Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Update III: The Blue Jays have acquired Carlos Villanueva, a reliever, from the Brewers for a player to be named to later, according to the Brewers twitter page. He is eligible for arbitration for the first time this season after putting up a 4.61 ERA in 50 relief appearances last year, while striking out 67 batters in 52.2 innings. He is not the enemy.

Update II: Some of the more notable players non-tendered: Jeremy Accardo, Willy Aybar, Taylor Buchholz, Jack Cust, Ryan Church, Edwin Encarnacion, Scott Hairston, JP Howell, Bobby Jenks, Fred Lewis, Russell Martin, Lastings Milledge, Dioner Navarro, Hideki Ojakima and Joel Peralta.


Update: Pierzynski is now rumoured to have re-signed with the Chicago White Sox for two years. The rumour comes from Rosenthal, who is a far more reliable source than Joe Cowley.

That's what it will feel like Jays fans are doing if we are rooting for A.J. Pierzynski, who the Jays are rumoured to be close to signing.

There will be time for reason and analysis later. Right now, I'm bemoaning the fact the Jays may be close to signing one of my five least favourite players in baseball.
Cheering for the Enemy | 158 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
christaylor - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 08:13 PM EST (#226542) #
Um, I don't get it. This guy has been pretty easy for me to ignore.

He's mainly in my memory banks as the centerpiece in what would be my favorite trade of all time...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1661751

...but for the Harry Chiti, it'd probably would be.
Helpmates - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 08:20 PM EST (#226544) #
I don't like it...why not just promote Jeroloman?  Similar profile and skill set (lefty-swinging singles-hitter who controls the strike zone...he probably offers more in the way of defense at this point, too).

Are we forfeiting a draft pick to sign this knucklehead?
sam - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 08:22 PM EST (#226545) #
I sure AA reads this blog and is swayed against signing him. Just a miserable person and pretty poor ball player in my estimation as well
ComebyDeanChance - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 08:23 PM EST (#226546) #
It would be good to see last year's threads decrying the signings of John Buck and Alex Gonzales. Hopefully, this year's signings will bring as much internet displeasure and on-field/value results.
andrewkw - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 08:34 PM EST (#226548) #
I'm not fond of AJ either but I prefer him to Molina.  Why pick up Jose's option, and why even offer him that option in the original contract in the first place?
cybercavalier - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 08:35 PM EST (#226549) #
good signing, I like it, purely based on management. Other people might not like A.J. due to other issues but this transaction looks like a win-win for the player and the Jays.

The_Game - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 09:05 PM EST (#226551) #
For the lack of a better reference, AJ has a Darcy Tucker-like personality. He's the kind of guy that you probably enjoy more (at least a little bit) if he's on your team.

The real questions here are whether he has anything left after last year's regression and what this means for J.P. Arencibia (I'm thinking a trade is a serious possibility).



Thomas - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 09:06 PM EST (#226552) #
AJ might be a good fit for the Jays on the field, but it's a bit too early to describe it as a good (or bad) deal until it is made official and the terms come out.

AJ is notorious for wanting to play every day. From the articles I read leading up to his free agency, it seemed like he would prioritize the opportunity to play every day above anything else when signing. I also recall Ozzie Guillen saying AJ was a pain when he wasn't playing. I would be surprised if AJ signed this quickly without receiving word that he would the team's regular catcher. He has played in 128 or more games the last 7 seasons.

greenfrog - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 09:18 PM EST (#226553) #
Harumph. I think what this move really says is that AA doesn't believe Arencibia is ready to be a starting catcher in the majors. Signing AJ doesn't even look like a Buck-Gregg-type draft pick play for 2012 - it looks more like a purely stopgap move until Arencibia or D'Arnaud is major-league ready, and probably also signals that the rebuilding phase continues apace (garnering draft picks for Buck, Olivo, et al. instead of bidding on them).
Magpie - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 10:14 PM EST (#226555) #
I hope it's not true - 34 year old catchers who don't hit aren't my cup of tea. Unless he's the backup...

If true - well, so much for trying to find people who get on base. Neither Pierzynski nor Rajai Davis has ever walked 30 times in a season.
Wildrose - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 10:19 PM EST (#226557) #
Rosenthal on his twitter is throwing cold water on this supposed move.

http://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/10530906359992320

Original Ryan - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 10:19 PM EST (#226558) #
Rosenthal just tweeted that Pierzynski has re-signed with the White Sox for two years.  We can all relax now.
acepinball - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 10:30 PM EST (#226559) #
I'm relieved. The more I thought about this #$!#! around the young pitching staff and catchers the more I cringed.
Anders - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 10:32 PM EST (#226560) #
It would be good to see last year's threads decrying the signings of John Buck and Alex Gonzales. Hopefully, this year's signings will bring as much internet displeasure and on-field/value results.

Challenge: Accepted!

On Buck: "Buck, 29, was a smart signing on a one-year deal. He doesn't hit for average (.235 career) or walk (6.5 BB%) but he has some pop (.237 ISO). Contact is also an issue for Buck, who had a contact rate of 69% in '09 (80.5% is league-average). If you toss in his defensive contributions, though, he provided $4.2 million in value last year, according to WAR, so his $2.0 million contract should be reasonable (and he was one of the best catching options on the free market)."

On Gonzalez: Thus we now have two no-hit solid (if not great) field shortstops for a total of $4.25 million in 2010 and (potentially) $4 million for 2011.  For comparison it cost $4.5 million for one year of David Eckstein in 2008.

For the most part I don't think anyone felt strongly in any which way.
cybercavalier - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 10:51 PM EST (#226561) #
Regardless of personality and attitude of forcing the issue in being a starter, I agree that it is still early to describe if the deal is good or bad (Thanks Thomas on reminding). On paper I think AJ is capable as a lefthanded bat backup to the Jays, not much more than that. Which is why I wrote, purely management. Potentially disrupting clubhouse chemistry is another issue.

bpoz - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 10:55 PM EST (#226562) #
The Jays signed A Gonzalez Nov 26/09 and J Buck Dec16/09. I thought it was fairly early and that bargains happened later when everyone had picked over the cream of the crop.
The_Game - Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 11:42 PM EST (#226563) #
Well Rosenthal is a lot more credible than some phantom source of Cowley's, I suppose. JPA still has a chance here...for now.
92-93 - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:30 AM EST (#226567) #
Thanks Anders, reading that Alex Gonzalez thread brought me back to last offseason. My concerns about Rogers' cheapness haven't changed, and if anything are getting magnified as time passes and they continue to not show a willingness to compete. I really don't get why this team can't be in on players like Carl Crawford, Victor Martinez, and Adam Dunn - they wouldn't block anybody and the team has money to spend, allegedly. Why does the time have to be right to have a 100m payroll in Major League Baseball?

http://www.battersbox.ca/comment.php?mode=view&cid=208876
The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:45 AM EST (#226569) #
I agree with 92-93. There is absolutely no reason why this team couldn't have an above-average payroll and be a consistent contender.

Rogers has gotten a free pass for too long in this regard.
China fan - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:55 AM EST (#226570) #
I'm totally in agreement with 92-93 on this.  If the Jays keep waiting until "the moment is right" for free agents, the moment will never arrive.  Or, when it arrives in the middle of an unexpected surge in the middle of a season, it will be too late to acquire the key player that the team needs.  The Jays can't keep waiting and waiting for the perfect moment -- they need to create the moment.
Magpie - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:58 AM EST (#226571) #
I really don't get why this team can't be in on players like Carl Crawford, Victor Martinez, and Adam Dunn - they wouldn't block anybody

Not even in 2014?

I also don't get why they can't, but I certainly get why they weren't. Signing 30+ year old free agents to long term deals is simply not a course that fills me with enthusiasm. Expensive free agents only makes sense to me in two circumstances: 1) when the guy is an automatic Hall of Famer, close to his prime, or 2) when you have a contender already, a 90+ win team, and the player has enough game to fill one particular need.  I don't think any of the players meet the first category, and I don't think this team is that close. The famous free agent pick ups on the WS years were all in that second category - past-their-prime but still effective vets on relatively short-term deals (Winfield for one-year, Morris and Stewart for two years, Molitor for three.)

I suppose this year's gang of FA prospects wouldn't actually block anyone, but none of them are Hall of Famers in their prime, or guys who fill existing holes. Crawford plays the same position as Travis Snider, so you'd be making a commitment to Snider in RF and Bautista at 3b without having a good idea as to whether that's even playable (I'm not keen on it.) Dunn is a DH (all claims that he can play a position on the field are hereby hooted at), which means you're making a commitment to Lind at 1b (something else I'm not keen on.) Martinez is a catcher evolving into a DH, which is actually kind of an awkward thing to have on your roster.  (Does he platoon? Hang on, he's a switch-hitter... does the catcher platoon with the DH, and Martinez plays the other spot? Do you need a third catcher, if Martinez is going to be the DH in 100 games?)

Anyway, while I certainly hope ownership is willing to shell out when necessary - not on these guys.
BumWino - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:51 AM EST (#226572) #

The average MLB payroll is $112 million.  The Jays' 25-man roster payroll right now sits in the low to mid 30's.  When 2011 salary increases kick in, the payroll will increase to $45-50 million--plus FA signings.  That's just half the major-league average.

Why is this so?  GTA, after all, is one of the top-ten largest markets in major league baseball. 

I think Alex Anthopoulos' remuneration and job security are based on remaining one of the lowest-payroll MLB teams, moderate on-filed success and, over time, modest increases in attendance.  The achievement of these factors maximizes Rogers' baseball profits.

However, money is available for procuring expensive talent, as long as the additional expenditures immediately produce more wins and better attendance. 

Considering what's a stake on a personal level, will AA take the risk and spend right now to improve the team?  Not a chance. 

Anthopoulos is one of the shrewdest young baseball executives to come down the pike for quite some time.  He now possesses his dream job and he will do or say anything to keep it.  As long as the Jays make a substantial profit, he's in.   And that profit is guaranteed by keeping the payroll at half the MLB average. 

If this conjecture turns out to be fact, I doubt if Anthopoulos will dare acquire one high-cost free agent until at least the second year (2014 season) of his next contract.  Between now and then, if the Jays continue to win half its games--AA will be able to write his own ticket anywhere in MLB. 

See you at the ballyard in 2014.

   

 

 

Richard S.S. - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:36 AM EST (#226573) #
As expected, Fred Lewis And Jeremy Accardo were Non-Tendered.   That brings the 40-Man Roster to 37 players.   Anyone waivered or on 60-Man D.L. reduces this number.   Chances are A.A. goes after Russell Martin and Bobbie Jenks.
Paul D - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 07:59 AM EST (#226574) #
I really doubt he goes after Jenks, his numbers have been terrible, trending in the wrong direction, and he'll cost too much.
Ryan C - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 08:33 AM EST (#226575) #
If you're not waiting until the time is right to spend significant money on free agents, then what is the purpose? So you can win 3 or 4 more games and still not make the playoffs? So that you can make your fans feel better because you have a higher payroll? Having a higher payroll in itself does not make you a better team. There's no prize for just spending more money.

One of the negative aspect of it is that unless you're signing everyone to 1 year deals, it removes future flexibility. Two years from now you could still be stuck with the free agents you sign today. I know I'm not comfortable predicting right now what is going to be good for this team two years down the road, when they might actually have a chance to be very good. So why hamstring yourself? Why not wait until you're closer and you have a better idea of what your team really needs to put it over the top, instead of just throwing money away to make yourself feel better.
Matthew E - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 08:56 AM EST (#226576) #
Yeah. There's no reason at all why a mediocre team should be expensive, and the 2011 Jays are going to be a mediocre team. And there's nothing Anthopoulos can spend millions of dollars on that will change that. So he shouldn't try it.

The recipe is the same as it always was. Acquire good young talent (through the draft, through trades, through whatever) and be patient with it. Fill out the rest of the roster judiciously and cost-effectively. Open the vault for superstars and keep it closed for everyone else. And don't tell K.I.T.T. to turbo-boost until you've got him to the top of the ramp.

Mike Green - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 08:58 AM EST (#226577) #
Mags, you could accommodate Crawford, but the main problem with it is keeping Vernon Wells in centerfield indefinitely.  Crawford to LF, Snider to RF, Bautista to 1B, Hill to 3B and sign a second baseman.  There is nothing wrong with having a first baseman with a good arm (particularly if your second baseman does not).  The first baseman takes the cut-offs from right- the Cardinals used to do this with Keith Hernandez. 
Jonny German - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 09:12 AM EST (#226579) #
The average MLB payroll is $112 million. 
 
Where on earth did you get that number from? Per Cot's, the average in 2010 was $92M. - and that's counting the Yankees, which is not entirely reasonable. The Yankees operate far outside of the parameters that constrain the rest of the league. The average payroll of the 29 teams that are actually competing with each other was $87M.
Mike Green - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 09:36 AM EST (#226581) #
The 2011 figures do look to be higher, at least in the AL.  Among the contenders, and excluding the Yankees who will be very high and the Rays who will be very low, the Red Sox will almost surely be north of 120, the Twins, White Sox and Tigers will be north of 95, and the Angels will be certainly over 100 and probably above 120.  The Rangers could come in anywhere from 70 to 130.  The A's may indeed have a modest payroll, now that the Chavez and Sheets contracts are off the books.

If the club is looking exclusively to draft riches to determine competitive windows, i.e. the Rays' method,   it will probably be 2015 or later.  They could push it forward by judicious spending, but that is a judgment call. 
Magpie - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 09:53 AM EST (#226582) #
The Jays' 25-man roster payroll right now sits in the low to mid 30's.

That covers Vernon Wells, Aaron Hill, Adam Lind and nobody else. Those three players account for $33 million by themselves.
andrewkw - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 10:00 AM EST (#226584) #
I too would like to see Rogers spending more.  Flexibility is important but there are plenty of guys you can sign on short term deals.  They will be older or guys coming off an injury, but when signed for 1 or 2 years all you have to lose is money...

Speaking of payroll it's hard to believe the Twins.  They were over 100 million last year after adding players at the deadline and there has been talk of them going as high as 125 this year.   Of course they have been a good team for a long time and have a new stadium so the situations are quite different but they have managed to go from small market to large market faster then the jays went from large market to small market. 

bpoz - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 10:00 AM EST (#226585) #
Ryan C I completely agree with you. Whatever our payroll restrictions are, we cannot be stuck with expensive FAs that are not producing at a reasonable level, or worse producing at a poor level.
Since we have increased our scouts and spent $ on signing expensive amateurs (quality&quantity) the plan seems to be that some develop to their potential which is high and in the usual 3-5 year period. If I am correct we have to wait to find out.

BW... I like your interpretation of AA's agenda. Were you being sarcastic? I believe parts of what you say.

1) Low payroll to maximize profit? If AA can keep it low ($50mil)then then probable profits can look good depending on the profit goal. Making the playoffs will increase revenues at different levels for different teams...ie Texas I read $45mil and I would guess much more for NYY due to their large fan base. Being in a pennant race should also generate more revenue for any team. But being in a pennant race & playoffs is a variable factor, costs is a fixed factor. You now do on going evaluations of increasing costs at any time of the season if the pennant race possibility looks strong. Long term expensive contract players cannot be easily moved off the cost factor, but if their substitution can increase the revenue factor then how can it be done.
The cost of V Wells should be counted differently, maybe at $15mil if AA is agreeable to that as his value. J Bautista's situation should help us understand this more if they are considered equal as players. JB's cost in 2011 at Arb and then going forward, his cost as a FA if he is kept on.
The choices made on A Hill's options will also help clear up the payroll question especially if he has a good 2011.
2) Moderate & modest. Sounds logical but success is variable due to injuries and over/under performance. If we over perform and win 89-91 games then we can sell the team as a contender the next year, most fans will jump at any positive achievement as a reason to hope for the next success level, thereby increasing revenues IMO.

Anders showed us the opinions at the time of acquisition of Buck & Gonzalez. I think AA's selling feature to them was 1st string status. I don't understand why Buck is considered so good, but $18mil from Florida convinces me that he is V Good. But AA did not give him a 2011 option but Gonzales got it. Gonzalez gave AA what he wanted good defense, also expected was low OBP.
If Gonzalez was signed by Atlanta to open the 2010 season, no matter how good his ST was he would have been the backup to Y Escobar and if Escobar had to be replaced then Gonzalez would not have had the ABs to prove worthy.
Greg - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 11:21 AM EST (#226588) #

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but baseball-reference estimates the Jays are at 84.5M right now, factoring in arbitration raises.  (Not sure if Accardo and Lewis being non-tendered would lower that or not).

I'm of the camp that the Jays could be spending more, but I think the situation is being a bit over-stated here. 

Anders - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 11:25 AM EST (#226589) #

A few general thoughts (and apologies for the atypically lengthy post):

The Jays clearly have the capacity to spend much more money than they currently do - the team's owner is a multi-billion dollar corporation. However it's also a publicly traded company, which means that it's not entirely straightforward that the team either can or will spend significantly more than what is currently budgeted. It makes sense to be competitive - more wins means more people at the Dome, and more people watching on Sportsnet, both of which also benefit Rogers. The team clearly operates within budget constraints though, so marginal free agent signings (Victor Martinez or pretty much any non-Cliff Lee starting pitcher spring to mind) are a bad idea, and big budget acquisitions (Lee, Crawford) warrant particular consideration. As Magpie said, if you are going to overpay for free agent talent, you want it to be to get that 95th win, which as a lot of marginal value (it pushes you into the playoffs, say) as opposed to the 85th win, which is nice but doesn't mean squat. Notwithstanding the Fangraphs dollar value per win value calculator, free agent signings are almost never good value for teams - with the rare exception you are paying for past performance instead of future performance. If the Blue Jays are going to win they are going to need to be smart. I don't believe that the team is going to continuously delay the window for contention into the future - within the next two years players are going to start getting expensive as Lind and Hill's options get picked up, Snider, Romero, Marcum and Morrow hit arbitration and free agency, etc. I would rather see the team lock up its own players, still on the upswing of their careers, than overpay proven veterans (TM) on the downswing, and have the financial capacity to add a big piece at the right time, rather than be hamstrung by year four of Victor Martinez the DH.

Also, we really enjoy the interesting discussion and debate that happen in the comments. Batter's Box does not have a monolithic viewpoint, and even the various site authors disagree about different stuff (well, almost - everyone agrees with Magpie because of the all mighty data tables). We (the collective we) may disagree about your opinion, but no one thinks it's wrong (probably). With that being said we will almost certainly disagree if you are factually incorrect. Facts have an annoying habit of being both true and immutable (for the most part.) If you want to discuss publicy available figures such as contract/salary data, WAR (Fangraphs or BR), attendance, etc. please do take the time to look at Cot's, Fangraphs, BR, ESPN, etc. It makes things that much easier, and interesting, and means everyone doesn't have to rush to the aforementioned sites to find the correct information and post a "gotcha," which, while fun (actually one of my favourite things to do on the internet), doesn't really advance the discussion in a meaningful way. So let's try to have meaningful and deep discussion about whether we should sign, say, Paul Konerko (I say no), should have signed Adam Dunn (would have been interesting) or how JP Ricciardi screwed over/saved the franchise this week (just kidding!)

China fan - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 11:44 AM EST (#226591) #

....I don't believe that the team is going to continuously delay the window for contention into the future - within the next two years players are going to start getting expensive....

That's an excellent point, and in my view it reinforces the argument that the Jays should be moving NOW to acquire one or two (carefully selected) free agents to bolster the key areas of weakness on the team.  Nobody should assume that 2013 or 2014 will magically be the year where all the young players suddenly coalesce into a World Series team.  It could be that 2011 or 2012 are just as good an opportunity as any future year.  Right now the team has a squad of excellent young starters and several excellent hitters with good power.  I disagree with those who assume that the Jays must inevitably be "mediocre" in 2011.  There's no guarantee of that.  In retrospect, we might see 2011 as a more opportune year than 2013.   Many factors are unpredictable:  injuries, unexpected declines, unexpected breakthrough seasons.  Those factors could favor the Jays as easily in 2011 as in a future year.  If there's a free agent who makes sense, acquire him now -- don't postpone everything to some magical moment in the future.  Every season, there are several teams that improve their performance by 5 or 10 wins, making them sudden contenders.  Who can guarantee that this won't happen to the Jays in 2011 or 2012?

92-93 - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 12:26 PM EST (#226593) #

1) when the guy is an automatic Hall of Famer, close to his prime, or 2) when you have a contender already, a 90+ win team, and the player has enough game to fill one particular need.

1. I don't see how one can fill the requirements of an autoHOFer close to his prime more than Carl Crawford (and that doesn't mean I think he's a HOFer). When was the last time Alex Rodriguez circa 2001 became available? Carl Crawford has had a better start to his career than Roberto Clemente.

2. The Blue Jays have a contender. They won 85 games last year with an on field payroll of around 60m. Are people speculating that the additions of Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, Victor Martinez, and/or Adam Dunn WOULDN'T make the Blue Jays contenders?! Because I strongly beg to differ. And before that gets shot down as a pipedream, it's essentially what the Yankees did when they added Sabathia, Teixeira, & Burnett, and people need to stop assuming the Blue Jays CAN'T spend like the Yankees. They can, and choose not to. Furthermore, Crawford fills a significant portion of your needs - I don't have a problem with Snider in RF, nor would I have a problem with Crawford in RF or Crawford in CF with Vernon in RF - people overstate the difference between RF and LF. Crawford has been exactly what this lineup has been lacking for awhile, but everybody around here just wants to sit back and wait for 2014 when the rest of this apparent "non-contender" gets expensive. How does that make any sense at all? Why do more people in the media not see Rogers for the cheap corporation they have been and call them out on it? Is it because they all work for them, or are scared that they might one day have to? That would be a shame. Beeston has been selling lies to the public for over 2 years now, and it amazes me how many people swallow the Rogers agenda like it's a late night on Jarvis.

Mike Green - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 12:34 PM EST (#226595) #
Well, we can better than BBRef or Cot's with regard to the Blue Jays' salary picture for 2011, as we know that Fred Lewis, Accardo and Encarnacion are gone.  The projected payroll absent the 1b/dh and 2b/3b is about $75 million.  Here's your chart:

Player Position Salary/Arb yr. Est.
Romero SP  .8  
Marcum
SP
 2nd  2.5
Morrow
SP
 1st  1.5
Cecil
SP
 pre  .4
Rzepczynski
SP
 pre  .4
Drabek
SP
 pre  .4
Frasor
RP
 FA arb
 4.5
Camp
RP
 3rd
 2.5
Purcey
RP
 pre  .4
Janssen
RP
 2nd
 1.2
Litsch
RP
 1st
 1.0
McGowan
SP
 .5  
Richmond
SP
 pre  .5
Arencibia
C
pre
 .4
Molina
C
1
 
Lind
1B
5
 
Hill
2B
5
 
Escobar
SS
1st
2.5
Mystery Third base/second base
 ?  ?  
McDonald
 IF  1.5  
Snider
OF  pre  .4
Wells
OF
 23  
Bautista
OF
 3rd  12
Davis
OF
 2nd  2.5
Mystery DH/1B
 ?  ?  
Gregg/Olivo Buyouts
   1.3  
Totals

38.1
36.6
Matthew E - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 12:41 PM EST (#226596) #
The Blue Jays have a contender. They won 85 games last year with an on field payroll of around 60m. Are people speculating that the additions of Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, Victor Martinez, and/or Adam Dunn WOULDN'T make the Blue Jays contenders?

I disagree with this. The 2010 Jays were too deeply flawed to be turned into a contender so easily. Not enough defense, not enough runners on base. And the 85 wins was probably a bit of an overachievement. I think that if you put Lee, Crawford, Martinez and Dunn on this team, you might get as many as 90 wins, and you might not. You wouldn't get more. But at least the payroll would be high, which seems important to some of us.
92-93 - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 12:48 PM EST (#226597) #
I sincerely hope you are 5m too high on your combined projection of Bautista, Camp, and Frasor. Yunel at 2.5m seems light too.
92-93 - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 01:02 PM EST (#226601) #

you might get as many as 90 wins, and you might not. You wouldn't get more.

Do you run a fortune-telling service, because I'd like some definitive answers in my life that you seem able to provide? This division is ripe for the picking - the Rays are losing significant talent because they can't afford it, and Boston already lost it's #3 hitter (VMart) and will probably lose its #5 hitter as well (Beltre) while its #4 hitter turned 35 and no longer (hopefully) has the benefit of PEDs to help him along. If the Jays aren't signing big ticket FAs now, why aren't they trading guys like Jose Bautista, Shaun Marcum, Shaun Camp, etc...heck, eat half the salary on Vernon's contract and somebody might actually give you some decent pieces for him that will be ready in the magical year of 2014 when Matthew E & Mike Green will be ready to contend.

Matthew E - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 01:09 PM EST (#226602) #
I am not predicting that the Jays will be ready to contend in 2014.
Mick Doherty - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:03 PM EST (#226609) #

Great chart, Mike. I propose that we petition for a 2011 change of Vernon Wells' striding-to-the-plate music to the old Sesame Street fave "One of these things is not like the others."

andrewkw - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:15 PM EST (#226610) #
Another point to keep in mind which I hate to mention as it borders on turning me off MLB baseball completely.  By 2012 there almost certainly will be another playoff team which means 3 teams from the east could and likely will get into the playoffs as long as tampa doesn't completely self destruct or the jays turn things around.
Mike Green - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:30 PM EST (#226611) #
I sincerely hope you are 5m too high on your combined projection of Bautista, Camp, and Frasor

I am unlikely to be far wrong with regard to Camp and Frasor, as I am essentially simply predicting typical experience increases.  Bautista is a whole other story, and if it is likely to be $8 million, I won't say that either is wrong.  There aren't too players with comparable histories (let alone ones who have gone to arbitration late). 

I am not currently saying that the club should wait until 2014 or 2015. The starting pitchers as a group performed better than I expected in 2010 (mostly because they were all healthy), and it is a judgment call whether one ought to spend now or later. 
christaylor - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:30 PM EST (#226612) #
In theory I agree -- but then I was against expanding the playoffs the first time around. If the expansion of the playoffs makes it more difficult for WC teams in the playoffs and as a consequence makes winning divisions more important -- I'm all for it. It won't be all or none as it was before, but a one-game play-off for the WC teams, that's as close as traditionalists are going to get to the old way.

Looking at the number of WC teams to make the WS and the Yankees handing out champagne and shits with "playoffs" were the final nails in the coffin for me for the current system.
eudaimon - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:42 PM EST (#226613) #
Apparently we have acquired Carlos Villaneuva from the Brewers.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=4526

Sherrystar - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:44 PM EST (#226614) #
According to Twitter, the Jays have acquired Carlos Villanueva from the Brewers for the always popular PTBNL.

Another low risk, high reward move by AA?
Thomas - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:45 PM EST (#226615) #
The Blue Jays have acquired relief pitcher Carlos Villanueva from the Brewers, according to Milwaukee's Twitter page.
eudaimon - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:47 PM EST (#226616) #
I like this trade. It's for a PTNL, which usually means not a hell of a lot. He had really nice strikeout totals and a decent walk rate. It feels like his ERA was a bit unlucky last year but I haven't looked at advanced stats. A nice bullpen arm that could be coached to a higher level. At worst he is probably a mop-up guy next year I figure.
BumWino - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:47 PM EST (#226617) #

I much appreciated the counter-productive inputs which beautifully ridiculed my great big oranges by comparing said oranges straight across with your even bigger, shiny apples.  

I got my 2010 opening day payroll figures from CBS Sports.  I totalled 'em up, divided by 30 and it came to $112 million average. 

Still, I couldn't care less if CBS Sports figures are correct or not.  My comment concerned Gyro Cutter's  motivation and subsequent modus operandi.

CBS has the Jays' payroll at $62 million.  However, I should have qualified that for the anal-retentives.  $62 million is the, like, "operational payroll', eh, and $78 million is, like. the "take-it-on-the-road-gonzo-nananana-bye-bye" payroll, eh. 

Hope you can, like, follow along, eh.  But if you can't, the extra 16 beanies went a tall doctor with a PhD in pitching and some southpaw with uber-sexy initials who just couldn't pitch no mo', eh.

Accolades are due whomever, for his introduction of the concept of the total liquidation of the Yankees payroll from the CBS league-average payroll figures in order to develop a new, artificially lower league-average payroll figure.  A remarkable stroke of genius.   And it gave me a great idea!  Let's deef out Boston, LAA of  A, Detroit and one or two others, and even further reduce the new, artificial league-average payroll.  

Then in artificially relative terms the Jays payroll hypothetically rockets upwards.  Even right now... going up...going up...  Geezus!!  Now it's league average, eh!  Without spending even one of those nickels which Alex Anthopoulos tosses around like manhole covers.

Another BB individual quoted 2011 payroll figures, while I clearly stated "this years payroll" or "the current payroll" or something.  Now why would I do that?  Because I am old and suffering from advanced dementia?  Nope, that's not it.  It's because we're still in 2010, eh.  That's like this year, eh.  And 2011 is like next year and next season, eh.  I thought everybody on here could conceptualize something as basic as that.  Apparently, I was wrong.  Sorry, eh.

The only point of my original post was to offer "fanny protection" as possibly the main motivating factor which overrides all, in terms of  AA's player movement decisions. 

Of course, life is a learning experience.  Some of today's responses to my drivel have reminded me to "keep it simple, stupid".  Thanks, eh. 

For any of you good folks I may have offended by this post...  Sorry, eh.  I'd never do something like that on purpose, eh.     

christaylor - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:53 PM EST (#226618) #
"I disagree with this. The 2010 Jays were too deeply flawed to be turned into a contender so easily. Not enough defense, not enough runners on base. And the 85 wins was probably a bit of an overachievement."

Yes, one win of overachievement according to Pythagoras.

Not enough defense? Crawford. No enough OBP? Dunn/VMart. Cliff Lee? That'd be an embarrassment of riches in pitching. I can't believe you think adding 4 stars to this team, wouldn't make the team exceed 90 Wins. It is completely unjustifiable, especially given that I think it is probably irrational to believe that Lind/Hill will put up 2010 seasons in 2011.

Defense? The defense will improve just by having Escobar for a full year and Hill had an odd defensive season if you look at his Plus/Minus breaks down (-6 on balls at him). Quick, was Encarnacion a plus or a minus defender (plus). Overbay is all but gone, but was a plus defender, the 1B will be a drop off, but it won't be that hard to upgrade the bat. The OF was below average, as was the C. Not great, but to say that defense of the 2010 was a deep flaw, just doesn't seem correct. Certainly run prevention was the team's problem, but that's young pitching and some awful performances early in the season.
Mick Doherty - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:54 PM EST (#226619) #

christaylor, that's a wonderful typo ...

the Yankees handing out champagne and shits

I suppose if any team were to try to brand and distribute excrement, it'd be the Yanks. And they might pull it off/. How much would you get on eBay for a vial of Jeter-poo?

bpoz - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:55 PM EST (#226620) #
I guess if we were to add the 2011 payroll commitment now and then guess at unsigned player costs do we get $70-90mil. Then as we know more we can improve our accuracy.

Just for myself if we can contend in 2014 and win 98 games, I mean it actually happens, then I can wait, and quite joyously too I might add.

92-93 when you say that we can contend in 2011 with the additions you mentioned, do you mean a 95 win or so season?
Mathew E thinks that those additions get us 90 wins. 5 win difference. Either way the team would move up a level. Also I think after the All Star break the team record was close enough to NYY,TB & BOS. So we lost it in the 1st half. So to me, you saying we could contend in 2011 sounds reasonable.
OH let me say that if I have misquoted anyone I am sorry and did not mean to.
What many are fearing (me too) is that to get some of these players we will have to go long term and that some will decline into becoming DHs. How much would Crawford get? $20Mil like V Wells or about $15mil per year for 4-5 years. Each player is different, and we are probably all guessing AA's opinion on that $/player equation.

AA was on the fan with Blair & Wilner at 11:00AM today. Mainly he gave non answers. Both Blair & Wilner were very gracious during and after the interview, fully accepting that he wants to and will work without revealing specifics. He did say some things however at Wilner's prompting.
1)He had no leverage/leeway in making the Halladay trade. I think he meant that there were limits and restrictions that he he does not like working under.... IMO...How well did he do? He gave up Halladay + $6mil + potentially/realistically 2 high draft picks for that package. IMO it was also urgent that he make that trade then rather than postpone/prolong it.
2) Accardo what happened... It seems he got injured and went from being V Good...30Sv 2ERA to becoming depth. It seems every team is very afraid of lacking pitching depth. If you are V Good then you play in the ML, but if you are only as good as the 5,6,7th bullpen guy then you are depth meaning that you go to the minors if you have options left in favor of someone with no options even if you are slightly better. That is what happened to Accardo. At least he got paid well.
3) AA's concept of "the bench" is complicated. It is hard to understand, so anyone that can add to this please do. F Lewis & D Wise came after opening day for the bench and injuries mainly determined how much they played. So the bench make up is not urgent to AA.
4) He thinks of his 40 man roster 2-3 years into the future and it seems important to him. I did not understand.
5) He said the dozens of rumors are all wrong, someone is making them up and it is part of the off season game.
Mike Green - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 02:59 PM EST (#226621) #
Villanueva is a cheaper, and not quite as good, version of Bobby Jenks.  That's fine.  Now, if some coin is spent on a second/third baseman and a first baseman/DH, I'll be happy. 
Original Ryan - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:11 PM EST (#226623) #
Villanueva looks like a new project for Bruce Walton.  Villanueva has the potential to be quite good, but hasn't been able to put it all together on a consistent basis to this point.  I like the deal.
bpoz - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:27 PM EST (#226625) #
On deciding to take C Vilanueva, would we have had a scout see him pitch, if so do we have enough scouts to see everyone OR did we decide by looking at video which I presume is readily available.
BumWino - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:38 PM EST (#226626) #

I apologize for apparently not giving Alex Anthopoulos' genius enough credit.  I just heard him interviewed by some guy.

Interview Guy:  Just acquired Carlos Villanueva, eh?  How come?

AA:  Yup.  We figured his acquisition epitomized real baseball value.

Interview Guy:  Could you expand on that, Alex?

AA:  Sure.  The two most prominent factors with regard to the intrinsic baseball value received in the acquistion of Carlos were:  First, we got him for nada.  The player-to-be-named had a congenital heart condition and passed away a couple of hours before I signed off on the deal. 

Interview Guy:  Well, that's cheap enough.

AA:  Yeah, we did okay.  But the main reason was that our scouts told me that Carlos could more or less perfectly replace Brian Tallet, who, as you know, the Cards recently stole off us.  If you study the new guy's stats in depth, you'll notice that he has enjoyed progressive ERA yearly totals.  It's gone up every year.

Interview Guy:  What's so good about that?

AA: See if you can follow along here.  His ERA went up another 1.27 runs last season, and if he can duplicate that increase for us, his ERA will end up right around 6.60 this coming season.  That was pretty well exactly Tallet's ERA this past season, so we view Carlos as being the perfect replacement for Brian.  They make about the same amount of dough, too.

Interview Guy:  I woulda never thought of that.  No wonder they call you a genius. 

 

Ryan C - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:45 PM EST (#226627) #

If you study the new guy's stats in depth, you'll notice that he has enjoyed progressive ERA yearly totals.  It's gone up every year.

I'm guessing this is a joke since it's not actually true?  His ERA was 4.61 last season and 5.34 in 2009.

rubewaddell - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:48 PM EST (#226628) #
Not sure the Box is ready for a Fake Anselmi thing...
BumWino - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:48 PM EST (#226629) #

Hey, Mick.  Just checked eBay for you. 

Jeter-poo sells in the New York area for the same $280 per milligram as a sliver of wood off the original Jesus crucifixion cross.  Outside of the Gotham market, it consistently moves for about 15% less.

Hope that helps. 

The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:50 PM EST (#226630) #
people need to stop assuming the Blue Jays CAN'T spend like the Yankees. They can, and choose not to.

Exactly. I some that are apprehensive about the idea of spending that much money to win games, that it would somehow lessen the achievement of a pennant or World Series. I'm not one of those people.

Success is there for the taking, it always has been. And all it costs is what Rogers is made of. 
The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 03:53 PM EST (#226631) #
Villanueva is a cheaper, and not quite as good, version of Bobby Jenks.  That's fine.  Now, if some coin is spent on a second/third baseman and a first baseman/DH, I'll be happy.

Yes, I think AA has the right idea with moves like these. What little money Rogers give them should be spent on something worthwhile, not another overrated reliever.
Anders - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:02 PM EST (#226632) #

people need to stop assuming the Blue Jays CAN'T spend like the Yankees. They can, and choose not to.

This is true in the same sense as me saying you could run as fast as Usain Bolt but you choose not to. The revenue and ownership situations are completely different, and there is a reason why no one else comes close to spending what the Yankees spend, including the Blue Jays. The Jays aren't going to sign either Carl Crawford and Cliff Lee, and certainly not both of them. You can complain about this or accept it and move on.

The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:07 PM EST (#226633) #
This is true in the same sense as me saying you could run as fast as Usain Bolt but you choose not to. The revenue and ownership situations are completely different.

You're going to have to explain this one to me. Why doesn't Rogers have the same capability to do what the Steinbrenners did with their baseball team and media enterprises? We already know there's an enormous market in Toronto just waiting to be taken...we saw it 17 years ago.
eudaimon - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:12 PM EST (#226634) #
I would personally find a world series win with a Yankee-sized budget to be not worth much, cheapened if you will. There's no real challenge or fun in buying established players every year. What a boring way to run a franchise, and what an unfulfilling win. The Yankees can pay that much because New York City is massive and because the NYY logo has become popular with douchebags all across the land.
The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:14 PM EST (#226635) #
And yet that's the way the Jays won their 2 championships. By spending more money than anybody else.

Who was complaining about that, then?

James W - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:15 PM EST (#226636) #
The baseball market in Toronto just isn't the same as it was 17 years ago. The population as a whole just does not care (in my opinion) about the Blue Jays enough to sell out 81 games. I'd love for them to prove me wrong.
eudaimon - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:22 PM EST (#226638) #
I wasn't a fan, and barely in elementary school, in 92-93 so that doesn't concern me. You don't need a huge payroll to win championships. You need very good management. I feel we have that now.
BumWino - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:22 PM EST (#226639) #

Thanks, Ryan.

Well, the jokes on me.   I guess somebody better tell AA, before he puts his foot in his mouth again.   I'm too scared to tell him.  He might get annoyed and cut me off from all my insider sources. 

Matthew E - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:23 PM EST (#226640) #
And yet that's the way the Jays won their 2 championships. By spending more money than anybody else.

Who was complaining about that, then?


It's really not the same thing, though. When the Jays were spending more than anyone else, they weren't spending more than anyone else could spend; they were just spending more than anyone else happened to spend. And some of that was just because they were rewarding players who had won division titles in '89 and '91; they should have been spending a lot for that team. How far behind were the second- and third-highest spending teams in '92 and '93? One million? Two? Five? It's a whole lot more than that now. It's not the same thing at all.
The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:24 PM EST (#226641) #
You don't need true baseball fans to sell out stadiums, you just need to create an atmosphere that will attract the bandwagoners. That's how they did it the first time around.

Many are just waiting for a consistent winner, and when that happens, they will jump on board.
The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:29 PM EST (#226642) #
It's not the same thing at all.

Sure it is. Essentially, those teams won those titles because they spent more money on talent than anybody else. Their owners were willing to go that extra length to ensure success.  It may not have been to the extent of the modern Yankees, but the effect was exactly the same.

And once again, there's nothing wrong with that.
Anders - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:35 PM EST (#226643) #

I feel compelled to do this. Apologies.

I got my 2010 opening day payroll figures from CBS Sports.  I totalled 'em up, divided by 30 and it came to $112 million average.

Well I'm not sure how you did, because they average out to $91 million. Cot's has it at $92 million. If you want to say the Jays payroll is $62 million that's reasonable. It doesn't count 16 million for Doc and the Beej, which, while incurred by the organization, weren't on the field costs. You then mentioned that "The Jays' 25-man roster payroll right now sits in the low to mid 30's." I assume this is the actual committed salary in 2011 (Wells, Hill, McDonald, and Lind add up to about 38 million.)  

Another BB individual quoted 2011 payroll figures, while I clearly stated "this years payroll" or "the current payroll" or something.  Now why would I do that?  Because I am old and suffering from advanced dementia?  Nope, that's not it.  It's because we're still in 2010, eh.  That's like this year, eh.  And 2011 is like next year and next season, eh.  I thought everybody on here could conceptualize something as basic as that.  Apparently, I was wrong.  Sorry, eh.

When 2011 salary increases kick in, the payroll will increase to $45-50 million--plus FA signings.  That's just half the major-league average.

Well payroll figures for "right now" don't really mean anything, because it's the middle of the offseason and not everyone is signed for next year, and, believe it or not you have to have 25 players on a baseball team. While you can say the Jays payroll is the mid-30s right now, that is for four players. Even if the Jays renounced the rights to every other player on the team they would still have to pay out at least 10 million more in salary. That's clearly not going to happen. Players go to arbitration and get raises accordingly. Mike Green presented a very straightforward and helpful table as to what the team's salary structure might look like next year, and it is much more accurate than your guess. Jose Bautista alone would account for your scheduled salary increase.

The only point of my original post was to offer "fanny protection" as possibly the main motivating factor which overrides all, in terms of  AA's player movement decisions. 

I think Alex Anthopoulos' remuneration and job security are based on remaining one of the lowest-payroll MLB teams, moderate on-filed success and, over time, modest increases in attendance.  The achievement of these factors maximizes Rogers' baseball profits. However, money is available for procuring expensive talent, as long as the additional expenditures immediately produce more wins and better attendance. Considering what's a stake on a personal level, will AA take the risk and spend right now to improve the team?  Not a chance. 

You are entitled to your opinion, which I would note is entirely speculative and not based in reality (which is why I imagine no one responded). I disagree strongly with it, not the least of which because the facts supporting your argument are incorrect. I wouldn't have responded normally, though your extremely sarcastic and somewhat offensive response changed that. Also, please stop using derogatory racial remarks. There is no place for that here.

Mike Green - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:36 PM EST (#226644) #
There are plenty of intrinsic reasons why the Jay payroll will be lower than the Yankee payroll in 5 years.  There are no intrinsic reasons why it should be lower than the Red Sox payroll. 
Matthew E - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:57 PM EST (#226646) #
Sure it is. Essentially, those teams won those titles because they spent more money on talent than anybody else. Their owners were willing to go that extra length to ensure success.  It may not have been to the extent of the modern Yankees, but the effect was exactly the same.

And once again, there's nothing wrong with that.


You're being overly reductionistic about it. The Jays of the early '90s were spending money that was directly comparable to that of their competitors. They were spending about the same as the other high-spending teams. The Yankees of the '00s were/are spending money that's way more than anybody else. "About the same" and "way more" are not equivalent.

The other thing is this. It sounds like some are suggesting that Rogers spend more money on the team than the Jays are taking in, not only because it would benefit the team, but also as a sign of commitment to winning. I don't know if the willingness to run a loss on the books is really a sign of commitment to winning, but let's say it is. Well, I suspect that the Yankees still made money even after spending all that on payroll, and if so, we can't say that they're more committed to winning than the Jays are. Whatever virtue there is in sacrificing your status as a profitable businessman in return for winning, it isn't present if you're not making that sacrifice. The Yankees didn't "go that extra length"; they just make more money*, and spend some of it. They don't want it more than the other teams do. If this thing about being willing to go into the red has any validity, they may want it less.

*which is to their credit as a business, but says nothing about them as a baseball team
China fan - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 04:58 PM EST (#226647) #
Getting back to Villaneuva:  when you look at those advanced stats that we love to analyze -- his SO/9, BB/9, H/9, WHIP and everything else -- it's hard to argue that Villaneuva was much different Bobby Jenks last season. On the basis of those metrics, Villaneuva and Jenks look pretty similar.  And there's no question that Villaneuva will be much, much cheaper than Jenks.  And he's younger too.
China fan - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:01 PM EST (#226648) #
Sorry for the typo.  That last post should read:  ".....it's hard to argue that Villaneuva was much different from Bobby Jenks last season....."   (on the basis of those metrics)
Anders - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:02 PM EST (#226649) #
There are plenty of intrinsic reasons why the Jay payroll will be lower than the Yankee payroll in 5 years.  There are no intrinsic reasons why it should be lower than the Red Sox payroll. 
I would disagree slightly, in that I think people underestimate the degree to which public vs. private ownership makes a difference. The general point I'm trying to make about the Blue Jays payroll is that John Henry and the Steinbrenners can spend whatever they want on their franchises; it's their money, and if they want to spend nothing and make tons of money, or spend a ton of money and lose money, or spend a ton of money and make money (which it seems they both do now), thats up to them. Rogers is a publicly traded company, and there is a board of directors, shareholders, etc etc etc. Presumably the reason why Rogers wants to own the team is not to win championships (that would be an ancilliary benefit, sure) but to make money. I'm sure there is a capacity to add salary - maybe it has to get approved by the board on a case by case basis beyond a certain point, who knows. I think that if the team becomes successful and spends money to maintain that success (performance and attendance) then the money will be there. I just really don't see how, while drawing 18,000 fans a game, AA and Beeston and whoever else go to Rogers and ask for 50 million more a year in payroll.
 
This is somewhat speculative on my part - I don't know how the team's budgeting process works. But previous comments have indicated that there isn't a set payroll level, and there is some flexibility to add salary depending on the team's success. As far as I can tell the Jays and the Mariners (Nintendo) are the only teams currently owned by corporations, since Tribune sold the Cubs last year. Toronto kindof craps out in this regard, as the Leafs and Raps are both also owned by corporations, when the overwhelming majority of NBA and NHL teams are privately owned.
The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:04 PM EST (#226650) #
You're being overly reductionistic about it. The Jays of the early '90s were spending money that was directly comparable to that of their competitors. They were spending about the same as the other high-spending teams. The Yankees of the '00s were/are spending money that's way more than anybody else. "About the same" and "way more" are not equivalent.

Same principle, same effect.  If you spend more money on talent than other teams, you greatly increase your chances of winning baseball games. The Jays did it two decades ago and the Yankees have perfected this approach.

The other thing is this. It sounds like some are suggesting that Rogers spend more money on the team than the Jays are taking in, not only because it would benefit the team, but also as a sign of commitment to winning.

Not at all. I'm only suggesting that they spend enough to ensure that the Jays will be consistent contenders each year. At that point, they will have created an enormous revenue stream that wasn't there before anyway.
Anders - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:11 PM EST (#226651) #

Same principle, same effect.  If you spend more money on talent than other teams, you greatly increase your chances of winning baseball games. The Jays did it two decades ago and the Yankees have perfected this approach.

I think what Matthew is trying to say is:

Team A: 50 mil. Team B: 49 mil Team C: 48 mil.

Team A: 100 mil Team B: 55 mil Team C: 50 mil.

Assuming money = success, do both Team A's have the same chance of winning the fictional championship? Would it be fair to say that one of the two team A's (I won't say which one) has a significantly greater chance of success, both relative to the other Team A, and to their respective Team B and Team C?

The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:11 PM EST (#226652) #
Rogers is a publicly traded company, and there is a board of directors, shareholders, etc etc etc. Presumably the reason why Rogers wants to own the team is not to win championships (that would be an ancilliary benefit, sure) but to make money. I'm sure there is a capacity to add salary - maybe it has to get approved by the board on a case by case basis beyond a certain point, who knows. I think that if the team becomes successful and spends money to maintain that success (performance and attendance) then the money will be there. I just really don't see how, while drawing 18,000 fans a game, AA and Beeston and whoever else go to Rogers and ask for 50 million more a year in payroll.

If they want to make more money, you would think there's no better way to do it than creating the same atmosphere and quality of ball club that was in Toronto in the early 90s. All it would take to do that is a little investment on their part.

But I've gotten the feeling over these last 10 years that Rogers is content with continuing to make a safe, steady profit on the Jays. And unfortunately for us, that means they are content with this current state of mediocrity.
The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:16 PM EST (#226653) #
Assuming money = success, do both Team A's have the same chance of winning the fictional championship? Would it be fair to say that one of the two team A's (I won't say which one) haa significantly greater chance of success, both relative to the other Team A, and to their respective Team B and Team C?

I'm well aware that the modern-day Yankees spend more in proportion to the rest of baseball than the 1993 Jays did. What I'm trying to understand is how that makes any difference at all to my points (that money leads to success, and that Jays fans in 1993 had no trouble accepting that concept).
Matthew E - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:20 PM EST (#226655) #
Because, at the level of difference we were talking about in the early '90s, you can't really say that the success is because of the money. The money helps, sure, but you aren't going to beat another team because you spent two million more than they did; you beat them because you were smarter or luckier in building your team. If you spend a hundred million more than the other team, though, you're going to beat them because of the money.
John Northey - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:30 PM EST (#226656) #
The Jays only glaring needs are 3B and 1B. So, if there was an unlimited budget who would you sign?

3B: Adrian Beltre
1B/DH: Manny Ramirez? Magglio Ordonez? Jayson Werth?

How many wins would those add? I'd be very tempted to go for Beltre but in 2009 he had an OPS+ of 83, and just twice has been over 115, 2004 & 2010 but both times was way over (163/141). Both times it was his last season before free agency. Could be a coincidence but is it a good idea to risk $50+ million on that? Especially with Beltre turning 32 next season (the age players tend to start cliff diving)?

At 1B/DH there should be plenty of cheap power options if AA hunts them down, and Lind has one of those slots locked up. The Jays could sign an outfielder and shift someone to DH, but, again, you are looking at signing guys like Crawford who has had a single year over 120 for OPS+ which is good in CF but in LF/DH isn't (see Wells, Vernon for a big time example).

There are good players out there, but are they worth the cost? Will they push this team from 85 to 95 wins (only one team in the wild card era hasn't made the playoffs with 95+ wins, and that one got to play a 163rd game to decide it). If I was AA I wouldn't risk my career on it just yet.
The_Game - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:32 PM EST (#226657) #
Because, at the level of difference we were talking about in the early '90s, you can't really say that the success is because of the money. The money helps, sure, but you aren't going to beat another team because you spent two million more than they did; you beat them because you were smarter or luckier in building your team. If you spend a hundred million more than the other team, though, you're going to beat them because of the money.

Really, they actually beat them because they played better (or were more lucky, whichever you prefer) than other relatively equal teams in a few short playoff series. But the biggest reason they got there in the first place, though, was money. Without it, they wouldn't have been able to pay for all of the talented players on the roster that got them to 90+ wins.

What's your point here, though? Are you saying you have a problem with what the Yankees do to win games and therefore would also have a problem if the Jays did something similar?
Mike D - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 05:53 PM EST (#226658) #

There's no reason at all why a mediocre team should be expensive, and the 2011 Jays are going to be a mediocre team.

Matthew E, sorry to delve back further in the conversation, but I have to object to your definition of "mediocre," which in the sports context has been unfortunately stretched beyond all reasonable bounds to include any team not highly likely to be competitive for a championship.

The Jays are a generally young team that was, taking strength of schedule into account, quite clearly among the 7-10 best teams in baseball last year.  They won 85 games while playing 54 games against three elite teams, and with a 12 away game, 6 home game interleague schedule against SF/Phi/SD/Col/StL/Arz.

True, the Jays may be worse in 2011; assuming nothing too dramatic in the offseason, they'll probably be about as good, with the odds of the team getting worse or better being about equal.  I also agree that the path to 95 wins is neither quick nor easy from here.  But it's factually incorrect to say that they will so obviously be "mediocre" that any attempts to improve the club now would be irrelevant, because they sure as hell weren't mediocre last year and I highly doubt they'll be mediocre this year.

Mylegacy - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 06:10 PM EST (#226659) #
Carlos Villanueva - looks cheap and good - my only reservation is that I think the guy gives up too many homers - HR9 / 1.2

Not so sure he'll play nicely at the Rogers Homer Dome. But other numbers aren't too bad at all.

Mylegacy - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 07:06 PM EST (#226662) #
Money makes the world go round, the world go round...

The "IDEA" was to build a young  - good - team from inside (supplementing with reasonable free agents to fill holes) and then as they approached contention - viola - you go splurge on a big time (or two) hired gun(s) to make it over the top. Once you get to the point where your minors keep producing "serious young talent"  - the "IDEA" was to keep spending at that time to maintain a continuous state of contention. The "IDEA."

The "PROBLEM" is that going into 2011 the "IDEA" only makes sense if it is on track - for it to be on track; Lind, Hill and Snider - three position player pieces of the "IDEA" all have to be significant contributors - in other words, two need to seriously rebound and the third needs to blossom (I haven't forgotten that the young pitchers are equally as important). Is that going to happen? I think it will - and I think most of us think it will - however until we actually see it start working - I'd say by the All-Star break this next season - until then I don't see AA doing anything (other than filling holes with cheap(ish) pieces) EXCEPT continuing with his perpetual quest for young quality pieces wherever and however he might find them - ie continuing to build the young base of the "IDEA."

IF - we're really not pretenders - we need those three young guns to start firing on all cylinders. 2011 - make or break - as I see it.

China fan - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 07:20 PM EST (#226664) #

Interesting article on Fangraphs today, trying to explore whether JPA is ready to be the starting catcher in 2011.  The article begins with a quotation from Baseball America, and then moves into some existential questions of its own.  Here it is:

From Baseball America’s 2011 Blue Jays prospects write-up:

His defense also is in question. He has solid arm strength but threw out just 23 percent of PCL basestealers. His receiving and blocking skills are improving though just average at best, and he can get lackadaisical at times

That he’s a poor defensive catcher is also no secret. What gets me is that lackadaisical line. Does that hint at something greater than the Blue Jays have let on? Or is it just an innocuous line in a scouting report? Again, this is where we simply have no way of knowing.

China fan - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 07:22 PM EST (#226665) #
Just to clarify:  that was just an excerpt from the Fangraphs article.  Here's the link to the full piece:   http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/when-we-learn-something-about-a-prospect/
Thomas - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 07:42 PM EST (#226666) #
Richard Griffin is reporting on Twitter that the Jays will send a player not on the 40-man roster to Milwaukee for Villanueva, but are waiting to see if the player is selected in the Rule 5 draft. Griffin's tweet mentioned Loewen's strong AFL campaign, but that didn't seem to be anything more than speculation.
China fan - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 07:54 PM EST (#226667) #
There's speculation that the PTBNL for Villanueva could be Loewen or Emaus (since both are exposed to the Rule 5 draft).   If one of them goes to the Brewers, it would be the 6th prospect that Anthopolous has traded away in the past year:  one in the Morrow trade, two in the Escobar trade, two in the Davis trade, and one in the Villanueva trade.  (Am I missing any?)  In other words:  don't assume that Anthopolous is obsessed with collecting and stockpiling every prospect he can find.  He is quite happy to trade young prospects to boost his team's talent level.  He is scouring through his prospects, looking carefully for which ones are expendable and which ones are keepers, and he's willing to trade the expendables.  It's a good approach, although it also heightens the risk that one of those prospects will blossom on another team and we'll end up regretting the trade.
bpoz - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 07:59 PM EST (#226668) #
A toast to my Bauxite friends. CHEERS!!!
Very sensible thoughts Mylegacy. I hope your plans to be in Dunedin work out.
This is the 1st off season that I have followed in such detail. Is everything happening a lot faster this year? Detroit, Florida & CWS have made significant moves already.

I wonder what NYY & BOS will do?
bpoz - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 08:17 PM EST (#226669) #
I heard Richard Griffin, I think on the FAN with Bob MacGowan talking about C Villanueva. He said that he is this years M Valdez, but he did not elaborate. He must mean that he throws in the high 90s like Valdez, I wish he had been more specific. Anyhow if that is true, that he is a very hard thrower then we may have a steal because his walk rate is decent and he has 425IP in the ML. He just turned 27.
TamRa - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 09:08 PM EST (#226673) #
"That he’s a poor defensive catcher is also no secret."

I questioned the FanGraphs writer about this and I will do so here - there's ben as much said about JP's defense improving, about it being good, about pitchers liking to throw to him, etc as there has casting doubt on it.

I do NOT accept it as an "open secret" that his defense is "poor" - there are conflicting reports and we can't know for certain until we see it in the majors.

Original Ryan - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 09:14 PM EST (#226674) #
Richard Griffin is reporting on Twitter that the Jays will send a player not on the 40-man roster to Milwaukee for Villanueva, but are waiting to see if the player is selected in the Rule 5 draft. Griffin's tweet mentioned Loewen's strong AFL campaign, but that didn't seem to be anything more than speculation.

In recent days Griffin has also reported that the Lansing Lugnuts moved to Vancouver and that Edwin Encarnacion was traded to Oakland with Danny Farquhar and Trystan Magnuson.
Forkball - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 09:39 PM EST (#226675) #
although it also heightens the risk that one of those prospects will blossom on another team and we'll end up regretting the trade.

I suspect that AA wouldn't regret a trade if that happened.  It's about calculated risks, so even if it doesn't work out, as long as the thinking involved in the trade was sound that's ok.

If you live in fear of losing a trade you probably won't be making many moves or improving your team.
Marc Hulet - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 09:43 PM EST (#226676) #
Villanueva's fastball averages out at 90 mph. He has a four-pitch mix that includes a curve, slider, and changeup. He struggles with his fastball command, which is the biggest issue with his repertoire. His slider has been his second best pitch in recent years, surpassing his changeup, which was better earlier in his career.

I'm a pretty big fan of the trade. Villanueva has upside if the Jays staff can help him improve his command.
pooks137 - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 10:32 PM EST (#226677) #

 If one of them goes to the Brewers, it would be the 6th prospect that Anthopolous has traded away in the past year:  one in the Morrow trade, two in the Escobar trade, two in the Davis trade, and one in the Villanueva trade.  (Am I missing any?) 

A 7th would be Brett Wallace in the Wallace-Gose trade.  I suppose you could even include the 5 mins in which we owned Michael Taylor in the Halladay-Taylor-Wallace swap if you want to get technical.

Alex Obal - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 10:41 PM EST (#226679) #
I heard Richard Griffin, I think on the FAN with Bob MacGowan talking about C Villanueva. He said that he is this years M Valdez, but he did not elaborate.

Valdez was a project, brought in because of his stuff. Villanueva is more polished. He clearly can induce swinging strikes without walking too many people - he's just been hittable recently. Think of Shawn Camp when the Jays first brought him in.

I like this pickup, obviously. Who knows how he'll handle the AL East, but the existence of guys like CV is why many people dislike spending money on Established middle relievers.

Nick - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 11:44 PM EST (#226680) #
Rosenthal mentions the Jays as a suitor for Adrian Gonzalez:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Adrian-Gonzalez-trade-with-Chicago-Cubs-or-Boston-Red-Sox-still-possible-120310

This shouldn't be too controversial: I think it would be a good idea to acquire Adrian Gonzalez. : )

ayjackson - Friday, December 03 2010 @ 11:46 PM EST (#226681) #

A couple of observations, if I may...

1)  I like the Villanueva pick-up, but will have to see what's going the other way.  I would have thought it was somebody being kept on our 40-man roster until after the Rule V draft, but apparently the Brewers have more room on theirs than we do on ours, so not sure that's the motive for naming it later.  Maybe Griff's right then.

2)  I like Griff but boy he makes you shake your head sometimes.  That Farquar, Magnusen, Encarnacion tweet had my head spinning.

3)  The Adrian Gonzalez saga has begun in earnest.  I think the Padres will move him and he should command a similar package of prospects to what Doc commanded last year.  Both are perennial 5+ WAR players.  Agon is one year from free agency, as Doc was a year ago.  Agon is slated to earn $5.5m this season, which is roughly what the Phillies were on the hook for with Doc.  I think we'll be involved, especially since Boston  will be.  We can certainly trump any Red Sox package right now and if we didn't want to extend him, we could flip him back out of the division in July.

4)  It's going to be an interesting week.  Ready, set, go!

greenfrog - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 12:18 AM EST (#226682) #
Acquiring A-Gon would be a huge coup for AA, if he can somehow pull it off. It would instantly solve the Jays' 1B problem (assuming they can extend him, which in turn would depend on Rogers stepping up to the plate). It would give AA another star-level player in the ultra-competitive AL East, and deny the Red Sox a key piece in their attempt to regain dominance in the division.

What would it take to acquire him, I wonder? I'm guessing San Diego would want something like Drabek, Snider, and a couple of lesser-but-still-decent prospects. Would Cecil, Snider, and (say) Stewart get it done? Or Cecil, Snider, and one of Arencibia/D'Arnaud/Perez? The one thing the Jays have is a lot of pitching and catching depth to deal from.

Tough call. I think the Jays are probably still a few years away from being the kind of team that goes hard after someone like Gonzalez. I wouldn't mind losing a couple of pitching prospects like Drabek and Stewart, as promising as they've looked, but losing Snider would be tough to take. He could be an All-Star on and off for the next ten years.
timpinder - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 12:56 AM EST (#226683) #
I don't see the Jays being serious contenders for Gonzalez.  He's 29 years old and he'd probaby require a 5 year extension.  I don't think that the Jays would be wise to have just two players in their early to mid 30's consuming $45 million of payroll in 2013 and 2014.  The Jays aren't competing in 2011 so what would be the point of a rental?  Although I admit that when I look at his numbers away from Petco I drool.
Sherrystar - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 01:15 AM EST (#226684) #
Writer from SD (Dan Heyes) is reporting that Gonzalez to the Red Sox is "close".

I hope the Red Sox give up a tonne (i.e. see Hanley Ramirez)
The_Game - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 05:35 AM EST (#226685) #
Olney is reporting that it's essentially done and that the Sox are in contract negotiations with Gonzalez. 

Apparently, it's only going to cost them prospects and money. Nothing off the MLB roster.

I'll reserve full judgment until I see the deal, but this is a bit disappointing, because that's something this team and its owners clearly have in excess.

China fan - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 07:55 AM EST (#226686) #
I'm disappointed too.  It's a huge boost for the Red Sox over the next several years -- exactly the time period when the Sox will be one of the biggest obstacles to Toronto's hopes of contending.  So it's a double loss for the Jays.  What happened to AA's claim that he's willing to take chances, willing to take risks for high-upside gains?  Of course the off-season is not over, so there's still plenty of chances for AA to do something big, but so far he is nibbling on the edges, like a nervous reliever.  If he goes through this off-season without any big moves, it will reinforce the suspicions of many of us that AA's hands are at least partially tied by Rogers.  Yes, the owners have funded an expansion in scouting and drafting, but there's more to baseball than just scouting and drafting.  At some point, the Jays have to acquire Gonzalez-type players, and I don't buy the argument that we must wait until the Jays are a 90-win team. 
CeeBee - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 08:03 AM EST (#226687) #
I'm disappointed too, but depending on what we would have given up..... I think it might work out best to keep our younguns. Just remember, you can never have enough pitching or something along that line.
scottt - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 08:05 AM EST (#226688) #
If Boston gets A-Gon and Yankees get Lee, the Jays are not getting any closer to contention for a while.

Toronto still has a huge hole somewhere in the infield corner, though. Still need to see how AA deals with that.

NDG - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 08:05 AM EST (#226689) #
Jays should be all over this. A talent like Gonzalez is exactly what a team that hopes to compete in the near future (even if it a couple years away) needs to obtain. If the centerpiece in the Red Sox offer is Casey Kelley, I'd be very disappointed the Jays don't beat it.

As for tying up funds, star players make a lot.  You have to deal with that if you want to compete, especially in the AL East.  The trick is to ensure the player is a star.  Combining Gonzalez and Wells salary isn't fair because they are not the same class of player.  Wells is a mistake, we either move on, or give up on competing for the rest of his contract.

ayjackson - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 08:11 AM EST (#226690) #

Having Youk and Agon at the corners and in the heart of your lineup will make filling out a first class batting order pretty easy in Boston for the next half dozen years.  This is a great move for them.  Quite discouraging for a Jays fan to see a weakened foe make such a move.

It seems as though Hoyer was intent on dealing with his former employer and acquiring "his guys".

ayjackson - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 08:18 AM EST (#226691) #

I don't think that the Jays would be wise to have just two players in their early to mid 30's consuming $45 million of payroll in 2013 and 2014.

One thing Rogers has shown a propensity for is buying contracts out.  I don't think Vernon will be a part of the team by then. 

greenfrog - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 09:28 AM EST (#226692) #
I hope Boston gave up at least two of Kelly, Rizzo and Iglesias. If it's just Kelly and filler I'm going to be extremely annoyed. Either way, it looks like a good deal for the Sox, who can always use their ample budget to obtain more prospects via the draft and international free agency.

Just a guess, but I think part of the problem is that A-Gon may have been unlikely to sign an extension beyond 2011 with Toronto, whereas Boston likely determined in negotiations that they can lock him up before the season starts.
Thomas - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 09:42 AM EST (#226694) #
I'll reserve full judgment until I see the deal, but this is a bit disappointing, because that's something this team and its owners clearly have in excess.

I'm not disappointed, unless AA never made inquiries into whether Gonzalez would be interested in signing an extension in Toronto (and I would be surprised if that wasn't something AA could get a read on without asking Gonzalez). If Gonzalez wanted to play in a recognized big market for a known perennial contender, and was going to test the market if he was dealt to Toronto, I think it would have been too much to pay to beat Boston's offer to get Gonzalez for a year and then two supplemental picks. To trade 4-5 B, at a minimum, prospects for one year of Gonzalez at this point in the team's rebuilding would have been a mistake, IMO.

Adrian Gonzalez in Fenway is going to be very very good, I predict.
ayjackson - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 09:47 AM EST (#226695) #

Youk-Lowrie-Pedroia-Gonzalez is a phenomenal infield.

It sounds like Iglesias was a key for Hoyer.  I imagine both Kelly and Iglesias were part of the deal.

greenfrog - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 10:19 AM EST (#226696) #
From mlbtraderumors.com:

"Rival executives have been expecting Adrian Gonzalez to land with the Red Sox at some point, and right now it's on the verge of happening. ESPN's Buster Olney writes (Insider req'd) that once the Gonzalez deal is complete, Boston will still have enough financial flexibility and the leverage to pursue a high-priced player like Carl Crawford or Jayson Werth."

This is why I have no sympathy for Red Sox fans when they complain about the big-spending Evil Empire.
ayjackson - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 10:20 AM EST (#226697) #
@NCTPadres, who has been breaking this story all night, is hearing that Kelly, Rizzo and Fuentes is the package going to SD.  Very reasonable deal, imho.
pooks137 - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 11:48 AM EST (#226699) #

What happened to AA's claim that he's willing to take chances, willing to take risks for high-upside gains?  Of course the off-season is not over, so there's still plenty of chances for AA to do something big, but so far he is nibbling on the edges, like a nervous reliever.  If he goes through this off-season without any big moves, it will reinforce the suspicions of many of us that AA's hands are at least partially tied by Rogers.  Yes, the owners have funded an expansion in scouting and drafting, but there's more to baseball than just scouting and drafting.  At some point, the Jays have to acquire Gonzalez-type players, and I don't buy the argument that we must wait until the Jays are a 90-win team. 

I find it amazing how fast AA's honeymoons is over for some folk.

Wasn't this what most agree was JP's big downfall? By loading up on the AJ Burnett/BJ Ryan/Troy Glaus' s of the world too soon after reaching .500 mark after years of reloading? By tying up payroll and roster spots with expensive veterans before the cheap pitching and feeder system was in place?

I think lumping in acquiring Adrian Gonzalez as a high-risk, high-reward with AA's other examples of taking risk is misleading.

While risky challenge trades for elite MLB talent (the Morrow deal) and for prospects (Wallace for Gose)  are one thing, none of them have the franchise-crippling potential of the Gonzalez deal which empties the vault both of payroll flexibility and MLB-ready talent. 

JP was also criticized for drafting college-talent with lower ceilings but more polished, instead of taking the "best player available". Well, now that we have a GM who believes in loading up on elite, 5-tool talent and high school pitchers, people are going to be reminded why JP was so impatient. The Jake Marisnick's an Aaron Sanchez's of the world take about 5 years to actually get to the show, let alone contribute anything meaningful.

We don't have to wait until we are a 90-win team, but we probably have to wait until at least the first wave of AA's draftees are in the upper minors knocking on the door for a cup of coffee.  The infusion of star-calibre MLB-minimum talent at certain positions is what allows you to afford to break the bank paying above-market rates for free agents for the ones you don't.

The Jays at the moment, outside of the phenomenal, cheap rotation, simply don't have enough of these players outside of Snider and maybe Drabek.  The rest of the position players are either only adequate or about to get expensive.

Mike Green - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 01:29 PM EST (#226703) #
Casey Kelly is not a top prospect in my books.  Iglesias is. 
ayjackson - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 01:34 PM EST (#226704) #

Casey Kelly is not a top prospect in my books.  Iglesias is.

Niether have shown much in my books.  All scouting projection, no results to date for either.

Richard S.S. - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 02:04 PM EST (#226706) #

The 2010 Jays were too deeply flawed to be turned into a contender so easily. Not enough defense, not enough runners on base. And the 85 wins was probably a bit of an overachievement.

Bull (deleted) (deleted)  85 wins without an Ace (2-4 wins); with a revolving door for 5th starter (2-3 wins); with a Closer who couldn't win in back-to-back games or win two of a three game series (1-3 wins); with a bullpen that finished 10th out of 14 teams (3-4 wins); with Cito Gaston's strange managing + with Adam Lind no longer hitting to all field and walking less + with Aaron Hill's offensive and defensive woes + with a team that didn't walk, steal bases, or control strikeouts (5-10 wins).    This wasn't an increase from 75 wins to 85 wins.   This was a 75 wins to an expected 62 wins to an unexpected and surprising 85 wins.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but baseball-reference estimates the Jays are at 84.5M right now, factoring in arbitration raises.  (Not sure if Accardo and Lewis being non-tendered would lower that or not).

Doesn't B-R suggest arbitration raises for about $30.0 MM.   I can't see spending more than $15.0 MM for 9 players.   I just don't think B-R's number are valid.   From the 2010 $78,689,357 salary figure, Toronto saves approx. $16.4 MM on Ryan, Halladay and Ruiz; saves approx. $15.75 MM on Overbay, Downs, Gregg and Buck; saves approx. $8.73 MM on Accardo, Lewis, Tallet, Wise and Encarnacion for approx $40.88 MM in total savings ($37,809,357).   Pre-arbitration raises shouldn't exceed $.60 MM for 12 players.   Guaranteed salary raises will be approx. $9.0 MM to $18.0 MM (depending on whether bonuses are part of Cot's total numbers or not.   And to repeat,  I can't see spending more than $15.0 MM for 9 players. 

Acquisitions of Rajai Davis, Michael Hinckley, Winston Abreu and Carlos Villanueva don't make this team that much better, but with A.A. saying people want too much for trades, the Winter Meetings, 6-9 Dec., but starting the late evening of the 3rd of Dec., will be very important.

greenfrog - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 02:23 PM EST (#226707) #
Seems like a reasonable package for one year of Gonzalez, although a package of Kelly/Iglesias/Rizzo would have been ideal from San Diego's point of view. The Red Sox will be a force over the next couple of years, especially if they can sign Crawford. The Jays have a nice starting rotation, but offensively, there is no comparison between the two teams.
Alex Obal - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 02:44 PM EST (#226708) #
Casey Kelly is not a top prospect in my books. Iglesias is.

If you're the Padres GM and all you care about is looking like a genius, you might as well demand their top pitching prospect.

Looks like Boston did pretty well.

TamRa - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 03:01 PM EST (#226709) #
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but baseball-reference estimates the Jays are at 84.5M right now, factoring in arbitration raises.  (Not sure if Accardo and Lewis being non-tendered would lower that or not).

That's out of date. their list still includes EE, Tallet, Accardo and Lewis and doesn't include any new acquisitions.

I make the arbitration total as something in the low to mid 20's and the grand total in the high 60's


Wildrose - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 03:01 PM EST (#226710) #
The natives are certainly restless ( and I suppose after all these years of relative mediocrity I can't blame them.)

Excellent job by Matthew and Anders. I appreciate their pertinent appraisal of the current situation.

I think most of us feel, if the team spent at the same level as the Red Sox, and with the current management group you'd probably have  success both on the field and on the corporate bottom line.

Realistically until some corporate bean counter is willing to put his job on the line, improvement is going to be incremental.

Unfortunately, all the rabid, passionate fanboy wish-casting and venting in the world,  won't change this dynamic.

  

China fan - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 03:06 PM EST (#226711) #

...I find it amazing how fast AA's honeymoons is over for some folk.....

I wouldn't agree that AA's honeymoon is over.  I like all of his moves in his first 12 months.  He's an impressive guy.  I'm just suggesting that the time is right for him to step up and make some riskier moves, including the expenditure of some money on more than just fringe free agents.  Maybe he'll STILL do this -- I'm still hopeful.

.....While risky challenge trades for elite MLB talent (the Morrow deal) and for prospects (Wallace for Gose)  are one thing.....

Giving up Brandon League and Brett Wallace was risky? 

.....The Jake Marisnick's an Aaron Sanchez's of the world take about 5 years to actually get to the show....

Sure, but there's no guarantee that AA's draftees will be superior to previous draftees.  In the meantime, young talented players like Romero, Cecil, Morrow, Escobar, Snider, Hill and Lind are entering their peak years now.  Are we supposed to write them off and assume that nothing can be done until the latest draftees arrive in five years?  

....none of them have the franchise-crippling potential of the Gonzalez deal which empties the vault both of payroll flexibility and MLB-ready talent....

I don't see Boston being crippled by the cost or players involved in the Gonzalez trade.   What's the point of payroll flexibility and talent if you always have to hoard it for some future date, five years in the future?

 

sam - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 03:29 PM EST (#226712) #
Sure the Gonzalez trade looks great for the Red Sox, but there are several things that I think everyone should take into account. For one, this all but rules out the resigning of Adrian Beltre. Youklis now shifts over to third and Gonzalez plays first. So in my mind, this is a straight swap, Beltre for Gonzalez. They both play gold glove calibre defense and they are both great hitters with very similar stat lines. So what's the hoopla? You're now shifting over Youklis to third where he will undoubtedly be well below what Beltre was for them last year. And anyone who has watched those very few games over the last couple years of him at third are probably saying this is going to be ugly. So personally I'm not all too worried. They've given up their top prospect and a couple other very good ones to essentially downgrade their defense.
ayjackson - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 03:59 PM EST (#226713) #

Realistically until some corporate bean counter is willing to put his job on the line, improvement is going to be incremental.

Too true!

Unfortunately, all the rabid, passionate fanboy wish-casting and venting in the world,  won't change this dynamic.

Ouch!

Thomas - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 04:01 PM EST (#226714) #
You're not suggesting with a straight face that Beltre and Gonzalez are comparable hitters, are you?

I expected the Padres to do better in this deal, particularly given the year they had in 2010. Sure it may be unlikely to repeat itself, but the Padres are seriously damaging any chance they had at pennant contention in 2011 and, for a team that missed the playoffs by one game, that should come at an additional premium.
brent - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 04:12 PM EST (#226715) #
I don't think I'm a big fan of this for the Padres. They don't get a power pitcher, not that they need much pitching for Petco, they get a first baseman when they are easily found in MLB and speedy outfielder who was third best player of the bunch. The players also all just finished their season as 20 year olds. They are pretty far from  ready even though the top two were in AA. I'm not sure if this is better than just enjoying him for the year and taking the picks or waiting till the deadline. Maybe SD was afraid of compensation rule changes going forward and decided to cash him in now? The trade would look a little better then.
sam - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 04:52 PM EST (#226716) #
Well the difference isn't as apparent as you might think. Sure Beltre won't be in a contract year, but the differences are nominal. Beltre has had some pretty monstrous years including last year. Gonzalez has been consistently amazing. There's a two year age difference, while Beltre has twice the experience Gonzalez has. Last years numbers are very similar with Beltre eclipsing Gonzalez in several categories. Further, Beltre has the track record of producing in the toughest division in baseball, Gonzalez has produced in one of the worst hitters ball parks in baseball. If, and this is a big, Beltre continues to produce at the rate he did last year, even if his production declines moderately, and Gonzalez produces at the rate he's proven to produce at, there remains very little difference. Gonzalez is a superior player to Beltre, yes. Is that superiority so pronounced? No. Will the addition improve the Red Sox's exponentially? No. The addition means the subtraction of serious output to last year's team and a vast decrease in defense at a premium defensive position. Should the Red Sox acquire one of Crawford and Werth in addition to Gonzalez than the Red Sox have improved drastically.
ayjackson - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 04:54 PM EST (#226717) #
Reading Arangure's tweets from last night it sounds like Agon and his family were set on Boston.  It may be the SD had little leverage and had to move quick and quietly to maximize return (ie Agon would only sign an extention with Boston).  Sounds familiar.  Otherwise there's no excuse if you are a Padre fan for why this was done ahead of the Winter Meetings.  It certainly wasn't that blow your socks off package.
ayjackson - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 05:00 PM EST (#226718) #

Beltre has had exactly two monstrous years - 2004 and 2010.  They were both contract years.  They were also the last two seasons that Beltre played somewhere other than Safeco.  There's some guesswork there as to what, if anything, is driving the results.  I'm less inclined to believe Seattle was the problem though, because, if I recall correctly, Chavez Ravine has never been a hitters paradise and certainly wasn't in 2004.

While I'd like Beltre at 4 and $60m, I'd rather not surrender the picks.

If the Padres are in rebuild mode, I'd inquire about Chase Headley.

Chuck - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 05:36 PM EST (#226719) #

To channel Rocky... Adrian!!!!! Adrian!!!!

Adrian Gonzalez has a career OBP+ of 137. Adrian Beltre's is 108. Why are we even comparing the two offensively?

Now, an argument could be made that Beltre will be a better overall player than Gonzalez in 2011 (AB out-WAR'd AG 7 to 5 in 2010). But I would guess that Beltre is more likely to be a 4-win player in 2011 and Gonzalez a 6-win player. And if that's the case, then Youkilis+AG > Youkilis+AB if Youkilis drops no more than 2 wins defensively moving from 1B to 3B.

My instinct is that the Red Sox will make a gain, going from Beltre to Gonzalez, but it may not be a very big gain.

Chuck - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 05:39 PM EST (#226720) #

They don't get a power pitcher, not that they need much pitching for Petco,

They do play half their games on the road. Further, while Petco may have the effect of squeezing the gap between good and mediocre pitchers, you'd still prefer the good pitcher.

pooks137 - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 06:26 PM EST (#226721) #

I don't know the Red Sox system at all, but I do know the Jays' very well.

Could someone who is familiar with both please try to suggest what an equivalent package/players would have been on the Jays' behalf? Thanks in advance.

Mylegacy - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 07:06 PM EST (#226722) #
It wasn't to be because...

Even if we'd offered the Padres; Drabek, Gose and McDade a BETTER package than the Pads accepted - AND if we threw in Jenkins to make it CLEARLY VASTLY superior to Boston's offer - it still wouldn't have worked. Gonzalez WANTED to sign long term with Boston - he would not have agreed to do so with us - SO - we would have traded lots of pretty shiny things for ONE year of Gonzales - admittedly, we'd have gotten something for him at the trading deadline or at least two top picks in the 2012 Draft - IF - the new MLB contract allowed that - and that is - a fairly big "IF".

Time for an 18 year old single malt - I find 18 year old single malt exceptionally potent at lessening the pain brought on by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Outrageous fortune, what both my ex-wives nailed me for. Think I'll have a double.

Marc Hulet - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 08:03 PM EST (#226723) #
Gose+McDade+Jenkins is not > than Rizzo+Fuentes.
sam - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 08:22 PM EST (#226724) #
In light of the Bob Elliot claim that the Jays continue to show significant interest in Zack Greinke, it has me guessing what it would taken to land him.

I'd imagine negotiations probably start with one of Drabek or Snider, but I'd imagine the Jays would be simply unwilling to part with one of those two. Would a package built around three or four of Marcum, Arencibia, Stewart, Jenkins, Alvarez fly?

I think that outside Gose, Drabek, Snider, Romero, Morrow, Hechervarria, and any amateur player signed under Anthopolous, anyone can be had
Richard S.S. - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 09:14 PM EST (#226725) #

In light of the Bob Elliot claim that the Jays continue to show significant interest in Zack Greinke, it has me guessing what it would taken to land him.

Any deal for Zach Greinke must need Kyle Drabek as your entree into negotiations.   (Future Ace K.C. is looking for).   Marc Rzepczynski and Henderson Alvarez and a prospect will do the deal.   (You might get Alex Gordon - 1B, 3B, OF, Bench?, tossed in).  

If I'm adding one of our Starting Four to the offer list, I'm suggesting we increase the deal to include Joakim Soria.  Upgrade to Shaun Marcum or maybe Brett Cecil and Alvarez, a second prospect and offer 2 of too many relievers.   I'm sure A.A. will find the deal as long as something happens.

As long as the Pitching is upgraded, not a lot needs to be done.   An Outfield of: LF: Vernon Wells, CF: Rajai Davis and RF: Travis Snider is acceptable if we have a good 4th outfielder.   An Infield of: 1B: Adam Lind, 2B: Aaron Hill, SS: Yunel Escobar and 3B: Jose Bautista is acceptable.   We'll a big bat for DH, a better second catcher than Jose Molina and a good addition to the bench gives a good start on the upcoming season.

Marc Hulet - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 09:40 PM EST (#226726) #
It's going to hurt to get Greinke... Drabek, Snider, Arencibia, and Zach Stewart... and maybe a MLB reliever like David Purcey.
dan gordon - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 10:20 PM EST (#226727) #
On Rotoworld, they're saying Drabek, Snider plus 1 or 2 prospects would be what the Jays would be expected to surrender for Greinke.  I think that would be a huge mistake.  As mentioned here before, Greinke had a great year in 2009.  His numbers in 2007, 2008 and 2010 were much worse, and almost identical to each other.  It is a strong indication that those years represent the true level of his ability.  Looking at those 3 years, you see a very good, but not truly outstanding pitcher.  To give up that much of the Jays future for a player of that calibre - well, I can't imagine them making that trade.  Perhaps there is something specific they know that makes them think Greinke can pitch somewhat like he did in 2009, but to me, that year looks like a complete outlier, and is unlikely to be repeated.
Mike Green - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 10:25 PM EST (#226728) #
I wouldn't trade Snider for Greinke.  And it's not close.  Snider, Drabek and Stewart would be much more than the Jays got for Halladay who is a far better pitcher than Greinke. 

Matthew E - Saturday, December 04 2010 @ 11:03 PM EST (#226729) #
It's going to hurt to get Greinke... Drabek, Snider, Arencibia, and Zach Stewart... and maybe a MLB reliever like David Purcey.

Are you kidding me? I wouldn't trade that group for a young Diana Rigg.

Does anybody really want Greinke this bad? Is he that much better than the fifth best of Romero/Marcum/Morrow/Cecil/Drabek/Rzepczynski/Stewart/Richmond/Mills/whoever? Let's say it's Drabek, for the sake of argument: Is Greinke going to help this team more than Drabek + Arencibia? (Or substitute your own pretend math for mine.) I have serious doubts about it.

Bull (deleted) (deleted)!   85 wins without an Ace (2-4 wins); with a revolving door for 5th starter (2-3 wins); with a Closer who couldn't win in back-to-back games or win two of a three game series (1-3 wins); with a bullpen that finished 10th out of 14 teams (3-4 wins); with Cito Gaston's strange managing + with Adam Lind no longer hitting to all field and walking less + with Aaron Hill's offensive and defensive woes + with a team that didn't walk, steal bases, or control strikeouts (5-10 wins).    This wasn't an increase from 75 wins to 85 wins.   This was a 75 wins to an expected 62 wins to an unexpected and surprising 85 wins.

Don't swear at me, Richard, I'm notoriously fragile.

First, you've said all this before and I had a problem with it then too. It's deceptive to say that the Jays didn't have an ace last year. If they had had, instead, the 2010 version of Shaun Marcum and a bunch of scrubs, there'd be no problem calling Marcum the ace. The only reason we're not calling him one is because there were three other guys about as good. The starting pitching was a strength in 2010, not a weakness; you shouldn't call it a weakness. I'll also point out again that the Jays' fifth starter performance was probably pretty similar to that of most other teams.

Second, it's a bit weird to object to me saying that the 2010 Jays were deeply flawed and then go on and list all their deep flaws.
TamRa - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 12:24 AM EST (#226730) #
Could someone who is familiar with both please try to suggest what an equivalent package/players would have been on the Jays' behalf? Thanks in advance.

One opinion, from Kevin Goldstien via Twitter:

Jays set wins. RT @NorthYorkJays: @Kevin_Goldstein Drabek/Arencibia/Marisnick or Kelly/Rizzo/Fuentes?

So there's that.

TamRa - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 12:36 AM EST (#226731) #
I wouldn't trade Snider for Greinke.  And it's not close.  Snider, Drabek and Stewart would be much more than the Jays got for Halladay who is a far better pitcher than Greinke.

This.

Thank you.

I'm mystified at the whole idea that Grienke is worth so much anyway.

He had a monster 2009. And a very average 2010.

Just like the big difference between, for instance, Adam Liind in 2009 and in 2010.

no one here speaks of Lind as if going forward we should expect 2009 to be the standard, yet they do for Grienke.

No one here acts like we can pencil in Bautista for 50 homers for the next few years, yet there are those who think if you deal for Grienke you are getting the 2009 version.

Based on what?


92-93 - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 02:05 AM EST (#226736) #

Who hacked into Marc Hulet's account?! I too wouldn't trade Snider straight up for Greinke - it makes very little sense for the Blue Jays considering their strength is in pitching and they lack offensive upside in the lineup.

I cringe at the fact that people are willing to trade top prospects for top players but aren't willing to just go sign them on the FA market. You want Adrian Gonzalez and a 7 year deal? Sign the 2 years older Adam Dunn instead for 4 years. 3 of your top prospects is a heck of a price to pay for better defense, especially when one of them might be the best pitching prospect in baseball. 

I want the Blue Jays to spend more money, but there's no reason for them to spend their top prospects as well doing it.

Marc Hulet - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 09:40 AM EST (#226741) #

Halladay might be the better the pitcher but Greinke is significantly young and has Cy Young talent. He's signed for two more years and there are a lot more legit suitors for Greinke than there were for Halladay when he finally got traded. AA had his back up against the wall when he traded Halladay, but the Royals are in the driver's seat with this deal. Teams just don’t trade young pitching like this… The closest and most recent example is the Dan Haren deal and he’s not as talented as Greinke. The Angels had to give up a young MLB starter (3rd starter ceiling), two pitchers that will be on Arizona’s Top 10 prospect list and another hard-throwing young relief pitcher.

bpoz - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 10:22 AM EST (#226742) #
Z Greinke's 2009 season had his best hits & K ratio to IP and he was marvelous. He had some other pretty good years too but not as good as 2009.

As various Bauxites do evaluations, how about the home park factor and in 2010 he pitched 2gm VS Bos, 2gm VS TB and 0gm VS NYY. He did quite well against BOS & TB.

For me though our top 4 are capable of 15 win seasons playing for the Jays in the AL East. How much better can Greinke be potential/capable wise?

Mike Green I thought you were brilliant to use the Halladay package as a standard sort of. This "standard" concept is a good evaluation tool to help me understand big trades eg A Gon, maybe J Upton ....

A Gon can be a big piece to the BOS lineup if A Beltre is also there. How Bos achieves that is their project.
NYY always seems to have a lineup with no "soft" spots, Bos and eventually Tor should also aim for that, how power, OBP etc... mix in as well as $ restrictions are all a part of the construction.
greenfrog - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 10:58 AM EST (#226744) #
It is frustrating to miss out on a player like Gonzalez when (a) he's exactly the kind of player the Jays need (for one thing, in 692 PA, he had more walks last year than Adam Lind and Vernon Wells's combined 1259 PA - without even getting into his defensive skills), and (b) AA could have surpassed the Red Sox package of prospects without even denting the farm system or the rotation all that much. However, I do think the player's preference and the feasibility of an extension were big factors in the trade.
Chuck - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 12:27 PM EST (#226748) #

For me though our top 4 are capable of 15 win seasons playing for the Jays in the AL East. How much better can Greinke be potential/capable wise?

We don't have to use our imaginations to divine Greinke's potential. Just look at his 2009 season. Whether he is ever able to repeat that season is anyone's guess, but it certainly tells you what he is actually capable of, rather than merely potentially capable of.

 

Chuck - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 12:43 PM EST (#226749) #

Mike Green I thought you were brilliant to use the Halladay package as a standard sort of. This "standard" concept is a good evaluation tool to help me understand big trades eg A Gon, maybe J Upton ....

The similarities with the Halladay and Gonzalez trades were that (a) the players had one season left on their current contracts, (b) the players were not going to resign with their current teams, (c) the trades were contingent on an extension being signed and (d) the players were heading to playoff caliber teams (who would be willing to pay for the incremental gain their new players would add).

Were the Jays to have traded for Gonzalez without him having any desire at all of signing an extension, the Padres could not have asked for as much from the Jays as they did from the Red Sox. While Gonzalez did not have a no-trade clause, to maximize their return the Padres had to consider a target team Gonzalez would be willing to sign with.

I don't think that Justin Upton fits into the Halladay/Gonzalez trade model. He is not a veteran at the peak of his abilities and his 2011 performance cannot easily be forecast. And he is not an impending free agent for whom the team trading him wants to get something while they can. He'd presumably be traded because he's a high upside player earning $10M on a team that would prefer much cheaper high upside players almost certainly not as far down their development paths.

92-93 - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 02:23 PM EST (#226750) #
Haren may not be as talented as Greinke (debatable) but he was going to cost less and was under team control for 2 more years, with one of those being a team friendly option. Even so, Saunders/Skaggs/Corbin/Rodriguez is NOWHERE near Drabek/Snider/Arencibia/Stewart/Purcey. The package the Angels gave up would be more akin to Litsch/Stewart/Alvarez/Purcey.
Marc Hulet - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 02:53 PM EST (#226751) #
The package for Haren would be similar to Marcum, Stewart, Alvarez, and Purcey
Alex Obal - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 03:06 PM EST (#226754) #
/jon hyeman reports that the diamondbacks, blue jays are discussing straight marcum-for-saunders swap. dbacks might require more $$$/emmanuel burriss.
Paul D - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 04:01 PM EST (#226758) #
/jon hyeman reports that the diamondbacks, blue jays are discussing straight marcum-for-saunders swap.

What am I missing?  How does this improve Toronto?
ayjackson - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 05:17 PM EST (#226765) #
Alex was making light of Marc's suggestion that Marcum has the same trade value as Saunders.
Alex Obal - Sunday, December 05 2010 @ 05:21 PM EST (#226766) #
What ay said. That was a weak attempt at sarcasm on my part. If a team offered Saunders, Skaggs, Rodriguez and Corbin for Marcum alone, I'd turn them down. If they asked for three more players, I'd laugh at them.
Cheering for the Enemy | 158 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.