There's a lot of symmetry going around.
The Jays sit at 51-51, which they've achieved by playing .500 ball on the road (27-27) and at home (24-24.) So much for Home Field Advantage (which in baseball, normally runs about 54-46.)
60 games remaining will allow the manager to turn over his five starters a dozen times. If one of those starters was Roy Halladay, and if the Blue Jays were competing for something, another manager (read John Gibbons) might take advantage of the six off days between now and the end of the season to skip the fifth starter and keep his ace working on regular rest. But on this team, this year - what's the point?
There's been no official word who will get the ball on Saturday against Seattle. I assume it will be Jesse Litsch, but Mills and Stewart have both been mentioned as candidates. I found the team's decision to give Jo-Jo Reyes 20 starts while sending Litsch to AAA vaguely... offensive. Among other things, baseball is - or ought to be - a meritocracy. You should earn what you get, and you should get what you earn. There is no way Reyes had earned opportunities that Litsch had not, and that bothers me. I also think - correction, I know for damn sure - that the players notice things like that.
The idea of carrying someone on the roster who can't help you right now, but who you believe will be useful down the road - that's something altogether different. It's exactly the same as carrying a Rule 5 guy, something this franchise did with spectacular success back in the day. I have no doubt that it drove Bobby Cox and Jimy Williams and Cito Gaston out of their minds - each of whom was trying to win something that year, and each of whom was obliged to take a short-handed roster into a knife fight. There was a payoff. The first division winner had George Bell and Willie Upshaw in the lineup, Jim Acker and Gary Lavelle (acquired in a trade for Rule 5 pick Jim Gott) in the pen. The first World Series team had Manuel Lee and Kelly Gruber in the infield. The Jays haven't uncovered anything more useful than Tomas Perez this way in the past 20 years, but the principle is still valid - especially in a year when you don't expect to compete.
But I still don't get what they did with Reyes. They put him in a role where he had failed before, and sonovagun, he failed again. There's a well known definition of insanity that instantly comes to mind. But here's the thing - if you like his arm that much, why wouldn't you try something different with him? Scott Downs went 12-14, 5.35 as a major league starter - better than Reyes, but nowhere near good enough for the major leagues. I don't remember anyone around here thinking he was likely to amount to anything. But the previous regime saw something they liked, and found him a job he could actually do. I'd be surprised if Reyes turns out to be the next Scott Downs, but hey - we were all surprised when Scott Downs turned out to be Scott Downs.
https://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20110725220051621