Nice to see that emphasis on player development paying off.

It probably has more to do with not pushing prospects past their level too quickly.

Kansas City optioned Alex Gordon back to the minors so they can get Chris Getz's bat back in the lineup. I wonder which arm the Jays would have to add to Encarnacion to acquire the 26 year old former #1 prospect in MLB with an 18.4 BB% this year and a .249/.331/.413 line over his first 2.5 seasons.

Why would KC want Encarnacion? 

Because the Jays would be paying his salary and it would give KC a body to fill the spot for 2010. He also still has the shiny HR-RBI totals as a young hitter which enamored many commenters at the Box, and Dayton Moore is one to "trust the process". If he fails to produce and isn't a Type B they say goodbye and enjoy the other prospect/s the Jays gave them.

so by the time the Jays are ready to compete, he will be a free agent.

Putting aside the silliness of not wanting to part with your man-crush Pastornicky for Gordon, I really don't get this time frame of which you speak. If you accept the idea the Jays can't compete until 2014 at the earliest, the Jays might as well start looking to shop Hill, Marcum, Romero, and Morrow, none of whom are under team control past 2014. There's no reason the Jays can't be competitive before then, and that Gordon can't be a part of that. As it is Rogers has "saved" close to 40m over the last 2 seasons from their expected minimum 100m payroll, and are constantly claiming the money is there to spend - if they dare wait until 2014 to start that process there will be even fewer fans and the attendance crisis of 2010 will look laughable by comparison.

Going after Gordon would be a move I support - he is not a FA until after 2013 season - the Jays traded for Morrow

who is a FA after 2012 - also, if Gordon revives his career, the Jays can sign, it's not automatic that he will leave

as a FA. If KC deos't want EE, then a package built around Brad Mills / Mark sobolewski might interest KC - we

could have Gordon get his game back at AAA & try to move EE at the Deadline. I'm sure gordon is as down on

KC as they are on him, NOW is the time to go after him if the Jays like him.

Also, I think teams would be smart to go after Chris Davis, potential 40 homer guy who's just 24 - unfortunately,

with Adam Lind & Brett Wallace, I think the Jays will pass. 

There's a piece on MLB.com suggesting that Fred Lewis will be sent down when Encarnacion returns from injury.  I would really hope that it's McCoy or Ruiz, rather than Lewis.  Lewis seems like a useful addition to the team, his speed is valuable, he's a natural for the leadoff spot, and he seems to be improving as he adjusts to the AL.

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100502&content_id=9743662&notebook_id=9743672&vkey=notebook_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

Actually China fan, that piece is more ominous - it's not about sending Lewis down - no suggestion of that,

but who plays LH - Lewis or Snider - not good for Snider  - I prefer to play snider everyday and platoon if

necessary Lewis/Bautista.

Sending down Lewis when EE is ready would be absurd. Ruiz has no purpose on Clarence's 25 man roster.

My version of AA's plan is 1) Our payroll is very much smaller than the Yankees and Red Sox so we can never pay 20 million to one player because it is 25% of 80million or 20% of 100 million.

There's no reason the Jays can't spend on par with the Red Sox. Bigger city, bigger market, wealthier owner. JP gave Wells that extension assuming that by now the team would be spending 120m, not cutting back to 63. Obviously you don't want to be paying Carlos Delgado 17m with a 60m payroll, but the Jays can more than afford any and all the talent they want.

Gordon is a particular kind of player.  If everything goes well for him, he will be a power hitting monster in a couple of years and will command a Howard-type arbitration award.  His potential talents (which favour the slugging portion of offence), his service time, the biases of arbitrators and the Wells contract, all make him a less valuable player to the Jays than to another club.

Huh? Do those factors not exist for other clubs? Why is Toronto any different? That doesn't make any sense, and Toronto would be thrilled to have a 3B they were "forced" to give Howard-type money to in arbitration, because that would mean he's putting up unprecedented HR-RBI totals. There's literally nothing at the position straight through the farm system. And the Wells contract can't possibly inhibit this team from making moves and used as an excuse for anything; they have under 35m committed in payroll for 2011, and are eating 17m in salary this year for 2 guys who don't play for them - at the very worst Vernon will be a valuable bench player (platoon corner OF) until the end of his contract.

There is no way Gordon will ever make 17m in arbitration. And even if he did, that would mean he's become a TREMENDOUS hitter, and the lineup you just mentioned has more than enough offense with one of the best hitters in the game in Gordon complemented by 4 studs in Wells, Lind, Hill, and Snider. SS and C should be very cheap because of organizational depth (Hechevarria/Pastornicky + Arencibia/DArnaud), and 1B isn't very costly to fill with talent. A competitive team by 2014 SHOULD be spending over 80m on their offense, and yet you seem to view Wells/Lind/Snider/Hill/Gordon at 58m as a problem when all they would conceivably need to add to that is an OF and 1B.

If anything, I'd think Gordon has LESS value to the Twins than the Jays, considering they are very likely to compete with their current formula, which is an above average offense and a strong infield defense, something Gordon would jeopardize. The Jays have the luxury of seeing what they have in players without having to worry about their immediate results and the standings, something the Twins don't have.

Gordon's definitely the type of person this organization should look at. Obviously the price has to be right, but it's certainly worth spending some talent to pick up a player with a medium horizon (Under control through 2013). I like the comparison made to Morrow earlier in the thread. That was a clear case of trying to trade up. In that case, it was a good (not great) reliever and a toolsy A-ball outfielder for a risky live-armed starter.

In Gordon, we're talking about someone who's already been an above average ML 3B (and still disappointed). Presumably he still has star (say 4-win) upside. It just depends on how high the organization is on the talent going the other way. If Pastornicky were involved in hypothetical discussions, and he had above-average-to-star potential or has a very high probability of being average, he's not the type to include. If the organization's evaluators believe he's a future utility infielder and if everything broke juuust right, might be an average regular, then you trade up.

As for 3 years down the road, if Gordon's performing like Aramis Ramirez any salary issues will take care of themselves (the Jays will either pony up or get a nice return depending on the state of the rest of the team). Get the above average talent in the organization. If it needs to be converted later, so be it.

And now it looks like they're moving Gordon to left. Unless his hip has never recovered, wow. It wouldn't surprise me if AA is dialing DMGM's number as I type...

I guess I've never bought the common train of thought that EE is "just a placeholder".

This guy is a pretty good hitter who's been set back by one major injury, and I really think the chances of him getting back to being an .800+ ops 25hr threat are pretty dang good....and if Butterfield can help him clean up his defense at all....well, it's not like we have any 3B in system to "placehold" for, and I think that would extend to a guy like Gordon as well.

I wouldn't mind having Gordon....but the idea that we should give up vastly more than just EE to get him strikes me as off a bit.

Well, it's not accurate to say that EE is merely suffering the effects of one injury.  He had the wrist injury last year and the shoulder injury this year.   Plus of course the fireworks injury to his face in the off-season.  At this point he seems rather injury-prone.

I've already argued that EE's statistics have shown a steady downhill decline since 2008.  But even if we agree to disagree on the interpretation of EE's career numbers, what about the fact that the Reds basically dumped him on the Jays?  The Jays were obviously more interested in the prospects, not EE.  The trading of EE was clearly a salary dump, foisted on the Jays to partially offset Rolen's salary, which indicates that the Reds didn't feel that EE was good value for the $4.75-million that he's owed this year.  Of course the Reds acquired Rolen in the same trade, but Rolen is 35 years old and soon to be a free agent and not a long-term solution for 3B for the Reds.  Wouldn't the Reds have found a way to keep the much younger Encarnacion -- perhaps by shifting him to the outfield or somewhere else in the infield -- if they believed he would rebound to an .800 OPS and 25 home runs?  So your prediction for EE runs contrary to the conclusion of the team where EE had his best years.

Why would you look at that as a "dump"?

In my estimation, getting traded for Rolen demonstrates that he has value, not that he was a dump. Especially given the year that Rolen was having, and given EE's injury status at the time.

as for being "injury prone", that seems a bit silly - he had a major wrist injury. A mild shoulder strain after trying to rush back from a late start to ST I don't think is much to get concerned about longterm.

what are you talking about?

The Reds were trading for an .850ops third basemen with elite defense.

to make the trade, they traded their injured .800ops third basemen with poor defense, and added in two solid pitching prospects who they had slotted in as relievers going forward, to make up the difference.

Fair trade both sides. No dumping involved.

Yes, it was salary balancing.  Which is a different way of saying the same thing:  dumping a salary.  The Jays wanted to get rid of Rolen's salary, and the Reds wouldn't agree to accept Rolen's huge salary unless the Jays accepted an expensive 3B in return.  To discuss the Rolen trade without discussing the key role of the salaries is absurd.

Obviously the Reds wouldn't give up a pair of excellent prospects -- and pay an extra $7-million in salary, and accept an 8-year difference in the ages of the two 3B involved -- if they thought that Rolen was only 0.50 better than Encarnacion in OPS.   They knew they were getting a big upgrade in OPS because Encarnacion was not a reliable .800 OPS hitter any more.  (The difference in defense was the icing on the cake.  Defence alone would not be sufficient to justify 2 top prospects and $7-million in salary and an 8-year age difference.)

Nobody's ignoring the salary implications of the trade - but to try and argue about the salary as a factor diminishing EE's value in the trade, when it was Rolen that was getting paid the inhibiting salary, seems to be a bit backwards, no?

Looks like  fair trade from my standpoint - the Reds fairly significantly upgraded their 3B slot offensively (what does "
only .050ops"s mean anyways?) and defensively, and cost them a couple of decent prospects to do so - prospects they had slotted in as relief prospects, which aren't exactly the most valuable trading chips around.