Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Beeston's Back, for Three Years

The Jays announced today that Paul Beeston has been appointed President and CEO for a three year term.

"We are thrilled that we were able to convince Paul Beeston to take on this role," continued Tony Viner. "Paul's background with the club, his credentials in the baseball world and his enthusiasm for this sport will be incredible assets." Paul Beeston will work with newly appointed General Manager, Alex Anthopoulos.

This is positive news, Beeston has a great reputation in baseball and it can only help in giving a very solid base to the team.

Also Alex Anthopoulos looks to be permanent now, I think the new President likes him. It is a good day in Blue Jay Land.

Posted by Gerry on Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 03:06 PM EDT.

Beeston's Back, for Three Years | 105 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Matthew E - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 03:15 PM EDT (#207750) #

Typical of Toronto. In other news, the Leafs are bringing Wendel Clark out of retirement in an effort to increase their scoring.

VBF - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 03:27 PM EDT (#207751) #

I'd like to see how much time Beeston spent looking for a replacement last year relative to his duties as an interim president because I certainly didn't notice much difference from the Godfrey years except he seemed significantly less visible than Godfrey ever was.

Off the field, he was remembered for making the Blue Jays, Canada's Team yet there was no effort this year to offer the rabid west coast fan base any sort of product to work with, if only to capitalize on the financial reward (this same year the Jays lost GM as a sponsor). He declined CBC's lowered bid to broadcast national games this season (CBC is probably the most nationally covered television station in Canada), and the in-game experience was just as centered around selling us things than Godfrey's ever was (there were 6 fast food chains heavily promoted between innings).

There seemed to be a conscious effort to not hand out tickets this year, but I didn't notice much else. Hopefully as a full-time president he is able to make this team the way he had so much success with.

Denoit - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 03:31 PM EDT (#207752) #

I don't see anything wrong with this move, actually in the current situation in think he is the perfect person. I'm looking forward to the next 3 years.

TamRa - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 03:43 PM EDT (#207754) #

I only see one thing wrong - does this mean Gston is safe?

Wildrose - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 04:14 PM EDT (#207756) #

I like this - the guy has a proven track record of success, he's got lots of experience and energy. I don't think he'd take the job unless Rogers made a certain level of commitment in terms of autonomy and financial certainty. He's always been the best candidate.

christaylor - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 04:18 PM EDT (#207757) #

I think WillRain has hit the nail on the head -- the only downside is that this almost assures Gaston will be back to start the season.

Hopefully, Beeston leveraged Roger's wanting him back versus him not wanting to come back full time to get something for the team on the field and the organization as a whole.

Mike Green - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 04:21 PM EDT (#207758) #

A good day in Blue Jay land would be if ownership announced that the total payroll for the next 3 years will be $330 million, come hell or high water. I am not holding my breath.

Wallowing in 4th place for a decade or so like the Orioles did, because the team was neither committed to rebuilding or winning, is the pits.

Jim - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 04:32 PM EDT (#207759) #

He's so enthused that it took a year for us to talk him into taking the job.

Timbuck2 - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 04:37 PM EDT (#207760) #

Actually the rumor is Paul has always wanted the job. The true negotiations have been with Pauls Wife who did not want him to.

Matthew E - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 04:37 PM EDT (#207761) #

What a happy coincidence it is that every time the Jays need to hire somebody, they're able to find the perfect guy already in the organization. I'm surprised the other teams are able to compete with Toronto, if the Blue Jays have that kind of personnel advantage.

Timbuck2 - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#207762) #

This rumor BTW was curtesy of Blair in an online chat just after the season ended.

Mike Green - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 04:49 PM EDT (#207763) #

Actually the rumor is Paul has always wanted the job. The true negotiations have been with Pauls Wife who did not want him to.

Presidential candidate: Come on, honey. I really want another shot at running the club, and building it back into a winner.
Candidate's Wife: Meetings, meetings and more meetings. Boring. You're almost 65, you know, and we should be enjoying the good life.
Presidential candidate: Please.
Candidate's Wife: All those meetings during the day and then two late night poker games a week with smelly guys and their smelly cigars.
Presidential candidate: (thinks) I'll give up the poker games. Once a month, max.
Candidate's wife: OK...I am too soft.

92-93 - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 05:02 PM EDT (#207764) #

This is a good thing?! How do people not realize that Paul Beeston was single-handedly responsible for the entire failure of a season that was 2009? Things were never this bad when JP/Godfrey had control for a reason.

Helpmates - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 05:24 PM EDT (#207766) #

Wonderful...here's hoping he brings the same commitment and intensity that he brought to the Paxton negotiations.

John Northey - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 05:27 PM EDT (#207767) #

And how is 2009 a complete failure? We had a lot of excitement for the first couple of months (fun dreaming while in first place). We saw Lind live up to all hopes, Romero came into his own in the majors, we had a few kids come up and impress at times in the rotation, the team finished close to 500 with a positive runs for/against figure. Yes, there was that mess at the end which appears to have largely been caused by the (now fired) GM and ex-players. Cito is here for one more 'farewell' tour in a season which many Cito critics feel isn't likely to be a contending one anyways. Attendance dropped, but that was in part by design with the lowered expectations to start the season and the cut back in free tickets.

To me this year wasn't a success, but it still had a lot more fun in it than many past seasons. A bad taste at the end of the season, but hope for the future with a new GM and Beeston now committed to the team.

Mylegacy - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 05:38 PM EDT (#207768) #

I'm with John on this one.

09 coulda been a lot worse - I enjoyed most of the year. Going forward knowing there is stability is a plus.

Best news to me - Mel Queen being named as an assistant to AA. I've had a man crush on Mel for over 20 years!

Matthew E - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 06:03 PM EDT (#207769) #

Oh, it wasn't the worst year ever. (1995 or 2004 was.) But it was the one where the franchise basically gave back any progress they had made in the past x number of years. It was the one that demonstrated to my satisfaction, if not to anyone else's, that there is no hope.

92-93 - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 06:10 PM EDT (#207770) #

John, stop being ridiculous. You can find positives in ANY team's season. Heck, the Royals got solid years from Billy Butler and Alberto Callaspo, and obviously Zack Greinke. That doesn't change the fact that 2009 was a failure for them, much like a couple of Jays surprises doesn't change the fact that 2009 was a failure at the Dome. This is the overwhelming feeling of the fan base, and was the feeling around the Box all summer.

Four Seamer - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 06:13 PM EDT (#207771) #

It demonstrated it to mine as well, Matthew E. When F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that there were no second acts in Amercan lives, he clearly did not have the countering example of the moribund Toronto sports scene to contend with.

Mylegacy - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 07:04 PM EDT (#207773) #

Some interesting news about AA...

Larry Millson writing in BA said that when AA became scouting coordinator with the Expos in 2002 he got all the MLB videos going back to 1998 and watched them.

AA says, " I looked at the players that were picked high that didn't make it, the ones that did make it and tried to figure out why. I looked at old scouting reports. I think it helped, the thing about scouting is you're going to constantly improve."

That's good news. the guy obviously has a very good work ethic and does what it takes to learn. I'm impressed.

greenfrog - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 07:51 PM EDT (#207774) #

On its face, this looks like a good move, but I'll reserve judgement until I see what kind of moves he makes (and what kind of budget he manages to coax out of Rogers). PB talked a good game in 2009 but the front office results were pretty grim (starting with the boondoggle that was the June draft). However, I'm happy that AA got hired. And Keith Law seems to approve of AA's poaching of Dana Brown from the Nationals, which seems like a good sign.

On the other hand, the thought of another year of Gaston's "tactically inert" managing is depressing. They say that a manager affects the outcome of only about 1-3 games per year, but I have a sinking feeling that Cito's lineups and pitching management have a bigger impact than that...and not in the right direction.

Ron - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 08:54 PM EDT (#207775) #

Another dark day in Jays land. With Beeston in charge, there’s no chance he’s going to fire his good friend, Cito Gaston. This is the same man that didn’t even bother to conduct a real search for a GM. And of course Beeston said the gloves were going to be off for the draft and we all know how that turned out.

Joe Sixer said the Jays interviewed a number of highly qualified individuals for the President position. If they did interview other people, I’m surprised not one name leaked out. I know the Jays had interest in the Suns president, but he turned down an interview. I’m curious to know who the other people were.

VBF - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 09:31 PM EDT (#207776) #

Off the field I'm not convinced, but on the field and I think there's enough to be content with.

It's speculation but Beeston's announcement comes in the same timeframe as Anthopoulos' proposal with Rogers. One would think Beeston would wait to see what Rogers' decision was before he stuck his name to something for three years. So I think it's reasonable to think that Beeston:

a) likes Anthopoulos' plan, and
b) Rogers' reaction to what the plan is.

brent - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 09:53 PM EDT (#207777) #

I don't see that it matters a whole lot that the Beest is staying. The important thing is GM AA. He will have to solve the problem of what the team is going to do up the middle (improve at catcher, get a decent shortstop and maybe moving Wells to a corner). As much as people are worried about the offence, it is the pitching that needs to bounce back.

Mylegacy - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 11:11 PM EDT (#207779) #

AA's decisions will be made at a time when the crop of free agents is pretty icky and trades seem hard to come by.

As to the Beast signing up for three - I agree he must be onside with AA's plan (such as it might be) and thinks Rogers will agree or - as has been said - he wouldn't have agreed to come on for three years.

Now lets get the sails up and get the good ship Blue Jay under way.

John Northey - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 11:41 PM EDT (#207780) #

Heh. I find the negative people quite funny here.

At the start of 2009 how many predicted the Jays to do any better than, say, 85 wins? I was probably the only one and I prefaced it with 'everything must go right'. In the end we had a team which had a runs for/against that suggested an 84 win team was what the real talent was and that would've made everyone very happy in the pre-season.

For the kids, Snider had a 96 OPS+ and seems established now. Lind had a 142 OPS+. 3B reduced in age from 34 to 26 (quality down, but if we aren't going to win this year anyways youth is good). SP saw Cecil, Rzepczynski, and Romero establish themselves a bit (Cecil not as much as the others).

Team ERA+ of 98 despite only Halladay making it through the whole season (and even he had a DL stint) - drastic drop from the 122 last year but we also didn't have 4 of last years rotation members and our closer collapsed. 102 OPS+ for the offense after last years 94.

I see positives when I look back. At the time they didn't always feel that way but now I see a lot more positive than I did as it happened.

John Northey - Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 11:50 PM EDT (#207781) #

Listening to the Fan 590 interview with Beeston he certainly said the right things - including that the Jays ARE a large market team and WILL spend with the LA's and NY's and Boston teams when the time is right.

Now, the proof will be in the pudding as they say, but this winter will say a lot about short term direction. We'll have to wait for 2010/2011 offseason to know the long term.

92-93 - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 12:54 AM EDT (#207782) #

"AA's decisions will be made at a time when the crop of free agents is pretty icky"

This is not true. There is a ton of talent out there this year that can be had at a bargain, much like last offseason. If you mean it's icky because there's no Teixeira or Sabathia out there, well, the Jays would never be players in that sort of bidding war anyway.

westcoast dude - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 01:19 AM EDT (#207783) #

I doubt if Mr. Beeston can get the Blue Jays on Vancouver radio, but the ratings would be good, in my opinion. Few fans want to listen to Seattle baseball, heck I'd prefer listening to the Giants to thhat, given my druthers, but Blue Jays games on the radio would get my attention and ears on a regular basis, with or without local boys on the roster.

Overall, this is a great move, if only because it assures continuity and commitment from ownership. Also, September was encouraging, considering the limitations in the rotation. I'd like to see Barajas come back, heck, even St. Paddy's Day Chavez, too, what's not to like? This team has dark horse sleeper written all over it for next year, and that's always fun. No predictions, though, that's a jinx.

brent - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 01:32 AM EDT (#207785) #

The free agent list is here.

I think he means especially at catcher and SS (what the Jays need) the draft is icky. It's definitely a good year to go dumpster diving when a lot of teams might be willing to only offer minor league deals. I think you have to take a risk with Sheets and Harden. You can never have enough starters. I like Schneider at C too. I'd kick the tires on Blalock, Nick Johnson, Delgado, O-Dog, Crosby, Beltre, Crede, Glaus (for DH), Tejada, Bay, Wily Mo, Dye (if bought out), Bedard, Park Chan Ho (maybe I can see the games on TV then), Pettitte and Bradford. A lot tires need to be kicked because this team needs to have a new look for 2010. Bringing back mostly the same group would be foolish unless the plan is just to rebuild.

FranklyScarlet - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 08:07 AM EDT (#207786) #

From Richard Griffin...

So what does this mean for Cito Gaston?

The appointment of Beeston is the only way that replacing Gaston as manager of the Jays – which is now likely – can go smoothly, without rancour and repercussion.

The Jays need a new manager moving forward.

So, Beeston may move Cito upstairs?

Mike Green - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 09:36 AM EDT (#207787) #

Incidentally, this year was much worse than 2004. In 2004, Halladay and Wells were injured, Rios was promoted too soon due to a lack of outfield depth, and a variety of small things happened which caused the club to win under 70 games. There was nothing however which suggested that the club would not be a potential contender in following years. The core of young talent was very good, and I was excited about the talent in the system (including Hill and Lind). I said as much in the post-mortem after the Season from Hell.

This October feels like the end of a cycle, and one that was ultimately completely unsuccessful.

Matthew E - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 10:07 AM EDT (#207788) #

Yeah, but at least nobody died this year.

TamRa - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 10:18 AM EDT (#207789) #

At the start of 2009 how many predicted the Jays to do any better than, say, 85 wins? I was probably the only one and I prefaced it with 'everything must go right'.

I said 86 (true talent, +/-3 for variations from the pythag - luck basiclly)

All my win predictions assume a +/- 3 variation

Four Seamer - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 11:32 AM EDT (#207790) #

Yeah, but at least nobody died this year.

Apart from Ted Rogers.

jmoney - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 11:45 AM EDT (#207791) #

I dunno know. I'm pretty jaded, but with the injuries to the pitchers and the complete collapse from key guys like Wells and Rios. I have to say that last season could have been a lot worse. I think Snider breaks out next season like Lind did this year.

Matthew E - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 11:46 AM EDT (#207792) #

Oh, right. Was that just this year? Not to poormouth Rogers, but I regret the loss of John Cerutti, Doug Ault and Bobby Mattick (not to mention the onset of Tom Cheek's illness) more than I do Rogers.

nanook - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 11:47 AM EDT (#207793) #

There's plenty of negatives to find in any situation, but the overriding positive for me is the possibility of a return to the Blue Jay Way.
Throughout the first incarnation of the Beast, the Jays were considered one of the classiest organizations in MLB.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone saying that since JP has been here.
By the way, classy translated into the top players in the game actually wanting to come to a foreign land and play in a city most of them probably couldn't even spell.
Well, class and the top payroll in the game.
Heres hoping.

metafour - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 11:53 AM EDT (#207795) #

Get ready to see the baseball equivalent of the Maple Leafs.

Beeston and company will attempt to pull a Burke and model a "quick retool", which is obviously quite dangerous as you can see the current state of the Leafs.

John Northey - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 12:49 PM EDT (#207797) #

The biggest question going forward is where are strengths and weaknesses and what will it take to fix the weaknesses?

30+ years old (thus needing replacement soon as odds are declines are coming)
Offense: 1B/SS/CA/CF
Pitching: Halladay, Tallet, Frasor, Camp, Downs.

Under 25 (thus growth is likely and prime is about to hit)...
Offense: Snider
Pitching: Romero, Cecil, Rzepczynski, Litsch, Mills

In Prime (25-29) thus peaks could come this year or any year soon
Offense: Lind, Hill, Bautista, Encarnacion
Pitching: McGowan, Marcum, Purcy, Richmond, League, Carlson, Janssen, Accardo, Ray, Hayhurst, Roenicke, Wolfe, ...

Huh. Didn't notice just how many pitchers were in those prime years at the moment. So for 2010 our rotation outside of Halladay will be in the years where peaks can be expected. The offense has 4 guys pre/at prime and 4 outside plus whoever DH's. The pen has a couple of older guys but also tons of guys in their primes.

Basically, the decision has to be made on what can be brought in for SS/CA/DH (or an OF slot) and if the gains can be 10 wins worth from those additions (less what we had last year) plus the (hoped for) improvement in the pitching with more guys healthy.

Snider should improve thus balancing out Lind's probable drop (that was a career year for Lind imo).
Wells improvement (alternate year thing with him) and better performance from Encarnacion should balance out loss of 1/2 a year of Rolen.
Decline from Overbay, but improvement vs LHP via Ruiz or some other warm body vs Millar should break even.
At catcher we should find something better than a low 70's OPS+ to help cover the drop at SS from a 109 to the low 90's/high 80's (with luck we'll get that at both thus evening out).
Hill's decline (peak season) should be balanced by a 1/2 decent DH hitting better than Rios and the assortment of replacements did last year (Rios hit for a 95 OPS+ here, 35 in Chicago).

Thus I see the offense being about equal to last years in the end. A bit of a hit on defense is likely though. No major shift overall from the low 100's for OPS+

Pitching? We have Halladay still (hopefully) but probably a bit worse than this year (age). However spots 2-5 should improve as we shouldn't see 66 starts by guys with ERA+'s of 79-82 again (Cecil, Tallet, Richmond) with the kids having more experience and Marcum returning and hopefully Litsch and McGowan as well. Romero should improve on his 102 while Rzep drops from his 119 perch. I'd expect a climb to 105 for ERA+ from sub-100.

So, what does that equal? A 102 in both would be around 800 for and 760 against or around 85 wins. Add in 1 star quality (5 win player) at SS or CA and you have a 90+ win team. Have the staff improve to 110 (not unreasonable) and you have about 3-5 more wins as well (shifts to 90+ on its own).

This team is one heck of a lot closer to winning than most see it as being. Last year we scored 5 fewer runs than Tampa while allowing 17 more for a net of 22 runs. That isn't a lot to gain over 162. Of course, we have to catch Boston or NY though. Spreads there were offense: 74/117 pitching: 35/18 net: 109/135 or about 11-13 wins worth. Add in a star calibre player at SS or CA, get more improvement than expected from the staff and they are there.

Join me in happy land. Enjoy the offseason and dream of a better time being right around the corner! It could easily happen, and AA gets executive of the year in 2010.

John Northey - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#207798) #

Note: The Leafs last year were 250-293 for/against in goals. 231/260 the year before. You have to go back to 2003/2004 to get a positive goals for/against there. They were lucky to be winning as much as they did before this year. The Jays on the other hand were last negative on runs for/against in 2004 (2002 was JP's only other year with a negative runs for/against btw). The Ash years saw 3 positive seasons and 4 negative. Keep that in mind when evaluating the Jays vs Leafs vs older Jay teams.

FYI: GIllick's record was 11-6 for positive/negative runs for/against with 5 negatives to start, then 11 positive, then 1994.

92-93 - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 01:25 PM EDT (#207799) #

"There was nothing however which suggested that the club would not be a potential contender in following years."

Except releasing your best OF for nothing and downgrading at 3B via a trade that won't help in 2010.

The Jays may very well be able to do some prudent spending this offseason and contend in 2010 - that won't change the fact that to us fans, everything Beeston said prior to 2009 looked like smoke and mirrors all season. Combine that with the Jays playing .350 ball bookended by a hot start and finish and the Jays inability to sign 3 top draft picks, and you have your failure of a season. Pointing out the numerous advances made by certain players last year doesn't change that fact.

MatO - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 01:36 PM EDT (#207800) #

For those who thought the Yankees were suffering in the their new stadium due to the economy and debt service here's a sobering article from Jeff Blair

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/the-rich-get-richer/article1341128/

Magpie - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 01:48 PM EDT (#207801) #

Was that just this year?

Actually it wasn't. Ted Rogers died in December 2008.

Mike Green - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 01:52 PM EDT (#207802) #

92-93, I was referring to 2004, not to 2009.

christaylor - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 02:01 PM EDT (#207803) #

"Add in 1 star quality (5 win player) at SS or CA and you have a 90+ win team. Have the staff improve to 110 (not unreasonable) and you have about 3-5 more wins as well (shifts to 90+ on its own).

Join me in happy land. Enjoy the offseason and dream of a better time being right around the corner! It could easily happen, and AA gets executive of the year in 2010."

I'd like to travel to (go back to?)happy land for 2010 but assuming the Jays can't rip any other team off in a trade for a package of their surplus young pitching and assuming that w/o Halladay 2010 is a disaster; what are the options of obtaining a star quality SS/C? The only one that comes to mind is V-Mart. With SS, I believe in the possibility of someone who can save a ton of runs (which would be a very good thing with another year of pitching).

There's also the problem of DH. If the OF is going to be Lind/Wells/Snider (which Cito seemed loathe to run out there). Then perhaps Ruiz will do, but to be in happy land the Jays need to roll the dice. A feel good option who might return to Toronto could be Delgado (and who'd perhaps give a return to hometown discount).

If AA adds V-Mart, a good defense-first SS (Everett or Wilson) and Delgado. I'm willing to go optimistic for 2010 (assuming everything goes right). I can imagine BOS collapsing and TB regressing for 2009 (Bartlett and Zobrist? Really?). That said. For me the road to happy land seems a long, winding, road through the rockies.

James W - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 02:05 PM EDT (#207805) #

They [the Leafs] were lucky to be winning as much as they did before this year.

The Leafs have been anything but winners since 03-04. Finishing 40-31-11 is a losing season, 91 points be damned. Just because the NHL hands out points like candy on Hallowe'en doesn't make the Leafs winners.

Denoit - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 02:30 PM EDT (#207806) #

downgrading at 3B via a trade

You can argue this point, and I'm going too. Sure Rolens '09 season was much better than Encarnacions. Also Encarnacion's defence will never be what we wintessed from Rolen in 08 and 09, but going forward there is a good chance Encarnacion will be more valuable than Rolen next year. I'm not familliar with the fancy defensive statistics but obviously Rolen is better than Encarnacion. But from what I saw Encarnacion is capable of playing 3rd. His bat is where his value will be. From what I saw I believe Encarnacion can push for 30HR's. He has come close in the past and showed glimpses of what he can do when he is healthy near the end of last season. He also shows a decent eye at the plate and an OPS of .850 is very possible. Rolen will never the power threat he used to be, and is probably only going to get worse as he ages.

Mylegacy - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 03:11 PM EDT (#207807) #

Denoit you've outed the Jay's dirty little secret... Edwin Encarnacion. OBVIOUSLY a healthy, in his prime Rolen is miles ahead of EE.

That's not the point. The point is EE has at least adequate defense and could very well hit 25 to 30 homers REGULARLY for the next five years with a respectable on base percentage. If we DARE add him to Hill, Lind and Snider and DARE I say Ruiz - 2010 could be a pleasant surprise offensively and not the black hole defensively some fear - a healthy SIGNED Scutaro would go a long way to calm my nerves.

Chuck - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 03:16 PM EDT (#207808) #

a healthy SIGNED Scutaro would go a long way to calm my nerves

Out of Glenlivet?

Jdog - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 03:26 PM EDT (#207809) #

Expecting Rolen to be a healthy contributor next year is a big gamble. Its far from certain who will be more valuable next year, probably Rolen, but with the money saved and a good prospect coming back thats an easy trade to make whether you plan on competing in 2010 or not.

92-93 - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#207810) #

Mike, my bad, but I was really just using that quote as a launching pad for what I was trying to say.

"but going forward there is a good chance Encarnacion will be more valuable than Rolen next year. I'm not familliar with the fancy defensive statistics but obviously Rolen is better than Encarnacion. But from what I saw Encarnacion is capable of playing 3rd. His bat is where his value will be."

If you aren't familiar, why say there's a good chance EE is more valuable? Using FanGraphs' Win Share values, Encarnacion's 5 seasons have been worth 3.0, 6.0, 6.6, 9.5, and -0.1 million dollars (yes, he was WORSE than a replacement player in 2009). Over that same time frame Rolen's value has been pegged at 5.1, 20.8, 10.4, 12.9, and 17.2. In other words, the only years EE has approached Rolen's value has been 2007 and 2008, and he still fell way short despite playing 60 more games over those years. Having Rolen in 2010 backed up by Bautista/Inglett makes for a very valuable 3B position. Having Encarnacion backed up by those guys does not, and buying into a few weeks of success in September is a serious mistake.

Mylegacy - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 03:34 PM EDT (#207811) #

TWO THINGS:

First: Chuck I've my eye on a bottle of Glenfiddich's new 50 year old single malt - AND - at ONLY 10,000 POUNDS a bottle - I have a feeling it's be a very hot day in the Highlands before I get a wee dram.

SECOND: Ben Maller at MLB rumours says he's not buying the "informal" line from Beeston about his dinner with Roy, Family and Agent. Ben says Beeston's "legacy as Jay's CEO is directly tied to the future of Roy Halladay." Lovely jubbley - keep ratcheting up the pressure on the sockless one.

92-93 - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 03:40 PM EDT (#207812) #

"but with the money saved"

The money saved is completely irrelevant. The 5.5m difference between them is well worth it for a competing team. And this team does not deserve the benefit of the doubt that it will be pumping those resources back into the team. The Jays saved over 1.5m on the Rios dumping and still let 3 draft picks fall off the table 5 days later.

FisherCat - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 03:52 PM EDT (#207813) #

Speaking of money saved, MLBtraderumors.com posted a list of what they deem as being "bad" contracts and what do you know, Vernon tops the list!

Who on that list (if any) would you swap VW's bad contract for?

jerjapan - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 03:53 PM EDT (#207814) #

Damien Cox has an interesting take on the Beeston hiring on his blog (not that I necessarily agree with him). And yes, I know he's a hockey guy - but he's got to be at least as reliable as Griffin no?

Oh, Toronto can be a quirky sports town, if only for the very different way in which the different teams are perceived and handled by the sports media.

Just look at the announcement two days ago that Paul Beeston had, after a long “search” for a new Blue Jays president, decided that he was, in fact, the best man for the job. This was wildly heralded as a good thing, at least partially a reflection of Beeston’s success in baseball more than 15 years ago and the deep, loyal contacts he has throughout the Toronto sports media. He’s a friendly guy who has a lot of friends.

But remember back in 1997 when Ken Dryden pretty much did the same thing? Dryden was president of the Leafs and after conducting a search for a new general manager, chose himself. For this, he was widely mocked, as was the organization. People rolled their eyes at his inability to find a real hockey person to take the job. Interestingly, and you rarely hear this said, the Leafs went on to have a fair bit of success during Dryden’s tenure, although mostly after he handed the GM reins to Pat Quinn.

So why the two standards? Beeston fires J.P. Ricciardi and hires Ricciardi’s right hand man rather than going outside the organization, then hires himself to be president.

But you don’t see one negative or even mildly critical word.

Had Richard Peddie done the same maneuver, he would have been scalded in criticism. Guess it shows that with Beeston and Cito Gaston, the Jays organization believes it can just keep selling the past.

John Northey - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 04:48 PM EDT (#207816) #

Rolen, in Cincinnati, hit 270/364/401 for an OPS+ of 99 and had some injury issues (40 games).
EE, in Toronto, hit 240/306/442 for an OPS+ of 95 and also had some injury issues (42 games).

Rolen, however, is 34 while EE is 26. Who do you think is more likely to recover and have a solid 2010 with the bat? Yes, Rolen has out played EE so far in their careers. George Brett also has, but I wouldn't put him on the field in 2010. Age is a big factor and to ignore it is folly. EE should be a 100-110 OPS+ guy in 2010 based on his past and his age, and shouldn't have injury issues. Rolen on the other hand should hit at a similar level but will almost certainly have injury issues given he no longer has a manager who knows how to handle fragile players. If I had to bet I'd expect EE to outhit Rolen via most measures (not just OPS+) and to play at least 20 more games. Given the backup situation in Toronto (low budget means low quality for backups normally) I'd think this is the best move. Without factoring in that we added two more pitchers, one of whom is currently listed here at BB as our top prospect and in AAA thus should pitch here next year at some point.

JP deserves blame for many things (Millar for example) but the Rolen trade was exactly what was needed. Clear out a vet having a great year that he is unlikely to replicate for a younger player and prospects.

Timbuck2 - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 04:48 PM EDT (#207817) #

Very interesting fishcat! Lookee who I see at 4th on the list...

Vernon Wells, Blue Jays - five years, $98.5MM
Alfonso Soriano, Cubs - five years, $90MM
Barry Zito, Giants - four years, $83MM
Alex Rios, White Sox - five years, $59.7MM
Travis Hafner, Indians - three years, $40.25MM

This makes me wonder if we can ditch Vernon the same way we ditched Rios? Or maybe we can trade VW for AR? Wouldn't that be a hoot!

Richard S.S. - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 04:50 PM EDT (#207818) #

Paul Beeston's decision to be a part of the rebirth of a Dynasty means big things for this team. The minor leagues will change to a teaching, nuturing and guiding proposition for the Blue Jays, or Everyone in authority in the minor leagues will be turfed. The players in the minors are much better than they are showing. The disgrace is players weights hardly change from year to year. Even in the days of "drug use refusal", just better nutrition should put on at least 10 lbs a year. The problems existing in the minors will be solved. The problems in drafting, scouting and evaluating talent will be solved. The return to the SERIES will be done while he's here. More to come, I've been called away, my appologies.

jmoney - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#207819) #

I guarantee you that Wells was on waivers with Rios and nobody is going to claim that contract. I would happily do a Zito for Wells swap if the Giants were game.

John Northey - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 05:28 PM EDT (#207820) #

Hmm.. which is worse, Soriano or Wells? Same years, close in dollars.

Soriano: entering age 34 season, 85 OPS+ after 3 straight years of 120+ and 7 of 100+, a LF who can play 2B or 3B in a pinch
Wells: entering age 31 season, 87 OPS+. Has 3 120+ OPS+ seasons in his career, 2 other times has been below 100 out of 8 seasons as a regular. Still in CF.

Hrm. I'd probably still take Wells over Soriano thanks to that 3 year advantage and not having been moved (yet) to a corner outfield position but both are ugly contract situations.

Zito... Entering his age 32 season, 180+ IP for 9 years running, 106 ERA+ last year after an 85 and 98 in SF.

Yeah, I'd take Zito over the other two in a second, especially with the one less year to deal with. Zito should be a league average pitcher eating a fair number of innings which is worth around $10 mil a year. Soriano and Wells should be corner outfielders for the rest of their contracts hitting in the 110 range, maybe league average for LF or RF but marginal which is worth around $5-7 mil a year I'd guess. Soriano is the worst situation, then Wells, then Zito.

Magpie - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 05:29 PM EDT (#207821) #

The disgrace is players weights hardly change from year to year.

The weights change all the time. The weights change in the course of the season. But the weight that's listed... that's another story. And it's a story pretty well always filed under "Tales of Mystery and Imagination." And after it's been published, it is... resistant to amendment.

92-93 - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 05:32 PM EDT (#207822) #

I'd trade Wells for Zito in a NY minute. The team would save 10m from 2010-2013 and an additional 14m in 2014 assuming they pay Zito the 7m buyout instead of 18m. This of course would have made much more sense when the team still had Rios. I make these statements assuming the Jays will continue to refuse to move Wells to a corner spot. I wouldn't make this deal, however, if they were to sign a Cameron-type CF and move Wells to a corner with Lind DHing.

92-93 - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 05:59 PM EDT (#207823) #

"Rolen, in Cincinnati, hit 270/364/401 for an OPS+ of 99 and had some injury issues (40 games).
EE, in Toronto, hit 240/306/442 for an OPS+ of 95 and also had some injury issues (42 games)"

40 games? LOL. And even still, Rolen's line was MUCH more valuable, because of the OBP.

"If I had to bet I'd expect EE to outhit Rolen via most measures (not just OPS+"

I'll glady bet you that Rolen posts a higher AVG/OBP.

"Given the backup situation in Toronto (low budget means low quality for backups normally) I'd think this is the best move."

As I already stated, Inglett and Bautista are not low quality bench options. Neither was Marco Scutaro (with JMac at SS).

It's incomprehensible to me how you can ignore the massive defensive discrepancy after I just spent an entire post discussing WAR.

VBF - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 08:58 PM EDT (#207829) #

TamRa - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 10:43 PM EDT (#207831) #

As for the point's about EE's defense...it's not a requirement that we play him at third if the brain trust doesn't see him as a solid defensive 3B. You could, for instance, DH him and go after Figgins if you were throwing around money.

Or if not Figgins then explore other lower-cost and higher risk options. When you consider that, IF Lind is in LF and EE is your DH, exactly who's losing at bats, it'd be difficult to find a 3B who'll give us LESS offense than we had in that open slot last year.

Another alternative is trading Overbay, moving EE to 1B and using Overbay's money to help pay for Figgins (for instance) or maybe you deal for Uggla and put him at 3B or whatever.

I still have a bit of a fetish for Alex Gordon but I don't presume even Dayton moore can be screwed out of AG - though I'd certainly try.

John Northey - Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 11:00 PM EDT (#207832) #

Oh, it is easy to ignore stuff when you feel like it :)

Rolen's UZR/150 for the past 3 years...
17.9, 8.5, 5.3
Encarnacion's...
-14.4, -12.1, -14.5

So, Rolen is dropping year by year while Encarnacion is holding steady at a terrible rate. Net runs difference ranged from 32.3 to 19.8 - from 3 to 2 wins lost by having Encarnacion (a terrible 3B) vs Rolen (a great one). That does hurt. However, the $5.5 million difference in salary is worth either 1 or 2 wins and if you factor in the likelihood of Rolen continuing to decline and Encarnacion to climb up a bit then things even out fiscally. If EE can improve offensively while Rolen declines (both very likely to occur) then EE becomes a bargain while Rolen becomes a burden.

WAR spread last year, when Rolen had a killer start and EE did not (to put it mildly) was under 4. I'm betting on it being a whole lot less next year. Of course, I could be wrong :)

TamRa - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 12:17 AM EDT (#207833) #

If anyone assumes Rolen will be of more value than EE next season, they should think back to what the conventional wisdom was regarding whether Glaus or Rolen would be more valuable in 2009 one year ago.

brent - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 12:49 AM EDT (#207835) #

Willrain, after Glaus' monster 2008 season where he was worth almost 24 million, he did have a huge headstart. It's going to be a long week-and-a-half until the GM meetings start and we can find out what the plan is.

TamRa - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 01:06 AM EDT (#207836) #

Which was exactly my point.

Based on 2008, a prognistication for 2009 looked safe.

Turned out - not so much.

On the other hand, there are definate trend lines that SHOULD close the gap between Rolen and Eddie.

Trends that were not even there regarding Glaus/rolen (albeit i DID say all last winter I thought rolen would have a bounce-back high value year in 2009....but that wasn't something I could support very well statistically).

92-93 - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 01:27 AM EDT (#207837) #

"they should think back to what the conventional wisdom was regarding whether Glaus or Rolen would be more valuable in 2009 one year ago."

I can't quantify "conventional wisdom", so I'll deal with facts. Glaus had a monster 2008, but that year was an outlier. He was nowhere near as good in 2006 or 2007, and in fact over that 3 year period, Rolen had the higher WAR average. It didn't take a genius to realize that if Rolen had a semi-healthy season he could out-value Glaus, as he did the 2 seasons prior to 2008. When the Jays traded for Rolen everybody knew he was the better player, WHEN HEALTHY.

TamRa - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 02:16 AM EDT (#207838) #

When the Jays traded for Rolen everybody knew he was the better player, WHEN HEALTHY.

Preaching to the choir my friend.

The point I'm trying to make here is that a lot of commentary tends to be very myopic. EE sucked as a hitter in 2009, so they observe, therefore he'll never be a good hitter again.

Rolen bounced back and was a swell hitter, thus he'll obviously be one again next year.

Both assumptions are obviously flawed (although, as an aside, I do think Rolen will have a nice solid offensive year next year in that cozey park and weak league) but a lot of people seem to think in that knee-jerk fashion - i.e. the same kind of season that had so many hand-wringing last winter about how we got hosed on the Glaus deal.

Wildrose - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 11:27 AM EDT (#207840) #

Blair answers several interesting questions ( perhaps more interesting than debating the relative merits of Rolen/EE ?) yesterday. I thought this stood out;

try to trade Doc, but if I don't see what I like I hang on to him and try to move him at the deadline. Alex has told me he thinks the Jays could have pulled off the Alex Rios for Tim Lincecum deal if it had been kept under wraps, and allowed things to develop to the point where other players would have been involved

John Northey - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#207844) #

Yeah, the thought that we could've had Lincecum for Rios plus parts is scary. That it could've been done if it was kept quiet is also frustrating. I figure that stuff like that would have put JP in hot water, not to mention that it is how he seemed to do all stuff - very public. The few things that were quiet tended to be the best moves (Rolen for EE/Josh Roenicke/Zach Stewart for example).

So AA will be a lot quieter, we'll get surprises more often and, hopefully, some big good surprises and not ugly ones (Halladay for a batch of B prospects for example).

Denoit - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#207845) #

(Halladay for a batch of B prospects for example).

My worry too, looking at how well Cliff Lee is pitching (we could assume Halladay would be just as good), the Indians got fleeced. I'm glad the Jays held on to him. I would take 1 A+ prospect who your organization feels will be an impact guy and a couple throw-ins over 4 "B" guys.

Richard S.S. - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#207847) #

Beeston Part Two:

The deal for Rolen: Zach Stewart, 5.5 million dollars, and Edwin Encarnacion and don't forget Josh Roenicke. http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/toronto-blue-jays_05.html shows we have E.E. under contract for 2011, final year of arbitration. E.E. has soft hands and a strong arm - you can't teach that. Edwin Encarnacion will be a decent defender, Butter will see to that. He will never be a great defender - you can't teach that. He will hit fairly well, and hit for power, and drive in runs. That's what we need the most.

Going forward, we will have Aaron Hill (2010-2011-2013-2014), Adam Lind (2010-2013), Vernon Wells(2010-2014), Travis Snider (2010-2013-2014) and Edwin Encarnacion (2010-2011) who should be the pieces we need to contend. This, with Lyle Overbay (2010), in some order, could be 2-7 or 3-8 in our lineup. A Piece could be found for here. Positions 1,8,9 or 1,2,9 plus 4 Bench position will fill out our hiting roster. Upgrades will be made here.

If Beeston determines Roy Halladay is not staying, he will go after a Pitcher. That will be discussed, ad nauseum, then. If Beeston determines Roy Halladay is staying, any pitching moves will ours', used in trades. Roy Halladay (2010-20??), Ricky Romero (2010-2014-2015) and Shawn Marcum (2010-2012) will be our top 3 (because they can pitch at this level,in this division). Marc Rzepczynski is a better pitcher than Brett Cecil (who has more trade value). Scott Richmond (2010-2014-2015) is the idea trade piece included in big trades. Robert Ray (2010-2015) showed he can pitch at this level. Brad Mills (2010-2015) and David Purcey (2010-2015) have trade value. Jesse Litsch (2010-2013) will be ready to return sometime after mid-June. Dustin McGowan (2010-2013) will be ready to return after Spring Training. A Move will be made here. (It should as we have as many as 12 or more Starters vying for 5 positions - surely 2-3 can be traded).

Until we get a "Mariano Rivera" or a "Duane Ward/Tom Henke" for ourselves, Beeston won't be satisfied. Scott Downs (2010) isn't the answer for closer. Jason Frasor (2010) isn't the answer for closer. Jeremy Accardo (2010-2011) isn't the answer for closer. Jesse Carlson (2010-2013), Brian Tallet (2010) and Downs are LHP most needed as relievers. Brandon League (2010-2011), Casey Janssen (2010-2012 - Starter?/Reliever?), Shawn Camp (2010-2011), Brian Wolfe (2010-2013), Josh Roenicke (2010-2014), Dirk Hayhurst (2010-2013) and others (11+) are vying for 6 or 7 positions, surely 1 or 2 can be traded.

What should happen? To keep Roy Halladay and bring the fans back, they will go for it. Step One is 2009-2010 off-season. Step Two is 2010-2011 off-season. Step Three is 2011-2012 off-season. If neccessary, 2012-2013 off-season prior to Dec. 31 2012. The most we will see this off-season is maybe 1 Major Trade with maybe one, two or three smaller trades. In addition, we will see at most, 1 or 2 Big Signings with at most, two or three small signings.

In time, the minors will be set up right, with a smooth transition of talent to the big club. A judicious signing of free agents will keep this team competitive, to know when the final push can be made to go for it. In the meantime, 2 or 3 pieces will be added, with neccessary supporting pieces, during each Step in order to jump-start the process. And it doesn't matter if anyone believes me.

What cost the team after 1993 was no Ward, no Henke and no one to close. This must be settled first.

John Northey - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#207848) #

So true. Looking back at a good example player is to look at David Cone. He was traded to the Jays for Jeff Kent (potential HOF'er at the start of his career) and Ryan Thompson (93 OPS+ backup outfielder). Then he left as a free agent, then came back for 2 minor leaguers plus Chris Stynes (a couple of good years, nothing amazing though). Ash then traded Cone mid-season in the infamous 'quitting time' trade for Marty Janzen and two guys who never got out of the minors. All 3 trades were done while Cone was a premium starting pitcher who could win the Cy in any season. None of the players received for him were much of anything. As a free agent we gained only a guy who never got out of the minors after 1992.

Thus no matter how you cut it the only good deal for Cone was the first one where he cost Jeff Kent - at the time a third baseman who didn't do much until he got to SF. A good warning to anyone wanting to trade Halladay.

92-93 - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 02:51 PM EDT (#207850) #

I don't question that Rolen will put up better non-counting numbers than Encarnacion, but if I had the choice between Zach Stewart, 5.5 million dollars, and Edwin Encarnacion for what is likely only 180 games of curmudgeony Scott Rolen (100 in 2010, <100 in 2011), I'd take the first offer, espcially considering that contending in 2010 is unlikely and 2011 is somewhat unlikely.

Their historical $ values show that that 5.5m upgrade to Rolen would be VERY well spent, and he isn't signed for 2011. My complaints on the trade were based on the premise that this team was supposed to compete in 2010 from the start of 2009, not that we can't compete until 2012 at the earliest. If that is the case, it was beyond idiotic to trade Rolen and keep Halladay, who will be 35 by 2012. On top of that, Rolen currently has Type A status, and he's not the type of guy to accept arbitration from the Jays just to make an extra 5m or so, in my opinion. So you may need to add 1 or 2 potential first round draft picks to the Rolen side of the equation.

92-93 - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 03:01 PM EDT (#207851) #

From Bastian's Twitter - "Jays claim LHP Sean Henn from Orioles; C Michael Barrett DFA'd to clear room on 40-man roster."

John Northey - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 03:13 PM EDT (#207852) #

Sean Henn - 57 ERA+ lifetime over 81 IP. 29 years old for 2010. VERY wild (7.1 BB/9) but not a high K rate (6.9 SO/9). He did K 10.5 in the minors per 9 IP though. Wonder if this means AA has the LH relief pitcher fetish that JP had.

Gerry - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 03:16 PM EDT (#207853) #

Will Hill met with Beeston and Anthopoulos and wrote a story about it.

Mike Green - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 04:00 PM EDT (#207854) #

Henn had TJ early in his minor league career, started reasonably effectively in the minors, was moved to relief and has struggled more for his control since the change of role. It wouldn't surprise me if the club intends to give him a rotation shot somewhere.

Chuck - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 04:17 PM EDT (#207855) #

Will Hill met with Beeston and Anthopoulos and wrote a story about it.

That's a rainbows and puppies piece that would even make MyLegacy squirm.

AA took a pass on LeBron at the ACC? Not even Brian Burke did that, and he has a reason to work nights. Maybe he was working nights and wandered to his rink to find out what all the cheering was about.

Mylegacy - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 04:30 PM EDT (#207856) #

WOW - that is a great story by Will Hill.

Finally, someone representing the Jays is GETTING EXCITED. 'Bout time, eh?

This calls for a Scotch, single malt...make it a double!

Denoit - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 06:40 PM EDT (#207859) #

So you may need to add 1 or 2 potential first round draft picks to the Rolen side of the equation.

I'd take a known quantity such as Roenike and Zach Stewart before two draft picks any day.

I think EE is going to be better than alot of people think. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090218&content_id=3844530&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

"For years, Encarnacion has been viewed as a promising player poised for a big, breakout year. Everyone is still waiting for that year where he puts it all together offensively" - By the way he played in September It could very well be 2010.

brent - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 07:02 PM EDT (#207860) #

If the Jays are DFA'ing Barrett, they must have a real plan for catcher in place because Chavez and Rod are free agents. This pitcher better be worth getting rid of depth like that.

92-93 - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 07:53 PM EDT (#207863) #

If the Jays are DFA'ing Barrett, they must have a real plan for catcher in place because Chavez and Rod are free agents. This pitcher better be worth getting rid of depth like that.

I doubt AA has any "real plan" right now, Barrett was a FA just like Rod and Raul. Just a procedural thing, I think.

I'd take a known quantity such as Roenike and Zach Stewart before two draft picks any day.

I wouldn't. Neither has a very high ceiling, with Roenicke already in the bullpen and Stewart having no control. I'd trade either one for a first round draft pick in a heartbeat, if such a thing were possible. People are too excited about Stewart because of the sad state of the Jays farm system.

I think EE is going to be better than alot of people think. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090218&content_id=3844530&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

It's funny that you link to a typical pre-season love article for EE prior to 2009 written by his own beat writer (think about the Vernon Wells personal trainer articles prior to 2009). He talks about getting back to an up-the-middle approach, because in 2008 he sacrificed BA and OBP for some HRs. What happened in 2009? He got worse across the board.

I feel the need to point out right now that nobody will be rooting harder for EE this year if he's our starting 3B. I don't want it to come across like I hate the guy.

Jim - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 09:19 PM EDT (#207867) #

Hopefully someone saves all these threads where the idea is proposed that Chone Figgins is the proper way to spend money.

Four Seamer - Thursday, October 29 2009 @ 11:03 PM EDT (#207873) #

The juxtaposition of posts stamped 4:17 and 4:30 in this thread may well be the highlight of the six years I've spent reading this site.

TamRa - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 01:23 AM EDT (#207875) #

I'd take a known quantity such as Roenike and Zach Stewart before two draft picks any day.

I wouldn't. Neither has a very high ceiling, with Roenicke already in the bullpen and Stewart having no control.

I disagree strongly, re Stewart.He was discussed as possibly the Reds #1 prospect before he came her and possibly our #1 prospect now.

Put another way, no one is suggesting Chad Jenkins is our #1 prospect and he was our #1 pick this year, right?

And Reonicke doesn't have THAT kind of ceiling but he's potentially very good as a power reliever and he has the value of having arrived - the VAST majority of draft picks never do that.

TamRa - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 01:27 AM EDT (#207876) #

Hopefully someone saves all these threads where the idea is proposed that Chone Figgins is the proper way to spend money.

Depends.

If we spend more on Figgins that he's worth and the results of that move, along with other moves, is that Doc re-signs - then the "too much" part of his pay was worth it.

But if I can't keep Doc, then it's a pointless move.

92-93 - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 03:09 AM EDT (#207877) #

Will, do you know the percentage of picks #16-30 that get a cup of coffee?

Richard S.S. - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 06:26 AM EDT (#207878) #

WillRain:

Please check your site. You have my permission to discuss that stuff here, or ignore it totally. Thank you.

Jim - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 08:07 AM EDT (#207879) #

The second Figgins signs his contract he it's going to be an albatross to anyone but a handful of teams. The payroll would have to be 125 million going forward to sign Figgins and Halladay. How did Yogi put it? I'll believe that when I believe that?

A 32 year old 3b with a career OPS+ of less then 100 for 8 figures a year for at least four years. That's just another step to killing the franchise.

MatO - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 12:59 PM EDT (#207882) #

do you know the percentage of picks #16-30 that get a cup of coffee?

Just doing a quick run through of the 1999-2003 drafts. Of the 75 picks, 43 at least had a cup of coffee but I would say that about 30 established themselves in the majors with various levels of success which turns out to be about 40%. The 2002 and 2003 drafts were quite good but the 3 preceding were pretty awful.

92-93 - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 01:20 PM EDT (#207884) #

Thanks MatO. Seeing as the 43 java drinkers (57+%) likely had a decent potential of some sort at the time they first hit the majors (just like Roenicke), I think it's a tad hyperbolic to say "the VAST majority of draft picks never do that".

Mike Green - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#207886) #

Definitely. The #16-#30 group in 2002 that made the majors included Swisher, Hamels, Loney, Span, Guthrie, Francoeur, Blanton and Cain. Many of the #16-#30 group in 2005 are still making their way, but already there is Volstad, Pennington, Ellsbury, Garza, Hansen and Rasmus.

TamRa - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 03:19 PM EDT (#207888) #

Will, do you know the percentage of picks #16-30 that get a cup of coffee?

A. Getting a cup of coffee? A minority.

B. What does getting a cup of coffee have to do with it? Both the pitchers in question have considerably more potential than that.

I just got through with a very exaustive comparison of the total WAR of every team's draft classes from the last 7 drafts.
(which article I linked here)

If we take the 3 year span 2002-2004 (because players drafted since then have a much smaller likelihood of having arrived) about 30% contributed enough so far in the majors to have a WAR value of at least 1 for their career. That's of all the players who made it far enough to get a cup of coffee.

I didn't highlight which of these were picked in the first 30 picks in the draft but if you say there were 90 such picks in those years, a quick eyeball of the list will show about half of those players reached the +1 WAR level so far.

I think if you ask Keith Law (or John sickels or whoever's view you respect) if both these pitchers have more potential than +1 he would say "easily"

C. If we got two draft picks for Rolen, only one of them would be in the top 30 - at best. You will note the highest of the two picks we got for AJ was #37.

TamRa - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 03:26 PM EDT (#207889) #

The second Figgins signs his contract he it's going to be an albatross to anyone but a handful of teams. The payroll would have to be 125 million going forward to sign Figgins and Halladay.

And that's exactly the condition I'm talking about.

I agree if it's not that high we don't keep Doc and if we don't keep Doc Figgins is a white elephant.

BUT

If it is that high, his contract won't be a particular problem - especially given the VERY thin market for competent lead-off types.

that said, if he gets to eight figures I'm out anyway. I just don't think he'll get that high. in fact, the media guestimations about the contracts which will be handed out this winter are all still considerably too high, in my opinion. i don't think even Bay and Holliday will get the deals that are being talked about. and they are likely the only two hitters that get into the eight figures.

Mike Green - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 03:58 PM EDT (#207891) #

Chad Jenkins or Zach Stewart? Hmm. It wouldn't shock me if one or two of the minor league crew would have Jenkins ahead of Stewart on the prospect list. It appears likely that Stewart will be an ace reliever if everything goes well, and that Jenkins might be a somewhat above average starter who can eat some innings.

TamRa - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 05:24 PM EDT (#207892) #

I haven't seen ANY professional commentary that indicates Stewart is condemed to relief - just amateur speculation.

when we got him it was pretty explicitly stated he was seen as a starter and that he was only relieving to contain his innings.

dan gordon - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 06:20 PM EDT (#207895) #

Coaching news today from the Jays. Gaston is retiring after the 2010 season and has been given a 4-year consulting deal starting in 2011. Arnsberg is out as pitching coach - he's going to the Astros. Tenace is retiring and D. Murphy takes over as hitting coach. Bruce Walton takes over as pitching coach. Nick Leyva takes over as bench coach. Rick Langford has been added to the coaching staff as bullpen coach. Per sportsnet and The Fan 590.

TamRa - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 07:00 PM EDT (#207897) #

As much as I'm crushed by Arny leaving, at least Walton got the job instead of some Cito lacky.

My understanding is the pitchers love Walton too.

Still, I'm much more disappointed with the outlook for 2010 than I was five minutes ago.

TamRa - Friday, October 30 2009 @ 07:35 PM EDT (#207900) #

also good to see Malve and Langford get major league work.

I really hate to see Cito back...

Fawaz - Saturday, October 31 2009 @ 07:18 AM EDT (#207909) #

The juxtaposition of posts stamped 4:17 and 4:30 in this thread may well be the highlight of the six years I've spent reading this site.

Co-signed.

It would be awesome to see a Best of Da Box (baseball content and...um...extracurriculars) article/thread at some point. I've learned a tonne about the game and seen some high comedy around these parts over the years.

Beeston's Back, for Three Years | 105 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.