I swear this item wasn't up when I posted in the other thread. I pinky swear!

I guess I wasn't the only one who thought the Jays were short pitching.  Since our last discussion they have done nothing but add arms.

AA's plan is to become the very first GM to trade an entire bullpen in one transaction.

I had an odd feeling when I read on MLBTR that "Oakland had found interest in Eveland" that it was Alex who was interested.

Initially, I was going to pan this move out of hand BUT looking at his career to date, he did make the majors pretty quickly and he did have very impressive minor league stats (outside of losing his control for a while when he got to AA)

I assume there's not much upside to him else we wouldn't have changed teams so much but I like this move better than i like adding Gregg. I said back when Jim brought it up that I was fine with deals like THIS one - what i was NOT fine with was throwing millions at mediocrities on guaranteed deals. i never said there was anything wrong with bringing in flyers like this.

Still, either there are more pitchers hurting than we have been told about, or there are a lot of veteran Jays who need to be VERY nervous right now. It will take more than attrition to thin this herd.

Marcum, Romero, McGowan*, Morrow, Zep, Eveland, Richmond, Cecil, Purcey, Mills, Ray, Stewart

- if everyone is healthy and everyone stays in the organization that two more starters than you need in Toronto and Vegas combined, and then something has to happen before Litsch starts his road back or before you can promote Drabek. One assumes Richmond might end up in the pen but he joins:

Frasor, Downs, Gregg, Tallet, Accardo, Carlson, Camp, Janssen, Roenicke, Zinicola, and Valdez - as many as 12 candidates for 7 or 8 spots. And that's not counting Jackson and other such scrubs.

For us to be short of experienced arms it would take half a dozen guys going down.

There's nothing wrong with using New Hampshire as a training/rehab ground too. 

I am not a fan of customary promotion.  Generally, you don't want to promote a pitcher to double A until he has succeeded at high A.  That means you have more room for pitchers like Morrow, Eveland and McGowan either at double A or triple A. 

I was reading up on some college baseball and came across Jake Eliopolous' program at Chipola College. The lefty went 4 innings today, allowing 2 runs on 4 hits and 2 walks to go along with 5 strikeouts. That brings his season totals to 6.2ip 3er 6h 5bb 9k...just thought you might like to know.

I thought I'd whip up a quick All-Dana Hall of Names team, but it turns out that's not even possible. According to BBRef, only five men in the history of the game have gone by that first name (Eveland is the only one active) and just five more have had that as a given middle name. There is one All-Star appearance, as Harold Dana Gregg (he went by "Hal" or "Skeets") made the 1945 NL team in the midst of winning 18 for that season's wartime Dodgers.

Gregg (40-48 career record), Charles Dana "Charlie" Dexter (a .260ish OF/C around the turn of the last century, with enough speed to steal 183 bases) and Dana Fillingim (47-73, parts of 1915-25) are really the only obstacles standing between Eveland and the prestigious position of Greatest Dana ever to play big league ball.

41-man roster here . I wonder who is going to be coming off it next. Also, there is only one catcher on it right now. Gregg hasn't been added yet.

To the best of my knowledge, Jesse Litsch, Merkin Valdez and Dirk Hayhurst are 60-day DL candidates.   Casey Janssen, David Purcey, Dustin McGowan and Dana Eveland are out of options and must make the team, go on the DL or be traded (hopefully early enough to maximize value).   They are too valuable to DFA and lose on waivers.   Zech Zinicola is a Rule 5 pick, that I have no idea why he was selected (RF and SS were more needed).

Starters: Marcum, Romero, Morrow - Purcey, McGowan, Eveland - Rzepczynski,Cecil, Richmond - Mills, Ray, Stewart.   The last 6 have options, the first 3 look to make the team, the second 3 is where the problem lies, who's out?

Relievers: Gregg, Downs, Frasor - Tallet, Janssen - Camp, Carlson,Richmond, Accardo - Roenicke, Zinicola.   The first 3 look to make the team, the remaining 8 have options, and only 4 openings, who's out.   Downs and Frasor have the most trade value.

Anthopolous seems obsessed with accumulating a massive number of players who have shown flashes of brilliance in the past, hoping that -- by the law of averages -- one or two of them might again show that brilliance in the future.  Eveland is just the latest example, but the entire off-season has been dominated by gathering a large collection of these guys:  inexpensive players, mid-20s or late 20s, not old enough to write off, who were first-round draft picks or were early to reach the majors. 

I call this the "lottery" approach to managing.  Each individual acquisition, by himself, is a long-shot -- but if you have enough tickets in the lottery, you might just win.  If you acquire 10 inexpensive players, each with a 10 per cent chance of being excellent, then you have a pretty good chance that one of those 10 players will be an excellent major-leaguer. 

Eveland, like the others, is an intriguing and mysterious player.  At the age of 22, he had a highly impressive season at the AAA level:  105 innings, 110 strikeouts, an ERA of 2.74 and a WHIP of 1.07.  As recently as 2008, at the still-youthful age of 24, he had a pretty good major-league season, with 29 starts and an ERA of 4.34.   Yet here he is, floundering at the age of 26, and three major-league teams have already given up on him.  It's unclear why, but his struggles in 2009 are a hint of an explanation.  Yet those intriguing flashes of brilliance in the past .... is there something there, that the Jays can bring back?  It's a lottery ticket, and Anthopolous seems to want as many tickets as possible.  Kudos to him for recognizing the element of randomness in baseball.  Statistics and computers can't always predict the future.  There is an aspect of chaos theory in it all, and Anthopolous is embracing it.

Stewart and Purcey will eventually be converted to relief. McGowan will start the year on the DL. I think the battle will be between Eveland and Rzepczynski for the last rotation slot. One of Downs or Frasor will be traded before June.

Injuries and poor performance will happen, so this "depth" as it is perceived to be will be tested,

I don't see Eveland as a long-term asset of any kind.

Welcome to the land of 67 wins.

Purcey does appear to have an option left.

Article today at USA Today on the Re-Building process, with the Blue Jays among the teams featured:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-02-04-blueprints-for-rebuilding_N.htm

So far, AA has built by attempting to develop a surplus of pitching and depth at the right end of the defensive spectrum.  It is possible to convert right-end talent into left-end talent, but it doesn't happen often.

As for 67 wins, that's fine.  I was on those benches at Exhibition Stadium (for $5.50) in 1979.  A seat with a back is a bonus!

I think A.A. is preparing this Team for another year(s) of pitching injuries.  In 2008, 2009 the team won a lot of games with basically third string pitchers - pitched well didn't they?   Hopefully we'll be better prepared in 2010.   Of course, A.A. could be getting in a better position for a trade or two.   I can't wait to see what happens next.

The starting pitching is a group of guys either coming off serious injuries, guys that can only be stretched out to 150-180 innings, and fifth starters. There's no strategy at work other than to accumulate guys who may be able to contribute innings.

The bullpen will be seriously taxed this year, with a very good chance that no starter will throw 200 innings. Cecil threw about 140 innings last year, Zep about 150, and neither probably should be stretched out past 180. Marcum should be put in the 'knits and delicate' cycle. Romero threw 190 last year, but I think he's a major regression candidate. His second half opp obp was over .400 and his opp ops was around .830 in that period.

While Robert predicts 67 wins, I would think they'd do well to win that many. I don't think people should be disappointed to see 100 losses in 2010.

Well, you can cross one pitcher off the laundry list of bullpen candidates.  There is a report on the Blue Jays website that in Hayhurst's surgery this week, they found some labrum tearing or fraying and they repaired it.  Recovery time is 4-6 months.  I would imagine they will put him on the 60 day DL to get the roster to 40 players.

We seem to have some conflicting info here as to which pitchers are out of options.  Does anyone know a good source for looking up that info? 

Can't put him on the 60 day DL until after spring training.  They could just outright him, it's not like anyone is going to claim him on waivers.

I don't think people should be disappointed to see 100 losses in 2010.

I would be. I'm contextually optimistic about the Jays this year and I can see them pushing 80 wins.

AL 100 loss seams since 2005:

SEA 08
TB 05-06
KCR 05-06

Does anyone truly think the 10 Jays are even close to the level of those spectacularly bad teams? If so, why?

The Jays could easily hit the high 70s or the mid 90s in losses, but to write "welcome to the land of 100 losses" seems ridiculous.

I would be. I'm contextually optimistic about the Jays this year and I can see them pushing 80 wins.

When did you turn the corner?  I thought you were on a ledge this offseason?

Or does my sarcasm detector need some fine tuning?

I don't think people should be disappointed to see 100 losses in 2010.

even if a 100-loss season is expected, it is still very disappointing. Of course, 63-99 is no great shakes, either.

Jim is right about Hayhurst and the roster - they can DFA him and then sign him to a minor league deal with no risk of losing him, problem solved.
 

Richard or someone said Valdez is a candidate for the 60 day DL (Which, by the way, you guys are smart enough you shouldn't be suggesting someone goes on the DL now - it can't be done) what is this based on?

I've heard nothing about Valdez having an ongoing injury.

My appologies Will, an article/show I read/watched suggested he was (injured) like Jesse Litsch, not available until June, July 2010.   Wiki mentions surgery 2006, (transposed 6 - 9??), article/show didn't mention this, and I can't remmber where I read/watched it.   Jesse Litsch should still be on the 60-day DL.   I cannot see any reason to take Shaun Marcum and Dustin McGowan off the 60-day DL just yet.   I can't see any reason Dirk Hayhurst shouldn't be put on the 60-day DL.

When did you turn the corner?  I thought you were on a ledge this offseason?

Or does my sarcasm detector need some fine tuning?

No sarcasm and no corner. My long-term outlook for the Jays remains the same: I don't think they can get good enough to be good, given current conditions. However, that doesn't mean they have to be terrible, and I don't see a terrible team here. In particular I like the young starting pitching. I think they can approach 80 wins this year.

The acquisition of Eveland shows that the Blue Jay quest for world LHP domination continues after the recent blips.

I heard on the radio that the Jays have signed former Angel GM Jim Beattie as a scout.  They're up to like a thousand scouts now right?  How many more do they need to hire before they find one that would have said "Don't sign Kevin Gregg".

Beattie was the Expos GM who originally hired Anthopoulos. 

It's obviously too early to be making specific predictions as a few quality players still have not signed. The Jays could still sign someone like Branyan, Damon, or Dye for cheap and upgrade the offense a fair bit. Considering they won 75 games with Halladay (and Rolen) last year, I think 65-70 wins seems like a realistic expectation for the team.  They look likely to be a bottom-5 team in baseball for at least a couple of years which is probably what the Jays need in the long run (Getting top-5 picks for 2 or 3 years can get you a good shot at getting superstars to be the core of your future ).

Speaking of Halladay, will da' Box be getting a new Banner soon?  I can totally understand leaving it up in honor of 'Mr. Bluejay', but I would think that when Pitchers & Catcher report in a few weeks it would be time to move on, no?

Yeah, this debate went on in December with no resolution.

My only thought is "Please, no retro. Thanks."

The early line on the two first collegiate shortstops to be drafted- Christian Colon and Rick Hague.  Here's Bryan Smith on Colon.  Here's a scouting report on Hague, and here's one on Colon.

I think we first have to be sure whoever we put up there is going to be here come April :)

Wells and Hill are the guys signed long term, Snider might be in AAA, Lind isn't a bad idea but DH's can be headaches. Pitching is too much of a crapshoot right now to grab any of them imo.

I assume there would be a Bauxite pitchfork revolt if Vernon Wells was put into the banner, although I'm not really sure if a guy should be crucified for his contract.

Da box, from zombie-like cult to pitchfork revolt in 7 easy years....

We've actually discussed replacing the banner at length (read: ad nauseum) behind the scenes, but as noted, we have to be sure it's a keeper of some sort. Already have heard "no retro" and "Wells = pitchforks," so what to do?

I'm no artist, but if I were, I'd try to "pitch" together something quasi-retro, showing a progression of Jay aces through the years -- Jerry Garvin, Jim Clancy, Dave Steib, Pat Hentgen and Roy Halladay, something like that. (What, no room for Clemens?) And some sort of artistic "space" at the far right of the continuum graphically signifying "To Be Determined ..."

I think that'd work. I can't DO it, but you know ...

For the banner I would have a newer version of Hill and Vernon. I'm not sure there will be as many pitchforks out this year if a healthy Vernon returns to form which in my humble opinion, is what is in store.

You could avoid the whole issue entirely by using a picture of a Jays-logo'd bat and ball or hat and cleats or some other combo of paraphernalia.

The Blue Jays ZiPS projections are up at BTF.

RE: College SS ...I'd be happy if they went with Florida high schooler Yordy Cabrera if they could talk him into signing ...  http://pnrscouting.com/articles_underarmourallamerica2009_08132010.html .   I wonder how he compares with Pierre

Snider & Hill are this team's two greatest assets, so in my opinion they belong on the banner. I don't see the big deal in a future change if needed.

The Blue Jays ZiPS projections are up at BTF.
That OPS+ is one ugly column. ZIPS projects a regression of Lind, Hill, and Overbay to 117, 103 and 100 respectively from their lofty 2009 heights of 144, 117 and 122. That's it for the league averagers and above. At least Vernon is predicted to bounce back from his 88 OPS+ in 2009 to a gaudy 96.

Pitching didn't make me feel better. ZIPS agrees on Romero's regression with a tidy 5.08 era, and has Shaun Marcum winning 6 games.

This makes my 100 loss forecast look downright Pollyannish. So to humour myself I decided to add up all the projected pitcher wins, and found the Jays with a potential 174 win season. Who cares if the system isn't supposed to be used that way, I figure 174 wins will turn some heads.

As for Travis Snider as one of the two banner players on the Jays, I'd at least like to see him bust the 100 OPS+ mark before we see him up there.

The ZiPS projections suggest that Hoffpauir is likely to be a better player, both offensively and defensively, than Encarnacion.  The difference with the bat is small, but the difference with the glove is very noticeable.  Hoffpauir has been a second baseman all of his minor league career, and ZiPS may not been right in projecting that he would provide better defence at third than Encarnacion. 

I wonder how this will affect Colon's season:

7/25/2009 -- With one game left in an incredibly successful summer season, Colon's stock may drop considerably after breaking his tibia and fibula in a collision at second base in the semi-finals of the World Baseball Challenge.

As for Travis Snider as one of the two banner players on the Jays, I'd at least like to see him bust the 100 OPS+ mark before we see him up there.

He's at 101 career right now.

He's at 101 career right now.

Oh well then, put him on the banner.

Snider's OPS+ last year, the first he was more than a September call-up, was 98. In 2008, he was called up the last couple of games of August, for reasons which escape me. There's a reason March and September stats are lesser-weighted. In September, call ups often get to play against other guys who often aren't major league regulars, such as for example Michael Bass of the O's who threw 21 innings that year and gave up a multi-hit game to Snider. Or the 2008 version of Carl Pavano, who threw 22 IP all year and did the same.

So i guess you've got me there, I should have said and OPS+ of 100 in a season. But if that 101 does it for you, hey, it's not my banner.

Those Zips projections would be more concerning if the 2009 projections had been even remotely accurate. Going by easily comparable OPS:
                                  ZIPS        Actual        Diff                                                           
Lind                           766        932        -166                                                           
Hill                             734        829        -95                                                           
Scutaro                     698        789        -91                                                           
Rolen                        756        846        -90                                                           
Overbay                    767        838        -71                                                           
Snider                       715        748        -33                                                           
Barajas                     699        661        38                                                           
Wells                         773        711        62                                                           
Rios                          825        744        81

90 points of OPS is a pretty big deal, and Zips missed by that much on 4 players. And despite the whiffs, it doesn't seem to have adjusted much: It projected Overbay to hit 270/350/417. Instead he hit a much healthier 265/372/466. So in 2010, Zips expects him to hit... 251/339/416.

I'm also not sure how you get a sub-400 SLG for Encarnacion, when he's never hit that low over a season, and he's going to be 27 this year (and possibly recovered to some extent from his wrist injury).

According to ZiPS, my next child will have one tit and one testicle.

The only thing certain about these statistical forecasts (ZiPS, CHONE) is that they will be wrong.  Sum together a decent sample size of players, and the cumulative projection might be quite close though.

Always fun to see projections, but some of this really seems odd. He includes a thing showing odds of pitchers reaching 100+ ERA+ and lists Rzep as just a 33% shot at being 100+ in ERA+. Just 8 pitchers listed at even odds of 100+ ERA+ (Frasor, Marcum, Stewart, McGowan, Tallet, Camp, Accardo, Carlson). Romero is just listed at 12% odds of a 100+ ERA+ with 0% shot at 130. Cecil at 9%. Just a few odd results there. No one on the staff listed as having an ERA below 3.50. I'd bet a lot that someone will be lower than that :)

So i guess you've got me there, I should have said and OPS+ of 100 in a season. But if that 101 does it for you, hey, it's not my banner.

His total sample size is only about half a season.  I'm not sure we're in a position to exclude at-bats.  But if 98 in 250 ABs as a 21 year-old doesn't do it for you, hey, it's not my banner.

I just don't trust negative projections for Encarnacion, three full seasons of solid offensive production before his 2009 because of nagging injury and he's in the prime of his career. If there's one player due for a comeback on offense, it's clear that it's Encarnacion.

Defense is a different story haha.

Also, Hoffpaur has a grand total of 12 ab's in the majors, i'd take every projection for him with a massive grain of salt.

What exactly is the translation from NL Central to the AL East?  ZiPS and CHONE have it as very significant, with the result that players like Encarnacion and Gregg are not expected to do nearly as well as they did. 

I can understand some divisional differences, but Encarnacion still hit 240/306/442 in 40 games in Toronto. That's not great, particularly for a guy with poor defence, but he was also recovering from a broken wrist. His eye at the plate may be dodgy sometimes, but he's always had some pop, and I wouldn't expect that to change.

CHONE has Encarnacion at .255/.335/.428.  That is probably more likely to be right than the ZiPS figures.  And yes, it's probably a little better than what Hoffpauir would do. 

Zach Stewart pitched 105.0 innings in 2009 (135.0 in 2010; 165.0 in 2011; finally 195.0 in 2012).   Kyle Drabek pitched 158.1 innings in 2009 (188.1 in 2010; 208.1 in 2011).   Ricky Romero pitched 178.1 innings in 2009 (208.1 in 2010).   Marc Rzepczynski pitched 149.1 in 2009 (179.1 in 2010; 209.1 in 2011).   Shaun Marcum pitched 151.1 in 2008 (???? in 2010).   Brandon Morrow pitched 124.2 innings in 2009 (154.2 in 2010; 184.2 in 2011; 214.2 in 2012).  David Purcey pitched 187.1 in 2009 (217.1 in 2010).   Dustin McGowan pitched 111.1 innings in 2008 (???? in 2010).   Jesse Litsch pitched 111.0 innings in 2007, 176.0 (too many) innings in 2008, 9.0 innings in 2009 (???? in 2010).   Dana Eveland pitched 168.0 innings in 2009 (198.0 in 2010).   Brett Cecil pitched 142.1 innings in 2009 (172.1 in 2010; 202.1 in 2011).   Scott Richmond pitched 147.1 innings in 2009 (177.1 in 2010; 207.1 in 2011).

Don't worry about who starts for Toronto, worry about the 5 (or more) pitchers needed to make 33+ starts each for Toronto.

Bill James has EE at .259/.343/.465 - that would be swell.

worry about the 5 (or more) pitchers needed to make 33+ starts

If the Jays have 6 pitchers making 33+ starts it will have been a very successful year.

Interesting. Bill James was one of the analysts who predicted a solid year from Lind in 2009 (there were a lot of naysayers after 2007 and 2008).

Bill James' projections are almost always for better production than ZiPS or CHONE; historically, they have been on the whole less accurate. 

Rosenthal says the Jays are interested in Russell Branyan.

The Indians and Blue Jays are interested in Branyan, major-league sources say, but both of those clubs are considering other hitters as well.

The Blue Jays could use Branyan at the infield corners and possibly left field as well as at DH. But they, too, are reluctant to block a young player such as Travis Snider.

I'm curious if the Jays plan to go with an outfield of Snider-Wells-Lind. If so, it would probably be the worst defensive outfield in baseball.

Branyan would be a strange choice.  Not that he's a bad player.  He had a great start to last year prior to herniating his disc.  There is the possibility that he makes a full recovery, and continues to mash despite his age.  He's probably overqualified for a reserve role, but that looks to be the kind of money that is being thrown around.  It is puzzling why teams at the low end of the competitive cycle would be interested and those at the high end wouldn't be.

On sober second thought, a Branyan acquisition could be a part of a very smart series of moves.  The club has apparently decided that Wallace is a first baseman.  He starts the year in Las Vegas.  If the club were to acquire Branyan, the logical move is to trade Lind for talent on the left end of the defensive spectrum.  Overbay/Wallace are your first basemen of the next 6 years, and you really don't want Adam Lind in left field 3 years from now.  Branyan takes over as your left-handed DH, and you run out an outfield of Wells, Gathright and Snider.  Bautista is a late inning defensive replacement for Snider and occasionally hits against tough lefties.  The offence will suffer, but at least the defence down the middle of the diamond will be good. 

Sometimes to unclog a backup at a position, you have to add to it first paradoxically. 

AA created this log-jam with the Wallace flip and I hope he knows how he's going to fix it and is bang on with the way he fixes it.

Myself, I want Lind on this team wherever he's playing at 33-34. Now that the his mishandled years are over he's going to do nothing but hit.

I just want to say, for the record. I don't want Overbay on this team this year, let alone in 6. I don't want Branyan on the Jays ever.

As for Wallace, we'll see, Lind's bat (and glove) may play better at 1B than Wallace (better prospects have struggled for years at the ML -- Brandon Wood). I think the Jays are making a mistake not giving Wallace a chance at 3B (a bigger one than signing Kevin Gregg). It takes a supreme double think to use EE at 3B and not try to see what Wallace can do at 3B.

As for the OF -- that's a mess until 2014 or until Wells re-establishes himself either offensively or defensively, especially since the indications seem to be pointing to Snider being headed for LF.

I liked the Wallace/Taylor swap at the time but the more I think about it and the longer it has gone on without a move that makes it make more sense... I start to dislike it more.

Despite this, I still have faith in the AA program.

Why does Taylor for Wallace need to be followed by another move to justify it? The Jays aren't competing in 2010, so a logjam created by Lyle Overbay matters very little. Wallace belongs in AAA to start the season until he clears Super-2 status, and then he can join the lineup with an injury to any of Wells, Lind, Snider, Overbay, Bautista, and Encarnacion. In the unlikely event that doesn't happen you let Wallace destroy Triple A (something he's yet to do like a Snider) until the opportunity arises. Either way, Wallace will be the starting 1B in 2011, and I don't see this perceived abundance of corner talent when all the team has is Snider, Lind, and Wallace. Besides, a Branyan signing could work in a platoon with Bautista and Encarnacion - when the team faces a RHP you give one of them the day off, start the other at 3B, Snider in RF, and Branyan at DH.

"Why does Taylor for Wallace need to be followed by another move to justify it? The Jays aren't competing in 2010, so a logjam created by Lyle Overbay matters very little."

I intended to phrase my comment in a way that reflect my belief that the "justifying move" does not to occur this off-season. Overbay for a C- prospect in July is fine with me if the Jays don't pay salary or B- to B if the Jays do. Not going to happen. I believe Overbay has been shopped by AA but I think other GMs are justifiably skeptical of how his bat plays but like his glove.

"Wallace belongs in AAA to start the season until he clears Super-2 status"

I agree but I am not particularly certain that Wallace will be in the top 17% of players when/if he qualifies as a Super-2. The fiddling with Super-2 status should not matter to a team with the (potential at least) resources of the Jays.

Branyan I just don't see wasting any money or roster space on even if it is a small amount of money (and I wanted the Jays to "waste" big money on Sheets/Bedard). For a 91 loss team -- the offence in 2010 is fine.

Branyan, at the right price, could be a nice fit with the team. A strong bat vs. RHP and sub-par defence fits nicely with Bautista, who hits LHP well and has strong defence. You could mix and match depending on opponents and who's starting for the Jays.

With Snider in Las Vegas, Ryan?

At the moment, the Jays seem to be leaning to Lind at DH, Snider in left, and Bautista in right. When you want to play Branyan, slide Snider over to right, then put either Lind or Branyan in left. The defense could be ugly, but it may be better than letting Bautista hit against RHP on a regular basis.

A fantastic article by Dave Allen over at Fangraphs regarding our favourite pull-happy hitter, Aaron Hill.

I agree but I am not particularly certain that Wallace will be in the top 17% of players when/if he qualifies as a Super-2.

?  Super Two has nothing to do with how good the players are.  Super Twos are just the top 17% of players in service time with more then 2 years but less then 3 years of service. 

Any chance the Jays are one of the teams looking at 19-year-old Cuban shortstop Adeiny Hechevarria?

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=4903359

I for one would love to see him here.

Any chance the Jays are one of the teams looking at 19-year-old Cuban shortstop Adeiny Hechevarria?

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=4903359

I for one would love to see him here.

Well he better be Ozzie Smith with the glove; the following is a comment from ESPN writer Jorge Arangure on his twitter page: http://twitter.com/Jorgearangure

"One reason for concern about Hechavarria? His OPS last year was .657. gulp."

Hechevarria is certainly interesting: during the 2007 World Junior Championships, Cuba elected to play Hechevarria at SS over current Red Sox prospect José Iglesias. Iglesias has a reputation of having one of the best, if not the best, defensive skillsets in years.

Cuban Ball Players has this to say about Hechevarria's defense:

Hechevarria covers a lot of ground, has amazing quickness, great hands and his footwork is excellent.

If he is considered to receive a higher signing bonus than Iglesias, then I would believe that a number of teams believe that his bat will play.

Thanks for the correction -- for some reason I thought it had a eligibility component similar to the type A/B FA distinction.

However if it just service time that seems odd to me -- imagine 100% of the eligible players having 2 years plus a day service time (unlikely to be sure). Who are the super-twos then? How are service time "ties" broken or does the percentage vary? Also if whether a super-two is contextual with the service time of the other 2-3 year players -- how can a team ever know how exactly long to leave a player in the minor to delay eligibility?

Like many aspects of the baseball collective bargaining agreement, I just don't understand this rule or why it exists.

I believe I read recently in an article discussing Lincecum's arbitration filing that the Super-Two's were a result of Clemens's holdout in spring training of '87. If I'm remembering right, the arbitration cut-off had just been raised from 2 to 3 years, and Clemens fell something like 30 days short. I can't remember if his contract was arbited or settled, nor if the Super-Two was created at the arbiter's or negotiator's table, but it was apparently as a result of Clemens.

As for the Super-Two definition itself, it looks like they do make a provision for several tie-breaking conditions, the last of which could see millions of dollars decided by the flip of a coin, the length of a straw, or the ultimate secret santa. Here is the section in its entirety:

In addition, a Player with at least two but less than three years ofMajor League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if: (a) he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season; and (b) he ranks in the top seventeen percent (17%) (rounded to the nearest whole number) in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season. If two or more Players are tied in ranking, ties shall be broken consecutively based on the number of days of service accumulated in each of the immediately preceding seasons. If the Players remain tied, the final tiebreaker will be by lot.

Also if whether a super-two is contextual with the service time of the other 2-3 year players -- how can a team ever know how exactly long to leave a player in the minor to delay eligibility?

Like many aspects of the baseball collective bargaining agreement, I just don't understand this rule or why it exists.

They don't know exactly.  They just know that most years the cutoff comes around the same amount of service time so they just count backwards from the end of the season for an individual player.  I'm sure it just exists because it was a compromise between the players wanting to get to arbitration more quickly and the owners trying to keep them from getting there. 

The thought was probably that teams would try and manipulate when players get to three years of service time.  So, at least if the team manipulates your service time as you near 3 years since that gives them an extra year of control of your contract (since you'll generally be out of options once you get to three years and it's harder to manipulate), your salary still escalates somewhat more quickly because you become arbitration eligible before you have 3 years service.  In short,  the players said we know you are going to manipulate contracts to keep players from reaching free agency so the ones that are most likely to be manipulated get paid in arbitration instead of just getting renewed a season early.

Alexis Israel Rios was the least experienced Super-2 in MLB over the last 5 years - he became arbitration eligible at 2 years, 130 days. That puts it around May 20th for the day teams can call up a player at the earliest and not have him fall under the Super-2 category.

Keith Law takes the view that teams which delay calling up a player until the end of April in order to gain an extra year before free agency (as the Rays did with Longoria) are acting reasonably, but those which delay until June to avoid super-2 status are not because the amounts involved are not significant enough.  I agree with him.

As I recall it was during the negotiations for the 1990 contract that decided super-two.

Pre-1985 you needed 2 years of service to reach arbitration, then the owners fought hard to get it up to 3 years. In 1990 as a way to close the deal the players had it shifted back to 'super-two' thus allowing more guys to get arbitration.

Marvin Miller was furious at Fuhr over shifting arbitration to 3 years in '85 as I recall since he felt it was a big deal while Fuhr seemed to feel it wasn't.

On a Halladay related note - Doc may not be pitching at the Rogers Center when he comes to town with the Phillies at the end of June:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MLB/Toronto/2010/02/10/12828496-cp.html

The wife has been hinting at maybe going to a Giants game, so maybe I can catch him when the Phillies are in SF. Although, it would be tough cheering for the opposition..
(I've always liked the As and so I've kind of adopted the A's and Giants as secondary teams, now that I'm living here..)

Keith Law takes the view that teams which delay calling up a player until the end of April in order to gain an extra year before free agency (as the Rays did with Longoria) are acting reasonably, but those which delay until June to avoid super-2 status are not because the amounts involved are not significant enough.  I agree with him.

That's easy for Law to say when he isn't the one shelling out 3.35m for Matt Garza or 3.5m for Hunter Pence for no reason. I suspect Brian Sabean (or better yet, Peter Magowan) might disagree, considering the Giants are going to have to pay Tim Lincecum 13m because they called him up two weeks too early for 2 starts in a season in which they won 71 games. In essence they are paying 13m for the first 10.1ip of his career. Granted, 99% of players aren't Lincecum, but there's benefits in keeping down guys you project as impact players (like Wallace) until they clear the Super-2 status, especially for teams with lesser payrolls.

Speaking of Halladay, the mail just arrived and he's the cover boy on this week's edition of The Sporting News.

Haven't read it yet, but looks like a must-read, for sure.

Looks like the Jays might only have 8 picks this summer. Rod Barajas isn't signing with the Mets:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/02/mets-wont-add-barajas-delgado-possible.html

Is there anywhere else for Barajas to land?

Shi Davidi from the Canadian Press tweets the following:

  

Jays righty Scott Richmond has "right shoulder impingement" and will go slow in spring. He told me he pitched through pain whole second half.

You can never have enough pitchers.  The Kevin Gregg signing looks a little better now.

"Stewart and Purcey will eventually be converted to relief"

Good grief. Purcey out of the bullpen, I hope it's for some other club. Unless he can be somehow be way less wild down there, than he is as a starter.

"I would be. I'm contextually optimistic about the Jays this year and I can see them pushing 80 wins."

Really?? When did this happen? I thought you've been extremely bullish/down on the Jays future for a while now? Or am totally misremembering a whole lot? ...Oh, ok. Read a little further down. Gotcha.

"Snider & Hill are this team's two greatest assets, so in my opinion they belong on the banner."

Agreed.

"If the club were to acquire Branyan, the logical move is to trade Lind for talent on the left end of the defensive spectrum."

I totally agree with this. Not necessarily now, but in time. Well...depending on who he and other(s) packaged together could get you in trade.

 

 

[ Reply to This ]

P.S. a late, late shout-out to Thomas for posting this with one of the truly great headlines in Batter's Box history. Top 20, for sure!

I think my favourite might have been "Ray King Leaves".

Another truly great one, there. According to our records, we are coming up on our 7000th story on da Box; I think maybe some time soon I will have to pull out a sereis of candidates for Best Headline Ever and see what "wins" ...