Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Alex Anthopoulos participated in a web chat with fans yesterday though the official Blue Jay site.  He answered about forty questions with several interesting answers.

First Jeff Blair started the rumour that the Jays might not be too happy with Travis Snider and might try and trade him.  Anthopoulos appeared to quash that yesterday.

paddlepop: Al -- Please do NOT trade [Travis] Snyder! Thank you.

Anthopoulos: We love Travis Snider. No idea where these rumors are coming from. We think he's going to be an impact middle order at bat and in addition he has such a tremendous makeup he could be a great leader on this team one day.

In his press conference announcing the trade Anthopoulos was trying not to put too much pressure on Drabek and Wallace and he suggested that they would return to AA and AAA respectively to start 2010.  He backed away from that somewhat yesterday.

youtubber: I noticed at the press conference that you said [Kyle] Drabek would start at Double-A New Hampshire. Don't you think he is at least ready for Triple-A [Las] Vegas? Curious on why you thought that right away.

Anthopoulos: You know right now without having Drabek in camp our thought is that he starts in Double-A because he finished there. That being said, if he will have the opportunity to compete in Spring Training whether it is for the Major League team or for the Triple-A rotation. We are certainly not putting any restrictions on where he starts -- that will be up to him.

I liked the following answer, I believe Drabek has a higher ceiling than Happ.

Kev13: When you were trading Roy Halladay, I'm sure you had many choices of prospects to choose from. Did you have a choice of J.A. Happ or Kyle Drabek?

Anthopoulos: Kyle Drabek was a target for us and a must in this trade. Philly was very reluctant to give him up but over time they relented.

Finding more skilled players appears to be the toughest future job for Anthopoulos.  I would also add centre field to Anthopoulos's list.

RIPEXPOS: With the additions of Drabek, Wallace, and D'Arnaud assumably shoring up the future in the rotation, first base and at catcher, what positions/skill sets (OBP etc) do you think still need to be addressed, and how could you go about doing so?

Anthopoulos: We still need to address several long term positions on the diamond. I'd say the left side of our infield is an area we continue to evaluate and we're always looking for more pitching.

Batters Box has discussed the nutritional needs of minor leaguers in the past.  Anthopoulos suggests the Jays have made some progress in this regard but it it might not be enough.  I am not sure about home clubhouses but in the minors the clubhouse manager supplies the food as almost an independant contractor.  Even if the players have more money it doesn't mean the visiting clubhouse will provide better food.  Also by the time players finish playing many better restaurants are closed, especially in the smaller towns that the minor leagues play in.  The Jays will have most leverage with home clubhouses and hopefully those meals will get better.

nelson_c: Alex, there has been some criticism of the Jays farm teams not providing nutritional education to the players. Have you identified nutrition and training at the Minor League level as a goal moving forward?

Anthopoulos: Great question. We addressed improving the nutrition at the big league level last year and I've talked to our Minor League trainers and strength coaches about doing so in the Minor Leagues. MLB rules dictate that club pay their players $20 a day for meal money, we've already instituted a policy to increase that to $25 a day in addition to having our strength coaches work with clubhouse people to provide nutritional and healthier options for our players.

The Jays see Zach Stewart as a starter, his value is obviously higher there, but Anthopoulos appears to be very confident in his answer here.

BigHurt_2: What is the plan for Zach Stewart this season? Do you see him as a starter or reliever long-term?

Anthopoulos: We see Zach Stewart as a starter. All of our scouting reports project him to be a #3.

The Jays are checking out Aroldis Chapman.

nearyj: Acquiring young, controllable talent seems to be the focus of the offseason for the Blue Jays. What are your thoughts on Cuban defect, Aroldis Chapman? Several teams watched him pitched last week. Were there representatives from the Jays there?

Anthopoulos: Yes we had Roy Smith and Gary Rajsich watch Chapman pitch this past Tuesday. We will be on top of every amateur player that is available.

And finally Dirk Hayhurst made an appearance.

garfoose: Is there's any truth to the rumor of the new Jays mascot being a Garfoose?

Anthopoulos: [Blue Jays pitcher] Dirk Hayhurst!! Talk about a super-fan!!! Just got your Christmas card in the mail. You and your wife look great in the moose outfits! Or should I say Garfoose outfits?

The chat was a good one with some better questions and not all cliche answers, it is worth the read.

Alex Anthopoulos Chats With Fans | 92 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mylegacy - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 03:39 PM EST (#210085) #
I continue to be impressed with our newboy GM. He clearly has passion - there's something wonderful about a young guy - clearly with skills and knowledge being set loose in the Candy Shop. I envy the bastard! Both for getting this opportunity and for being damn near half my age - ouch!

Saturday morning musing has me thinking starting pitching.

I see Drabek and Jenkins as our 1 - 2 guys by mid 2011 and going forward for 5 or 6 years from then. I'm VERY high on both those guys. I then see three of these guys - in the order I THINK they will end up (if healthy, God willin', an' the river don't rise): McGowan, Alvarez, Stewart, Marcum, Cecil, Rzepczynski, Romero, Mills, and one of these days in the second half of this decade: our 16 year old kid in the Dominican Summer League. He's a 6' 1", 170 pound lefty named Deivy Estrada who in 10 starts pitched 44 innings with 40 hits, 13 walks, 48 SO's !!!, 1 HR !!!, and very nice whip of 1.20. Not bad for a guy who doesn't shave yet!

Roy, or no Roy - I can't help it, I'm looking forward to seeing OUR Toronto Blue Jays Play Ball! Are you sure it isn't April yet?

brent - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 03:58 PM EST (#210086) #

What the Reds are doing with Rolen is exactly what the Jays should do with Wells if he doesn't opt out after 2011. Wells would have 3 years and 75 million left on his contract. You would have to try to convince him to take something like 2 extra years at 5 million each year. Then defer some of the 75 over those two extra years to make it 85 million over 5 years.

 

Mike Green - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 04:10 PM EST (#210088) #
The team needs centerfield prospects,  AA's account of Vernon Wells' defensive abilities notwithstanding. 
Jim - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 05:23 PM EST (#210091) #
It's hard not to like Hayhurst.  If you are going to keep 12 pitchers, why not him.
bball12 - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 05:50 PM EST (#210092) #
Dear Alex,

Lets talk straight. It will cost about $30,000 to feed your players in Dunedin correctly.

Currently - peanut butter sandwiches dont cut it.

Thats the reality - and it is an embarassment.

Change the reality - find a caterer for the home games - spend $30,000 - and feed your prospects.

It really is as simple as that.

Just do it.

timpinder - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 05:53 PM EST (#210093) #

$75 million over 3 years?  If I remember the structure of the contract correctly, Wells will make $23 million in 2011, but if he excercises his option after 2011 he'll be taking a pay cut.  I believe he'll make $21 million per year for the 3 option years ($63 million, not $75 million).

brent - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 06:40 PM EST (#210095) #

Cots Contracts link for Wells

and here

I guess they give somewhat conflicting information. Is it 21 or 25?

I believe the point still stands that if Wells doesn't opt out, they should still try to spread the contract over a longer period of time.

TamRa - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 07:45 PM EST (#210097) #
It's 21


and I've said on several occasions that the deal needs reworking but I wouldn't extend it.

Instead, I'd bribe him to take a deffered payment schedule.

I'd take 7 million off of each of the 4 remaining years and get him to agree to take a payment of $3 million a year for each of the 10 years following 2014 and pay him the interest in a lump some up front...something like $10 million or so paid out right now.

Then if we ever deal him we retain the obligation to pay the deferred payments.

We don't want him here longer, in fact, we want him to clear out and make room for the kids sooner.



rtcaino - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 08:15 PM EST (#210101) #
It would be useful if we could defer payments like that. Is it possible?
brent - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 10:17 PM EST (#210102) #

The players don't mind so much, but the union has to approve it too. I think only Andrew Jones' case is where money is deferred (renegotiated after the contract was signed) with no extra years signed AFAIK.

Does anyone know how many years Lind has until he could become a free agent (assuming arb years of course)?

Shane - Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 10:32 PM EST (#210103) #

Anthopoulos: We love Travis Snider. No idea where these rumors are coming from. We think he's going to be an impact middle order at bat and in addition he has such a tremendous makeup he could be a great leader on this team one day

Thank god. I wonder where Blair got this from? Ricciardi? (joke) Going forward in years to come I wonder what the line-ups are going to be like? With tthree lefthanded sluggers in Snider, Lind, Wallace and then Hill as a righty....and Wells, whatever it is he's going to be bringing. Hopefully he's worthy of hitting in the top six slots.

Jim - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 12:07 AM EST (#210104) #
There is no way in the world a corporation like Rogers is going to make a lump sum payment of $10 million dollars today just to have $7 million dollars of flexibility per season from 2011-2013.  What is $7 million dollars going to do anyway for this team in 2011 or 2012?  The Jays are going to be closer to 60 wins then 90 wins those seasons even with an extra $7 million per year. 

If they were going to invest $10 million dollars they would be much better off spending it in the amateur free agent market and the draft. 

The only course of action with Wells is hold your nose and start a countdown until the last day of the 2013 season. 



TamRa - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 01:16 AM EST (#210105) #
Thank god. I wonder where Blair got this from? Ricciardi?

Useless to speculate but my guess would be probably from someone who was let go after AA took over ...or else he's just totally speculating.

TamRa - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 01:20 AM EST (#210106) #
There is no way in the world a corporation like Rogers is going to make a lump sum payment of $10 million dollars today just to have $7 million dollars of flexibility per season from 2011-2013. 

This is the team that just spent $6 million in a lump sum to move the best pitcher in the game and accepted some $15 million in sunk cost on BJ Ryan, what makes you think they wouldn't write off another lump sum?

What is $7 million dollars going to do anyway for this team in 2011 or 2012?  The Jays are going to be closer to 60 wins then 90 wins those seasons even with an extra $7 million per year. 

It's not about paying Wells less to be here - it's about making Wells easier to trade.If the idea was to buy him into deferred payments and then keep him then there would be no reason to do it.

If they were going to invest $10 million dollars they would be much better off spending it in the amateur free agent market and the draft. 

The only course of action with Wells is hold your nose and start a countdown until the last day of the 2013 season.



It's actually 2014.

brent - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 04:05 AM EST (#210108) #

There is a lot of value in deferring money. It is called inflation.

It would be 2012-14 that you would defer money. You would have to wait for Wells to not opt out of his contract first. I would like to think that the Jays next window will start to open 2012 or 2013 (depending on how fast players develop). At least GM AA can now let the prospects develop as they are ready to.

Richard S.S. - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 07:48 AM EST (#210109) #
Of all the questions and answers, the one that interests me the most wasn't asked.   Who plays Right Field?   Does anyone have any idea other than the tired notion of Vernon doing it?
Jim - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 08:40 AM EST (#210110) #
There is a pretty significant difference between writing off money that is already spent and creating an extra liability of $10 million dollars to Vernon Wells.  it doesn't really make a ton of sense as a business move, but can you imagine having to try and convince Rogers that the player whose contract is strangling the franchise deserves another $10 million for deferring money? 

If AA gets this team to .500 before 2012 then he's a miracle worker.  They need to spend any marginal dollars available to rebuild the franchise.  Save the $10 million for when you need to buy out Lind's arbitration, spend it on Sano type free agents, spend it on going overslot in every round of the draft... why waste it damaging your payroll past 2014, because you have next to no chance of making the playoffs before then anyway. 



lexomatic - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 08:45 AM EST (#210111) #
RIchard, whoever comes back in a Lind trade? or Snider. I'm only happy to move Vernon to right if we get someone better than Gathright to play cf (or someone with upside.. like Mastroianni in a year maybe.)
Jim - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 08:47 AM EST (#210112) #
An edit function for our posts would be delightful.

You can't trade Vernon Wells at $18 million dollars a year any easier then you can at $25 million a year.  I apologize for the wrong year:  All you can do is hold your nose until 2014.   Other then moving him out of CF there is nothing else that can be done with him. 

All they can do is hope to make the team competitive enough by 2013 to raise the revenues quickly enough so that they have more payroll to work around Vernon with. 

ayjackson - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 08:49 AM EST (#210113) #

I wonder where Blair got this from? Ricciardi?

He didn't get it from anywhere; he made it up.  He was asked by McCown who else could be on the block and he speculated Overbay and why not Snider.  Guessing that he's the only guy who could return a potential ace.  Keep in mind that Blair was just back from a month of Luge & Ale in Bavaria.

The kicker was that Blair decided to tweet that speculation and it lost all context.

lexomatic - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 10:22 AM EST (#210116) #
An edit function for our posts would be delightful.

my thoughts exctly. i meant Overbay trade. not Lind.
tooooooooooo early in the morning
PeterG - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 10:47 AM EST (#210117) #
 I think it seems obvious that Bautista will play rf as it is being suggested he will be in the starting line-up and possibly lead off. I think the intention is to have the kids who were rushed(Snider, Rep, Cecil) play the season(or at least till August 1) in AAA.
ayjackson - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 10:57 AM EST (#210118) #

There's no chance Snider plays the year in AAA.  He was a league average hitter last year at the age of 21.  Rzep and Cecil will have opportunities to be on the club out of ST, it's just a matter of how they're pitching in the Spring.  If I had to guess,  I'd bet both are in the opening day rotation along with Romero, Marcum and Richmond.

Just because of one small quote from AA that Snider has to make the team in ST, we're concluding that AA wants all these guys in Vegas?  Snider OPS'd almost 1.200 last year in Vegas.  In his last 170 PA's there, he was slugging well over .700.  He's not playing there unless it's just for a few weeks to break out of a ML funk.

Forkball - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 11:42 AM EST (#210121) #
An edit function for our posts would be delightful.
my thoughts exctly. i meant Overbay trade. not Lind.
tooooooooooo early in the morning

This is irony, right?
VBF - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 11:43 AM EST (#210122) #
Good to hear about changing the nutrition. It's (in my opinion) a underrated major advantage and relatively little cost to boot. With an organization whose top draft picks have had difficulty (Ahrens, Cooper, Arencibia) this is certainly an opportunity to make things at least marginally better for them. I've always wondered when prospects don't pan out if  it's the scouts who pick the duds or the minor league development staff who failed those prospects, and it's probably impossible to ever find out.

It makes me think about other advantages you can give your minor leaguers that don't cost too much. You always hear about how poor conditions some minor league fields are in, which is certainly an easy one. One would think uneven infields and soggy patches in the outfield after rain would help avoid injury and funny hops.

PeterG - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 11:48 AM EST (#210123) #
I believe that you have completely misread what we have been hearing from the club and not analyzing what is actually taking place. We will have to agree to disagree as there is no  inbetween on this one. I feel confident, however that I have interpreted the situation correctly and expect to see those 3, most particularly the pitchers ,in AAA to start.
cascando - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 12:14 PM EST (#210125) #
Cito was still the manager, last I checked.  I think, unfortunately, that this means Gathright leads off and plays LF.  Cito will feel like it is 1996 again, with Gathright playing the part of Otis Nixon and/or Jacob Brumfield.


Incidentally, Gathright strikes me superficially as a pretty good comp for Mastroianni,.  A good-contact high OBP guy in the minors with lots of speed to burn. 



parrot11 - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 12:45 PM EST (#210126) #
Trying to work with Wells to defer part of his contract makes absolutely no sense. It only makes sense if the Jays are playoff/WS contenders. Clearly, the Jays don't fit into that category. The team is better off just biding its time and rebuilding properly (probably take approx 4-5yrs). By the time that the Jays should be done rebuilding, Wells contract will be at or close to its end and the money could be significantly better used then. No sense freeing up that money to sign a couple mediocre players to go from a 60-65 win team to a 65-70 win team.
lexomatic - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 12:46 PM EST (#210127) #
I don`t know where you`re getting the irony forkball... the `?' was supposed to show speculation. Most likely are Snider or Bautista.. or both, unless someone new comes in.

cascando, I don't see the similarities between Gathright and Mastroianni, other than neither has power. Mastroianni appears to be a waaaaaaaaaaay better basestealer, and has better plate discipline. Gathright is a fast guy who doesn't know how to steal (first) and is only a decent fielder. I don't know how he fields, but offensively Mastroianni  could be a Butler, Pettis, Nixon type... which is definitely more valuable than Gathright.

I would be horrified if Gathright started in left and led-off. Bautista would seem the best for the #1 slot and rf (assuming you give Snider a month of las vegas to avoid cold-weather start... and conveniently delay service time. )

rtcaino - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 01:03 PM EST (#210128) #
I'm not sure what is exactly being suggested with regards to VW's contract. In my estimation the Blue Jays could realize significant benefit from an adjustment of the payment schedule. Total value received by VW would be the same. Just organized in a way that allows the BJ's to spend more money in the years of VW's contract in which they expect to be competitive. The Union might agree to it, given that the net result is more salary being paid by the team(to the extra players the team could acquire with the freed up payroll).

For instance, if the Jays do not expect to compete this year or next, but anticipate competition being very possible in the following years; they could increase the payments in the first two years, coupled with a proportional deference of payments from the expected competitive years of VW's contract to the years following his contract. Alternatively, the team could defer some of the salary owed to VW in possible competitive years in exchange for a premium compensating VW for any loss in value. This would increase the nominal value of VW's contract.

Each scenario would lessen the financial burden of VW's contract in years that the available funds might make a difference. The cost of freeing up the money would be an added costs in non competitive years, as well as the smaller added cost in the years following his contract. Each added cost would be less prohibitive to competitive spending than those current costs in the final years of VW's deal.

Again, I'm not saying this is the least bit possible. But it could make good business sense for both the Union and the Blue Jays. And VW is already getting paid more than he could ever know what to do with - so why wouldn't he just help our poor fan base?
rtcaino - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 01:12 PM EST (#210129) #
You can't trade Vernon Wells at $18 million dollars a year any easier then you can at $25 million a year.  I apologize for the wrong year:  All you can do is hold your nose until 2014.

However, in that scenario you owe Vernon $7 mill less than you otherwise would have, in a year in which you feel it is possible to be competitive.

In addition, you can still move Vernon. At no point would AA be able to trade Vernon for $18 mill a year or $25 mill a year. his performance is just not worth it. However, if you are able to trade him, and have a team assume responsibility of paying him $7 mill; then BJ's owe him $11 as opposed to $18mill.

Which said another way, takes off $14 mill from the money we owe Vernon in that year, as opposed to only the $7 mill salary that we would realize from a trade.

In my estimation, any money that the Blue Jays can avoid paying in 2013/2014, is money that they may able to spend on a competitive team.
TheBunk - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 01:35 PM EST (#210130) #
I'm confused, Rzep looked totally comfortable at the major league level and did great, check out the numbers, watch the games.

Can someone please explain why he should start the year in AAA? I'm all for monitoring innings, but that doesn't make any sense. Cecil struggled mightily after a few good starts and I wouldn't be opposed to starting him in AAA.

Romero looked completely average after the first half, higher walk rate and his stuff really fell off the deep end so I don't understand why it's a foregone conclusion that he starts the year at the majors and Rzep starts in minors. Sure, you could argue sample size since Rzep only had 10/11 starts but check out the numbers in the minors.
ayjackson - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 01:49 PM EST (#210131) #

in AAA to start

Originally you said August 1, now you're saying to start.  Are you backing off?  I admitted that if Snider was in a funk he might see a few weeks at AAA, even coming out of ST if need be.  But his service clock has started and he won't be a Super Two, there's no reason to stick him in Vegas until August given how well he performed in the majors last year and how easily he destroyed AAA pitching.

As for the two pitchers, a lot will depend on what AA does for the next few weeks.  Purcey, for example, is out of options.  He will be traded, designated for assigment, or bump another starter down to the minors (Zep, Cecil, Richmond have options).

Individually, I think Rzep earned a spot (unless he's really tanking in ST).  I think Cecil pitched pretty well as long as he didn't have to face the Red Sox.

We'll agree to disagree, but it was only wise on AA's part to keep the motivation on Snider.

Jim - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 02:03 PM EST (#210132) #
However, in that scenario you owe Vernon $7 mill less than you otherwise would have, in a year in which you feel it is possible to be competitive.

I guess, but $7 million dollars is really not enough money to matter and you are going to end up spending more on Wells in either the short term or the long term.  No one is going to trade for Vernon Wells unless you pay the difference between what he's worth and what he's paid.  There is no shell game of deferred payments that is going to make him attractive or trick some Bowdenesque GM to trade for him.

If you've got a lump sum of money to spend in the short term there are probably a hundred ways it could be better invested then paying Wells to restructure his contract.  If the idea is to just spread the money out further in the future that's even more short sighted.  Isn't hamstringing the organization through 2014 long enough?

The idea that this team is already positioned to make a playoff run in 2013 is just as wrongheaded as it was last year when we heard they could win in 2010.  The team has absolutely no idea if they can compete in 2013.  Based on how the Yankees and Red Sox are being run at this point, I would wager that the Jays don't finish within 10 games of 2nd place between now and 2015 as long as the division structure doesn't change. 

TheBunk - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 02:07 PM EST (#210133) #
Yeah, I agree with you jackson, I just thought the comment was a good thing for a new gm to say, everyone has to earn their spot sort of thing.
Mike Forbes - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 03:35 PM EST (#210134) #
I'd like to see Rick Ankiel signed to a one year contract to play RF. The market seems to have froze him out and he'd likely jump at the chance to raise his value for next year.
rtcaino - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 04:17 PM EST (#210135) #
I guess, but $7 million dollars is really not enough money to matter and you are going to end up spending more on Wells in either the short term or the long term.  No one is going to trade for Vernon Wells unless you pay the difference between what he's worth and what he's paid.  There is no shell game of deferred payments that is going to make him attractive or trick some Bowdenesque GM to trade for him.

The deferred payments would have nothing to do Vernon's attractiveness to another GM. If he returns to being a productive player, or if he appears to have returned that level, some team might take him. At that point AA would have to consider whether the amount this opposing GM is offering for Vernon, can be better spent elsewhere going forward. As you point out, the only reason a trade would go down is if some other team is willing to pay more for Vernon than AA thinks he is worth.

However, to your first point, I think AA would surely like having an extra couple million of flexibility. 7 million in particular could be put to some use.

If you've got a lump sum of money to spend in the short term there are probably a hundred ways it could be better invested then paying Wells to restructure his contract.  If the idea is to just spread the money out further in the future that's even more short sighted.  Isn't hamstringing the organization through 2014 long enough?


Well what would the other uses of money be? And who's to say they are mutually exclusive investments?

Also, the reason for deferring the salary, is that they feel having 7 million in each of 2013 and 2014, would be of more benefit, than the 3.5 in each of the subsequent four years be a hindrance. In that context, I would not consider such a move to be hamstringing the organization past 2014.

The extra money in those years if of more benefit because of the money already committed to Vernon. In 2015 and beyond the cost is less because it is a smaller sum, and because Vernon's entire contract is off the books.

The idea that this team is already positioned to make a playoff run in 2013 is just as wrongheaded as it was last year when we heard they could win in 2010.  The team has absolutely no idea if they can compete in 2013.  Based on how the Yankees and Red Sox are being run at this point, I would wager that the Jays don't finish within 10 games of 2nd place between now and 2015 as long as the division structure doesn't change.

It is entirely possible that they Blue Jays don't do finish within 10 games of 2nd place between now and 2015. However, AA has to consider whether freeing up some money in 2013 and 2014 would increase the chances of them doing so.

Blue Jays might not being shoe ins for the play-offs. But they might be in the position where they are not trying to tank, and that adding talent would be of benefit. Even if it went toward signing a solid veteran on a short term contract: such a player could be traded for prospects, or let walk for possible compensation picks. The expenditure in that instance might present more value than we would by allocating the 3.5 million to years 2015 and 2016. 

Obviously all salary figures are approximate.
owen - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 04:18 PM EST (#210136) #
Based on how the Yankees and Red Sox are being run at this point, I would wager that the Jays don't finish within 10 games of 2nd place between now and 2015 as long as the division structure doesn't change.

Winning is impossible.  Doesn't matter what Tampa was able to do.  Doesn't matter that we have a new GM with a plan in place.  There is no hope.  The last 6 years, in which we had one second place finish, should be seen as the golden years.  We will be in the wilderness until at least, oh I don't know, let's go with 2015 because that makes things sound really dire.  I admit that I can't see beyond 6 years into the future though.
Gerry - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 04:22 PM EST (#210137) #

As a reminder, Dane Johnson, the Jays minor league roving pitching instructor liked Rzepczynski earlier in the season when Zep was still in AA.  Here is what he said...

BB: You moved Marc Rzepczynski from Lansing to New Hampshire.  He is pitching reasonably well there even I don't think his stuff is as electric as Cecil's.

DJ: I disagree with that.  His stuff is every bit as good as, if not in some ways better than Cecil.  I am taking nothing away from Brett but Zep is as accomplished.  Zep does have electric stuff, it moves and it's hard.  And it moves down, he has sink on the two-seamer, he has a terrific slider and very good movement on the change-up and sometimes it is hard to keep his stuff on the plate it is moving so much.  He can embarrass hitters with his stuff.  He needs to pound the zone at a higher clip.  He is doing fine he just needs to work on getting into the seventh inning every night rather than five and two thirds, he needs to get those extra five or six outs.

The only knock on Zep was he didn't go deep in games, three times through the order and he was out of there.  Cecil has the better stuff but he was seemingly overwhelmed by his first exposure to the major leagues.  In 2010 Cecil has a chance to jump ahead of Zep due to his better pure "stuff", if he can get more command than he had in 2009, whereas Zep can can get ahead if he can come up with a fourth pitch to give him a different look so he can pitch four times through the order.

Spring training will be interesting this way.  Often spring training is a formality as the only battle is for the 24th and 25th spots.  This spring there will be three starters jobs open, assuming Marcum and Romero are locks.

ayjackson - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 04:30 PM EST (#210138) #
I've heard Ankiel has been frozen out due to unreasonable contract expectations.  I think Boras is his agent.  If the contract demands come down, the interest should go up.  We just have to hope that teams have moved on by then and the competition isn't great.
Jim - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 04:41 PM EST (#210139) #

Well what would the other uses of money be? And who's to say they are mutually exclusive investments?

Just off the top of my head... the draft, amateur free agency, replacing the surface at Rogers Center, taking a bad contract from another organization that comes with a prospect attached, investing it in oil, marketing the team across Canada, subsidizing ticket sales, players for the major league roster, contracts for top scouts and minor league coaches.

Some of you seem to ignore the reality of how Rogers is investing in the Jays.  If you think they are going to make a huge payment to Vernon Wells to free up a few million dollars a few seasons from now when there is a slight chance they might be good enough to even attempt to compete.....  they declined to invest in last seasons fast start and they walked away from the draft. 

This is all on top of the fact that you are ignoring the fact that people make these decisions and they aren't going to further enrich Vernon Wells.  Even if it made sense 3% of the fan base might understand.
Oxygen8 - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 06:04 PM EST (#210140) #
if AA can unload overbay this years payroll will be about 60 million. why not offer wells a 30 million dollar bonus this year to change his player option after 2011 to a club option.

why not use the savings in payroll this year, and the savings from the last half of last year ( if i remember correctly the rolen and rios were going to be put back in the club) to fix this.

this contract is so difficult that an extension and deferred payment are hardly going to put a dent into this. the best AA can do is offer wells basically a year and a half worth of salary for free in exchange for a year and a half of salary left on the table. if things don't improve for vernon this year and it becomes increasingly difficult to come to the rogers centre every day i hope that he would consider this.

the result would be that wells would be gone after 2011 before the jays need to start spending money on the team they are currently building.

Oxygen8 - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 06:07 PM EST (#210141) #
oh yeah, i almost forgot. "kiss my purple haze!"

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/gallery/2009/12_08_09_ortiz_golf_classic?pg=25
cascando - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 06:15 PM EST (#210142) #
cascando, I don't see the similarities between Gathright and Mastroianni, other than neither has power. Mastroianni appears to be a waaaaaaaaaaay better basestealer, and has better plate discipline. Gathright is a fast guy who doesn't know how to steal (first) and is only a decent fielder. I don't know how he fields, but offensively Mastroianni  could be a Butler, Pettis, Nixon type... which is definitely more valuable than Gathright.


Gathright had better OBPs in the minors than Mastroianni (.395 vs. .367 overall, with Gathright over .400 three times) and their stolen base rates (82% vs. 76%) are not so drastically different.  They're both singles hitters and I suspect as Mastroianni moves up, he's going to walk a lot less because if the most damage he's going to do is hit a single, there's a high incentive to just challenge him.  I think these two players profile very similarly, with the difference being that Gathright got exposed as he moved up while Mastroianni hasn't been tested yet above AA.  Incidentally, at 23 in AA, Mastroianni posted a .372 OBP (292 PA).  Gathright had .419 in 93 PA at age 22 and .399 in 138 PA at age 23.  Sample size caveats and all that, but the fact is Gathright was a better minor league hitter by a fairly wide margin at the same point in their careers.

I agree that Gathright shouldn't lead off or start every day, but I also think Cito can be a slave to putting a certain type of player in a certain place in the batting order, whether they should be there or not.
Jim - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 06:18 PM EST (#210143) #
Doesn't matter what Tampa was able to do.

You do realize it took 10 years of not winning more then 70 games for Tampa to get to the point to where they had a short window to compete.  As good as their roster is they finished 11 games out of 2nd last year. 

The Red Sox have a better major league roster, a better system and they spend twice as much money on the roster.  They also have a diverse talented front office.
The Yankees have a better major league roster, a better system and they spend three times as much money on the roster.  Once Cashman gained control of the front office they have been run exceptionally well. 

A plan and a new GM is great.  They are starting from so far behind they need a telescope to see the Yankees.
Mike Green - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 06:26 PM EST (#210144) #
CHONE suggests that the Jays have seven average-ish starting pitchers, if you include Litsch.  It is a developmental year, and so the real question is whether AA should hunt down a cheap below average innings-eater or two, so that the young pitchers can get some more work in the high minors.

PeterG - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 06:33 PM EST (#210145) #
Yes. I think that is exactly what will happen. I also expect Purcey to stay on the major league roster for a make it or break it year.
TamRa - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 07:22 PM EST (#210147) #
There is a pretty significant difference between writing off money that is already spent and creating an extra liability of $10 million dollars to Vernon Wells.  it doesn't really make a ton of sense as a business move, but can you imagine having to try and convince Rogers that the player whose contract is strangling the franchise deserves another $10 million for deferring money?

Again - the only way I'm proposing this and the only way it makes sense is if it facilitates a trade. Which by it's very nature moves significant funds off the roster.

Here's a conpletely fabricated example.

Wells is due $21 million a year from 2011-2012. it is true, as someone pointed out, that you really can't do anything until Wells passes on the chance to opt out so we'll assume he does so and consider 2012-2014.

So it's January 2012, and you are looking at owing Wells $63 million over the next three seasons.
You find a team who's willing to accept Wells at $12 million a season (heck, maybe said team is going to trade you some player they have who's going to make $4 per in the deal.....let's lay aside debate over whether anyone would want Wells at $12 million annualy for the sake of the point)

So the Jays have to, in some form, eat $9 mill per season over the three years in order to make the deal.

The idea then is to approach Wells concerning the $27 million and proposes something like this:

$7 million paid up front
$3 million per season for the next 10 years

Net profit to Wells = $10 million
Cost to Rogers on Wells contract = $1 million per year (10 total)
Savings to Rogers by dealing Wells = $36 million

Plus the Jays clear the decks for the youth movement and Wells gets a chance to play for a veteran team (presumably) with a better chance of making the playoffs.

Everyone wins. It's a no-brainer for all parties (with the possible exception of the team acquiring Wells - in that he has to actually be worth $12 mil per to them for this illustration to hold up in that regard)


Matthew E - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 07:33 PM EST (#210148) #
If my understanding is correct, the collective bargaining agreement prohibits the restructuring of contracts to make them more favourable to the teams.
VBF - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 07:35 PM EST (#210149) #
CHONE suggests that the Jays have seven average-ish starting pitchers, if you include Litsch.  It is a developmental year, and so the real question is whether AA should hunt down a cheap below average innings-eater or two, so that the young pitchers can get some more work in the high minors.

I read that the Reds are desperate to unload one or both of Harang and Arroyo, the latter of which has consistently pitched over 200 innings  since leaving Boston. I guess nobody really knows if taking on a contract like this is doable (since there really isn't a set budget) but if it is, I wonder if the Reds would throw in Juan Francisco or Zach Cozart for the Jays' trouble (I could be dreaming). Francisco's defense at third is questionable but when you're starting Edwin Encarnacion at third your standard for what is acceptable defense suddenly isn't so high. As well by re-signing Rolen and having Joey Votto with Yonder Alonso on the depth chart, I don't really see how Francisco fits into their plans. On top of this, both Harang and Arroyo stand a chance at being Type B free agents at the end of 2010, so you'd essentially be paying 10-14 million dollars for a sandwich pick and a decent prospect while getting an innings eater taking some load off of the younger pitchers.
Jim - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 07:44 PM EST (#210150) #
It's a no-brainer for all parties (with the possible exception of the team acquiring Wells

We can stop debating it because there isn't any way in the world it's going to happen but how is it a 'no-brainer' to SPEND an extra $10 million dollars just to free up $6 million dollars a year in payroll for 2 seasons?  If this team is close enough to being good that $6 million dollars is going to make a material difference in the number of games that they win and Rogers won't pony up that money.... then baseball is doomed in Toronto anyway unless there is a change in ownership.

In your example, If Rogers was willing to spend an extra $10 million dollars then why wouldn't they just make the budget $5 million dollars higher in 2013 and 2014 and then you've accomplished almost the same exact thing without handing Vernon Wells another $10 million dollars and making the pain of his contract bleed into the 2020s.
TamRa - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 08:32 PM EST (#210152) #
No sense freeing up that money to sign a couple mediocre players to go from a 60-65 win team to a 65-70 win team.

Exactly right. Luckily that's not what ANY one was suggesting be done.

TamRa - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 08:37 PM EST (#210153) #
If my understanding is correct, the collective bargaining agreement prohibits the restructuring of contracts to make them more favourable to the teams.

Andruw Jones and the Dodgers beg to differ.

TamRa - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 08:46 PM EST (#210155) #
We can stop debating it because there isn't any way in the world it's going to happen but how is it a 'no-brainer' to SPEND an extra $10 million dollars just to free up $6 million dollars a year in payroll for 2 seasons? 

either you are arguing just to be arguing or you have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

In the example provided, in the years 2012-2014 Wells would recieve $12 million from the acquiring team, and $3 million from the Jays

In the current arrangement, Wells would receive $21 million each year from the Jays.

net savings to the Jays by adopting the structure in my example: $18 million per season from 2012 to 2014.

Why is this so hard for you?



In your example, If Rogers was willing to spend an extra $10 million dollars then why wouldn't they just make the budget $5 million dollars higher in 2013 and 2014 and then you've accomplished almost the same exact thing without handing Vernon Wells another $10 million dollars and making the pain of his contract bleed into the 2020s.

Because they are saving $36 million which another team will be paying Wells! My GOD man can you READ?

The restructuring pays Wells an extra $10 million but it SAVES Rogers a net total of $16 million!! Actually probably marginally more than that when you consider that if the $3 million isn't inflation adjusted it's less money in 2020 than it is in 2012.


To say nothing of the value of moving Wells off the roster.

Oxygen8 - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 09:17 PM EST (#210156) #
if this has been discussed before i apologize, but what do you all think wells is worth on the open market if he was a FA today?

if i was a gm i'd give one year @ 4 million base plus incentives. i really think that the injuries and poor performance has brought him down to that.

hopefully he has a good year and the market improves over the next couple years. not let us all pray to the patron saint of inflation player salaries scott boras.

TheBunk - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 09:23 PM EST (#210158) #
I really don't think that the reds are that desperate to move harang.
Jim - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 09:52 PM EST (#210159) #
either you are arguing just to be arguing or you have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

In the example provided, in the years 2012-2014 Wells would recieve $12 million from the acquiring team, and $3 million from the Jays

In the current arrangement, Wells would receive $21 million each year from the Jays.

net savings to the Jays by adopting the structure in my example: $18 million per season from 2012 to 2014.

Why is this so hard for you?

Because they are saving $36 million which another team will be paying Wells! My GOD man can you READ?

The restructuring pays Wells an extra $10 million but it SAVES Rogers a net total of $16 million!! Actually probably marginally more than that when you consider that if the $3 million isn't inflation adjusted it's less money in 2020 than it is in 2012.


I know you think you've created some magic bullet but just look at the difference between these two scenarios:

A:  Someone values Wells at 12 million dollars a year between 2012 and 2014.  The Jays send Wells plus 9 million dollars a year to this franchise and receive nothing in return. 
Jays spend
2012: 9 MM
2013: 9 MM
2014: 9 MM
---------------
27 MM total

B:  Someone values Wells at 12 million a year between 2012 and 2014.  The Jays send Wells to this team.  They pick up 36 million and the Jays then restructure Vernon to 3 million a year for 10 years plus a 7 million dollar lump sum.

2012: 10 MM
2013-2021: 3 MM
-------------------
37 MM total

The net difference between those two scenarios is:
In your scenario you've given Vernon Wells an extra 10 million dollars and you've picked up 6 million dollars of flexibility for 2013 and 2014, while costing yourself 1 million in 2012 and 3 million from 2015-2021. 

In my scenario that you just flipped out over, I take situation A above and spend the same 10 million dollars by increasing the payroll in 2013 and 2014 by 5 million dollars.  I am ahead of you by 1 million in 2012, behind you by 1 million in 2013 and 2014 and 3 million ahead of you from 2015-2021. 

Can you please tell me how taking your trade scenario and increasing the payroll by using the same 10 million dollars you want to give Vernon does not make AN INFINITE AMOUNT MORE SENSE then handing Wells another 10 million dollars to hurt yourself from 2015-2021?

This is where you lost yourself:

net savings to the Jays by adopting the structure in my example: $18 million per season from 2012 to 2014.

You aren't including the $7 million dollar lump sum in 2012.  In 2012 you'd actually be paying him $10 million with the lump sum versus the $9 you could have paid him without making any deferment. 

TamRa - Sunday, December 20 2009 @ 11:47 PM EST (#210163) #
I know you think you've created some magic bullet but just look at the difference between these two scenarios:

A:  Someone values Wells at 12 million dollars a year between 2012 and 2014.  The Jays send Wells plus 9 million dollars a year to this franchise and receive nothing in return. 
Jays spend
2012: 9 MM
2013: 9 MM
2014: 9 MM
---------------
27 MM total




B:  Someone values Wells at 12 million a year between 2012 and 2014.  The Jays send Wells to this team.  They pick up 36 million and the Jays then restructure Vernon to 3 million a year for 10 years plus a 7 million dollar lump sum.

2012: 10 MM
2013-2021: 3 MM
-------------------
37 MM total

The net difference between those two scenarios is:
In your scenario you've given Vernon Wells an extra 10 million dollars and you've picked up 6 million dollars of flexibility for 2013 and 2014, while costing yourself 1 million in 2012 and 3 million from 2015-2021. 


Wrong. In my scenario the Jays gain $18 million in flexibility in each of 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Where are you getting the $6 million figure? Oh, I see...you are saying $6 million more between your suggestion and mine. Yes, that's true. The $1 million difference in 2012 is an irrelevancy, too small to matter. I am buying the extra $6 million in 2013 and 2014 by spending $3 million a year for the following 6 years.


In my scenario that you just flipped out over,

I "flipped out" because you were apparently misstating what I was suggesting. I expressed no opinion on your proposal.

I take situation A above and spend the same 10 million dollars by increasing the payroll in 2013 and 2014 by 5 million dollars.  I am ahead of you by 1 million in 2012, behind you by 1 million in 2013 and 2014 and 3 million ahead of you from 2015-2021. 

Reasonable. but you are spending the extra $10 million in two years and I'm spending it over 10 years. Conceded that to a corperation of that size, perhaps that difference makes no difference, but the concept behind my suggestion was to minimize the impact of the extra cost over a long enough period that it became irrelevant.

The problem here in this exchange isn't whether either proposal is a bad idea, it's that you seem to be trying to "win" - I'm not.

That said, my suggested $7 million lump sum payment in January 2012 is NOT a part of any years payroll, it's sunk cost. charge it up to money saved during the 2009-2011 low spending seasons if need be.

(in fact - tangent time - one could also suggest that since we have 4 seasons here in which the team will be running presumable in the $60-70 million range on payroll, that it would do the company well to bank about $10 million a year into a fund specially designed to give us flexibility  for the end of Wells deal)


In 2012 (and every year through 2021) Wells gets $3 million from the Jays.

Previously, he was getting $21 million in each of '12, '13, and '14

21 - 3 = 18 << this is the financial flexibility you bought with the extra $10 million added to Wells contract.

12 X 3 = $36 paid by the other team

36 - 10 = 26 <<< net dollars saved


Now, if I understand your proposition correctly, the Jays save $36 million total in what the other team pays Wells, minus the $10 million they added to the team payroll = $26 million net savings, but they gain only $12 million in flexibility each season.

Which is not a BAD proposal, but it saves/costs the team nothing different than my proposal does. The only real difference originally  was that I'm gaining another $6 mil in flexibility by the deferred payments (before your payroll increase addition).

With your 5x2 payroll bump, n both cases the cost/savings to the team is the same.

Can you please tell me how taking your trade scenario and increasing the payroll by using the same 10 million dollars you want to give Vernon does not make AN INFINITE AMOUNT MORE SENSE then handing Wells another 10 million dollars to hurt yourself from 2015-2021?

Well, obviously it makes an "infinite amount more sense" because YOU suggested it.
(insert eyeroll here)

the practical differences are these:

1. in your scenario, Wells doesn't get more money - a moral victory for you
2. In my scenario, you spread the extra $10 mil spent over 10 years instead of 2. A point for me.
3. In my scenario Wells receives $21 million over the seven years after he leaves the team, although such payments are pretty much always considered "off budget" and would not theoretically hurt the team's financial flexibility in those years - i count this as a neutral point.

Maybe you and I simply have a different concept of the word "infinite"

This is where you lost yourself:

net savings to the Jays by adopting the structure in my example: $18 million per season from 2012 to 2014.

You aren't including the $7 million dollar lump sum in 2012.  In 2012 you'd actually be paying him $10 million with the lump sum versus the $9 you could have paid him without making any deferment. 


I don't count the $7 million against the 2012 payroll.

But if you were to figure that in, then that would mean that you gain $11 million in flexibility in 2012 (as you say, one million less than you gained which is a wholly irrelevant sum to a major league payroll) and $18 million each of the next two years.

But in that situation, the final totals are the same - save $36 million, spend an extra $10 million, net $26 million in benifit.

So you are quibbling over an irrelevant point.

Let me be clear, I'M not complaining about YOUR suggestion!

If we can find a team that will take Wells at $12 million per for the last three years of his deal and we have to send them the other $9 million a year each year to get them to do it I'm fine with that.

I did not propose the deferred payment plan as the only game in town, I was simply illustrating the possible value in such an arrangement contingent on being able to trade him. In referance to the suggestion that there was no way restructuring his deal made sense.
If for no other reason, perhaps it would be easier to downplay spending an extra $10 million over 10 years than it would be to downplay sending $9 million a year to another team for three years - in terms of PR and convincing the suits.

The reason I suggest that paying Wells an extra $10 million is of minimal concern is because it's spread out at $1 million a year over 10 years which is pocket change to a company that size. Probably not even enough to constitute market rate interest on what's being deferred.

if you want to claim the moral victory of not giving Wells one more penny than he's already contracted for, knock yourself out. I'm not here to say "my idea is better than yours"


Just trying to figure out why you need to prove you're the smartest guy here so much.

your suggestion is fine, i don't think there's a lot wrong with mine.

i think the idea that you think yours makes "infinitely more sense" is revealing.

Most folks would just say "I think I'd rather do it like this..."
cascando - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 12:02 AM EST (#210165) #
Restructuring Wells' deal makes lots of sense to me.  And there's plenty of precedent for it.  Jones, Glavine, Bagwell, ARod... Oswalt and Berkman offered to restructure their deals at some point.  And I'm sure this has happened in other sports.  The team often saves money both short and long-term by deferring payment.  I guess some athletes place more of a premium on saving face by restructuring an albatross contract than they place on present-day value calculations.  If Wells happens to be one of those players, the Jays might not even have to bribe him with an extension.  He gets to be the good guy who helped the team bring in another FA, say, and he still gets the same number of hard dollars.

Another reason Wells may agree to do it would be to facilitate a trade.  It isn't hard to imagine circumstances where it seems like a good idea to the player to agree to defer some money in order to escape an ugly situation. 



Geoff - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 12:25 AM EST (#210166) #
Seems J.P. is cozying up to folks in Boston. He's really jazzed about Boston's addition of Scutaro. And if Boston's hitting reaches its potential?-- you're talking playoffs, baby. Just like Toronto would have done.

And just so we know, Roy isn't all smiles about last July's trade deadline.

TamRa - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 12:31 AM EST (#210167) #
I can't imagine that Wells is going to be comfortable being the guy who's making 30% or more of the payroll, and being "pappy" on a roster full of kids.

It's a totally awkward situation for him.

I've been proposing bribing him to restructure but it's a valid point that it wouldn't be crazy on his part to rearrange how he gets the same dollars he's already scheduled to get if it facilitated a trade to the right team.

In fact, some players have been known to actually decrease there return for the good of the team.

By the way, here's a random thought. Two years from now SOME team will be trying to get rid of a Carlos Silva type contract. One ofthe ways to move Wells then would be to swap him for a contract that the holding team considers a sunk cost. but that's just the sort of scenario in which Wells might agree to defer say $15 million to be paid by the new team) from those last three years to make it easier for the new team to take him on.



rtcaino - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 12:51 AM EST (#210168) #
A $10 mill premium to defer some payments is insane. Not getting booed anytime he fails to reach base should provide nearly sufficient incentive for VW.

Any restructuring of his contract would likely be independant of a trade. I say if they can restructure, do it. This can free up some cash.

If they are able to trade him at some point, do that too. This could free up some more cash. But I wouldn't wait for this to pursue the restructure.
TamRa - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 02:45 AM EST (#210169) #
The $10 million is nothing more than (a low rate of) intrest on the money being defered.

He'd make more than that if he invested an equivilant amount in a CD for a similar term right now.

Jim - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 07:31 AM EST (#210170) #
Will, before you comment on whose posts are 'revealing' you should reread your own.

either you are arguing just to be arguing or you have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.


You call not paying Wells a moral victory?  Let's say you are the General Manager.  You are going to go to the fans of the team and try to sell them:  The biggest problem this team has is we pay Vernon Wells too much, our solution is to give him another $10 million dollars and pay him until the year 2021.  That would be a public relations debacle beyond everything JP committed combined.  That isn't a moral victory, it's self preservation. 
Jim - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 07:41 AM EST (#210171) #
Teams that have done deferrals are usually at a completely different location in the win cycle.  Arizona did it for a bunch of players like Grace when they were building towards the 2001 World Series because the extra payroll served a purpose.   I don't remember all the details but those deferrals almost bankrupted the franchise, caused a number of cash calls for investors and I'm pretty sure they had to borrow money from MLB at some points to make payroll in the years after.

The Jays are in a situation where they are going through a complete rebuild.  It makes no sense to push the Wells debacle into the 2020s.  It would take a miracle to be ready to make the playoffs in 2013, if that occurs then it could be worth talking to Vernon.  Today they would be much better off spending $10 million on Johnny Damon for one year if he can't find a landing spot and hope they could deal him for a prospect in July. 

rtcaino - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 07:49 AM EST (#210172) #
CD's are a horrible investment. IMO, vinyl is much more likely to retain it's value.

But in seriousness, and in agreeance with Jim, I don't see Rogers greenlighting an extra $10 mill.

If you're going to pay Vernon an extra $10 mill, why not consider it a payment advance, as opposed to a preium? Then your advancing $10m, and deferring $4m, with little to extra money from Rogers.

I just think that a restructure using an advance is easier to swallow than one using only a large premium.
rtcaino - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 07:55 AM EST (#210173) #
*Little to no extra money from Rogers.
Moe - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 08:31 AM EST (#210174) #
A couple of points:

1. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to discuss now whether the Jays can move VW out of town after 2011. That is two full seasons from away. A whole lot can happen until then: VW could rebound, he could completely fall off the cliff, baseball contracts could rebound, they could tank even more, we could get a salary cap.
Maybe none of of this happens, but there is too much uncertainty to fight over it this intensely. I mean, I really hope they can find someone eating between 10-14 mill, but who knows. A while ago Will was trying to convice us that VW might opt out.
 
2. I think there is a misunderstanding what sunk cost are:
"That said, my suggested $7 million lump sum payment in January 2012 is NOT a part of any years payroll, it's sunk cost."
It is not really sunk in the sense that it is part of newly negotiated deal. VW's entire contract is sunk at this point, but once you start restructuring it, the payment sequence is not sunk any longer, only the total (present value) obligation. And that is the only thing Rogers will care about.

3. I understand it's the offseason and we need to talk about something. But really there is better material out there. For example:
- the Lowell trade just fell through. Should the Jays be interested. Maybe swap Overbay for Lowell and a few mill? If Lowell is healty, he would be a better player than Overbay because of the platoon split -- and as LH in a platoon Overbay has some value for the Sox.
- Damon's stock just went down the drain. Maybe you can pick him up cheaply to help with the OF and on top of the order? He is worth not nearly 3/13, but maybe 2/8?

Geoff - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 09:52 AM EST (#210175) #
You're looking for another bad contract with a fresh smell to trade for? How about baseball's other $126MM man?
Consider:
07:$10M, 08:$14.5M, 09:$18.5M, 10:$18.5M, 11:$18.5M, 12:$19M, 13:$20M, 14:$18M
                08:$0.5M,  09:$1.5M,    10:$12.5M, 11:$23M , 12:$21M,  13:$21M, 14:$21M
Line one is BZ, line two is VW.

And that year for '14 vests only if BZ throws 200 IP the year before or averages 200 IP over the prior two (or three) seasons. Otherwise, the team can take a $7MM buyout.

Big problem is that both players have full no-trade clauses, particularly the question of why Zito would come here.  
rtcaino - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 10:24 AM EST (#210176) #
In a discussion about returning the Jays to competitive baseball, I think that not paying Wells $20 plus million in 2014 is much more relevant than adding Lowell or Damon up to that point in time.

I'm not against acquiring either necessarily. While neither is likely to be around next time the Jays are good, they could be used to get valuable pieces down the road.

But that doesn't change the fact that Wells' contract is an albatross.

To your second point, as I said, if you can adjust the payment schedule as to not alter the present value of payments, but to make the contract less prohibitive in 2013 and 2014, I think that is an attractive scenario.

And while it is difficult to anticipate what will happen a few years from now -- your addressing a group of individuals that are following a rebuilding team. A few years from now is what we have to look forward to. Not to mention the obsession of following the farm system many of us share - speaking of the difficulty in anticipating what will happen in a few years!
Moe - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 11:59 AM EST (#210179) #
And while it is difficult to anticipate what will happen a few years from now -- your addressing a group of individuals that are following a rebuilding team. A few years from now is what we have to look forward to. Not to mention the obsession of following the farm system many of us share - speaking of the difficulty in anticipating what will happen in a few years!

I get following the farm, I do that as well. That's one of the reasons I'm here. I was just trying to point out that fighting over the restructuring of VW's contract is a bit premature because there is too little known. And with a corporate owner, you might get away getting the same outcome without restructuring because they (should) only care about the present value and not the cash flow. Getting worked up about the farm is much more exciting and I'm all with you. I just don't think these two compare.

As for Damon and Lowell, I'm not saying we should do it, but it is more productive/interesting to talk about because it's much more tangible and affects next season and the Jays will be allowed to not send out a 100+ loss team (being owned by a broadcaster).
 

whiterasta80 - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 11:59 AM EST (#210180) #

I'd trade VW for Zito in a heartbeat, but everytime I mention it there's opposition to the idea. My stance is that a rebuilding team should value a guy who can pitch 200 innings WAY more than a RF who thinks he's a CF, regardless of the discrepancy in talent, regardless of the fact that the CF is an everyday player.  Plus, I'm more inclined to think that Zito will return to form. 

I bet we could get Zito here by guarenteeing that '14 season though.  In my opinion it'd still be worth it.

rtcaino - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 01:23 PM EST (#210181) #
I agree that is it nothing to get upset about. But I think it is relevant enough to discuss in a mature way.

What do you mean by with corporate owners one might get the same outcome without restructuring? (Given their primary interest in present value as opposed to cash flows)
TamRa - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 01:41 PM EST (#210182) #
You call not paying Wells a moral victory?

No I didn't - i only acknowledged that perhaps you might view it as a moral victory to not add money to an already too-large deal.

It would take a miracle to be ready to make the playoffs in 2013, if that occurs...

I was only discussing theoreticals - not making win predictions.

1. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to discuss now whether the Jays can move VW out of town after 2011. That is two full seasons from away. A whole lot can happen until then: VW could rebound, he could completely fall off the cliff, baseball contracts could rebound, they could tank even more, we could get a salary cap.

I agree with all that. if you look closely, the intensity of my response is not over whether or not I'm right, it's over the reaction to my suggestion. It's totally a given that all those variables apply and that combined they make it a very speculative discussion.

My point here was never to predict what was a good idea but to present one possible scenario in which such a manuver would be at least arguably plausable. it's not my fault that every time I utter a brainstorm certain posters feel the need to prove how much smarter they are by obsessing over arguing how crazy i am.

As i said before, a simple "I disagree" usually suffices.


Maybe none of of this happens, but there is too much uncertainty to fight over it this intensely. I mean, I really hope they can find someone eating between 10-14 mill, but who knows. A while ago Will was trying to convice us that VW might opt out.

A very good point. the difference in the landscape between when I made that comment and now is staggering and it completely undermines every point I made then. What was very true then (in my opinion) is nonsensical now.

I suppose someone could read that as "never listen to Will's crazy rambling" but I'd also suggest it says "never assume you know what will be going on 2 or 3 years from now cause you don't"


Moe - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 01:44 PM EST (#210183) #
What do you mean by with corporate owners one might get the same outcome without restructuring? (Given their primary interest in present value as opposed to cash flows)

A corporate owner should only care about the present value. A private owner may also have to care about the cash flow. 2 examples (assuming zero interest rates)
1. for each of the next 5 years the owner gives the team 100m payroll and player x gets 20m
2. player x gets 30, 3x20, 10 and the payroll is 110, 3x100, 90.
For a corporate owner that's the same (zero interest) but a private owner might not be able to pay 110m in year 1 because of cash-flow constraints.

Now if you restructure VW's contract the way Will suggested, you gain payroll flexibility today (2012-2014) and lose payroll flexibility in the future when you pay the deferred money IF the payroll is a fixed number (cash-flow constraint). However, if payroll is not a fixed number (no cash-flow constraints), you could equally move the deferred money to 2012-2014 and bump up the payroll then.

From Rogers viewpoint restructuring only makes sense if you lower the present value or if there is a cash-flow issue. With Rogers, the latter should never be a problem and the former can only work if VW and Rogers use different interest rates (why would VW ever agree to a lower present value, well unless he wants out). In fact, there might even be an advantage to pay a lot up front (present value neutral) because a corporate owner can write it off and save taxes (not sure, but I could see this working).

Bottom line, it makes zero sense to speculate about VW's contract restructuring and trade before 2011 when we have a lot more information. That's not the same as dreaming about prospects.
 
Moe - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 01:51 PM EST (#210184) #
I suppose someone could read that as "never listen to Will's crazy rambling" but I'd also suggest it says "never assume you know what will be going on 2 or 3 years from now cause you don't"

I normally enjoy your rumblings and just take them with a grain of salt (because, as fans should be, you tend to be overly optimistic) -- So, I would suggest the latter interpretation. This VW contract renegotiation just was a bit too much (and it also made less sense than what is normally going on here).

Denoit - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 02:53 PM EST (#210187) #

Take the stats for what its worth but Fangraphs have an interesting article up for Outfeild Chances. He has the 6th  percentage in the MLB for Chances out of total team chances. It just goes to show that Vernon is still getting to alot of balls.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/hogging-the-ball

Denoit - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 03:08 PM EST (#210189) #

Sorry the previous post wasnt the greatest, Vernon Wells is the guy im talking about.

Chuck - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 03:22 PM EST (#210190) #

It just goes to show that Vernon is still getting to alot of balls.

Does it? Wells started 153 games last year which certainly helped him pile up the chances. The "analysis" should have adjusted for number of defensive innings played.

whiterasta80 - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 03:23 PM EST (#210191) #
Denoit I think it may have more to do with playing with Travis "Rook" Snider, Adam "No range" Lind and Alex "what happened" Rios most of the time.  Even on really high fly balls where anyone could grab it, those two would probably prefer to defer to Vernon. I bet his rate was much lower when Bautista was in the game.
92-93 - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 03:25 PM EST (#210192) #
As Tangotiger pointed out in the comments, what a useless article. Vernon Wells played the 2nd most CF innings in baseball behind only Granderson, so it would be scary if he wasn't up on that list.
Mike Forbes - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 05:12 PM EST (#210196) #
At this point in time, I'd rather Bautista play CF than Wells. Pretty bad when a third basemen is potentially the teams best outfielder.
rtcaino - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 07:02 PM EST (#210201) #
I understand that AA doesn't have a specific budget. However, he does have some financial constraints. My understanding was that he would most likely have a general operating budget that he could spend. If he had a worthwhile reason to diverge from that, he can propose it. But by and large, he knows his parameters.

My thinking was if in 2012 he was significantly below this yearly operating budget, and he did not foresee the team pushing for the play-offs, he could restructure VW's contract.

Clearly from Roger's perspective, a dollar is a dollar. However, for AA, this may free up some cash in in subsequent years within the general financial framework that Roger's gives him.

That was my general understanding of how the baseball budget works within Rogers, and why it might be beneficial to restructure the contract.
John Northey - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 07:57 PM EST (#210202) #
If it is 'a dollar is a dollar no matter how spent' then it certainly is possible that the scouting/international budget went through the roof thanks to AA deciding that was where it was best to spend. In the past, afaik, the Jays claimed it was a specific budget for each area. I much prefer the new way as it allows far more flexibility for the GM to adjust to the teams situation.

So if he is unable to sign the draft picks/international free agents he wants to then AA could, late in the season, negotiate with Wells to adjust it so the following year he gets less via getting a bonus in 2010 thus opening the cash up for better signings of kids. If he can sign the kids he wants then he just lives with Wells contract next year. Basically adjust to fit the budget and make it so future ones are more or less flexible as per the needs/opportunities of the current year.

Yup, a much better approach that allows the team to adjust to changing conditions. Lets hope AA sees that and adjusts as needs/opportunities adjust.
92-93 - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 08:29 PM EST (#210205) #
"In the past, afaik, the Jays claimed it was a specific budget for each area"

I know this is what many people here believed, but I have a hard time believing a multi-billion dollar corporation could have such limited thinking.
Spifficus - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 09:35 PM EST (#210207) #

Working for a multi-billion dollar company and watching what happens to my training and travel budget every year reinforces that a silo budget structure is in fact the norm... and that corporations beholden only to their shareholders' quarterly dividends are not typically the best structure for long term thinking. The best thing the Jays can hope is that they're generally left alone, and able to tap into the coffers for payroll when the returns on investment would be maximized.

As for the Wells contract itself (or restructuring in general), Jim made a great point in pointing out that we're not in the right part of the win cycle to worry about it. Wait until we get the core built up to such a point that we need to spend money to add the final piece or two to make a push. That might be 2012, or it might be 2015. There's not much point to create unnecessary obligations in 2020+ if the extra budgetary headroom does no good in 2012-15. If at that point, we need to spend to get that second ace, middle of the order bat, slick fielding SS that can actually hit, or whatever, then it's time to look at things like this.

TamRa - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 10:03 PM EST (#210212) #
Which STILL overlooks the fact that I was never talking about reworking his deal NOW....I was talking (in a purely hypothetical sense) about one alternative that might be done two years from now IF we found a trade partner and IF we at that time thought it was necessary to both free up cash AND get him off the roster.
Spifficus - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 10:14 PM EST (#210214) #
Oh, no, feel free to hypotheticalize away. I only meant that it's not something for the team to put in motion until it's comfortable that it has a 90+ win core, and wants the added freedom to bump it up to 95 wins. Until they have a firm idea that they're ready to win, it's not worth it to risk blindly deferring payroll, costing themselves flexibility down the road to no advantage at the time.
Spicol - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 10:54 PM EST (#210215) #
"In the past, afaik, the Jays claimed it was a specific budget for each area"

I know this is what many people here believed, but I have a hard time believing a multi-billion dollar corporation could have such limited thinking.

I can assure you that this is precisely Rogers' MO in the rest of their operations and I would expect the Jays are no different. The Finance guys determine where the rate of return is best and that's what what gets invested in.
HippyGilmore - Monday, December 21 2009 @ 11:49 PM EST (#210216) #
@kenrosenthal: Sources: Mariners have reached tentative agreement to trade Brandon Morrow to Blue Jays for B. League and prospect.
SWEET
whiterasta80 - Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 12:02 AM EST (#210219) #
What's up new closer... Please don't anyone try to sell me on him as a starter.
Spifficus - Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 12:45 AM EST (#210223) #

What's up new closer... Please don't anyone try to sell me on him as a starter.

How about I rent him to you as a starter?

Over his 10 starts this year, he had a 3.68 ERA and 43 K's in 51.1 innings (don't forget he needed 3 spring training type starts at the beginning, where he totalled 12 innings). Mind you, he also tossed in 30 walks, but they tend to be clustered in beat-your-head-against-a-wall starts.

Toss in 10 good starts at Tacoma, and given where the team's at, I'd definately give him a year in the rotation to see what happened.

Alex Anthopoulos Chats With Fans | 92 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.