity and they didn't capitalize.   They did ok, and may have found a player in the 5th round which is always nice, but when you need to rebuild your system and you have 7 picks in the top 88, you can't swing and miss on as many as they did.

James W - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:38 PM EDT (#204884) #
I'm sure you realize this -- actually wait, since you're going on and on about it, I'm sure you DON'T realize it -- but you're discussing the 2007 draft.  That draft from 2 years and 2 months ago.  Writing off all the kids who graduated from high school only 2 years ago, seems foolish and impatient.
ayjackson - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#204885) #
Jim, you've been all over this site criticizing Jays' management, yet you have given almost final judgement to a two year-old draft class (full of high schoolers no less).  This certainly minimizes your credibility.
Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#204886) #

I wouldn't expect a team that was 56-61 in a pathetic division to have had a ton of success in the draft lately.

When they actually had a good team in 2002 they certainly had a ton of success in the draft. 

Unless drafting Pierzynski, Mientkiewicz, Koskie, Jones, Hunter, Radke, Hawkins, Guardado and Romero isn't success in the draft.  They also directly cashed in a player they drafted for Milton and Guzman.   Or it doesn't count because it happened before 1998.  

The level of mediocrity that is celebrated at this website never ceases to amaze me.  The most pedestrian prospects are built into future building blocks, and nothing gets the natives riled up like pointing that out. 

Paul D - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:43 PM EDT (#204887) #

The level of mediocrity that is celebrated at this website never ceases to amaze me.  The most pedestrian prospects are built into future building blocks, and nothing gets the natives riled up like pointing that out. 

This is essentially true of every website that follows one team in the world.  Fans tend to be optimistic about their teams.  More importantly, fans WANT to be optimistic about their team.   And there's absolutely nothing wrong with imagining the day JPA hits 30 HRs with gold glove defence behind the plate, Snider hits 50, and Stewart, Cecil, Zep and Mills all win 15 games.  That's part of the fun of being a fan.

Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#204888) #

This certainly minimizes your credibility.

If you say so.  I'm not writing anyone off.  I'm just pointing out that based on the results to date the 2007 draft is nothing to write home about, nevermind praise.  Based on what we have seen to date they completely missed on 4 of the top 88 picks including the 16th pick overall.

Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:51 PM EDT (#204890) #

I guess that's it.   Rarely does anyone here ever talk about an actual major league Blue Jays game. 

For example, League's performance yesterday didn't even generate a single post , but you point out that Jackson can barely slug his weight in his third year as a pro and everyone comes running to his defense with every excuse in the book.

I'll try not to rain on your parades by pointing out that there really aren't any excuses for striking out 35% of the time in A ball.

 

Mike Green - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 04:52 PM EDT (#204891) #
Actually, Jim, if you're going back further, the Twins' drafting record is actually a lot worse than the Jays.  The key to the Twins' success over the last 15 years can be boiled down to 3 key moves:

1.  the Santana Rule 5 pick,
2.  the Pierzynski trade, and
3.  the Mauer selection with the #1 overall pick. 

It really helps that they have been in a lesser division than the AL East. 

The funny thing is that I agree that the Jay minor league system is not in great shape.  They have had an unbalanced drafting strategy, pitchers vs. position players, and have been unable to convert the pitching talent into position players (as the Twins did in reverse so effectively in the Pierzynski trade). 

subculture - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 05:03 PM EDT (#204893) #
I only had time to read 2/3rds of the above posts, so not sure if anyone else has brought this up.  I've watched most of the games and think most of Vernon's poor defensive ratings this year came on balls that he got to, and simply misjudged.  I'm not sure if this is just fluke, poor focus, or maybe his eyes need some help.  Seeing how he routinely pops-up pitches down the plate which I know Hill / Lind would be driving with power, I'm hoping he just needs LASIK or contacts!

I think he's dropped more balls this year than in his previous 5 combined... I certainly don't remember him dropping more than 1-2 balls a year, but this year he's dropped at least 7-8.. tough plays, but most CF's including him normally catch those balls.

I agree he probably should be moving to RF, but don't think he's as bad a CF now as we think.

Someone mentioned above in a letter to Vernon to please hit the other way... I completely agree... even Rios would occasionally hit something to right-field... Vernon is completely exposed on outside pitches and seems unable to adjust after years of getting pounded out there.  Somebody has to be able to convince him that he needs to adjust!

jerjapan - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 05:14 PM EDT (#204895) #
Writing off all the kids who graduated from high school only 2 years ago, seems foolish and impatient.

Sure it's early to judge the 2007 draft, but I've got to agree with Jim on this topic - there's absolutely no harm in taking the information that we have now and using it to judge the draft - JP's team did so in their preparations for the draft and continue to do so every year, as do all franchises.  All the major sports publications rate the drafts and the top propsects by organization, and many first and second year players appear on those lists - including the lists published here at the Box. 

Nobody is 'writing off' those 2007 draft picks - countless examples have already been mentioned his thread of prospects who struggled early - but you can absolutely compare players in A ball to each other, and compare the performance of players selected in the 2007 draft to each other.  To argue otherwise implies that prospect evaluation is PURE SUBJECTIVITY - which would mean that everyone on the Box is wasting their time when they discuss prospects.  Yes, we have less information that we will in two years - but we have more than we did when they were drafted. 
Chuck - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 05:32 PM EDT (#204897) #

pretzel logic... Don't worry.  The sabermetric crowd will never lose that number.

If I were halfway clever I'd have a line about how the Jays should scout more in Aja that wasn't lame.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with imagining the day JPA hits 30 HRs with gold glove defence behind the plate, Snider hits 50, and Stewart, Cecil, Zep and Mills all win 15 games.  That's part of the fun of being a fan.

Willing self-delusion is not my cup of tea and I am always baffled why others enjoy engaging in such. But, to each their own (Mylegacy has claimed self-delusion as his religion of choice). There seems room enough for everyone in this sandbox, the glass half-full types and the glass half-empty types. And the glass is overflowing types. And the glass is completely empty types.

Jackson must have a pretty decent eye to be getting on base at that clip with that BA. With some improved ability to make contact, his OBP could hit the .350+ range and with superior defence, he could be a useful SS yet. 

Low batting averages in the minors make me nervous. I think that if someone has the ability to make contact, they can develop power and they can develop strike zone judgment. I just don't know how teachable making contact itself is. Long ago, Bill James cited players with "old player" skills (slow, low batting average, ability to draw walks, ability to hit for power) and issued the warning that such players tend not to age well. Jackson is still very young, but he's going to have to start showing some "young player" skills at some point soon.

Tony Fernandez in his first cut at AAA hit 278/328/391.  Doesn't sound like a super prospect eh?  Of course, he was only 19.

Right. And the fact that he was 19 is HUGE. To be 19 and hold your own at AAA bodes extremely well. For all the talk of minor league performances at this site, I don't feel that age is mentioned nearly enough, nor whether a level is being repeated or not. Any forecasting of major league performance, even wishcasting, should heavily factor in these two pieces of data (in my opinion).

Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#204900) #

Actually, Jim, if you're going back further, the Twins' drafting record is actually a lot worse than the Jays.  The key to the Twins' success over the last 15 years can be boiled down to 3 key moves:

1.  the Santana Rule 5 pick,
2.  the Pierzynski trade, and
3.  the Mauer selection with the #1 overall pick.
 

The 2002 Twins were 94-67 and the only time in the last 15 years they won a round in the playoffs.  That's the most games they won since 1991 when they won 95.

1.  Santana started 14 games that year.  Effective, but that was only the 6th most starts on the team.

2.  Pierzynski was the catcher on that team, they didn't trade him until AFTER the 2003 season.

3.  Joe Mauer's first year making a real contribution at the major league level was 2005.

So you are saying that the reason they had success was because of things that happened after they reached the peak of that success?  How does that make any sense at all?  

The reason they had success in 2002 and 2003 when they had a raft of players they drafted on the roster was predicated on a trade they made after the 2003 season?

A player that didn't reach the major leagues until 2004 was why they were so good in 2002 and 2003?

 

ayjackson - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 06:12 PM EDT (#204904) #
I too think that the Jays system will be in the bottom quarter for sure this year and admit dissapointment  in the early returns on the 2007 high schoolers, but if you can't acknowledge that needing a new Ulnar ligament in your leading elbow might affect your contact rate, you sir are the one who is delusional.
zeppelinkm - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 06:27 PM EDT (#204906) #

It is actually interesting to look at the Twins roster from 2002 and 2003 and try to deduce how they won as many games as they did each year.

In 2002, No bonafide stars in the lineup. Well balanced lineup 1 through 7 with two no hit fielding MI in Rivas and Guzman. The lineup had 4 "good" hitters (116 - 123 OPS+) and 3 "average" hitters (100 - 104 OPS+). No stars.

Their rotation was more of the same. No stars, one "good" starter - 37 year old Rick Reed posted a 118 ERA+, while Lohse, Milton, and Radke ranged between 92 and 105. Johan was fantastic for 14 starts (27 games total), to the tune of a 149 ERA+, but his good work over 108 innings was pretty well off-set by Joe Mays 82 ERA+ over 95 innings.

So... well balanced lineup with no major holes until you got to the very end of it. Bobby Keity was great off the bench over 348 PA's (136 OPS+), nobody else off the bench that got more than 100 AB was above 100 OPS+.

A very average rotation. However, one that would have 5 guys in a row giving their team a fair chance to win as opposed to a top heavy rotation (2 aces 3 fillers, or something).

But look at that bullpen!  Clearly the one area of this team where they were super elite. The 5 majority shareholders in the bullpen posted ERA+ of 136 (55innings), 210 (80 innings), 236 (81 innings), 141 (91 innings), and their closer, 153 (67 innings). That's 375 innings of extremely well pitched ball. 

Hmm, i'm still not convinced that a slightly above average overall lineup with an average rotation and an stellar bullpen is the recipe for 94 wins and a division championship.

Pythagoreas agrees, they scored 768 and allowed 712. Pythagoreas says they should have won 86 (+8...). They went 29-16 in 1 run games. A winning % only surpassed by the 103 win Oakland Athetlics (32-14) and the LAD (33-15), who themselves also won 92 games.

So I see a fairly balanced team that got a breakthrough season from their bullpen, the emergence of an ace, and a team that had the ball bounce the right direction a few more times over the course of the season than it normally does.

I doubt we would be talking about them if they went 87 - 75.

TamRa - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 06:28 PM EDT (#204907) #

It's fine by me.    I'll leave you alone to say ridiculously glowing things about a draft that are far away from reality. 


Dang. I didn't  really realize saying "MIGHT" was "ridiculously glowing" - I'll try to dial back my giddyness a bit.

I'll just ignore your twisted pretzel logic.  Oh this is a good team because the third order winning percentage is good...... but these prospects are still really good even though the translations are bad.

Does BP consider the translations to be the last word on how good a prospect will be? I confess I'm not well schooled on just exactly what the theory is behind that set of numbers.

   This set of numbers has value because it matches what I want to be true... this other set of numbers doesn't have value because it isn't what I want to be true.

Um....the real life numbers DON'T support my position any more than the ones you quoted so...uh...yeah...whatever you were trying to say there...

My supporting evidence, such as it is, is the opinion of baseball professionals who have commented - not numbers of any sort.

One time a player was bad in A ball and turned out good.  That means we can ignore back to back seasons of 35% strikeouts!

Right. It was JUST Rios who took a while to get going. Just that ONE time. So silly of me that I didn't check the stats for the last 150 guys drafted out of high school to see if there was a pattern.

Even I don't have THAT much time.

In any case, I'm not ignoring the K rates- if you take the time to read my post just above the one I am now replying to, you will see I actually brought up Jackson's K rate.

TamRa - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 07:33 PM EDT (#204909) #
but you can absolutely compare players in A ball to each other, and compare the performance of players selected in the 2007 draft to each other.

Indeed.

Let me take a look at the players the Jays passed on to take those "misses"

Behind Aherns:
Beavan- Ok in Hi-A (good walk rate) and mediocre in AA but being at AA is good for a 20 year old
Kozma - Hitting ok in a very small sample at Hi-A, struggling at AA - probably rushed.
Savery - mediocre in AA but promoted to AAA anyway, too early to tell how that will work. He is 23 though so he's not too young for the level
Withrow - fairly good ratios at Hi-A

Behind JPA:
Alderson - Impressive so far, has reached AA
Schmidt - recovering from missing all of 2008, stinking up the joint in Hi-A at 23
Main - 7.33 ERA so far at Hi-A as a 20 year old
Poreda- we missed out pretty big here based on his numbers so far
Simmons - at 22 he was pretty good in AA, is taking some time to get adjusted to AAA
Porcello - goes without saying much...however...


Jim said something about trading our whole draft class for Porcello being laughed at.  Given the fact that Cecil pitched better than Porcello in the minors and has been pitching at least as well in the majors (noticeably better K rate both places) - I think that bears examination. It's true Porcello is two years younger but IF what Jim says it's true, it is specifically BECAUSE there is information going into tha decesion BESIDES just numbers - like, I dunno, scouting reports and other professional opinions for instance.

But circling back around to the point of making comparisons - There's no problem at all saying that taking Aherns and passing on Peroda looks like a mistake so far (I won't say Porcello because I think that was a signability thing or he would have gone long before the Jays had a chance at him) - but yu can find comparisons like that in any draft...especially regarding players who haven't made the majors yet.

I don't see anyone making any exuses for the players who are struggling except (other than noting ages) in one case - quoted below - and yet the myth seems to be that this is what's happening. IIRC, at the time of the draft the Jays' class was widely regarded as one of the best groups taken by people with no reason to be biased. all I'm arguing, and I suspect all ANYone here is arguing, is that the bad numbers so far on the part of some draftees ought to be balanced against what professional talent evaluators said of the players in the first place.

Neither the praise in absence of the results, or vice versa, should be considered alone.

I too think that the Jays system will be in the bottom quarter for sure this year

Dunno if it will be THAT low but it's gonna lose ground for sure.

and admit dissapointment  in the early returns on the 2007 high schoolers,

So far.I admit I have a bias in Jackson's favor that I have to contain. But beyond that, it would have been nice if Aherns and Eiland (in particular) had gotten off to a more promising start) On the other hand, Emaus (even though he's slowed) and Zep have far exceeded my initial hopes so it's not all THAT bad.

I'm not that disappointed in JPA so much as in the handling - I think he was rushed and ougth to have been in AA this year - and I'm (perhaps over generously) looking towards your last point in regards to jackson. So on balance, I'm not as crushed as i might have been.

but if you can't acknowledge that needing a new Ulnar ligament in your leading elbow might affect your contact rate, you sir are the one who is delusional.

Exactly. I don't understand what's going on there - I was begining to think it was just me who was using the injury as a crutch to keep from downgrading my estimation of Jackson's future. But it seemed to me to be pretty much a given that once we learned about his injury we had to take everything he's done so far with a huge grain of salt - especially given it's the SAME shoulder he miseed a month with early LAST season.


ayjackson - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 07:46 PM EDT (#204911) #
The Tigers have Porcello for just three more seasons after this one, I believe - he signed a major league contract on signing day.
Moe - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 07:50 PM EDT (#204913) #
The Tigers have Porcello for just three more seasons after this one, I believe - he signed a major league contract on signing day.

I believe that just means he is put on the 40men roster which limits his time in the minors before he either has to be put on the 25men roster or becomes a minor FA. It has no impact on his service time. That clock started this year and he will be a FA accordingy.
Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 07:57 PM EDT (#204914) #
you can't acknowledge that needing a new Ulnar ligament in your leading elbow might affect your contact rate

So you can give him a pass for the bad stats somewhat due to the injury, but ignore the fact that needing that surgery has on your long term prognosis on your future.  Just keep using the facts that help your case and ignore the ones that use them.


MatO - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:04 PM EDT (#204916) #

but ignore the fact that needing that surgery has on your long term prognosis on your future

So what is your prognosis Dr. Jim?

Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:10 PM EDT (#204917) #

Does BP consider the translations to be the last word on how good a prospect will be? I confess I'm not well schooled on just exactly what the theory is behind that set of numbers.

Of course they don't.  No one would but they give you an idea of the relationship between his age, his stats and what that has meant historically.

Um....the real life numbers DON'T support my position any more than the ones you quoted so...uh...yeah...whatever you were trying to say there...

I was saying that you like to use third order wins to talk about the quality of the major league team and how it's handy to pick and choose which numbers you use from BP.  When they fit your worldview they are great, when they don't not so much.

Right. It was JUST Rios who took a while to get going. Just that ONE time. So silly of me that I didn't check the stats for the last 150 guys drafted out of high school to see if there was a pattern. 

Obviously it's not one, I never said it was.  But for every 100 players who strike out 35% of the time in the low minors you probably get 1 legitimate major leaguer.  Jackson probably won't even be on a top 500 prospect list by the beginning of next year.  He'll be lucky to be 15th on the Jays list which is probably about 25th out of 30 teams. 

Could he still turn into something?  Yes, of course anything is possible.  What are the chances he plays 500 games in the major leagues?  10%?  Chances he ever makes an all-star team?  0.5%? 

Guys that walk with no power in the minor leagues get their bats knocked out of their hands as they climb the ladder.  Once the pitchers can throw strikes why would you walk a guy who slugs under .300?

I don't even see how his numbers compare with Rios anyway.  Yeah Rios had a low OPS when he was 20... but he only struck out 59 times in 529 at bats, and Rios strikes out about ~18% of the time in the major leagues.  


Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:12 PM EDT (#204918) #
So what is your prognosis Dr. Jim?

According to you because I don't know how it turns out I'm not allowed to have a prediction, so I won't bother with one.
MatO - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:18 PM EDT (#204919) #
You did not say it was a prediction based upon your extensive medical knowledge but you called it "the fact".  That ain't no prediction. Economist, doctor.  What else?
Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:21 PM EDT (#204920) #
It's a fact that being so severely injured when you are 20 years old that you slug .267 in the FSL is a negative indicator going forward for your career. 

Obviously every injury and player is different, but you let me know when someone shows that being injured is a positive sign.



Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:26 PM EDT (#204921) #
I worded my Detroit comment too strongly.  They probably would trade Porcello for the entire draft.  They wouldn't trade him for the 7 picks in the top 88. 

Cecil/Arencibia/Tolisano don't bring back Porcello.  

Cecil/Arencibia/Tolisano/Mills/Zep/Emaus/Mastroianni probably would be enough to get it done.

TamRa - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:28 PM EDT (#204922) #
So you can give him a pass for the bad stats somewhat due to the injury, but ignore the fact that needing that surgery has on your long term prognosis on your future.  Just keep using the facts that help your case and ignore the ones that use them.

Having an injury, having it identified and surgecially treated, is not an automatic negative.

It is, OF COURSE, a question mark - another level of uncertainty - which must definately be taken into account. But it's not any more true one can assume the guy will never hit again (Wells, for instance, hit fine last year after a similar situation in 2007) than we can assume he'd have been a .300 hitter without it.

So why do you assume anyone is ignoring it or the potential consiquences of it when all that's been said is "we'll have to wait and see if he hits better now"

See, that's a nice textbook of why you stand apart from the crowd here on this subject - YOU are the one assuming an outcome - a negative one - while other commenters are saying "this may be a factor, we'll have to wait and see"

That said, the reality is that needing - and getting - surgery could EASILY improve the prospects of ANY player. It's not a far fetched notion at all.

It all depends on the nature of the injury, the nature of the treatment, and the circumstances of each individual situation.
MatO - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:32 PM EDT (#204923) #
There's the difference.  I really have no idea how the injury and surgery will affect Jackson.  Maybe he was playing through it all season and it affected his power.  Maybe the surgery will fix that.  I don't know and neither do you but you act as if you do know and then claim that it's a "prediction".  That's it, I'm done.  Enjoy your misery Jim.  You better hope Snider gets hurt because I think he might disappoint you.
ayjackson - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:44 PM EDT (#204924) #

Just keep using the facts that help your case and ignore the ones that use them.

You're confusing me with someone who has a cause.

Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 08:51 PM EDT (#204925) #
See, that's a nice textbook of why you stand apart from the crowd here on this subject - YOU are the one assuming an outcome - a negative one - while other commenters are saying "this may be a factor, we'll have to wait and see"

I don't stand apart from the 'crowd', I stand apart from the group that only wants to use the evidence that fits their desired outcome.  

The statistical evidence is great when it fits the story you want to tell, it's brushed away with excuses when it doesn't. 

If you really think that Jackson's injuries and subsequent surgeries are good for his development then we just need to stop talking, because that is just flat out insane.   Maybe they can figure out a way to injure the 09 draft class as they sign so they can get them under the knife during the off-season. 

One last comment for MatO though, just because I am realistic about the prospects of a player who slugs .267 in the FSL doesn't make me miserable, nor does it make me hope that Snider isn't a superstar.  It's great that only people that think exactly like you are fans.  I've been reading this site long enough to know that there are thousands of megabytes wasted on players who were never prospects, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not in the crowd that predicts stardom for every player who has a decent 2 months in Auburn or Lansing.   You can go back and read all sorts of bold predictions for everyone from Kurt Isenburg to Jayce TIngler to Vito Chiaravalloti to Christian Snavely to Chip Cannon.  Trust me, I've bitten my tongue hundreds of times over the years reading hilarious comments about the most mediocre minor leaguers, but when we are going to continue to talk about the promise of a guy who strikes out 35% of the time in single A, reality needs to be brought into the equation.
ayjackson - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 09:02 PM EDT (#204926) #

If you really think that Jackson's injuries and subsequent surgeries are good for his development

*sighs*

zeppelinkm - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 09:15 PM EDT (#204927) #

Jim I haven't read anything from anyone that says his injury is good for his development.

All i've read is that perhaps it played a role in his low BA and low SLG % this year.  We don't know, there are simply too many factors involved.

So we will watch and see how he does next year when he is supposedly healthy. If after an off-season of rehab he comes back next year and posts a sub .300 SLG % then we can start to say with more confidence that perhaps Jackson will never turn into the player we were hoping. But for now to say that he has no future based off this season is a bit harsh, because of extenuating circumstances. 

 

Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 09:18 PM EDT (#204928) #
Really?  Isn't that what this gem says?

That said, the reality is that needing - and getting - surgery could EASILY improve the prospects of ANY player. It's not a far fetched notion at all.

ayjackson - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 09:24 PM EDT (#204929) #
Sometimes people get drawn into the darnedest statements in an argument - it happened to me once, and now I have kids.
Mike Green - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 09:26 PM EDT (#204930) #
Willing self-delusion is not my cup of tea

One part chamomile, one part mate will get you there, if it is.

Justin Jackson is a complicated story.  He plays excellent defence at short.  He runs well.  He had medium range pop last year in Lansing when he was not hurt.  And he strikes out more than once per game. He's not exactly the profile of an "old player's skills" player like Ryan Howard or Tom Brunansky, but it is true that most young players who can hit either have much more power or strike out much less.  Which is why I prefer Pastornicky.  On the other hand, Arencibia has struck out a lot since he arrived at double A, and that's a lot bigger deal for a 22/23 year old catcher in the high minors than for a 20 year old shortstop in the low minors. 

Actually, I finally found something of a comp for Justin Jackson.  Royce Clayton.  Clayton was behind Jackson in the Midwest League at age 19 (striking out almost once per game with no power) and took a step forward at age 20 in the California League. Clayton was promoted to the Show at age 22 after hitting .240/.300/.339 in the PCL!  Clayton had cut his K rate down, though.  Personally, I think that the Jays would be wisest to have both Jackson and Pastornicky in Dunedin next year to begin the season, sharing the shortstop role (with each playing a bit of second base or third base and DHing).


ayjackson - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 09:27 PM EDT (#204931) #
Though I guess if I had a bum elbow, surgery could improve my prospects (for what I'm not sure).   I hazard a guess that that was Willrain's point.  Not that surgery would improve a healthy person's prospects.
Jim - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 09:54 PM EDT (#204933) #
Sure, surgery might make an injury better.  There is plenty of evidence that not everyone heals, and every injury takes just a little bit out of you.  Even if it's 100% successful, you've lost development time and I'm at a loss as to how it could ever be a good sign that you need surgery.

If someone was hitting .200 playing with an injury he didn't tell anyone about and surgery improved it, then sure it might help the numbers going forward.   The simple fact that were hurt and needed surgery is a bad sign.  The ability to stay healthy is a huge part of being a valuable professional athlete. 

Guys like Erik Bedard are great when they are healthy, but they are much less valuable then their playing talent alone would be worth. 



VBF - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 09:57 PM EDT (#204934) #
Question about UZR: Can UZR be altered based on which fielders are playing in proximity to the player in question? So if Edwin Encarnacion replaces Rolen at third base, can we expect Scutaro's UZR to increase since he'll be attempting to make plays on balls Edwin can't reach but balls Rolen would normally get to?

And would this have a reverse effect on Vernon Wells, since Bautista/Inglett are worse defensive options than Rios, will Vernon be making catches that Rios would have called him off on? I suspect the answer is no since he's become so slow with or without Rios.

ayjackson - Monday, August 17 2009 @ 10:06 PM EDT (#204935) #
Good question VBF.  I don't know the answer but it leads me to another question.  Someone asked if the Jays perhaps play Rios more into CF to compensate for his great range or Vernon's poor range and shade Vernon around to LF to compensate for Lind.This could reduce Vernon's UZR because Rios would be making more plays in the CF zone and Vernon would be making less OOZ plays.  Possible?
John Northey - Tuesday, August 18 2009 @ 12:38 AM EDT (#204958) #
I've been wondering if the various fielding measures for outfielders might have been hit with a bias for Wells earlier on.  If the LF and RF'ers are both quality CF'ers in range (as Johnson & Rios were) that should mean they get to balls that are in the CF'ers zone thus reduce the potential plays that the CF would not have got to anyways.  I'm assuming that if another fielder makes a play on a ball in your zone that it doesn't count against (or for) you as the other player took it.  If this is the case then Wells range might be the same as before but those balls on the edge that used to be taken are no longer being taken.

An interesting thought at least.

westcoast dude - Tuesday, August 18 2009 @ 01:39 AM EDT (#204971) #
Vernon Wells is the Goldman Sachs of the Toronto Blue Jays.  Now that the Jake Marisnick era has arrived; stick him in CF next month, just for fun.
binnister - Tuesday, August 18 2009 @ 03:19 AM EDT (#204973) #

Um..hello?

The Jay's failed to sign 3 of there top 5 picks in the 2009 draft.  Isn't this bigger news than...whatever we've been talking about here?

TamRa - Tuesday, August 18 2009 @ 04:10 AM EDT (#204974) #
If you really think that Jackson's injuries and subsequent surgeries are good for his development then we just need to stop talking, because that is just flat out insane.

Looking back, that was astonishingly poorly worded.

Let me try again -

FINDING OUT that a player was injured and getting surgery to address that injury can improve the player's prospects (and the preception of the player's future)

If a player is playing with a hidden injury, one he hasn't reported and the coaches haven't detected, and said player gets mediocre results because of the imairment of the injury, then he might not ever get better, and those who get paid to assess his play might conclude he either lacks talent or lacks the ability to capitalize on his talents.

Now, assume that player reports his injury, or a team trainer or coach discovers he is injured - and the team orders treatment which corrects the injury, then:

a. the player has a greatly increased chance of better performance
b. the evaluators have a reason to take his previous performance with a huge grain of salt
c. both the level of play, and the potential evaluation have a great chance of getting better

That's what I was trying to say. it should be bleeding obvious to you that I was NOT saying that a player can be made better by getting hurt.

honestly, even though the sentence was utterly butchered on my part, it doesn't do you any good to reply to it as if I had actually been saying something THAT insane. it would have been a lot more rational to just say "that sentence makes no sense - what were you trying to say?"


bball12 - Friday, August 28 2009 @ 08:40 AM EDT (#205667) #

Lots of interesting opinions - but maybe someone can fill me in on this guy "Jim".

I see where he is giving no credence at all to the impact of Jacksons shoulder injury. Thats seems odd - Jackson is a talented - and YOUNG - kid playing High A ball. You might want to give him another couple years before you write him off Jimbo.

And Emaus - with the exception of one bad month - has played pretty well.

Then - the comments about Mastroianni - "cratering" at AA? The guy is third on the team in hitting and has stolen 32 bases - in AA  alone - and has only been there for about 8 weeks. He is also turning into an excellent CF that covers alot of turf.

What gives with this guy Jim?

lexomatic - Friday, August 28 2009 @ 10:50 AM EDT (#205670) #
JIm appears to be someone who, while occasionally having a valid point (like everyone on here), aggressively nitpicks on details from posts that don't agree with his point of view, accuses people of reading only what they want to to support their view (while doing it himself) and obstinately refuses to rationally discuss issues. While some of these traits are characteristic of what is called a "troll", I suspect he is not one, because his views are not THAT outlandish. I do think he likes a good argument, or just can't stand to be wrong (you've only dismissed other viewpoints from what I've seen.) I only wish you'd pause and think a bit before answering Jim, so that I want to read your posts to see what you have to say. Currently you cause repetitive arguments over details and it's just getting boring.
Is Vernon Wells the least Valuable Every Day Player in Baseball? | 145 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.