With Hill willing to play third and Bautista able, this move opens up a lot of flexibility on the free agent market. THe Jays don't need to replace him at Third to upgrade the team. They can sign a 3B, 2B or a RF and be better off.

(Don't forget a new firstbasemen and soem bullpen help, whil eyoua re at it...)

Encarnacion might have been the best current option at 3B but the Jays probably waived him for two reasons, cost and options available.

Encarnacion is eligible for arbitration and the Jays determined that his output would not deliver value compared to his cost.

The Jays will now have to find another 3B or use Hill or Bautista there.  The cost versus output for a replacement 3B, or a replacement 2B or RF, is expected to be better than the cost/output calculation for Encarnacion.

As fans we tend to think of at-bats and performance, the front office has to think of performance versus cost.

Waiving EE will make sense or not depending on the Jays' replacement decisions. On its own, don't like it. But if they pick up an athletic outfielder, it would be the only logical move.

So, we'll see.

Ummm, no. In fact, last season pretty much constitutes his "career year" to date according to WAR.

At a soon to be 28, Encarnacion is what he is. That is a poor fielding, home run dependent hitter than no longer shows the ability to consistently get on base with any regularity. Gerry's comment is telling in that the likely best case scenario is that $5+ million wouldn't be a complete waste on him. Not exactly the standard that I would like to see the position held to.

For what it is worth, Dave Cameron weighs in with his opinion of the transaction over at Fangraphs and I tend to agree with him in that ultimately it will more than likely be an insignificant and ultimately forgotten transaction.

Just off topic for a second...I just watched Danny Farquar's inning of work in the AFL on MLB Gameday.  It looks like he thows predominantly side-arm - 89-94 mph FB, 83-85 mph change-up and 84 mph slider.  He threw a couple of fastballs over the top and they were both 95 mph.  He threw 14 pitches (11 for strikes) and retired all three batters faced (K and two ground outs).

Now back to your irregularly scheduled debate.

Four years ago people said Carlos Pena is what he is, too.*

*I'm aware the two situations aren't entirely analogous and Pena was a bit younger when he showed signs of life, but I think there is a non-zero chance that Gordon pulls a similar mid-career revival. Not good odds, but better than infinitesimal.

3. Wilson Betemit - Fluke? or Batuista-like finding of groove?

Or in another context ...

3. Jose Bautista - Fluke? or Betemit-like finding of groove?

The point isn't that Pena had a great 2007. The point is that from 29-31 Pena had 3 straight years with an OPS of at least 129 after never sniffing that level of production before. His 113 at 26 was his career-high prior to that, but that level of production isn't special for a 1B and it was clearly seen as lacking by the Tigers, who released him in 2006 after a similar 2005 season and he bounced through both New York and Boston that year, barely seeing the majors.

You say Pena had established himself as good enough to play in the majors in 2006. Three relatively well-run major franchises (not that they don't make mistakes) disagreed with you. And, it's not like the teams had great replacements, either. The Tigers played Chris Shelton at 1B and the player on the Yankees who got the most at-bats at 1B in 2006 was....Andy Phillips. Are you honestly claiming the Yankees thought Pena was good enough to play in the majors and become the player he did, but chose to keep Andy Phillips instead?

I don't understand it, either, but it's not as if Detroit was the only team to do that. New York released him from Triple-A with Andy Phillips and Craig Wilson as their primary first base options. Boston signed him, but only gave him a handful of at-bats in the majors and let him go at the end of the season. Despite that home run total, all three teams didn't see enough they liked in Pena.

As for what Gordon does well, he hits for gap power and walks. Last year, he walked in 12.1% of plate appearances and he's walked in over 11% of plate appearances every year since his rookie season. His career ISO is .161, which is not great but not something to dismiss, either. Last year, Gordon's numbers would look much better if it weren't for his .254 BABIP. Only 7 qualified players had a mark worse than that, including Hill, Bautista and the aforementioned Pena.

If you look at his batted ball stats, it seems that Gordon hits a good number of line drives, which primarily suggest solid contact. His 2010 line-drive percentage of 23.2% would have been the second-highest on the Jays behind Snider. Only three qualified major leaguers had a higher line-drive percentage than Gordon - James Loney, Austin Jackson and Joe Mauer.

Gordon also puts the ball in the air a lot, which is not a negative sign. His ground-ball to fly-ball rate was 0.96 last year and is 0.81 for his career. Career-wise, his numbers would slot alongside Werth, Swisher and Bruce and ahead of Pujols, McCann, Rolen, Longoria, Ortiz and Kubel, just to list some of the next names. Not every player is a legit hitter like that, but the names at the bottom end of the GB/FB rate are a much more impressive group that those with numbers in the high 1's or above.

The most significant quote in Griffin's interview with Farrell is the quote about how the Jays should try to manufacture runs in a less predictable way, using bunts, stealing bases, starting runners, hitting and running.  Interestingly, the quote by Farrell is almost identical to what was said by the Fab Four (Marcum/Romero/Morrow/Cecil) in their year-end TV interview.  So there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that this is what the Jays will try to do differently in 2011.  Incidentally, Farrell doesn't blame Cito for the slugging approach in 2010 -- he seems to be saying that it's a two-step process:  first acquiring the slugging power (2010) and then working on manufacturing runs in lower-scoring games (2011).  Here's the full question and answer from the interview:

It sounded to me at the press conference that the home run method of scoring was not all that you wanted. You talk about manufacturing runs and, you know, Cito sat there and was pulling his hair out about that. Is there a way that the same guy that worked with Cito can work with you and work with the hitters and change that offensive culture in the clubhouse?

JOHN FARRELL: Yes there is. And I'm confident in saying that based on the conversations that Dwayne and I have had. Cito, I fully respect his approach to the game. Knowing the strength of this lineup was power, I think there's the ability to place another emphasis on scoring runs as well, particularly to not make a team so one-dimensional when low run games are being played or you're going up against opposing pitchers that either have above average stuff combined with above average command to be a little bit more diverse to capitalize on opportunities. That might be using the bunt a little bit more late in games, hitting and running, starting runners. I'd like to give our runners the ability to have the green light. Now that doesn't mean we're going to run with reckless abandon. That's picking our spots and being a little bit more unpredictable with an approach that was very obvious.

The AFL season has only a week to go and if a team loses a player to injury it is impractical to bring in a replacement who is out of shape and expect him to play.  It looks like Tolisano was transferred to Mesa and Adam Loewen, who was a taxi player (Wednesdays and Saturdays only) os now an everyday player.  I assume Mesa was short of a player and the Tolisano/Loewen moves fixed it.

No trade.

The Red Sox clubhouse went though a period of years where it was, like, nuts. You bring midgets in, you bring this, you bring that. You're obviously not going to copy that clubhouse but you can learn from that. It was unique because there were characters there like a very small, closed environment and Tito (Francona) let's guys be themselves. I mean, you don't imitate but what do you learn from that?

Was starting to enjoy Griffin's interview and was wondering, maybe we've been too hard on Richard, and then this!!!!  MIDGETS!!!, I mean, I couldn't believe how gypped got everyone sidetracked but midgets?  Shame on the Star's editors as much as shame on Ricky, why would you let this make it into prit?

Pedroia?

I enjoyed that interview. It would have been very easy for Griffin or The Star to publish an edited transcript that reduced the meandering nature of questions. It came across as an informal and informative chat that is typical of what reporters and coaches have as they start to develop a professional relationship. The interview filled in a few gaps on Farrell's past and his personality. He comes across as extremely well-organized and focused on building a team within the coaching staff and locker room that is an extension of the organizational philosophy. You get a hint of how much he will trust and rely on Wakamatsu. You get a sense of his ability to work with people. Good stuff all around.

The Twins were 53-28 at home and 41-40 on the road.

The new park suppressed the team's homeruns (52 at home, 90 on the road), but their OPS and run scoring were actually better at home: 776 OPS (home) vs. 749 OPS (road), 399 runs (home) vs. 382 runs (road, in 200 more AB).

Their pitchers posted a 3.53 ERA at home and a 4.39 ERA on the road.

I'm not sure what I see in any of these numbers that should motivate management to tinker with the park's dimensions, the bellyaching of a concussed first baseman notwithstanding.

While we're on the subject, little person Ken Rosenthal has us discussing Dan Uggla with the Marlins.  Probably another case of "being in on everyone".

Regardless, it should be an interesting 5 weeks.  We definitely have two holes in the starting nine to fill, assuming Lewis, Emaus and Mastroianni/Thames aren't options.

The rumor about Uggla is fascinating.   He'd be a great addition to the team, allowing Hill to shift to 3B.  But the obvious problem is that Uggla is a free agent in 2012.  If it is actually true that the Jays are seriously making a bid for Uggla, does this require us to revise our assumptions about AA's strategy?  It's difficult to imagine that Anthopolous would be able to sign Uggla to a contract extension before he tests free agency, and our normal assumption is that the Jays would be unable to outbid the wealthier teams for Uggla's services as a free agent.  So he'd be gone in a year.  If the reports about Uggla are accurate, should we abandon the assumption that the Jays are entering another rebuilding year and won't bid for anyone on the verge of free agency?

Incidentally, in the Baseball Reference list of comparables for Uggla, number 3 is Aaron Hill.   But in the list of comps through age 30, there are names like Jeff Kent, Gene Tenace, Brett Boone and Chase Utley.

That's a bit harsh, Dewey.  The reality is that Farrell has just started his job, and he's not going to be precise or specific about anything -- not at this very early juncture -- regardless of the questions from the interviewer.  Griffin's questions were a bit meandering, but even the most aggressive interviewer would be unable to get much from Farrell at this point.  Given that reality, Griffin did manage to get Farrell to make a pretty clear statement of his philosophy for improving the team's run-scoring abilities in 2011, which I thought was somewhat illuminating.  As for the rest:  get out your decoder and try to read between the lines, because nothing is going to be spelled out in detail at this point.  There won't be anything except partial hints and euphemisms.  And that still has some value, if you're willing to try to decipher it a bit.

...the bellyaching of a concussed first baseman...

If I had OPSed 1.205 on the road and "only" .914 at home I might do some bellyaching myself.  He hit more than three times as many home runs on the road as at home (14 vs. 4) in slightly fewer plate appearances, along with an almost 300-point jump in slugging percentage.  Obviously the small sample sizes caveat applies, but it looks like Morneau could have a legitimate beef here.

Olney "tweeted" that the Jays are the favourite to land Uggla from the Marlins.

If it's true it's nice to see the Jays are active in the trade market, but Uggla is 31 years old and turned down a 4-year $48 million extension offer from the Marlins. 

The Jays are likely looking at Uggla as a one year trade target.  Uggla is looking for a 5 year contract and the Jays would be unlikely to give that to him.  If the Jays trade for Uggla it would be one year of Uggla plus the picks they would get for him when he signs elsewhere for X?

Or it could be three/four months of Uggla, plus trade return, for X.  Depending on what the Marlins expect the Jays to give up, could Toronto get a similar return for Uggla if they traded him in July?

Uggla might be one moving to third, it might not be Hill.

If I had OPSed 1.205 on the road and "only" .914 at home I might do some bellyaching myself. 

Really? So anyone playing in a pitcher's park has the right to openly bellyache? That being the case, maybe Morneau could sit down for a while and give the floor to Adrian Gonzalez.

Obviously the small sample sizes caveat applies, but it looks like Morneau could have a legitimate beef here.

Yes, he suffered through the hardship that is Target field, posting an OPS there that exceeds his career OPS. Maybe he should look at the team as a whole, which actually hit better at home than on the road. Or maybe he should cozy up to Jim Thome and ask him how he managed to his 15 of his 25 homeruns at home.

....."if for no other reason than that we are hearing things about it, we should know that's not where AA's working".....

This is not always true.  It's only true if the OTHER team is willing to be as discreet as Anthopolous is.   In the case of the Escobar trade, Atlanta was discreet and the trade announcement was a shock to all of us.  But in the case of John Farrell, we all knew in advance that this was exactly where AA was working, because of all the leaks from Boston.  So, in the case of Uggla, we might have accurate information about it if the Marlins are leaky.  Hard to say at this point.

By the way, isn't there a Magpie rule about this?  Just because something often happened in the past, it doesn't mean it will always happen in the future.  Just because several Anthopolous trades were announced without any advance information, it doesn't mean that every future trade will be equally surprising and equally lacking in advance leaks.

Florida may be interested in Arencibia (they could use a young catcher) who is a Florida native.. and probably Zach Stewart and another arm (perhaps Farquhar). It will take some prospects to land Uggla.

The grass is always greener in the other stadium. I'm not convinced Gordon will be more productive than Brad Emaus last season.  Certainly has the potential, but he hasn't been able to harness it.

That said, I am not a huge fan of Edwin and won't miss him at 5 million+ per season. 

At least until they expand the playoffs or move us to the AL Central that is certainly my philosophy.  I'd also argue that EE is easily replacable, particularly given our roster flexibility. 

Incidentally did anyone else see that Bucholtz was claimed off waivers?  We're clearing an aweful lot of spots on the 40 man right now. 

Florida may be interested in Arencibia (they could use a young catcher) who is a Florida native.. and probably Zach Stewart and another arm (perhaps Farquhar).

Where can I sign up for this? Especially if we can replace Stewart with a Rzepczynski/Litsch type and maybe improve the 3rd prospect in the deal from a Farquhar to an Alvarez, or something of the sort.

I'm kind of baffled by the response to a potential Uggla trade by the posters here, to be honest.

Uggla's career .359wOBA is far better than any other hitter on the Jays. (Wells is 2nd at .346). He upgrades us massively at a position where we were awful last year, and gives us a 2B that can legitimately match up against the likes of Pedroia and Cano.

The only stumbling block here seems to be money - and the Jays have a ton of money available.

THIS. Sure, Dan Uggla isn't a defensive wizard and he strikes out a lot. But the guy hits, and he hits with consistency every single year. His OBP over the last 3 years is .361 and his HR totals for his first 5 years in the league are 27, 31, 32, 31, and 33. That's as close to Adam Dunn as you'll find. While I don't think you necessarily have to trade for him with the purpose of giving him an extension, I certainly wouldn't be upset if that's what the team did, because I don't view Adam Lind's 5m salary as forcing the Jays' hand at DH - Lind could always come off the bench as a platoon OF/1B if the Jays decided Uggla needed to be the DH down the road. To me Uggla represents the perfect way to upgrade the current team without having to mortgage your future by giving up top prospects and too large of a long-term deal. As for the idea that the team is going to play more small-ball because of Farrell - that's great, but it shouldn't stop the team from pursuing players like Uggla and Dunn if the price is right. There are other ways to round out your roster for small ball, and while going all in on Carl Crawford is the obvious one, even little things like carrying Mastroianni all season to bunt and pinch run would work. I'm a little scared Yunel is going to have a perpetual green light to bunt whenever the leadoff man gets on, if that isn't Escobar himself.

I'd do Arencibia and Stewart for him in a heartbeat.

Apparently that's much more than the Marlins are asking for.  Olney is tweeting that the Marlins realize his pending free agency and salary make him less appealing and are only looking for a couple of mid-prospects.

Arencibia is a question behind the plate and at the plate, unless you think no one ever won the PCL MVP award before.

Not sure what that means - because he won the PCL MVP, he's not a prospect?

Stewart was moved back last year to AA.

This is just wrong.  He mad a few relief appearances at AAA as his innings wound down.  To suggest his performance resulted in a demotion to AA (which is how it reads) is disingenuous.  Stewarts a top prospect with the best fastball in the system, a plus slider and a promising change up.

I'll do you one better, perhaps we can spin Rzepczynski and Jeroloman into Uggla.  Olney says they're not looking for much in return - just a couple of decent guys.  MLBTR retweets a Nats quote that they're looking for a pitcher and a catcher.

If we want to give them the likes of Stewart or Drabek in addition, we should start talking about a blockbuster including Josh Johnson!

Oh, snaps, Mike G. Four thousand cuttlefish to the Bauxite who authors  the original Perspcacity Rap!

iAnd don't forget, you can't spell "disingenuous" without stumbling across "ingenious" ... :-)

But people whose posts are worth reading generally look to make sure their posts are accurate before they call others names such as 'disingenuous'.

Thanks for the insult.  Perhaps I insulted you.  Sometimes I come off snarky or cheeky - no insult intended.

I'll will say this, I don't think Stewart's 2010 stint in AA has anything to do with being demoted.  The Reds and Jays are trying to turn Stewart into a starter.  He has NEVER started a game above AA and only had a handful (7) of AA starts heading into this year.  The appropriate place to start him was AA. 

They have Josh Johnson, Ricky Nolasco, Anibal Sanchez, Chris Volstad and Alex Sanabia. That's not great, but it's not bad.

Here's Florida's 2011 projected roster
C: John Buck
1B: Gaby Sanchez
2B: Omar Infante
SS: Hanley Ramirez
3B: Chris Coghlan
LF: Logan Morrison
CF: Scott Cousins
RF: Mike Stanton
SP: Josh Johnson
SP: Anibal Sanchez
SP: Chris Volstad
SP: Ricky Nolasco
SP: Alex Sanabia
RP: Ryan Webb
RP: Edward Mujica
RP: Mike Dunn
RP: Leo Nunez
RP: Clay Hensley
RP: Brian Sanches
RP: Burke Badenhop

For some quick and dirty analysis: The only player in that lineup to post a sub-100 OPS+ last year was Chris Coghlan. Every reliever has an ERA+ over 100 and every reliever but Badenhop and Mujica has one over 120. Every starter has an ERA+ over 100 except Nolasco and Volstad, who were both over 90+.

It's not deep and there are questions marks in the rotation, but that could be a very good team if the young hitters don't have a sophomore slump and Nolasco does what a lot of people expect of him and Sanchez doesn't have arm problems.

Another indication the Jays don't rate Mastroianni highly? They view him as basically equal to Ryan Goins?

Another indication the Jays don't rate Mastroianni highly? They view him as basically equal to Ryan Goins?

Agreed.  On the other hand, does it indicate that they do rate Emaus?  The Marlins seemed to want a second baseman back.

Granted. But i hope you will grant me that you are in a very small minority on that.

While I'm sure that's true, the only opinion that really matters is that of the person in charge. It doesn't matter what a bunch of people who have basically never seen Arencibia play (save for a few games) and are working off a stat sheet think. I also was very down on Brett Wallace for awhile and thought that the move off 3B effectively ruined any chance for premium value that he had and most thought otherwise, but in the end he was traded for Anthony Gose and I appeared to be one of the few people who at first was THRILLED with that. For me Arencibia lacks a fundamental ability to really succeed at the MLB level, and that's the ability to get on base. It scares me that in Arencibia's best year in the minors, repeating the PCL at 24, he still only put up a .360obp while destroying the league. Anthopolous has spoken about high ceiling, young, controllable talent, and if Arencibia projects to be no better than the types of guys the Jays have been using to fill their C hole for years (BMolina, Zaun, Barajas, Buck, Olivo) perhaps he would have been willing to part with him to pick up the consistency Uggla's bat provides. It really wasn't all that far fetched.

And both of you, it turns out, would have wildly overpaid.

You seem awfully convinced of this, but this again goes back to your own opinion of Arencibia. As well, you seem to be undervaluing Omar Infante, a player with positional flexibility who put up 2.7 WAR in 2010 and has a very team-friendly 2.5m contract for 2011. When you consider that he's a Type B this offseason despite doing very little in 2009, it's quite possible that with every day playing time in Florida he finishes as the same Type A FA that Uggla will be. The Marlins could have seen Uggla for Infante as an opportunity to save 10m while picking up a relief arm they like and an infielder to immediately fill the void created by Uggla who was likely to be worth compensation picks too. The Jays just did not have that to offer.

Not only are the Blue Jay pitchers having a very good 'go round' in the AFL but the hitters continue to impress as while.  The Eastern League MVP runner-up Eric Thames has recently been improving his OB% and now has 3 SB's.   Both Michael McDade (the FSL homerun leader) and Adam Loewen have OPS over 1.000 with Loewen tied for the AFL lead in HR's and McDade tied for the lead in doubles ... both these guys in my opinion are surpassing expectations and Loewen may need to be added to the 40-man list ...

I don't get the decision to dump Hill.  Seemed like a low cost option to have, and a guy who had a decent chance to help the team next year.

The Jays offer for Uggla was negligible, if the report is correct.  No wonder the Marlins took the Braves offer.   

The only point in having Uggla was to have one of two outcomes...

You can't dismiss the Jays receiving a year of Uggla and then 2 picks as silly without acknowledging the possibility that Uggla could have been a part of a bigger offensive picture that helped the Jays contend in 2010. Right now they are tied for 1st.

Seriously? The guy who has a .714 career OPS including his career year? THAT guy? THAT guy might be a type A?

Yes. Casey Blake has Type A status this offseason, and his relevant 2 year totals are 1136pa .264avg .342obp 35hr 143rbi 724chances with FP%s of .957 & .973. Infante last year had 506pa .321avg .359obp 8hr 47rbi 110chances with an FP% of .978 (if you only use 2B, which is what I think they do.) It's not unreasonable to suggest that Infante can be better than Blake in PA, AVG, OBP, and FP%, and whether or not that translates into Type A status after 2011 or not one can't know (the pool of players is too different year to year) but it's certainly a possibility. At the very least if they play him every day he should be well worth his contract and retain his Type B status.

Heck man, I can't prove it but I'd bet real money that if you put Brad Emaus at 2B for the Marlins next year he has a better than 50% chance of having a better offensive season than Infante will have.

You should be thankful you can't prove this because I'd be glad to make this bet with you. Infante's 3 year totals since his move to the NL and the Braves are : .309/.353/.411

 A very good point MatO! We can't just deal two B+ prospects assuming we will get two back through the draft.

I think that's also why AA has been working so hard to load up on picks, and international FA's the last two years.  We have no idea what will happen with FA or unsigned pick compensation.  For all we know international FAs may be subject to the draft going forward. More importantly, there is alot of talk about a fixed slot system in the draft. A fixed slot system would prevent us from spending on the draft like we did last year, and presumably will do again this year.

McDade:no, but I still think David Cooper has a chance to see action next year. He started to rebuild value in the second half this season and could be a placeholder until we're ready to contend.  Brett Wallace would've been that this season had he not been dealt and I don't see that much between the two going forward.

As suspected,  TamRa is just a euphemism for WillRain.

I'm not sure it's a euphemism.  Will is now Tammy.  It is detailed at his site The Southpaw.

I find it interesting, that any possible deal Toronto could make, gets a knee-jerk condemnation of the idea, right of the bat.   No one see the bigger picture.   We might compete this year, while we are getting better, while we are putting more upside in the minors.

Dan Uggla's aquisition would possibly move Aaron Hill to 3B.   This answers several questions.   1) Can Hill play 3rd base as well as he does 2B?   2) Do we keep Hill beyond 2011?   Why not get better offence now and TWO draft picks later?  

Zach Greinke's aquisition lets Marcum, Romero, Morrow, Cecil move from 1, 2, 3, 4 to 2, 3, 4, 5 and better numbers.   Zach Greinke will have better offense with comparable defense and bullpen.   Kyle Drabek gets to make his bones in AAA Las Vegas.   Marc Rzepczynski moves into bullpen / long relief/ spot start becoming our best reliever.   In 2 years, Drabek or Morrow would be ready to take over as Ace and we would get possibly TWO draft picks.

The only way we can aquire a Type A player without losing a draft pick is to trade for them.   (Regardless of whether Arbitration will be offered or not).   If they are costly, with  2-3 years still under contract , who cares.   We need 6-8 pieces to be the best.   We need to get better,  why not start now and if we can compete now, why not, within limits, try now.

his site

Slip of the tongue - no disrespect intended.