That's not very surprising. They graduate Feliz and Moreland to the majors and traded Smoak to the Mariners. Feliz and Smoak were their #1 and 2 prospects last year with a bullet. A fall to 12 is steep, but I guess several of their 6-15 prospects didn't have great seasons.

Forkball,
It's not an official Box policy, but generally we won't link to anything that's behind a paywall. I'd guess somewhere in the low single digits percent of Bauxites are Insiders.

The issue is that a low percentage of people are subscribers. Most Bauxites, I suspect as well, are not Insiders. Thus, most Bauxites are receiving content meant for paid subscribers, for which they did not pay. This content isn't publicly available and it isn't wise for Da Box to make that content available for anyone who comes across it.

So if it helps that low percentage and doesn't impact anyone else,

I assume that purting in a link shouldn't be an issue. If  the article is behind a paywall then only subscribers could actually read the info.  My impression of past practice here is that the Box didn't print copy that's restricted to subscribers (or at most only a very brief excerpt).

Speaking of  Sam Dyson  - Reading somewhere that he had another surgery and will miss 2011 is my 2nd biggest disappointment of the Jays offseason (the lost picks for Frasor being #1) - Can someone confirm that this is true as I was really high on him and expected Dyson/Wojo/McGuire to be fast movers - I guess that's the risk you take with an injury plagued pitcher.

85BlueJay: Nathan Rode mentioned about Dyson in BA's Jay top ten chat in November:

"Tom (San Francisco, CA): Where does Sam Dyson begin next year? If his arm holds up, would you take him over Stewart as the closer of the future?

Nathan Rode: Just underwent Tommy John surgery so he'll miss 2011. I'd give Stewart every chance to start at this point. And I'd like to see Dyson stay healthy. I'll go Stewart at this point."

85BlueJay: Nathan Rode mentioned about Dyson in BA's Jay top ten chat in November:

"Tom (San Francisco, CA): Where does Sam Dyson begin next year? If his arm holds up, would you take him over Stewart as the closer of the future?

Stewart's interesting. GM AA is always talking him up, saying he may even be better than Drabek etc., Other scouts are not sure if he will even end up as a starter. That seems like quite a discord, so it will be worth watching to see how and where the Jays use him.

ramone

               Thanks for the Dyson update - that really sucks - When he returns the Jays will probably put him in the

pen given his age and fast track him

Jays 40 man roster here

The Jays have acquired so much talent, they will have to start making tougher 40 man roster decisions. If they need space, guys like Richmond, Roenicke, McCoy are going to start getting exposed. I would say that is good news.

First of all, clearly great news that the Jays have 7 guys on the list (second to the Rays with 8). With that being said, I'm surprised that Carlos Perez didn't make the top 100, or even the next 10. Personally speaking, Perez is my favourite of the Jays prospects, and I think he has a ton of upside. 20 year old catchers with good defense who hit 300/400/440, even in low-A ball, don't grow on trees. The Jays have been fairly conservative with him I suppose.

I guess that he really likes Montero, and presumably Betances as well.

Banuelos actually, not so much Betances.  Banuelos was his fourth ranking pitcher (Drabek was fifth).

Nice little tidbit from Law's chat:

Who are couple guys in bottom of the top 100 that have the best chance to be top 20ish next year? Sanchez? Hak Lee?

Gary Sanchez, yes. Could see Aaron Sanchez make a big jump, for that matter. Hamilton, Matias, McNutt, Arcia, Zach Lee.

I think #2 only applies to arbitration awards?  And not settlements?  For instance, if the Jays settled with Frasor, his contract is guaranteed, but the Arb award will not be.

Rivera is in the last year of a multiyear contract - his salary is gtd.  even if he is released.

.....Promises were made to Buck when he was signed that he would play from the start of the season until the end. If the Jays didn't live up to this, it would hurt the Jays in trying to get other free agents.....

Well, there it is.  An absolutely clear statement from Jays management, giving a very reasonable explanation of why Buck was played and JPA rode the bench last September.  Buck was the starting catcher in September so that the Jays would not be damaged in future free-agent negotiations.  It was nothing to do with Gaston's alleged bias in favor of veterans. Nothing to do with his alleged failings as a manager.  Nothing to do with his implied (or stated) stupidity.

Many people on Da Box were quick to ridicule Gaston for playing Buck ahead of JPA.  In reality, they should have been applauding Gaston as someone who didn't care about fan criticism, someone who was loyal to the team without pointing fingers of blame. He could have blamed the Jays management for making this promise to Buck, but he never did.

I wonder if any of the countless Gaston critics will withdraw any of their criticism now.  I predict that most of them will slink away silently -- and a few will claim that there's a giant conspiracy by Jays management to make false statements to protect the all-powerful Cito....

Does that work if you keep that reason secret, though? That sounds more like something said to comfort JPA than to lure more FAs to Toronto.

It works just fine - I think we all tend to over-estimate the amount of information that gets from the players to the public. Buck wouldn't discuss such a promise with anyone in the press, unless maybe he was pressed hard on it (which sports reporters don't do, generally). Buck would certainly let it be known to other players if they asked him about it afterwards, "They said I'd play if I was healthy, and I got to play even when the new young guy was around - they kept their word to me". I doubt Buck would be actively calling other players to advertise it, but I suspect we all underestimate the amount of interaction players have with one another off the field about such things (likely through agents quite a bit, and sports agents don't tell anything to the press unless they are trying to manipulate something). If I was going to possibly sign a 5 million dollar contract somewhere, I think either myself or my agent would definitely make contact with a few recent departees. And since a lot of players share agents, that wouldn't even be necessary sometimes.

Long paragraph to say - the story seems plausible to me. Of course, it fits nicely with Gaston's preferences - I suspect management would have rightly felt it not being worth picking a fight with Gaston to get 5-10 more games for Arencibia. I was probably frustrated at the time too, but in the end, it didn't matter much - if a September in the majors not playing much hurt his development significantly, that would be strange.

140-150 million payroll though - I assume that's Beeston's fever dream world of drawing 4 million fans again.

Did the Jays also promise Molina that if Buck was injured he would get most of the starts as well?

The universe that has Jeff Blair host a show every single day on the Fan 590 where he constantly brings up the mystery surrounding Clarence's refusal to play Arencibia vs. anybody who wasn't a LH CY Young contender?

Or the universe that has Keith Law write this about JPA just yesterday -

He debuted with a bang, hitting two home runs, a single and a double in his first major-league game, and then went 1-for-30 in irregular playing time. (I'm not sure the mishandling of Arencibia is Exhibit A in why Cito Gaston needed to go, but it's near the top of the pile of screw-ups from a manager who was overmatched by the task at hand.)

Or maybe it's in the universe that caused Richard Griffin to discuss handling the lingering question of ex-manager Cito Gaston’s use of veteran John Buck, who, in search of 20 home runs as he headed toward free agency, hogged the late season at-bats at the expense of rookie prospect J.P. Arencibia, who needed the experience.

This isn't some issue that was confined to Batter's Box, as you seem to want to make it out to be. It was all over the place - TV, newspaper, and radio, and has persisted ever since. It's completely worthless when the FO uses a Q at the State of the Franchise to "clear" up the issue 6 months later, and it's downright hilarious that China Fan used that as his platform to relaunch a dormant issue that he was wrong about then and is wrong about now.

Hey - the manager was taking a bullet for the GM. Who knew? I sure didn't.

Hey - the GM took a bullet for the manager. Who knew? I sure did.

Magpie has it exactly right, as usual.  Beeston and Anthopolous were not being "hounded" by the media about JPA and Buck.  In fact, Beeston and Anthopolous do not talk to the media every day (it is the manager who does that) and when they do talk to the media, it is brief conference calls on narrowly prescribed subjects: the latest trade or acquisition.  That's why Wilner and Ashby were in the dark.  Nobody had "hounded" Anthopolous about the JPA situation, so AA hadn't made a clear statement on it.

Believe it or not, 92-93, nobody except a handful of fans was obsessed with the JPA-Buck situation.  That's why the question was not clearly addressed and answered until now. 

In fact, Anthopolous had already stated (in a Jeff Blair interview in September) that he didn't have any problem with Gaston sitting JPA.  The only thing that hadn't clearly been explained was the exact reason for JPA sitting.  And now that the reason has been stated, isn't it worth getting it on the record?  After the dozens of attacks on Gaston by a number of Bauxites last September, why shouldn't the matter be discussed now -- when all the facts are finally on the table?

As for TamRa's argument that this "supposition" was never mentioned before -- sorry, it was.  Defenders of Gaston had noted that the Jays might suffer on the free-agent market if they signed a guy and then benched him in September after he'd had an all-star season.  So that reason had been floated, but Gaston's detractors never wanted to believe it, or any other explanation.

.....Hey - the GM took a bullet for the manager. Who knew? I sure did.....

Wow, this is an absolutely incredible statement, so let me try to understand it.  You're actually arguing that Beeston and Anthopolous are flat-out lying to the public -- and for the sole purpose of protecting a manager who retired 6 months ago? 

As I predicted earlier, Gaston's detractors are never persuaded by the evidence.  If the evidence contradicts them, they simply claim that everyone is lying.

Well, there it is.

Here we go again.  All because someone felt it was necessary to pound their chest.

Yes, 92-93,

I remember those thrilling pennant races of 2006-8 - had me on the edge of my chair.Bring back JP.

You know it's the off-season when minor arguments get overblown.

Bring on spring training.

.....the stuff that fits your narrow narrative....

Of course the "narrow narrative" on the JPA-Buck issue was that Gaston was irrationally and stupidly favoring veterans and hurting the long-term development of the prospects.  The complex narrative was that Gaston had many plausible reasons for doing what he did -- including the reason that was clearly stated by Beeston and Anthopolous last night.

Of course China Fan your narrative also included a slagging of JPA at every opportunity.  Every available catcher was potentially coming to the Jays because the Jays had no confidence in JPA.  It was almost comical.  How'd that work out?

Actually I never slagged JPA -- please find a single post where I slagged JPA.   All I did was quote Anthopolous himself, who said he didn't want to be "left naked" at catcher -- and then attempted to sign Russell Martin to catch for 4 games a week.  Or are you saying that AA's statements and actions are trivial and should be ignored?

As for how it worked out:  let's wait and see.  Do you predict that JPA will get 120 starts at catcher in 2011?  If that's your prediction, we can wait until the end of the season and see what happens.  I'd love to see it happen, because that would indicate a very strong rookie season from JPA and a good future ahead, but yes, I do have some skepticism, as many others do too.  I'd be happy to revisit this discussion at the end of the season, when we will know whether there were reasonable grounds for my skepticism.

I think you`ve touted John Buck, Miguel Olivo, Mike Napoli, Pat Borders, Russ Martin.... I've missed a few.  Actually I don't believe AA was interested in Martin.  The way AA operates is that you don't hear about these things in advance and we heard the Martin rumours.  Actually, I have my doubts about JPA myself but we won't know if he's bad, good or great unless he plays.  These other guys we already know are mediocre to OK.  We don`t need to play them to find that out.

Actually it was Russell Martin himself who said that Anthopolous had pursued him, tried to sign him, and offered him a starting job at catcher 4 days a week  (which doesn't sound like a vote of confidence in JPA).  But I suppose Martin could be lying, just like Beeston and Anthopolous could be lying about what happened in September. Personally I prefer to believe people.

Anyway I'm quite willing to wait and see what happens between now and Opening Day. Let's see if JPA is handed the starting job without any competition, and let's see if he plays 120 games in 2011.  It's not a slagging of JPA to suggest that he might not be quite ready for a full-time permanent job at catcher in his rookie season.  It's just the ordinary arc of development. There are a few notable exceptions, of course, but most rookie catchers need a season or two to work up to a full-time gig.

All AA had to do was pick up Olivo`s option.  Your problem is solved.

Personally I prefer to believe people.

Except when it's Clarence himself telling you the reasons why Buck was playing and not Arencibia. Those you chose to ignore.

One, it throws Buck under a bus, so to speak, by saying that the only reason we are playing you is a verbal promise and, in effect, you are the one responsible for potentially delaying/hampering our young catcher's development.

I don't know how you read that as throwing Buck under the bus as opposed to the Blue Jays. The all-star player has every right to want to play everyday and be looking out for his own best interests, not the team he's about to leave's. AA, on the other hand, had no business guaranteeing everyday playing time straight through to the end of the season to a veteran with a limited market who was looking for work and found it on a team whose best position prospect was a MLB-close C.

....Except when it's Clarence himself telling you the reasons why Buck was playing and not Arencibia. Those you chose to ignore....

Nope, not ignoring them.  I'm saying there were multiple reasons why JPA sat in September.  Gaston mentioned some of them, and another major reason was explained yesterday by Beeston and Anthopolous.  As I said from the very beginning, Gaston's comments were taken out of context -- people reduced it to one reason (20 home runs) when he actually mentioned several reasons, and he never excluded other reasons.  As others have noted, Gaston had no right to talk about verbal contracts between Anthopolous and Buck, so he didn't. 

.....AA, on the other hand, had no business guaranteeing everyday playing time straight through to the end of the season to a veteran with a limited market....

Sounds like you're finally fixing the blame on Anthopolous, rather than Gaston.  It's a nice change.

And that's my last comment on this issue, because everyone else is fed up with the subject.  I'll let 92-93 or TamRa have the last word if they wish.

sorry for the change of topic...but scuttlebutt on the net is indicating that the Jays are the 3rd team in the ongoing figgins for Kouz....with Kouz eventually ending up in T.O,...

Frankly, I find it hard to believe any of the prospects in the second half of the list should be ranked higher than Jimenez. (I could maybe see an argument for Cardona if one wanted to lean heavily on upside and minimize the likelihood of reaching it.)

The other prospects Da Box placed in the Top 20 that BA didn't rate were Joel Carreno (16), Darin Mastroianni (19) and Brad Emaus (20). The fact those names weren't ranked by BA (they probably considered Emaus as part of the Mets organization anyhow) reflect their traditional focus on tools, as opposed to how close the prospect is to the majors and the likelihood of them making some contribution to the majors.

The omission of Jimenez is quite surprising.

.....somehow Arencibia only got into 4 or 5 games the whole month of August....

That's because Arencibia did not spend "the whole month of August" in the major leagues.  He was only in Toronto from Aug. 7 to Aug. 19.