Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The Yankees come to Toronto for the last time this year, and are the second last team to grace the Dome this year. They've pretty much locked up the division and homefield advantage throughout the AL playoffs, and have an outside shot at 100 wins (they have to go 10-4.) So, there's that.

Advance Scout, activate!



Friday: C.C. Sabathia vs. Dustin McGowan

Breaking: Brett Cecil got scratched from his start this afternoon for cutting a finger on his pitching hand while cleaning a blender (really.) Dustin McGowan gets bumped up from Sunday to today, and Kyle Drabek will be his caddy.

Well, in case you didn't know it C.C. Sabathia is really, really good. It's fair to say that Justin Verlander is probably having the superior season, as he does lead the AL in the traditional triple crown statistics. If you want to adjust at all for the fact that Yankee Stadium plays as a huge hitters park, or that by wOBA 5 of the best 8 hitting teams play in the AL East while 4 of the bottom 8 play in the AL Central (the exception being the Tigers, who Verlander doesn't face), or that Verlander's batting average on balls in play is 80 points lower than Sabathia's, and, well, it's not such a slam dunk, though I would bet literally everything I own that Verlander wins the Cy Young in a landslide. Anyway. Sabathia is still the power pitcher who goes deep into games, mixing in four pitchers. He relies predominantly on a fastball that comes in around 93-94, and on a 10 MPH slower slider that is one of the best pitches in baseball. According to pitchFX he is throwing a curveball for the first time in about five seasons, though I think that may be a classification issue. Lastly CC will throw a hard changeup, Brad Mills fastball speed. Expect to see him a couple times - he's pitched fewer than 6 innings exactly once this year, in April, when he went 5.2 against the Red Sox, and he's allowed 5 earned runs and struck out 25 in his last three starts totaling 19.1 innings.  Against the Jays he's given up 7 runs in 24.1 innings - that's only three starts. JPA is 2/13 lifetime, Edwin 6/23, Yunel Escobar 4/17, Kelly Johnson 1/7, Mark Teahan 12/38, Jose Molina 0/14 and Jose Bautista an incredible 0/18, albeit with a walk.

Saturday: Bartolo Colon vs. Henderson Alvarez

Bartolo is still old and still portly, and before he allowed a solitary unearned run against the Angels over seven in his last start had been getting knocked around a bit, including by the Jays who scored 4 in 6.1. In his other three starts against Toronto he gave up 2, 6 and 8 runs. Colon's secret to success this year has been his regained his velocity, and he is pumping in 4 seamers in the mid-low 90s (92-93) to go along with his sinker. He has a hard slider about 10 MPH slower, and will throw about 4-5 change-up's a game. JPA is 2/8, Bautista 3/8, both with homers. Mark Teahan is 3/17, Yunel 4/10, Encarnacion 2/12, Lind 3/11.

Sunday: Freddy Garcia vs. Brendon Morrow?

While McGowan has been pushed up, no starter has been announced for Sunday yet. I'm gonna go ahead and guess Morrow, as he's next in line and the Jays had two off-days this past week.

Freddy Garcia's success has to be considered less shocking than Colon's, at least by a little. Garcia is three years younger and had a good season in 2009, though the end of his run as a consistently good pitcher was in 2005. Garcia has lost zip on his fastball though, almost four mph from his hey day, but the pitch has never been better than average in the Majors and he only throws it about a third of the time. To compensate Garcia's throwing his good split fingered pitch much more than he has in the past. Topping out around 80, Garcia gets good arm action on the splitter, while mixing in a pretty decent curve and still effective slider, and the occasional change-up. After a strong couple months towards the end of summer, Garcia has been getting knocked around a bit in his last two, giving up 12 runs to those noted offensive powerhouses Anaheim and Baltimore. He's given up 12 runs in 16.1 innings against the Jays this year. Jose Molina is 9/25, Teahan 8/24, Lind 2/6, Bautista 4/8, and Thames and Arencibia good in limited samples, 3/6 and 2/3.

Otherwise, the Yanquis are the powerhouse we all know and love. I know not everyone loves WAR, but the Bronx Bombers have a remarkable 6 players who achieve the 4 WAR threshold. It seems a new generation of Yankees is taking over, led by Granderson, Cano, Teix, Brett Gardner, Nick Swisher, etc.

Mariano Rivera is also exactly one save behind Trevor Hoffman, 600 to 601, for the all-time lead in saves, so he could tie and even surpass Hoffman this year, though he has in fact been the far superior pitcher overall. Sabathia is also going for win number 20.

A-Rod has been out the last five games (deja vu!) but may be back tonight.

Since making his second and third starts against Toronto, Jesus Montero has been alright; his overall line is .286/.359/.571 in 39 PA almost exclusively as a DH.

Finally for the Jays, Colby Ramus and Brett Lawrie are back in the lineup but Yunel Escobar remains on the bench after getting hit by a pitch last Sunday. It also looks like Lind and E5 are being flipped in the 4/5 spots, while Edwin taking over cleanup responsibilities.

Infirmary: Joba is done for the year, while Francisco Cervelli and Damaso Marte are out for the series. As mentioned, A-Rod may be back today.

Credit: Fangraphs and Yahoo! Sports.


Advance Scout: New York Yankees, September 16-18 | 191 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
92-93 - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 04:14 PM EDT (#244070) #
Since Beeston took over we have been told over and over again the team "will spend when the time is right". Jeff Blair now says Beeston "will not okay six or seven-year deals". Apparently I'm the only person around here that finds this alarming, cuz there's been nary a mention. Instead people are concerned with where Hechavarria and Gose will play in 2014. I've never seen a fan base that accepts mediocrity for this long under the guise of a "building" project.
mathesond - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 04:55 PM EDT (#244071) #
I've never seen a fan base that accepts mediocrity for this long under the guise of a "building" project.

That's easy - if the players you have aren't good enough to get the job done, then the hotshots in the minors must be better.
hypobole - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 04:57 PM EDT (#244072) #

 This isn't "a" rebuilding project. it's the 3rd.  The 1st 2 under Ash and Ricciardi were failures.  And Ricciardi's did include long term contracts. 

AA's project has been ongoing for all of less than 2 years. However he is using the Rays model rather than the Yankees/Red Sox model. Unfortunately for some, that model is not analagous to "get rich quick", but rather "sustained long term growth".

As far as Beeston refusing to be a drunken sailor; I find it hardly surprising and not incongruous with statements made about spending when the time is right.

MatO - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 05:00 PM EDT (#244073) #
I did mention the Blair article in another thread because I thought it was pretty significant.  It resulted in one neutral-ish comment.  Whether Loewen could be a PTNL in the Rasmus trade seems to have had most of the momentum.
hypobole - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 05:06 PM EDT (#244074) #

I maybe should have also mentioned the failure of the Oakland model JPR originally used. Here is a bit of insight in this Keith Law catharsis courtesy of Drunk Jays Fans.

http://www.drunkjaysfans.com/2011/09/layin-down-law-keith-law-on-scouts.html

92-93 - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#244075) #
It's incongruous because the only way to spend when the time is right is to target elite FAs. Otherwise you're just spending to retain talent, which isn't what Beeston has been implying all along, has always been expected of the Jays, and doesn't get you to payrolls north of 120m.

AA's project may have been going on for only 2 years, but Beeston's is now at 3. And from his recent comments, you can pencil in a 4th year. Unacceptable.
greenfrog - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 05:46 PM EDT (#244076) #
I don't really see how you can be unhappy with the Jays under AA. Everything is flowing in the right direction. We're seeing upgrades at a number of key positions, the farm system is now considered to be top-3 (instead of bottom-3, as under Ricciardi), Bautista is signed for 5 years, the mother of all bad contracts was deftly shipped to the west coast...I mean, what's not to like? If the Jays become as competitive as the Rays, does it really matter if it takes another year or two or three? Are you really saying that you can wait 20 years for a contender, but you can't - won't - wait 21, 22, or 23 for a dynasty?
uglyone - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 05:47 PM EDT (#244077) #
I think that is purely Blair speculation.

Beeston has approved of a number of 5 year deals already, why would he blush at a 6-7 year deal?
TamRa - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 05:49 PM EDT (#244078) #
I notice BLAIR said "Beeston won't spend" - rather than providing a Beeston quote in which he specifically says "I won't go past five years on anyone"

That's more notable in that just below he DOES directly quote Alex.


“When we look at free agents, we better believe those guys are a clear upgrade over what we have internally,” he said. “Because to go out and sign a free agent who is a back-end starter and commit dollars and years and then find out halfway though the year some of these guys are coming in, the way Henderson Alvarez did this year …”


That's fairly similar to what i've been saying for some time now.

As for Pujols/Fielder - if that turns out to be true, fine, go get Yonder Alonso. (unless you think Loewen can be better than Lind).


uglyone - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 05:51 PM EDT (#244079) #
If they bump Ricky up a day, he can pitch on Sunday on short rest, and then be on track for 2 more starts after that and pitch the final game of the year.

Given that he's set a career record in wins at 15, and having a career year all around, is it worth it to give him a chance to bolster his numbers, get up into 17-18 win territory, and maybe give him every chance to put up as impressive a statistical season as possible?

or is it better not to pile on after he's already set a career mark in IP?
TamRa - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 06:03 PM EDT (#244081) #
no chance. with so many pitchers to look at, they will not even consider going on short rest for an empty statistical goal.



Gerry - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 06:26 PM EDT (#244082) #
Off the top of my head here are the last several long term deals signed by the Jays:

Jose Bautista
Aaron Hill
Adam Lind
Ricky Romero
Alex Rios
Vernon Wells
AJ Burnett
BJ Ryan


How many of those were good for the Jays? Two, maybe if Bautista keeps going.

Once bitten twice shy. The Bautista deal was somewhat team friendly. Free agent contracts go to the highest bidder, that ups the risk considerably.
uglyone - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 07:01 PM EDT (#244086) #
with so many pitchers to look at,

er...what?
Anders - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 07:16 PM EDT (#244087) #
The AJ Burnett deal actually turned out alright, though it helped that he left when he did, and Eric Hinske wasn't so bad. Aaron Hill they left themselves with outs, and I believe Lind has a bunch of options too.

The Wells, Rios and Ryan deals were absolute disasters though, and the overall point, that youjustdontknow, is a good one.

uglyone - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 07:22 PM EDT (#244088) #
I still do that Ryan deal again in a heartbeat.

And we definitely got good value for that AJ deal.
Nick Holmes - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 07:53 PM EDT (#244089) #
How many of those were good for the Jays? Depends on if you see the Angels & White Sox as potential rivals for a second wild card...
Richard S.S. - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 08:51 PM EDT (#244090) #
Bautista was an A.A. / Beeston contract - good signing.
Hill was an A.A. / J.P. contract - good signing. Aaron worst year got us Kelly Johnson and options.
Lind was an A.A. / Beeston contract - good signing. It's too early to pass judgement on him (especially since his defense is so good).
Romero was an A.A. / Beeston contract - good signing.
Rios was A.A.'s 1st / J.P. contract - good signing. Too bad Rios turned out to be such a wing nut, he forgot how to play or was how to learn how to play.
Wells was a J.P. / Organization weirdly structured contract - over-valued signing. Two or three Million less a year and I still make the same deal (7 years $15.0-$16.0 per year). Wells only had one bad year while with us (excluding injuries).
Burnett was a J.P. contract - good signing, stupid opt-out clause.
Ryan was a J. P. contract - good signing, unbelievable bad luck. It's not a bad contract.l
Too much thinking about long-term deals means you'll always find a reason not to do the deal.
greenfrog - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 08:59 PM EDT (#244091) #
Another BS call in favour of the Red Sox. Red Sox up 4-3, Jennings on second, 1 out, Upton at the plate, 3-2 count. Beckett throws a fastball well outside, Upton takes, the ump calls it a strike. Upton argues (justifiably), almost gets tossed. Meanwhile, Shields has been getting squeezed all night.

I don't really understand why the umps do this with Boston and New York. Don't they take any professional pride in being unbiased?
greenfrog - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 09:27 PM EDT (#244092) #
And now Joe Maddon gets tossed after Jaso gets rung up on a questionable (albeit closer) pitch with Damon on third and two out. Good for Maddon.
TamRa - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 09:51 PM EDT (#244093) #
with so many pitchers to look at,

er...what?

Drabek is in the bullpen, is he not?


greenfrog - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 10:20 PM EDT (#244096) #
I'm starting to dislike Rasmus - the strikeouts, the hacking, the poor execution. I hope he turns it around next year.
BlueJayWay - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 10:31 PM EDT (#244097) #
Rasmus walked over 11% this year and last year.  Probably he's just pressing on a new team.  I expect we'll see a much better Colby in 2012.
greenfrog - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 10:33 PM EDT (#244098) #
In case anyone is curious, Kelly Johnson now ranks as a Type B free agent, according to the latest Elias rankings - per mlbtraderumors.com

So, the Jays could receive supplemental picks for Francisco, Johnson, Molina and Rauch (assuming all four players are offered arbitration and decline it). I think that's it - are there any other players that qualify? Two first round picks (including compensation for Beede not signing) and, say, two to four supplemental round picks would make next year's draft pretty exciting.
Glevin - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 10:36 PM EDT (#244099) #
Sometimes I am just so happy when the Jays get rid of a player-Corey Patterson just played a single into a double and then dropped a flyball (called a hit, but no way it should have been) to let the Phillies tie the game.
Gerry - Friday, September 16 2011 @ 11:24 PM EDT (#244102) #
While I can see that a bunt might be OK with Mike McCoy up to bat, or against CC Sabathia, I have to say I dd not agree with bunting against Robertson or Ayala with a runner on second. It might be OK if the hitters can bunt but most of them can't.
Parker - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 12:32 AM EDT (#244103) #
If that Beeston thing is true, what worries me the most is the reactionary nature of the upper Jays management. Never sign another six-year contract because the Wells deal went sour? Never sign another reliever to a big contract because Ryan's arm fell off? A sensible observer might instead see it this way: don't sign any more not-quite-star players to gigantic six-year deals where the player still has one year left on his existing contract and the only team you are bidding against is your own. Don't sign any more relievers with serious delivery concerns to long-term deals.

The idea the Jays should never sign another 6-year contract ever again because the Wells deal didn't work out is like saying you'll never go out to dinner again because you got sick eating gas station sushi on a road trip through Saskatchewan. The cause of the problem isn't every single food-serving establishment in the world, it's your poor decision-making.
Geoff - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 01:09 AM EDT (#244104) #
Is it okay to conclude that you should never again eat sushi in Saskatchewan?

Or never again eat at gas stations?

When is it okay to make generalizations that will define how I see the world, or when do I begin to exhibit poor decision-making?

smcs - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 01:17 AM EDT (#244105) #
Wasn't there also a time where Beeston would not approve contracts longer than three years for pitchers? I specifically remember this coming out after the Jays extended Romero. As for the 5 year max, how many contracs that were over 5 years not an albatross by year 6 or earlier? A-Rod?
dawgatc - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 03:31 AM EDT (#244106) #
I also think the Jays get off pretty lightly for not signing their first pick this year -plus about half their other picks - they say they will spend the money saved on wells contracts etc. on development but they pocketed the majority of that money - beeston came from the banking industry and we can see what a great job bankers have done lately when you look at the world's economy


ogator - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 07:30 AM EDT (#244107) #

  In the early days of the season, it was run, run, run because running shows that you're an aggressive team with hustle and heart...apparently brains were not considered a key element in the attack.  Eventually, after so many runners were thrown out stealing, taking an extra base or just plain being stupid, they eased off on the running, running, running.    I am all for taking an extra base and for being aggressive when the situation and the player make such a move a good gamble but I am against running for the sake of running.  I think Buck has pointed out that the personnel has changed i.e. Davis and Patterson are gone (Lunchbox and Aaron Hill purloined a few) and that also has affected the strategy.  The new obsession, however, has become bunting and this favourite manager's ploy, may be even more aggravating.  Are the Blue Jays a team that gets 'em over, gets 'em in?  Not in my recollection.  They are hackers to a fault.  Asking guys who are not very good at bunting to bunt to get a runner over to third in the hope that a sacrifice fly is about to follow is giving away outs at a crucial moment in the game when outs are precious.  They won last night, in spite of this foolishness.  Sometimes I think managers can't stand doing nothing so they do all manner of things rather than sit on their hands and let things unfold.  I am not saying that they should never bunt but, I would like to see the frequency that this strategy is employed especially in late innings, be decreased to a very great extent.

Dave Till - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 08:06 AM EDT (#244109) #
“When we look at free agents, we better believe those guys are a clear upgrade over what we have internally,” he said. “Because to go out and sign a free agent who is a back-end starter and commit dollars and years and then find out halfway though the year some of these guys are coming in, the way Henderson Alvarez did this year …”

I agree with this philosophy, but... The Jays' leading competitors in the AL East, the Red Sox and Yankees, have such deep pockets that they can afford to have it both ways: they can sign the expensive free agent now, and then bring up the young player as soon as he becomes better than the expensive free agent. If this means that they throw tens of millions of dollars out of the window, that's a cost that they can live with and afford.

I believe that AA is doing a great job - he's brought in a number of good young players, and he's built up the farm system. The difference between now and the summer of 2009 (when the farm system just had Travis Snider in it, and the roster was littered with past-prime players) is like night and day. But the Yankees and Red Sox have GMs and scouting departments that are full of smart people too, and these organizations have the added advantage that they can go out and buy any free agent they like (or trade a bunch of B-level prospects to a cash-poor team to acquire another team's star - why, hello there, Adrian Gonzalez). The Red Sox payroll is currently $99 million higher than that of the Jays, and the Yankees' payroll is even larger.

The Jays' only hope is that they can outsmart their divisional competition and find and sign players that their competitors can't find. It's possible, but Brian Cashman and Theo Epstein are smart and hard-working, too. I have more hope for the future than I did three years ago, but the AL East still seems like a treadmill on which it is impossible to keep up.

It's worth noting that, as I type this, three of the bottom six teams in attendance in MLB are in the AL East. I can't help but think that fans notice the virtual impossibility of the task facing the Jays, Rays and Orioles, and decide that their summer's discretionary dollars, and their hopes, are best directed elsewhere.
AWeb - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 09:01 AM EDT (#244110) #
Sometimes I think managers can't stand doing nothing so they do all manner of things rather than sit on their hands and let things unfold.

I think that is it exactly. Most of the manager's job is managing people, and filling out the lineup card so that it makes them happy and gives the team teh best chance to win (not always the same). In game decisions are almost routine, especially this time of year. If things go well, the starter gets so many pitches, and then you either go platoon advantage relievers, or use the prescribed 7th, 8th, 9th inning guys. You pinch run in close games with particular players. Putting on a bunt, or a hit and run, does give them something to do that isn't obvious.
Magpie - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 10:06 AM EDT (#244112) #
What AWeb just said, and something else as well - especially early in the season, you do some of these things just so the opposition knows that you will do it from time to time, and therefore have to go to the trouble to defend against it.

Nevertheless, while Farrell isn't Gaston (the 2010 team was last in the leaague with 16 SH), he ain't exactly Gene Mauch. This year's team has 25 SH, and only two AL teams (Baltimore and Boston) have fewer. The Royals and White Sox have twice as many.
bpoz - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 10:59 AM EDT (#244114) #
If Beeston really said he won't go over 5 years then IMO that is a definite statement.
I think at seasons end AA will say that he hopes to improve the team. He may also say that he would prefer to do it with trades but would not rule out the FA route, if it makes sense.
So far I think he has kept to this philosophy. His moves please me.
Parker - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 11:26 AM EDT (#244116) #
When is it okay to make generalizations that will define how I see the world, or when do I begin to exhibit poor decision-making?

That's the crux of my point; one has to be able to distinguish between a decision based on a gross generalization and a decision based on specific circumstances. There's obviously no cut-and-dry answer, as each decision should be evaluated individually and should only be based on past decisions if there are significant similarities.
TamRa - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 12:10 PM EDT (#244117) #
The difference between now and the summer of 2009 (when the farm system just had Travis Snider in it, and the roster was littered with past-prime players)

Do you mean by that to say "players who were ready to help"?

Cecil and Zep arrived in 2009, and JPA, Thames Alvarez and Carreno were in the system.
Also currently well regarded prospects Molina, Perez, Jimenez, McDade, Sierra, Cooper, and several marginal guys were already in the system, though not close to contributing in the majors yet.


greenfrog - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#244118) #
Not sure it's accurate to call McDade, Sierra and Cooper "currently well-regarded prospects." I don't think any of them would fetch anything significant in return in a trade.
PeteMoss - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 01:50 PM EDT (#244119) #
I'm sure they'd go over 5 years for the right deal... whatever AA lets out in the media.. he wants people to hear... doesn't mean its true.
uglyone - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 01:51 PM EDT (#244120) #
“When we look at free agents, we better believe those guys are a clear upgrade over what we have internally,” he said.

this is actually music to my ears. this is exactly what I want to hear from management.

We've got plenty of depth of talent, the only free agents I want them to spend money on are the really, really good ones.
grjas - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 03:29 PM EDT (#244121) #
"Are you really saying that you can wait 20 years for a contender, but you can't - won't - wait 21, 22, or 23 for a dynasty"

Umm sure. But this team looks a long way from a dynasty. You're right that AA has turned around the farm teams and dropped the deadwood thereby planting some seeds of optimism. But our starting pitching and half our bullpen is looking painfully suspect. At this point I'd be happy just to see us in a wildcard/pennant race for the first time in 20 years. But even that is likely at least a few years off.
TamRa - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 04:21 PM EDT (#244122) #
Not sure it's accurate to call McDade, Sierra and Cooper "currently well-regarded prospects." I don't think any of them would fetch anything significant in return in a trade.

"well regarded" should not be understood as anything close to "top" or "coveted" prospects.


92-93 - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 04:31 PM EDT (#244123) #
The really, really good FAs require the really, really big contracts Beeston has apparently outlawed. If the time to be active on the FA market isn't when you have the best hitter in baseball it will never come, and the Jays will be trying to compete like the Rays forever.
Magpie - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#244124) #
The really, really good FAs require the really, really big contracts

Which is what makes most of those deals unwise. Just as much as the money, it's the length of these deals that's a problem. When Prince Fielder is 35, and putting up the exact same numbers that Adam Lind did this season - and I assure you, that's what he'll be doing - the 600 plate appearances is just as big a problem as the $20 million dollars.

Now if you give a pitcher that kind of money, there's probably a good chance his arm will have fallen off the end of the deal. You're only out the money. But if you're paying a guy $20 million, it's almost impossible not to play him. That just cost the Angels a division title.
92-93 - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 04:53 PM EDT (#244125) #
Vernon Wells didn't cost the Angels a division title (and I'm surprised to hear that coming from you), and you seem to be advocating spending big on pitchers if you're going to spend big at all. Fine by me, that's exactly where the holes on this team are. If the Blue Jays signed Sabathia and Wilson they'd be the AL East favourites.

If you're so worried about what the contract will look like 8 years from now (which in itself is entirely unreasonable considering what's become of Wells and Rios), pay that FA more over a shorter term. Categorically dismissing the elite FA talent is ridiculous and unacceptable considering the lies Beeston has been selling the public for 3 years now.
Jonny German - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:02 PM EDT (#244126) #
pay that FA more over a shorter term.

Who was the last elite free agent to sign for less than 5 years?
greenfrog - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:04 PM EDT (#244127) #
I guess it's a question of semantics. For me, calling a positional player a "well-regarded prospect" implies that he has a decent chance of becoming a big-leaguer, even an everyday one. Outside of Blue Jays fandom, you basically never hear fans or writers talking about Cooper, Sierra and McDade. It's not that some covet them while for others they're merely "well regarded." They're just not regarded at all, not really viewed as legit prospects. The fact that Cooper is not seen as a threat to displace Lind and his 741 OPS only confirms this perception.

However, just because someone flies under the radar doesn't mean he can't have success in the majors, and I hope all three players pull it off.
Ron - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:15 PM EDT (#244128) #
I have a question for all of you.

Let's say the Jays sign Prince Fielder to a 6yr/120 million contract in the off-season, Fielder has a terrific season and the Jays win the world series. Fielder hits like McCoy the other 5 years of the contract and the Jays miss the playoffs in each of those seasons.

Is the 1 World Series victory enough to say it was a good signing?

Magpie - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM EDT (#244129) #
you seem to be advocating spending big on pitchers

Not really. Just noticing that Mike Hampton's inability to play wasn't nearly as big a problem for his team as Alfonso Soriano's ability to play.

Derek Jeter's ten year deal worked out very well. I think the Adrian Gonzalez deal might be another. But really - how many others? Wells? Hampton? Soriano? Jason Giambi? Barry Zito?
92-93 - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:17 PM EDT (#244130) #
Who was the last elite free agent to be offered a big enough front-loaded contract that it was worth his while to go shorter term? If Fielder is going to make 8/160, wouldn't he jump at a 5/150 offer with the ability to hit the market again as a 32 year old potential DH?

And I'm not even advocating Fielder, or anyone specific for that matter. I'm speaking conceptually here. If you're so worried about signing elite FAs because of the impact down the road, why not come up with a way to mitigate that when you have tremendous short-term payroll room?

If the Jays traded Lind and signed Fielder to a 5/150 contract their 2012 payroll would be 80m, and that's with spending 5.5m on Teahen.
92-93 - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:24 PM EDT (#244131) #
The last 3 World Series titles won by AL East teams were on the backs of long term deals. Boston never wins any World Series without giving a 29 year old Manny an 8/160 deal (as well as significant impact from DiceK and Drew in '07) and the Yankees don't win the '09 series without signing Teixeira, Sabathia, and Burnett. You can go back even further to notice that Boston gave Pedro Martinez the largest contract for a pitcher in history when they acquired his FA rights in a trade from Montreal. Baseballin' on a 65m budget doesn't work in the AL East.
Magpie - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM EDT (#244132) #
I'm speaking conceptually here.

In some ways that makes more sense to me - and the player should love it. He gets his money, and he gets another crack at free agency when it might still be worth it.

Of course, the commissioner, and other 29 owners will want to eject you from the Fellowship because of what you're doing to the salary scale. You will have to deal with a unique kind of peer pressure.

Not that there's any kind of collusion in baseball.
Magpie - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:36 PM EDT (#244133) #
the Yankees don't win the '09 series without signing Teixeira, Sabathia, and Burnett.

And a championship is forever. But two of those contracts (Teixeira and Burnett, and A.J.'s deal was only five years) are looking like something the Yankees badly need to crawl out from under.

I entirely agree that you're unlikely to make much progress in the AL East on $65 million a year. It's just that there's got to be something better to spend your money on. The type of players hitting free agency and looking for these types of deals do not strike me as great investments. If you give a player maximum money at the peak of his career - and that's generally when these guys are hitting free agency, ages 28 to 30 - you're paying for his decline years. If he's a great player - Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Adrian Gonzalez - that's OK. He can decline and still help you. If he's not a great player - Alfonso Soriano, Carl Crawford - you're cutting your own throat.
92-93 - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:46 PM EDT (#244134) #
It's a bit much to suggest the Yankees badly need to crawl out from under Teixeira's contract. He has 37 HR and 104 RBI, and really the only difference between this year and last is some BABIP. Sure, he has 5 years at 22.5m per left on his deal, but I really don't think if given the option the Yankees would opt out of that deal to pursue Pujols or Fielder, both of whom will require more years (and likely more annual dollars) to secure their services. When you consider that NYY is already 3 years into the Tex deal the contract has to be considered a success. They won a World Series, lost in the ALCS the next year, and look well on their way to being an impact in the playoffs again.
bpoz - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 05:55 PM EDT (#244135) #
On Jays Talk today Russ Langer (LV announcer) was on. He seems high on Cooper. When asked about B Mills, he said Mills was convinced that his Curve ball would not break enough in the PCL so he scrapped it & relied on mainly his FB & CH. This could explain his failure at the ML level this year if he had to use a Curve ball that was rusty.

I really like Mills so maybe I am grasping at straws.
Magpie - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 06:03 PM EDT (#244136) #
Teixeira's skills are narrowing quickly - look at the last three years, and wonder what the next numbers in that sequence will look like. Still, the real issue in New York is that Alex Rodriguez needs to be moved to first base. And they've got s lot more invested in him.
92-93 - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 06:14 PM EDT (#244137) #
Ah, Alex Rodriguez, another wildly successful, elite FA. A guy who plays 3B well and can be moved to DH, a NYY hole.

Here are the relevant #s for Tex :

2009 11.5 BB% 16.1 K% .273 ISO
2010 13.1 BB% 17.1 K% .225 ISO
2011 11.0 BB% 16.5 K% .244 ISO

Yes, it may look like his SLG decreased, but the 2 years prior to 2009 were .232, .257, .244. If Teixeira has declined it certainly hasn't been to any extent that should make the Yankees regret their decision. I see a guy whose statline varies due to wild fluctuations in BABIP while his peripherals remain consistent.
Magpie - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 06:22 PM EDT (#244138) #
it may look like his SLG decreased

That's because it has decreased! That's why it looks that way!

His batting average is falling. He used to hit 40 doubles a year. Now he can't hit 30. He still takes a walk, he still knocks the ball over the fence, he can still help you. But he's on the downward slide.

I do agree that Rodriguez would be a perfect solution to the Yankees DH issue, but I figure they'll have a hard enough time persuading him to play first base.
smcs - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 06:28 PM EDT (#244139) #
Is the 1 World Series victory enough to say it was a good signing?

If the reason for the World Series victory is Prince Fielder, then yes. Flags fly forever.
Magpie - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 06:30 PM EDT (#244140) #
If the reason for the World Series victory is Prince Fielder

Can he pitch?
Magpie - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 06:46 PM EDT (#244141) #
This made me laugh. Adam Lind talking about the switch from DH to first base:

Just the concentration level you have to have for nine innings every day. When you DH, there's definitely some down time, you can relax, but when you play at a position every day, you've got to be locked in every pitch.

I immediately remembered an old story - Joe Torre advising Tim McCarver (near the end of McCarver's playing days) on the difficulty of switching from catcher to first base:

You wouldn't believe how much your mind wanders. I had to kick myself to pay attention.
greenfrog - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 07:47 PM EDT (#244143) #
Congrats to the Rays for winning the first two of three at Fenway. Tomorrow's game is a must-win just to keep their hopes alive in the wild card race.

With the addition of Jennings and Moore, the Rays are a pretty impressive team. Tampa is sometimes the forgotten team in the AL East, but the Jays are likely going to have three very good teams to contend with in the coming seasons. You could argue that Jennings and Moore combined will be better than Lawrie and Alvarez combined - they're that good.
Ron - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 09:12 PM EDT (#244148) #
If the reason for the World Series victory is Prince Fielder, then yes. Flags fly forever.

Well I guess it's nice to know I'm not alone in that way of thinking.

As a Yankees and Red Sox fan, I feel like CC, Tex, and Drew already justified their contracts by helping their respective team win the World Series. Every other positive thing is a cherry on top. I would feel the same way about Fielder or any other high priced free agent that the Jays signed.

Either way, this is going to be a really interesting off-season. The President has stated Ownership is willing to spend money to bring a winner to Toronto. We're are going to find out if he was telling the truth in the coming months.
Matthew E - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 09:46 PM EDT (#244149) #
I have a question for all of you.

Let's say the Jays sign Prince Fielder to a 6yr/120 million contract in the off-season, Fielder has a terrific season and the Jays win the world series. Fielder hits like McCoy the other 5 years of the contract and the Jays miss the playoffs in each of those seasons.

Is the 1 World Series victory enough to say it was a good signing?


For me, the answer is somewhere between yes and no. Around the third or fourth year of the contract, I'd be wondering if maybe there wasn't something else the Jays could have done to win that Series. So, wouldn't be the worst signing, but I don't know if I'd call it a good one.
Matthew E - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 10:47 PM EDT (#244150) #
In some ways that makes more sense to me - and the player should love it. He gets his money, and he gets another crack at free agency when it might still be worth it.

Of course, the commissioner, and other 29 owners will want to eject you from the Fellowship because of what you're doing to the salary scale. You will have to deal with a unique kind of peer pressure.


To me that's a feature, not a bug. If I was the Jays, I'd be thrilled to have the opportunity to do anything to inconvenience or embarrass the rest of MLB. Seriously. Give me one good reason why the Jays should play nice.
Ryan C - Saturday, September 17 2011 @ 11:57 PM EDT (#244152) #
Is the 1 World Series victory enough to say it was a good signing?

I don't know.  I mean they could have won more that the 1 World Series' if they didn't sign him.  Just because they won 1 doesn't make it an automatic success if they would have otherwise been good enough to win 2 or 3.



hypobole - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 01:14 AM EDT (#244153) #

It's a bit much to suggest the Yankees badly need to crawl out from under Teixeira's contract. He has 37 HR and 104 RBI, and really the only difference between this year and last is some BABIP.

After 5 yrs of BABIP's over .300, Tex's dropped to .268 last year and sits at .235 this year, neatly coinciding with the shifts that Maddon started around '09 and most if not all teams have copied. Unless he changes his pull-happy approach, which seems unlikely due to the short RF porch in New Yankee Stadium, the numbers from the past couple of years will be his norm.

If the Blue Jays signed Sabathia and Wilson they'd be the AL East favourites.

You may thinks so, but I don't . Both the Yankee and Sox offences will continue to be better, if not much better than the Jays'. The Sox will still have Beckett, Lester and Buchholz.  The Yanks could easily use the CC savings to bring over Darvish,  and still have more than enough budget to make other improvements to their starting rotation. The cost of stealing CC away from NY would more than likely involve a massive overpayment, as would CJ because the Yankees would be the primary team we'd be bidding against.

Richard S.S. - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 01:19 AM EDT (#244154) #

Let's say the Jays sign Prince Fielder to a 6yr/120 million contract in the off-season, Fielder has a terrific season and the Jays win the world series...   ...Is the 1 World Series victory enough to say it was a good signing?...  ...I don't know.  I mean they could have won more that the 1 World Series' if they didn't sign him.  Just because they won 1 doesn't make it an automatic success if they would have otherwise been good enough to win 2 or 3.

First, a World Series win is forever, joining 1992 and 1993 in History.  If you're meant to win more you will.  If not, your time will come again.

Second, it's EXTREMELY FREAKING BAD LUCK if Fielder fades away that fast.  It's so next to impossible to believe that the idea's almost meaningless.

Third, we must have solved a lot of our problems in the offseason: front-line Starter, Bullpen, 2B, LF, Bench and BIG SCARY BAT. 

Lastly, WE GOT LUCKY!

dawgatc - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 01:34 AM EDT (#244155) #
I keep hearing that teams like the yankees and red sox have deeper pockets than the jays - that might be true but i doubt it - the Jays are owned by rogers who had a PROFIT of 4.8 billion dollars last year - thats huge - Rogers could buy and sell the Steinbrenners - we got badly outspent in the draft by teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates who have huge loans outstanding - the jays own their stadium outright which they bought for less than the land its built on - our currency is up over 35 percent from its lows Rogers can fill 162 dates a year with prime time baseball - think of the advertising money they could garner if they went back to their old winning ways - plus the 4 million fans in the stands with all the concessions;merchandising etc. - deep pockets?-how much deeper can you get???- the money they spent on prospects this year is easily covered by what they saved on Overbay:Buck,Marcum,Gregg,Downs etc.- the Wells money they just pocketed - so it goes
TamRa - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 02:28 AM EDT (#244156) #
The really, really good FAs require the really, really big contracts Beeston has apparently outlawed. If the time to be active on the FA market isn't when you have the best hitter in baseball it will never come, and the Jays will be trying to compete like the Rays forever.

But spending money is not necessarily all about Free Agents, or at least not conventional free agents. Consider - if Colby Rasmus lives up to his press, how much will it take to extend him a couple of years from now (he's three years from free agency)?
if Brandon Morrow takes a Verlander leap, what's his price?
You probably need to Longoria-ize Lawrie at some point.

there's plenty of potential for salaries to escelate. Then you look around and consider: what happens when other teams need to shed an expensive guy? Not that we need a 3B now - but in theory the Mets might have had a true fire sale and dealt Wright - acquiring a player like Wright is as much a financial commitment as signing a free agent.

And of course there is the Darvish/Chapman/Hechavarria meme.

And the idea that you could have the uninhibited freedom to add a, for instance, Scott Downs in "normal" free agency when you feel it's called for.

One should not define "willing to spend" as only premium major league free agents.





Baseballin' on a 65m budget doesn't work in the AL East.


True, but as a reminder - this phenomena is only about 10 years old. The thing that completely pulled the rug out from under JP (beyond his own possible personality flaws) was that he got hired into a certain enviornment in the winter of '01-'02 and everything changed in the years following. The Yankees' payroll spiked well away from the pack in the last 10 years with only the Red Sox making more than a half-measure attempt to keep up.

I don't really blame the Jays (and everyone else) for taking 4 or 5 years to "catch on" to the fact that this wasn't a fluke but that the landscape had fundamentally and (seemingly) permanently changed.

that the Rays managed to compete, over the last five years, without that kind of spending is, in my view, a happy accident of hiring an astonishingly creative manager, having a lot of opportunity to draft elite players, and some very fortunate player personnel moves (such as their third choice for 1B hitting 46 homers in 2007). I don't see that as a model that can be easily replicated.

so in a sense, we are still figuring out what DOES play in the AL East short of spending $150 million. and while I very much enjoy the idea that they will at some point spend that much - I'm not prepared to write off the idea that a non-fluke team (not saying the Rays are flukey in their winning, just in the collection of circumstances that put them on that level - staying there has definitely not been flukey) can, in fact, accomplish impressive things without doing that.

I'm the sort of fan who's as much a fan of the process as the result, and I'm quite enjoying seeing the process play out and just for my own personal fan experience, I'm not at all to the point where I'm going to start back-seat driving.


Dave Rutt - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 02:40 AM EDT (#244157) #
dawg: that's all well and good, but Rogers is not the Jays. And the Jays don't make money. They had an operating income of 3.6 million in 2010. So, enough for one more Jon Rauch.

They say the money's there when needed and haven't put a hard cap on it, but there's no way they can get into Yankees/Red Sox territory. Big companies like Rogers don't take big losses on purpose.

Also, what stadium are you at? The Jays have drawn fewer than 1.7 million fans this year.
Dave Rutt - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 02:44 AM EDT (#244158) #
Sorry, I may have misinterpreted your 4 million comment. Anyway, what I think you're implying is that spending big will lead to revenues, which will in turn lead to high payroll sustainability. I just don't think a big company like Rogers wants (or needs) to take a risk like that.
hypobole - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 03:48 AM EDT (#244159) #

Reality check time.

Some may have forgotten, but it wasn't the Jays that drew 4 million fans, it was the SkyDome, AKA the 8th Wonder of the World. Jays were drawing about 2.5 million fans for competetive clubs before the Dome opened. In fact, the '85 Jays team won the division with a club record 99 wins and drew less than 2.5 million. The 1st 2 years the team played all its games in the Dome were '90 and '91, before they won the WS. They drew almost 3.9 million in '90 and  4.001 million in '91. In '93, the WS defending champs drew 4.057 million. 

 So the team that was on its way to winning its 2nd WS in a row drew just over 56,000 more fans than the '91 team. which worked out to an extra 696 fans per game.  

Magpie - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 05:25 AM EDT (#244160) #
the '85 Jays team won the division with a club record 99 wins and drew less than 2.5 million.

Which was an astounding attendance figure, by the way. Especially in that ridiculous venue. Only the Angels drew more people in the AL. The Jays were second in AL attendance to the Angels again in 1986. They led the league (with almost 2.8 million) in 1987. They were second again in 1988 (the Twins, coming off the WS win, cracked 3 million people - I believe only the Dodgers had done that before.).

The Dome was basically filled to capacity every night during the championship years, and the minor fluctuations from game to game were brought about by how many people were in the luxury boxes each night.
bpoz - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 09:28 AM EDT (#244163) #
My gut tells me that P Fielder cannot win or lose the WS all by himself. I see him as 1 part contributing to the eventual outcome.

IMO players like Bautista, Lawrie, Wise, Patterson, Rivera, McCoy and others will all be playing a part. Hill & Lind in 2010 played a part as did Marcum, Cecil, Romero and Morrow.

Expensive FAs will increase the payroll and if they play really well it should help the team win more games. But at the same time poor results from other players like Morrow will cost the team some wins.

Of course my gut is unreliable because it tells me that you cannot win with Burnett, Garcia, Colon in the rotation and how much can Nova contribute.

Shane - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 10:21 AM EDT (#244165) #

Alex Anthopoulos:

“I think we’ve had a lot of really good players here,” Anthopoulos said. “Obviously it’s hard to get the great ones, especially in free agency. One, they don’t get to free agency. Two, you normally pay them more years and more dollars than you have to. And three, you’re getting them — not at the end of their careers — but a little bit older. It’s what we need to do with the division we’re in and the parameters we have to work with.

“If I was the GM of some other team in some other division, everything would be different. Everything we do is tailored to the parameters of Toronto, Rogers (Centre), Canada, AL East, Boston, New York, Tampa, Baltimore. Put it all in a pot and say, ‘OK, what’s the best game plan?’ ”

Right now the answer is easy — trades.

“The trade route where we are right now is important for us,” Anthopoulos said. “It’s going to be a big part of what we’re doing and it is. Free agency is the last route we want to go. At some point we’ll have to start delving into it a little more, but I still want to try to avoid it at all costs. If we try to do this through the draft, it’s going to be a while. And it’s not going to work and we’re not going to get it to time properly.”

In today's Boston Herald

Paul D - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 10:21 AM EDT (#244166) #
that's all well and good, but Rogers is not the Jays. And the Jays don't make money. They had an operating income of 3.6 million in 2010. So, enough for one more Jon Rauch.

This is an incredibly generous viewpoint.  The Jays don't make money because Rogers significantly underpays for the right to broadcast their games (which it now also does on the internet) so that the Jays can get revenue sharing money.  The Jays are making plenty of money.
dawgatc - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 10:54 AM EDT (#244167) #
I agree Paul d - how can the Jays not be making money even at 22000 per game - at about 50 dollars a game (ticket plus merchandise;food'beer etc.)-thats 80 -85 million just for home games and they get a share of 81 away games plus revenue sharing which they get for their absurd book keeping plus merchanding outside of game days plus whatever that airtime is worth (and its a lot)plus the value of that land at the skydome - don't kid yourself the Jays are raking in the dough - and yes you're right they aren't in the business of losing money - and no I don't think you're right -the jays are rogers - they only aren't when its a good time not be - like revenue sharing time - oh yeah and they get paid whenever someone else uses the dome also for a concert etc.-stop drinking that kool aid and demand excellence - half their draft choices and the only team not to sign their first pick - hang your head in shame
BlueJayWay - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 11:14 AM EDT (#244168) #
They had an operating income of 3.6 million in 2010.

Hello, creative accounting.  Like many others over the years, I also don't doubt the Jays make Rogers a ton of cash, but I fear they shift the money around in the Rogers empire to make it look like they aren't, thus getting some nice revenue sharing cash from MLB to further stuff their pockets.  Will we see some real money spent on the team someday?  I hope so.
greenfrog - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 11:19 AM EDT (#244169) #
From mlbtraderumors.com's summary of Ken Rosenthal's Full Count video:

"The Reds aren't going to shop Joey Votto but they'll at least listen to trade inquiries this winter. Cincinnati could come back with Votto for one more year at $9.5MM and play Yonder Alonso in left field but Votto's salary rises to $17MM in 2013 and Alonso's best position is first base. Reds owner Bob Castellini won't want to trade Votto, just as he didn't want to deal veterans at the deadline. However, the Reds would be looking at much more value for Votto at two years away from free agency rather than one year away."

If AA plans to go for it in 2012 and 2013, the Jays *have* to get in on the bidding for Votto if he's even remotely available this winter. How about bidding for Darvish and trying to trade for Votto (and maybe signing Johnson to a two-year deal)? That would be an awesome off-season.
BlueJayWay - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 11:24 AM EDT (#244170) #
Given those quotes from the Boston Herald article, it appears AA won't be a big bidder for Fielder, or Darvish, or Sabathia, or even C.J. Wilson for that matter.  It sounds like some more blockbuster trades in the offing.  Coupled with the news about Cincinnati not emphatically denying thinking about trading Votto, and I see the Jays getting a piece of that action. 

The Jays said the same thing in the 2009 off season, the weren't shopping Halladay but would be listening to offers.  Of course they did end up trading him and it was soon clear they went into the offseason determined to deal. 

Matthew E - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 12:00 PM EDT (#244171) #
The way I see it -- I mean, what do I know, but here's how I see it -- is that the benefit of having Rogers as the owner is that Rogers does have all kinds of money that they can invest in the team above the team's year-to-year income. Now, I don't see Rogers pumping more money into the team than the team makes, in the long run. That would be bad business, and I don't see them doing that, nor should they. But if they can see their way clear to investing some money now so they can make even more later? No reason in the world not to do that.

So the problem I see is this. As the Jays become more successful, and ownership tries to promote the team more, attendance and fan interest will increase. Of course it will. But I don't think it will increase enough. It's a triangle: increased fan interest leads to greater ownership investment; greater ownership investment leads to improved performance on the field; improved performance on the field leads to increased fan interest. Round and round. But if the fan interest hits a maximum level, then the other two points of the triangle will also hit a maximum level. And I don't happen to believe that enough fans will ever come back to justify the money it will take to put this team over the top.

The hope, then, is that Rogers would find this out the hard way: that they would invest enough in the team, and the Jays would win the Series, and attendance would average maybe 29K a game, and Rogers would never make back their money, but at least we'd have one more championship. I guess that's theoretically possible.

BlueJayWay - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 12:08 PM EDT (#244172) #
You really think average attendance would only be 29 k if this were a world series calibre team? 
greenfrog - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#244173) #
The trouble with acquiring Votto is that he might be around for only two years. So the rest of your team had better be competitive in 2012 and 2013. For now, the Jays' starting pitching simply doesn't stack up. (Compare them to the Rays, who will have a front *six* of Shields/Price/Hellickson/Niemann/Davis/Moore - right now, the Jays can only dream of having a rotation half that good.)
Matthew E - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 12:40 PM EDT (#244174) #
You really think average attendance would only be 29 k if this were a world series calibre team?

I just picked that number out of the air and don't care about defending it specifically. But I do think that Toronto is full of non-sports-fans and Leafs fans who either wouldn't notice, wouldn't believe it, or wouldn't care, if the Jays ever did win another Series. I don't think the fans will ever be back in large enough numbers.
Spookie Wookie - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 12:42 PM EDT (#244175) #
Matthew E, I think that's exactly right. Rogers may have more money than the Steinbrenners or Henry, but in contrast to those owners, as a public company their spending is bound by a duty to their shareholders. They can only invest the money if it makes business sense. The Pirates, for example, have proven that a tidy profit can be made with no risk by paring payroll to the bone. So in that context it might be hard to justify spending big.

We can hope that their projections for attendance and tv ratings (in the scenario where they field a contending team) are more optimistic than your own, but I don't see why they wouldn't be conservative in their projections.

I suppose one scenario we can hope for is that the team does ultimately catch lightning in a bottle with respect to prospects maturing at the same time at the same time that Boston and NY have a down year, etc., despite having a low payroll. Then if the fans do return to Rogers Centre and revenues are very high, perhaps they can justify investing more going forward from that point.
Shane - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 12:45 PM EDT (#244176) #

"But I do think that Toronto is full of non-sports-fans and Leafs fans who either wouldn't notice, wouldn't believe it, or wouldn't care, if the Jays ever did win another Series. I don't think the fans will ever be back in large enough numbers."

I have always thought this as well. Though it would be nice to be wrong.

 

BlueJayWay - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#244177) #
I still don't see anything to that.  What are large enough numbers, and why couldn't they attain them?

It's true that southern Ontario is full of Leaf fans.  But that's always been the case, and the Jays still had one of the highest drawing teams in the league, for quite a long run of seasons, when they were a really good team.  I don't see any reason at all that wouldn't be the case again.  Who cares if they're bandwagon fans?  The dollars still count.

Shane - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#244178) #
@ BlueJayWay. Right, but the team had cache then, as it was around twenty years old and had had very little success before, combined with the new SkyDome spiffyness. It was a trendy, buzz thing to do.
greenfrog - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#244179) #
Personally, I think the Jays need a new stadium. I hate going to the RC.
BlueJayWay - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 01:27 PM EDT (#244180) #
@ BlueJayWay. Right, but the team had cache then, as it was around twenty years old and had had very little success before, combined with the new SkyDome spiffyness. It was a trendy, buzz thing to do.

Yeah, but the team hasn't had a lot of success in almost the last twenty years, either.  So it's not like everyone's sick of the Jays winning or anything.  As far as Skydome, the Jays started drawing really well back when they were playing in the Ex, no?   
The team had 'cache' and 'buzz' then because they were winning.  Nothing that can't come back in some form....if they were winnning again.

BlueJayWay - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 01:34 PM EDT (#244181) #
Personally, I think the Jays need a new stadium. I hate going to the RC.

While I'm sure everyone would like a baseball-only facility with real grass, the RC does have the advantages of a good location and the retractable roof.  That last part is really big for me:  I would probably hate the RC as well if you couldn't open it.  I was there yesterday, and on a nice sunny day with a good 35000+ crowd I don't mind it at all.  Today is another beautiful day, and it would suck if you had to go inside a dingy domed stadium.  On the other hand it's great knowing if the weather is cold and/or rainy, you can button it up and still play.  I think if we got a new park, there would be a definite attendance boost for a couple years, then we'd be back to the low-mid twenty thousand we have now, without the team contending.  But again it all comes back to the success of the team on the field.
Hodgie - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 01:37 PM EDT (#244182) #
"stop drinking that kool aid and demand excellence - half their draft choices and the only team not to sign their first pick - hang your head in shame"

Just saying it does not make it true. According to BA's draft database Toronto signed 35 of 55 picks, or roughly 64%. The average signing percentage for all teams in the AL ..... 63%. Yes, Beede didn't sign and that was unfortunate. However the team with what was universally acknowledged as the most aggressive draft in baseball still signs the average number of picks and we are supposed to hang our head in shame? Tough crowd. I can't imagine what fans of the poorly run franchises in Texas, New York and Boston must be feeling since they collectively barely signed half of their picks.

One last item. Toronto was out-spent by Pittsburgh as was everybody else in MLB. The Pirates also spent more combined on Gerrit Cole and Josh Bell than any team had spent on their entire draft before this year. I guess all of baseball should be hanging their heads in shame.

Spifficus - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 02:06 PM EDT (#244184) #
Thank you, Hodgie. I'm not sure if I find it amusing or annoying that the 'disaster draft' label and the Frankenstinian grafting of it onto the 'Rogers is cheap' narrative persists a month after the signing deadline.
Mylegacy - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 03:11 PM EDT (#244185) #
Living in BC - I love the RC! I know the game I bought tickets for will be played. No cold outs, snow outs, rain outs, etc., just BASEBALL!

As to the looks, feel , etc., of the RC - I like it. I like the location - I like everything about it except the faux grass.

You guys have got the Jays - I've got a multi-thousand dollar bill every couple of years when I go to TO for a series or two. You guys should have something real to worry about - like - how can we clone Lawrie!

TamRa - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 03:32 PM EDT (#244186) #
Compare them to the Rays, who will have a front *six* of Shields/Price/Hellickson/Niemann/Davis/Moore - right now, the Jays can only dream of having a rotation half that good

I tried to match them as close as I could to being similar in their role, age, experience, etc regardless of rotation position.

Price - Career 119 ERA+, peek 144
Romero - Career 117, peak 140

Already matching him. Although I do think Price's peak will be higher than Rickey's by a bit. Certainly not twice as good.

Shields - 106, 133
McGowan - 92, 110

Scouting suggest he could be as good or better, health obviously a question

Niemann - 97, 110
Morrow  - 94, 127

I doubt you'd find a single exec that wouldn't take Morrow going forward.

Davis - 92, 96
Cecil - 94, 99

Cecil is every bit as good as Davis, maybe better.

Hellickson - 124, 127
Alvarez - 117, 117

We're supposed to conclude Alvarez can't be HALF as good as Hellickson? Hellickson may be the better pitcher here in the long term, certainly he's more reliable right now, but Alvarez seems to have much better control and he's 3 years younger. It's not off the board at all that Alvarez could be as good or better.

Moore - sample size
Drabek - 78, 78

Yes Drabek stumbled upon arrival, but both have been highly praised and Moore had a couple of years with less than sterling control too. There's no obvious reason to assume Moore will or won't transition to the majors smoothly. i think it's far too pessimistic to take it as a given Drabek won't be just as good.

Frankly, if you could tell me for a certain fact that McGowan was not going to have any more major shoulder issues, I'd be perfectly content with our six vs. their six.

And I don't think our "next wave" takes a back seat to their either.
greenfrog - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 04:43 PM EDT (#244187) #
TamRa: those are odd matchups you've lined up. For example, why would you match up Shields (the Rays #1 or 2 starter) with McGowan, who just made it back to the majors after several years of rehab? I would have matched them up according to (more or less) their place in the rotation, with Moore (Drabek) and McGee (Perez) rounding out the depth chart:

1. Price/Romero: close to a toss-up

2. Shields/Morrow: Shields has better career and 2011 stats. Who would you want starting in the playoffs?

3. Niemann/Cecil: toss-up (very similar career and 2011 stats). And, hey - didn't you strenuously argue a couple of years ago that Brett Cecil was as good as David Price? Hmmm...

4. Hellickson/Alvarez: both have solid potential, but for now I give the edge to Hellickson (longer and better track record, both in the minors and majors). Did you see Hellickson start the other night in Fenway? He is already a complete pitcher, with a full arsenal of pitches (unlike Alvarez)

5. Davis/McGowan: a toss-up. Davis has mediocre stats, but eats innings and is still only 26. McGowan has flashed good stuff in his comeback, and is a great story, but he's 29, has been inconsistent in the majors so far, with inconsistent control, and is still very much an unknown quantity. It's doubtful, in my mind, whether he'll ever be able to throw 180+ innings

6. Moore/Drabek: given Drabek's struggles, you have to give Moore the edge. Moore was just named BA's minor league pitcher of the year. He was the best pitcher in the Futures Game, and basically every scout has been drooling over him for the entire year. He has otherworldly minor-league stats, and is almost two years younger than Drabek (he also looked great in 3 IP of high-leverage relief in Fenway yesterday). While Drabek still has lots of potential, he has taken a pretty big step back this year

For a capsule summary of Moore's year and MLB potential, check out Sickels' report:

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/9/13/2422760/2011-minor-league-ball-pitcher-of-the-year-award-matt-moore

7. Jake McGee/Luis Perez: based on age, minor-league stats, and stuff I'll take McGee

The Jays have lots of promising pitching prospects in A and AA ball, but as far as the current rotational depth 1-7, I think the Rays win hands down.
TamRa - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 05:27 PM EDT (#244188) #
For example, why would you match up Shields (the Rays #1 or 2 starter) with McGowan, who just made it back to the majors after several years of rehab?

Age, mostly. If McGowan is healthy he's our second best starter (not impossible he'd be the best starter)  - it's certainly not like the comparison biases the comp towards the Jays.

Who would you want starting in the playoffs?

Who would you want over the next 3-5 years?  i'd take Morrow

didn't you strenuously argue a couple of years ago that Brett Cecil was as good as David Price?

Absolutely not. I said that Cecil didn't get enough respect given that he had matched Price statistically throughout the minors. It was never a claim he was as good, only that he had to be better than the press he was getting.

He is already a complete pitcher, with a full arsenal of pitches (unlike Alvarez)

Indeed. but the comment I replied to suggested we dare not hope to have a rotation HALF as good. The very fact that we can legitimately compare the two belies that claim.

It's doubtful, in my mind, whether he'll ever be able to throw 180+ innings

Which is fair. But not equal to "no hope" - it is not irrational to hope that he will hold together and to be very optimistic about the results if he does. A McGowan/Davis comp is a sort of "ceiling/floor" situation. But if we want a nice safe floor with a limited ceiling, you could throw Jesse Listch into this comp and not come out hurting.

While Drabek still has lots of potential, he has taken a pretty big step back this year

Which many young pitchers do in their first go-round. Both arrived in the majors at 22, both had been highly touted (yes, Moore somewhat more-so due to amazing K numbers). Yeah, Moore had 3 good innings vs Boston, and Drabek had five good innings against the Yankees in 2010.

Trying to build a clear cut case based on 2 appearances is not helpful. I do think Moore has a higher (Price like) ceiling. But as has been seen, ceilings are not always reached. I admitted up front Drabek stumbled and has a lot to overcome (if i didn't think that, he'd be in the top five and Cecil would be #6) but again, there's a big difference between that and "not half as good"

but as far as the current rotational depth 1-7, I think the Rays win hands down.

If we are going into a crucial series tomorrow? Heck yeah.
Over the next 3-5 years? not in my opinion. CERTAINLY not "hands down"

But we're not going into a crucial series tomorrow - I'm fine with the comparison, even in the places where i think the Rays have the better guy, it doesn't mean our own guys is Josh Towers.
Richard S.S. - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 05:28 PM EDT (#244189) #

While I'm sure everyone would like a baseball-only facility with real grass, the RC does have the advantages of a good location and the retractable roof...

The major problem is zero drainage.  Any rain coming in (or major plumbing leak / fire sprinklers) goes nowhere, possibly causing mold (or worse).   How much does it cost to put in drainage for a MegaCorp?

“The trade route where we are right now is important for us,” Anthopoulos said. “It’s going to be a big part of what we’re doing and it is...

The minors are very rich from Rookie to High A, much less in AA, and mostly missing at AAA.   Any trades we make won't give us sufficient value unless we trade value, so whom do we trade?  We could really use a Front-Of-The-Rotation Starting Pitcher.  Tim Lincecum might price himself out of a job, making him Tradeable.  He will cost a lot more than we might have, or be willing to pay.   Where does A.A. start?  Isn't Yu Darvish part of The A.A. Plan (the posting fee should be recoverable for Rodgers, in deals with Japan)?

...Free agency is the last route we want to go. At some point we’ll have to start delving into it a little more, but I still want to try to avoid it at all costs...

Blue Jays / A.A. spent $10.5 MM, on 3 Relievers last year, to try and find a better closer than Kevin Gregg.  That was a failure.  They were just not good enough.   A.A. will now sign a couple of Closer Candidates to try for the job - for how much ($12.0-14.0 MM)?   Francisco Rodriguez and Jonathan Papelbon aren't that much more, possibly $12.0-$15.0MM.  I just can't see A.A. not going after Free Agents in the 25-27 age group (that's Super-Prime years), especially when they're A-List Free Agents (contract years be damned).

...If we try to do this through the draft, it’s going to be a while. And it’s not going to work and we’re not going to get it to time properly.”

For the Parade of Draft Picks to reach the Majors, it could start in 2-3 years or might take 4-5 years to be self-sustaining.  I don't think many paying fans are willing to wait that long for Promise(s) to appear.   Not when Darvish and Fielder

 

Richard S.S. - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 05:40 PM EDT (#244190) #

OOPS!

Not when Darvish and Fielder can be added to this team for a total Team Salary of $110.0 MM, possibly less.

sweat - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 05:44 PM EDT (#244191) #
Franky Frankfrank isn't better then Gregg?
Chuck - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 05:52 PM EDT (#244192) #

I just can't see A.A. not going after Free Agents in the 25-27 age group

Setting aside Darvish, who is 25 but not a free agent in the conventional sense, just who are the free agents falling in this 25-27 age group? Since players require 6 years of major league service time before they are eligible for free agency, you are talking about players who started playing -- and continued doing so without interruption -- between the ages of 19 and 21.

greenfrog - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 06:09 PM EDT (#244193) #
"If McGowan is healthy he's our second best starter"

This is just getting silly. McGowan has had multiple shoulder surgeries and just returned to the majors after a three-year layoff. He's walked 10 batters in his first 12 IP. Even when he was last healthy, back in 2008, he had good potential but his performance was just OK (ERA+ of 97). He might have a nice comeback, but the chances of him becoming a high-performing workhorse like Price, Shields or Romero are almost nil. At the moment, he's not much more than a reclamation project and a feel-good story. He has a chance of becoming a good starter or reliever again, but it's not a great chance (doesn't mean I'm not rooting for him, though).

"Who would you want over the next 3-5 years? i'd take Morrow"

Maybe - maybe - but that assumes Morrow begins to perform consistently, and not just live off his reputation/potential (still a big if). The Rays have about four or five arms who have a good chance or better of surpassing Morrow in terms of performance over the next 3-5 years (Price, Shields, Hellickson, Moore, to name several).

"I said that Cecil didn't get enough respect given that he had matched Price statistically throughout the minors. It was never a claim he was as good"

Well, to my recollection, the gist of your argument was that the two were a lot closer than the hype surrounding Price might have suggested. Since then, the hype looks warranted. In the last two years, Price has been much, much better than Cecil - he blows him away in virtually every statistical category. So apparently Cecil and Price were getting about the right amount of respect from observers after all.

"A McGowan/Davis comp is a sort of "ceiling/floor" situation"

Exactly - I think they're about equal in this regard. The Rays have lots of high-ceiling starters. For now, I would argue that Davis's floor is worth about as much as McGowan's potential (given the likelihood of his reaching that potential). Davis's ceiling might even be higher than McGowan's at this point - don't forget that he just turned 26 a week ago, is coming off a solid 2010 campaign, and has a fair bit of pedigree of his own (3rd-round pick, decent minor-league stats).

"Trying to build a clear cut case based on 2 appearances is not helpful."

No, I argued that Moore is better based on his age, total track record, and the opinions of scouts - see the Sickels' summary for his recent resume. The two major-league appearances are simply a small-sample-size confirmation that he is a very, very talented and polished pitcher.

"Over the next 3-5 years? not in my opinion."

I can guarantee you that virtually every GM in baseball (AA included) would swap the the Jays' 1-7 starters for the Rays' 1-7, straight up, no questions asked. (Well, maybe not Tony Reagins.) If you can find a single reputable baseball writer outside of Toronto (Goldstein, Law, Callis, Sickels, Goldman, Cameron, Keri, Rosenthal, etc) who thinks otherwise, I would be stunned - stunned.
sam - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 06:11 PM EDT (#244194) #
Do people honestly think the Jays will sign Prince Fielder and Yu Darvish? I don't know. I think they would be fantastic additions to the team and certainly give us a chance at the wild card, but in my heart of hearts I just don't see either happening. I think the facts weigh against us signing either. Just off the top of my head here's what I can think of in terms of for and against for each.

Fielder
For:
- Need for 1B
- Financial flexibility
- Not as many suitors (namely Red Sox or Yankees)
- Management might feel like with his signing the Jays will be closed to competing.

Against:
- Jays won't go longer than 5 years salary
- Would Prince really play in Toronto, the estranged thing (which Marc Hulet alluded to) must have some impact
- Would probably like to play in a bigger market and teams like the Cubs would presumably bid for his services
- Will the Jays go 5/125+, presumably they would have to put a lot more money on the table if they're unwilling to go over five years

Darvish
For:
- The Jays have scouted the fellow and are certainly interested in acquiring talent on the IFA market
- The bidding process is anonymous so you never know what could happen
- If the Jays did win the bidding process, I could see him signing for five years
- The Jays could rationalize the price they'll inevitably have to pay by drawing more fans as a result, I guess the same goes for Fielder as well
- Pitching is an area of need for the club
- The Yankees and the Red Sox have been burned by the Asian market so they may be a bit gun-shy

Against:
- The Yankees need pitching, enter Darvish
- So do the Red Sox really
- Darvish is a risk, as he's never pitched in the big leagues
- The financial commitment is sure to be $100 million+
- Would Darvish really want to pitch in Toronto if Toronto won the bid?

I just don't know, I think there's probably too much going against either of these signings.

With that being said, if either were too sign, you'd have to think attendance would be sure to go up, no?

To me I think you might see a trade or two. I could see us acquiring a starting pitcher and some bullpen help. I don't see AA going into the season with the same 1B/DH combination so there's gotta be some movement there. I'd imagine the real goal of the offseason will be convincing GMs that a package of B and C-level prospects are worth a solid ML player. I think there are a lot of players in the upper levels of the minor league system/breaking to the big league camp that can be traded. McDade, Sierra, Cooper, Thames, Mills, Snider. An outlandish trade idea, but what about something like this?

Hanley Ramirez
Josh Johnson
Logan Morrison

For

Travis Snider
Yunel Escobar
JP Arencibia
Nestor Molina
Brett Cecil

That's probably not going to happen, but in my mind it fits with what the Jays have been doing in targeting guys who are unsettled.
Thomas - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 06:22 PM EDT (#244195) #
An outlandish trade idea, but what about something like this?.....

That's charitable, to say the least.

sam - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 06:22 PM EDT (#244196) #
Just in thinking about that trade proposal. I could see how that could be attractive to a team like the Marlins. Arencibia is a local guy and would be a good fit for the National League. I guess John Buck is there but I'm sure they could find a taker for him. Yunel would probably also be an attraction to that market and then they'd get Snider would I think needs a change of scenery. And then Brett Cecil would certainly fair better in the National League. Toss in Nestor Molina and there's a very good pitching prospect.

However, I imagine it would take a lot of convincing for the Marlins to part with Ramirez since he is there franchise player and Johnson has a big-time arm, although I hope he is healthy. And with everything surrounding Morrison, I'd imagine both parties would be eager to end that relationship.

With those guys, the Jays set up quite well.

Something like this:

Johnson 2B
Hanley SS
Baustista RF
LH 1B
Lawrie 3B
Morrison LF
RH DH
Rasmus CF
C

Romero
Johnson
Morrow
Alvarez
McGowan

I don't know. Those moves don't necessarily add too much payroll and would make Toronto a more ideal place for Fielder?
Chuck - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 06:29 PM EDT (#244197) #

That's charitable, to say the least.

Setting aside the over the topness of the trade suggestion, the Marlins already owe a JPA-like catcher $6M (suckers!) for each of the next two seasons so would probably not be in the market for a catcher.

smcs - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 06:35 PM EDT (#244198) #
An outlandish trade idea, but what about something like this?

Rank those players 1 to 8. That's why the Marlins wouldn't do that trade.
sam - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 06:52 PM EDT (#244199) #
Well I tried. I agree with both the above comments re: trade. I was really just hoping to see Richard respond or for this trade idea to be picked up by Jays Journal or something like that.
smcs - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 07:04 PM EDT (#244200) #
But I do think that Toronto is full of non-sports-fans and Leafs fans who either wouldn't notice, wouldn't believe it, or wouldn't care, if the Jays ever did win another Series. I don't think the fans will ever be back in large enough numbers.

I disagree. Toronto is a hockey town, and that will never change. Toronto can get behind whatever is popular as well as or better than any other city. Look at TFC and the Raptors. When TFC was new and hot, it was probably the best crowd in the MLS. Now that it is five years in, and they are still hor-awful, both horrible and awful, the stands are half-filled. When the Raptors were in the playoffs, it was a sell-out every night, all season long. If the Jays start winning, especially if it is obvious that it is a good team in May, the Rogers Centre will fill up. As it stands, the games that have high attendance are the big games: return of Burnett, return of Halladay, Opening Day, Fan Appreciation, Canada vs. USA at the WBC. Give Toronto a winner, and they will get behind it.
PeterG - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 07:05 PM EDT (#244201) #
1B and starting pitching are not areas of need imo.
Paul D - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 07:42 PM EDT (#244202) #
1B and starting pitching are not areas of need imo.

What would you consider the areas of need?
Ryan C - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 08:00 PM EDT (#244203) #
Right, but the team had cache then, as it was around twenty years old and had had very little success before, combined with the new SkyDome spiffyness. It was a trendy, buzz thing to do.

True, but that doesn't mean you throw up your hands thinking it will never happen again.  There is no reason why a winning baseball team in Toronto can't be a trendy, buzz worthy thing again.  It takes some time to build the buzz, you have to show continuing improvement, and have some interesting stories to tell ("hey how about that Lawrie, eh?"), but it is easily within the realm of possibility.
Matthew E - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 08:06 PM EDT (#244204) #
that doesn't mean you throw up your hands thinking it will never happen again.  There is no reason why a winning baseball team in Toronto can't be a trendy, buzz worthy thing again.  It takes some time to build the buzz, you have to show continuing improvement, and have some interesting stories to tell ("hey how about that Lawrie, eh?"), but it is easily within the realm of possibility.

No, you're right. They should try. I'd hate to see it if they didn't. I just don't happen to think it'll work, that's all; but then I'm just a fan and can afford to think like that. If the Jays' decisionmakers really thought there was no way for them ever to make it work, they'd be stuck. What would they do? They'd have to choose between being cynical hacks and quitting.
Dewey - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 08:20 PM EDT (#244205) #
the team had cache then

Ye gods, the word you guys are ambushing is actually "cachet"!  I at first thought you were talking about cash (money); then maybe some computer-related term I didn't know.

 My work here is never done.
Richard S.S. - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 08:51 PM EDT (#244207) #

Chuck:

Why are we setting Darvish aside?  1) We win the posting and sign him - good, Boston, New York and others competing for a playoff spot don't.  2) We don't sign him - good, we get our posting back, cite unreasonable demands, 2nd place doesn't get a chance until next year.  3) Worst case: we don't win the post - claim to be financially responsible and move on.    Free Agents 25-27, who are available - usually Top Tier and costing too much to keep for his previous team.  We should always be in on these assets.   Fielder is 27 until early May. 

Sam:

Boston has Adrian Gonzales at 1B and New York has Mark Teixeira at 1B.  Both have much bigger needs than Fielder.  He sure makes Toronto lineup respectable.  Offer 4 years $110 - $120.0 MM and being a free agent at 31 for another big contract.   As for Darvish - see above.

An outlandish trade idea, but what about something like this?

Hanley Ramirez
Josh Johnson
Logan Morrison

For

Travis Snider
Yunel Escobar
JP Arencibia
Nestor Molina
Brett Cecil

Florida is moving into a Brand New Stadium and is looking to make a Splash.  J.P. Arencibia (Local Kid), Adeiny Hechavarria (Cuban), Henderson Alvarez (Venezula) and Nestor Molina (Venezula) will be the start of the 10+ players Toronto would have to trade to make this deal.  Hanley Ramirez (27), $46.5 MM through 2014, Shoulder Surgery - 60 day DL.  Is he that much better that Yunel and Adeiny, I don`t think so.   Josh Johnson (26), $27.5 MM through 2013, Shoulder Inflammation - 60 day DL.  Is he better than Henderson, I don`t think so.   Logan Morrison (24) Pre-arb 2, exactly someone A.A. might go after.

Toronto needs a Big Scary Bat as DH or 1B or Both.  The lineup needs as much help as it can get.   Toronto needs a Top-Of-The-Rotation Starter.  Right now we have Romero and who and who and who with who.  That`s just not good enough.   Toronto`s Bullpen is a disaster and needs a lot of help - especially 8th and 9th inning Pitchers.  Of course A.A.`s ideas of help didn`t quite work out for us.  Toronto needs to settle the 2B and LF questions, but that`s not too serious a matter. 

Chuck - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 09:06 PM EDT (#244208) #

My work here is never done.

Dewey, if you're going to let the spelling and grammar at this forum get to you, you might want to consider Mylegacy's strategy for dealing with the world. Single malt, natch. I know I haven't been sober since I joined.

Chuck - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 09:12 PM EDT (#244209) #
Free Agents 25-27, who are available

I think you missed my point, which was that there are no such free agents. Yes, Darvish is that rare kinda sorta exception if you want to consider him a free agent, but Fielder will be 28 when he takes the field in 2012. To be a 25-27 year old FA, you need to start playing between 19 and 21 -- has there been any such free agent since ARod? Unless we're going to quibble about semantics and consider the age of the FA when he signs, not when he takes the field the following calendar year.
Original Ryan - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 09:39 PM EDT (#244211) #
Offer 4 years $110 - $120.0 MM and being a free agent at 31 for another big contract.

There's no way that Fielder signs for just four years. It's pure fantasy.

One of the advantages of being in Fielder's position is that a player can guarantee himself big bucks long-term, even if he gets injured or his performance declines. Fielder will be looking for six to eight years (or more), possibly with an out-clause that would enable him to test the market early if it was advantageous to do so. That's what several players in his position have done.
eldarion - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 09:47 PM EDT (#244212) #
Quickly chiming in on the financial reality facing the Jays. I agree wholeheartedly with previous comments respecting creative accounting. I would add, however, a far more important factor which everyone has overlooked: CRTC regulations respecting Canadian Content. This is a hugely important factor underlying Rogers original purchase of the Jays which I think most people underrate. As the owner of the four regional Sportsnet channels - and now Sportsnet 1 - Rogers has five sports channel which they must fill with acceptable programming in terms of CRTC regulations and policy. What better way than to buy a major league baseball team and air its games on the channel themselves? The Jays count as Canadian sports programming. By purchasing the Jays, Rogers has shrewdly managed to promote one its own properties and remain in accordance with CRTC regulations. Moreover, have you ever closely watched a Jays game in terms of branding? Next time, count how many times you see the Rogers logo, hear a Rogers promotion or see a Rogers commercial. Rogers has brilliantly managed to comply with broadcasting regulations and simultaneously use every Jays game as a three hour commercial for Rogers products. Frankly, I doubt Rogers even cares if the Jays make a cent - they'll simply use the losses the Jays accumulate to decrease the taxable income from another branch of its media conglomerate. The Jays have far more value as a regulatory and branding tool.  
sam - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 10:26 PM EDT (#244213) #
Wait, sorry Richard, are you saying that Henderson Alvarez is better than Josh Johnson come the beginning of the 2012 season? And that Yunel Escobar and Adeiny Hechavrria are better than Hanley Ramirez? Are we talking about the same players here?

I'm really just looking for a yes or no here?

Also, in your haste to make your most recent opiate-induced statement I think you overlooked how I mentioned that both Boston and New York would be unlikely participants in the Fielder sweepstakes.
John Northey - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 10:47 PM EDT (#244214) #
I think a lot of people here are underestimating the value of Escobar to the Jays.

He has one of the most team friendly contracts (for a player in his last years of arbitration/first free agency) that you can get. 2 years guaranteed at $5 mil per, followed by 2 team option seasons at $5 mil per. Fangraphs lists every last season he has played at more than that. In fact, outside of last year every year has been worth more than double. This year is nearly at $20 million, or the net value of the entire 4 years he just signed for. And that is with his fielding listed at just 1.6 runs above average.

Escobar is a guy worth $5-15 mil a year over his salary over each of the next 4 years. That is a net profit to anyone trading for him of $20 million to $60 million with an escape clause if he gets seriously hurt after 2 years ($10 million risk). I doubt anyone outside of Evan Longoria has signed such a team friendly contract recently, and his was signed when he had just 6 days of ML experience. Escobar right now would be one of the most valuable non-first 2 season in the majors (when teams pick the salary of a player) players out there in a trade.
Magpie - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 11:02 PM EDT (#244215) #
... starting pitching are not areas of need imo

This year the Jays had better starting pitching than Kansas City and Baltimore. And that's all. If you think that's good enough, I suppose it's not an area of need.
greenfrog - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 11:16 PM EDT (#244216) #
Just thought I would give Frank Francisco a bit of a shout-out. His second-half numbers:

0-0, 5 SV, 1.54 ERA, 23.1 IP, 16 H, 4 ER, 4 BB, 21 K, opponents hitting 188/225/329

Apart from the save stats, that line stacks up well against Mo's second-half numbers:

0-1, 19 SV, 2.35 ERA, 23 IP, 17 H, 6 ER, 2 BB, 26 K, opponents hitting 207/241/305

Of course, those guys are mere mortals compared to 2nd-half Papelbon:

2-0, 10 SV, 0.39 ERA, 23 IP, 7 H, 1 ER, 2 BB, 29 K, opponents hitting 092/115/118
smcs - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 11:21 PM EDT (#244217) #
I think a lot of people here are underestimating the value of Escobar to the Jays.

Escobar underestimated the value of Escobar.
Matthew E - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 11:28 PM EDT (#244218) #
This year the Jays had better starting pitching than Kansas City and Baltimore. And that's all. If you think that's good enough, I suppose it's not an area of need.

Right, right, but look at it this way: if the Jays go through next year with the same basic cast of characters they've got now in the rotation, are they still going to be twelfth in the league, or will the development of their good young talent improve them enough all by itself? And I don't know the answer to that. But it's not automatic that the Jays have to replace their current starters with guys outside the organization because they just don't have the talent in-house. When I look at the Jays' top six starters, my reaction is not, "these guys stink and must be replaced," it's "these are the right guys but they have to do better."

Not that there's no room for improvement from the outside. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Anthopoulos did make, say, one move. But it's hard to do and expensive.
adrianveidt - Sunday, September 18 2011 @ 11:56 PM EDT (#244219) #
This year the Jays had better starting pitching than Kansas City and Baltimore. And that's all. If you think that's good enough, I suppose it's not an area of need.
I agree that the pitching was horrendous, but I think a full year of McGowan and Alvarez is going to get you a much better result than some of the players they trotted out this year, such as Reyes, et al. Obviously they shouldn't waste another year experimenting with crap like that. And some conclusion on Morrow should be reached, even if it's a painful one.
TamRa - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 02:20 AM EDT (#244221) #
As of today, the Jays starters have two teams under them in the AL in ERA (KC and Baltimore) and the Twins is just slightly in front of them. it's worth noting that while the jays are 12th (slightly out of 11th) the Boston Red Sox are only 9th and the Yankees are only sixth.



The rotation now, however is not the rotation that was third worst in the AL on the whole year. Nor is that "third worst" crew the one which will line up next spring. Even without imports.


Romero - has been fine all year of course
Morrow - through mid-August Morrow was pitching, other than a slight uptick in home runs allowed, pretty much exactly as he was in his excellent second half of 2010. I'm not prepared to worry about him based on a month's worth of slippage.
Cecil has a 3.50 ERA since coming back from Vegas, it was 7.24 when he went down. Whom do we expect to show up next year?
Alvarez speaks for himself here.
McGowan I've said enough about today but whatever he is, he sure as heck isn't Reyes.

if you simply take out Reyes (20 starts), Mills (4 starts) and that early struggle of Cecil (5 starts) then the team's starter ERA falls to 4.37 - which is still 10th in the league but it does illustrate how much it's impacted by guys who are not going to be in the 2012 rotation.

the question in my mind is, if you set set to address that rotation and get up to at least league average (which is about where the Yanks and tigers sit) - is that more likely to come from an improved Morrow and Drabek and hopefully a healthy McGowan....or is it more likely to come via importing some Kevin Slowey or some such.

Obviously if you can go out and hijack an ace level guy, do it but i don't think we'd be realistic to be penciling in Hernandez or Kershaw for the Jays in 2012. Short of that - who's out there that you'd rather have than the guys who are here?



Magpie - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 02:44 AM EDT (#244223) #
through mid-August Morrow was pitching, other than a slight uptick in home runs allowed, pretty much exactly as he was in his excellent second half of 2010.

Not quite as good as the year before. In his abbreviated second half in 2010, he went 5-1, 3.69. He was 8-7, 4.55 on August 12, and he'd been bringing his ERA down at that point.

a full year of McGowan

What possible reason is there to expect a full year from Dustin McGowan? I mean... why? He's a great story, I'd love to see him succeed. But pitchers who have injured themselves over and over and over in the past tend to keep right on injuring themselves in the future. It would be great if he's the exception, if he escapes that fate. But counting on it?
Spifficus - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 02:51 AM EDT (#244224) #
I'm not sure what to expect out of him, either, but using McGowan as the first option in the #5 slot doesn't necessitate counting on him, though. If you make sure Drabek and Hutchinson are on the same schedule (and McGuire a day after), the option exists to tap into that depth if he falters health-wise or performance-wise while giving the team the opportunity to find awesomeness in a bottle.
TamRa - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 02:54 AM EDT (#244225) #
by the way, while I can't combine splits on the ESPN charts I'm looking at so this is the whole staff and not just the starters, it's interesting to note that the Rays play in what seems to be (from what i read on the other thread) the best pitchers park in the AL and the jays play in a notoriously hitter friendly venue.

So what happens when you look at road ERA?

by the way, I can't combine splits on the ESPN charts I'm looking at so this is the whole staff and not just the starters, but still...

TBR: 3.95 ERA, .242 BAA, .720 OPSA,
TBJ: 4.01 ERA, .245 BAA , .713 OPSA,

All of which much more closely reflects my armchair opinion of the relative talent of the two staffs.

in other words, a whole lot of the fawning over the Rays pitchers as compared to the Jays pitchers is being impressed with what turns out to be largely (but not entirely) nothing more than park effect.

Ryan C - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 02:56 AM EDT (#244226) #
if you simply take out Reyes (20 starts), Mills (4 starts) and that early struggle of Cecil (5 starts) then the team's starter ERA falls to 4.37 - which is still 10th in the league but it does illustrate how much it's impacted by guys who are not going to be in the 2012 rotation.

I agree with your premise, but we shouldn't forget that you can't just stop there.  Now that you have a sort-of baseline, you have to then somehow account for all the unforeseen stuff that's going to go wrong next year.  Because there is always going to be stuff, like Cecil's first half implosion this year, or someone suffering a major injury, that you can't really predict and that you are going to have to deal with.  Adding a reliable, major league average starter to the rotation would add a lot of stability.

TamRa - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 03:08 AM EDT (#244227) #
Not quite as good as the year before. In his abbreviated second half in 2010, he went 5-1, 3.69. He was 8-7, 4.55 on August 12, and he'd been bringing his ERA down at that point.

Wait - did you just cite a W/L record? Anyway, his ERA after playing Aug. 17 was 4.41, but all his other stats except HR were pretty much exactly what they had been over his last 16 games of 2010 - BB rate, K rate, hit rate - on and on and on. And the HR rate was only slightly elivated.

What possible reason is there to expect a full year from Dustin McGowan? I mean... why?

I'm not sure what makes you think i am expecting it so much as suggesting the possibility of it, and yes, UI firmly believe it's possible. i think it is a wonderful illustration of the tendency of many to assume bad things will happen to the jays that so many take it as a given that on any given pitch his right arm is simply going to fall completely off his shoulder.

the man has pitched not a few competitive innings (in actual baseball games) this year - as many roughly as your average middle reliever, and that doesn't count the work in extended. He probably has something like 70 IP this year in all and he is pain free, and suffering no discernable ill-effects.

This does not prove that he even makes it out of ST next year, but it does illustrate that one cannot simply assume his body cannot handle throwing a major league baseball. In any case, I've said nothing which should make you think I am "counting on it"

I will say this though - anytime you start analyzing "what are the range of possibilities next year? what happens if most things go right?" you have to construct that analysis assuming health.

Sure, McGowan is a higher injury risk than most. Litsch gets hurt a lot too. you take note of these things certainly - but you note them as things that might go wrong which, by definition, is NOT what you facotor into "what happens if everything goes right"

If you are doing an anylsis of "how can the jays suck hard next year?" then by all means, put "McGowan blows up" right at the top of the list.

But if you are saying "how good can they be if everything goes right?" you really don't put "key players get hurt" on that list, do you?


TamRa - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 03:28 AM EDT (#244228) #
I agree with your premise, but we shouldn't forget that you can't just stop there.  Now that you have a sort-of baseline, you have to then somehow account for all the unforeseen stuff that's going to go wrong next year.  Because there is always going to be stuff, like Cecil's first half implosion this year, or someone suffering a major injury, that you can't really predict and that you are going to have to deal with.  Adding a reliable, major league average starter to the rotation would add a lot of stability.

Indeed.

And that sort of stuff can go wrong with the Rays rotation just as easily.

I know opinions vary but for me, "stability" is not really the rotation commodity we are looking for in this division - we need exceptional. Stability is only a factor if you mean health.

I do want stability in the bullpen but that's not the subject at hand.

The way I see it, I'm looking at 2012 with three of five spots set on paper (Romero, Morrow, and Cecil) and I have two spots to fill.

for those two spots I have three potentially high upside guys with major league experience-
McGowan
Alvarez
Drabek

I also have two high upside guys who might need as little as half a season to be ready-
Hutchison
Molina

And i also have three former starters who are anywhere from average to at least competent to cover me if things go horribly wrong-
Villianueva
Litsch
Perez

and two other prospects near ready who might well be stable if not spectacular and with some potential to surprise me-

Jenkins
McGuire

Now I can continue the process with this group and at worst, i might get "stuck" with Jesse Litsch as my #5

OR, i can go out and sign some "stability" in the form of...jason marquis? Joel Pinero? Javiar Vasquez? and watch Mr. Stability give me, presumably, 180 competent innings which will likely be only slightly better than what Litsch can do (if that)

Meanwhile, IF McGowan pitches all year, then all the rest of those guys languish in the minors...if McGowan goes down but Drabek has figured it out, then what do i do with Alvarez (who might very likely give you much better results than Mr. Stability. so forth and so on.

How bad will things have to get before we are using a pitcher who will pitch obviously worse that guys like those i mentioned?

now obviously, if Litsch and Perez were the best we could hope for in this spots, and there were no high upside guys around - sure, go out and make a signing or two.

But that's not, IMO, where we are - and i think the process of developing the high-potential guys is WAY more important than the marginal upgrade from Mr. Stability.

Opinions obviously vary.
Magpie - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 03:48 AM EDT (#244229) #
did you just cite a W/L record?

Hey, when your ERA is higher than the league average, a winning record is not a negative.
Jonny German - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 08:56 AM EDT (#244236) #
That's a good summary of the Jays starting pitching depth. It will be interesting to see which ones don't make it through the winter as Blue Jays. So far Rzepczynski is the only guy I've been sad to see leave by trade under AA's watch. I fully expect him to add to that this offseason.
China fan - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 09:23 AM EDT (#244238) #

I'd like to see Morrow and Cecil considered as the Numbers 4 and 5 pitchers in the Jays rotation, nothing more, until they prove themselves over a full year. Forget about potential, forget about half-year spurts, let's consider results for a full year and let's put them where they accurately rank by league standards. If we assume that Morrow and Cecil are the 4 and 5 in the rotation, it allows a clearer and truer perspective on the situation. It means that the Jays need a 2 and 3 in the rotation, which is a lot harder than finding a 5. Can those slots be filled internally? Certainly I'm optimistic that Alvarez could be a Number 2 within a year or two, and maybe Hutchison or Molina have similar potential, but not for 2012. Gambling on McGowan for such a crucial slot would be very risky. Add it all up, and there's a good argument that Anthopoulos should try to acquire a proven starter by trade.

What if AA doesn't acquire a starter? We can still hope that Morrow and Cecil will begin to fulfill their potential next year. We can still hope that Alvarez will find a 3rd pitch, we can still hope that McGowan dodges injury, we can still hope that one of the New Hampshire starters can make the leap to the major leagues next year. But building a playoff contender on hope is a bit unrealistic.

greenfrog - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 10:06 AM EDT (#244239) #
"it's interesting to note that the Rays play in what seems to be (from what i read on the other thread) the best pitchers park in the AL and the jays play in a notoriously hitter friendly venue."

True in 2011 and 2010, but the numbers are a lot closer in 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006. Based on the ESPN park effect stats over multiple years, I'm not convinced that the RC is a vastly better hitting venue than the Trop.

In any case, the Rays have allowed 572 runs this year. The Jays have allowed 719 - a massive difference of almost 150 runs. ESPN ranks the Rays #1 in team pitching in the AL (3.58 ERA / 686 OPS against), and the Jays #11 (4.36 ERA / 747 OPS against). The Rays certainly have better defense than the Jays, but arguing that the two teams' pitching is about equivalent is pure sophism IMO. And the rich are likely to get richer, as Moore will presumably pitch a full season in 2012 and has #1 starter projection.
ayjackson - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#244240) #

I'd be happy if Cecil and Morrow were the 3 & 4 starters instead of 2/3.  I have said, and still believe, AA will try to bring in a top starter via a trade.  McGowan or Alvarez would slot into the number 5 spot with the other biding his time until Cecil sees something sharp and shiny in the kitchen.

I think Drabek would be best served in the bullpen for a year - gaining confidence two innings at a time.  He could spot start too.  In a perfect world, he'd pitch 100 innings of varying importance.

I guess my other thought is that if we did bring in another starter, Cecil is a prime candidate to be going the other way in a deal.

greenfrog - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 10:39 AM EDT (#244241) #
Ayjackson, I agree with those comments, although (perhaps influenced by yesterday's game against the Yankees) I might have Morrow at #3 and Cecil at #4. I like the idea of sticking Drabek in the 'pen for a year.
AWeb - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 11:12 AM EDT (#244242) #

But building a playoff contender on hope is a bit unrealistic.

I think it is also unrealistic, given the last ten years, for the Jays to build a roster for opening day that is clearly better than the Yankees and Red Sox (barring an insane offseason with $150M budget, signing Sabathia, Fielder, and Pujols). Hope is what the Jays will be building on until they actually contend. If it wasn't hope, they'd be contending already.

McGowan or Alvarez would slot into the number 5 spot with the other biding his time until Cecil sees something sharp and shiny in the kitchen.

Love this comment...maybe he needs a "no sharp objects" clause in his contract.

Mick Doherty - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#244243) #

I know I haven't been sober since I joined.

Chuck,. that explains SO much ...

Anders - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 01:31 PM EDT (#244248) #
Without culling quotes...

The Rays pitching is very good. The Jays is not. Some of this is that the Rays defense is actually quite phenomenal, as they field essentially three all league defenders - Longoria, Zobrist, and if you believe the numbers and the at least one game he stole from the Jays, Sam Fuld. Throw in a couple of other plus guys (Elliot Johnson, Sean Rodriguez, etc.) and it's not hard to see why the Rays staff succeeds, superior talent aside.

I don't think the Jays defense is necessarily awful or anything like that, but if one is being charitable Kelly Johnson and Yunel Escobar are both fine, perhaps slightly above average (it seems to me that Yunel had a much worse year, subjectively at least, than his first with the team), and Colby Rasmus and Brett Lawrie you kind of hope, but Lind, if he's still there, is slightly below average at best, Arencibia has a decent arm but isn't particularly good overall, Thames is a butcher, Bautista has an arm but gets fairly lousy breaks, etc.

Anders - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 01:36 PM EDT (#244249) #
Also re: the pitching. The Jays basically have one starter they can count on for next year, Romero. Morrow has underperformed his FIP by 1.4 runs in each of the last two years, and Cecil has never really been especially good. I'm a huge Henderson Alvarez fan - the guy is a 21 year old groundball pitcher who throws 95, doesn't walk anyone or give up homeruns, and he's done this despite only having 2 pitches, so if he can master a decent slider, watch out. But he's 21, and young pitchers, they break your heart.

If the team added CJ Wilson and Prince Fielder that would be aces with me.

Mylegacy - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 01:44 PM EDT (#244250) #
Some random musings...

On Fielder and the big Card - as expensive as they will be, without the Yanks and Boston going after them they'll be (almost) affordable. Either could be an effective partner with Bautista for the next five(ish) years. Under the circumstances - I'd take a serious flyer on one of them.

On Yu - Unlike the two above - Yu will have the Yanks and Sox both breathing heavily down his Persian Japanese neck. This guy will be too expensive - both mega teams DESPERATELY need him.

On Alvarez and the young guns - what have we got here? Seriously, we think we know. Time will tell. Hutchison (Alvarez Two) will challenge by mid-season. Could five of the following blossom into serious mid to top rotation starters in 2012: Romero, Alvarez, McGowan, Morrow, Villaneuva, Drabek, McGuire, Hutchinson and Jenkins? Excellent chance three could - fair chance four could. Contenders need at least three top of rotation guys - we'll have that.

I never thought I'd say it - but bring big Franky back. Ugh, I feel tainted just saying it.

I haven't jumped into the fray to support TamRa's positions earlier in this thread - but I mostly concur with her thoughts. That and $1.50 will get her a coffee at McDonalds.

IF we didn't have Alvarez and just McGuire and Jenkins close in the minors we'd think we had two guys who might be difference makers. As it is we've - besides those two - Alvarez, Hutchison, Nicolino, Syndergaard and Molina (the order I rank them in - as of now). There is a chance those five may be our rotation by 2014 at the latest.

Change - good change is blowing through Toronto.  AA - get Fielder OR trade for Votto - OR something similar - we're close enough that we might be contending sooner than we thought - sooner than we hoped. BE READY - do your bit.

 

Richard S.S. - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 01:57 PM EDT (#244252) #
'splain this to me Lucy
People are tending to agree that Tampa pitches in a pitcher' park, while Toronto pitches in a hitter's park. People are saying Tampa has much better defense than Toronto does. Numbers indicate the 'road numbers' of both teams are very similar, even with Tampa's 'superior defense'.
Whose pitching staff is better?
sam - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 01:58 PM EDT (#244253) #
I agree with China Fan in his assessment of the team and rotation. Not until I see a season or two of either guy seriously producing will I say they're no. 2 or no. 3 starters. In my books both guys are currently back of the rotation guys who are closer to pitching in the minor leagues than on a competing ball club
Jonny German - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#244255) #
Cecil has never really been especially good

He's been very close. Through the end of August last year he was averaging 6.4 innings over 23 starts, 3.74 ERA (113 ERA+). He was 23, strong minor league record, was excellent in 2 starts against Boston and in 3 against New York (a total of 34.2 IP with a 1.82 ERA, no more than 2 runs in any of those 5 starts).

Then he had a bad September. And then this spring he got yanked around - I'm not at all convinced his demotion had to do with "lost velocity", I think it was more about AA needing room in the rotation so he could continue the Reyes experiment. Since he's been back he's basically been the same guy he was pre-September 2010.
greenfrog - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#244264) #
"Numbers indicate the 'road numbers' of both teams are very similar, even with Tampa's 'superior defense'"

This could be attributable to any number of factors (for example, some pitchers are just more comfortable pitching at home, while others are more comfortable on the road). And this can vary significantly from year to year. In 2010, Brandon Morrow was 8-1, 2.74 ERA at home and 2-6, 6.72 ERA on the road. This year, the numbers are completely reversed: He's 5-3, 3.36 ERA on the road, and 5-8, 6.31 ERA at home. Similarly, Jose Bautista had a 1.118 OPS at home last year, and a 879 OPS on the road. This year, his home/road split is just about even. What does this tell us? Not a lot, I would argue.

And if you're going to use road stats in support of your argument, how do you explain the massive differential in home stats between the two pitching staffs (Jays pitchers: 778 OPS against / Rays pitchers 653 OPS against). That's more like the difference in park effects between Las Vegas and Safeco field than it is between the RC and the Trop. Citing road stats only has some superficial appeal, but you should be prepared to explain the other half of the data - and I would argue that invoking "park effects" in one year only without delving into the actual numbers doesn't get you very far.
TamRa - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 03:01 PM EDT (#244265) #
I'd like to see Morrow and Cecil considered as the Numbers 4 and 5 pitchers in the Jays rotation, nothing more, until they prove themselves over a full year. Forget about potential, forget about half-year spurts, let's consider results for a full year and let's put them where they accurately rank by league standards.

that reasoning never seems to apply when people are penciling in, for instance, Matt Moore as a #1 type guy. That always seems to be a given.

Romero has fought tooth and nail for respect and still probably is under-rated, David price has been assigned defacto Ace status from his first pitch in the majors - is Price schooling Romero this year?

this is a classic example of what i mean - if the competition has a stud, we can just go ahead and quake in our boots over him - if the Jays have a stud (and Brandon Morrow has EVERY BIT as much upside as Moore) then we can go ahead and hold our collective breaths as we await the impending and inexplicable (but yet not unexpected) collapse.

But building a playoff contender on hope is a bit unrealistic.

Most all of them are. Did the Red Sox, or did they not, spend a big pile of money on JD Drew hoping he would stay healthy? What about Matsuzaka - were they blind to the number of innings he had thrown or did they hope he would hold together? Examples are legion. Ultimately, even with reliable guys you are hoping - hoping a guy doesn't "get old quick" after you spend a lot of money on him, hoping a pitcher with bad mechanics doesn't blow up, hoping a guy doesn't simply stop hitting for no apparent reason as Hill did.

You do the best you can to acquire talent and you HOPE all the moving parts operate smoothly. that's all anyone is doing. At most, you can only minimize risk in proportion to your goal. If AA's goal was to fight to the last game in 2012, I'm sure he would seek to minimize risk factors - but i don't think that's what he''s doing.
greenfrog - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 03:02 PM EDT (#244266) #
Incidentally, I'm just curious - why do "park factors" stats seem to vary so much year-by-year? In the last 10 years, the RC has ranked as follows among the 30 MLB ballparks (the higher the ranking, the more hitter-friendly):

2011: 6th
2010: 8th
2009: 23rd
2008: 18th
2007: 21st
2006: 7th
2005: 10th
2004: 4th
2003: 8th
2002: 16th

Given this variation, how do you actually know how much a particular park affects a team's home stats in any given year? To get a clearer picture (for example, in the preceding debate over the relative merits of the Jays and Rays starting pitchers), do you have to average park effects over a number of years? I would be interested to know how sabermetric types make use of these stats when assessing home/road performances.
TamRa - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 03:02 PM EDT (#244267) #
(Jays pitchers: 778 OPS against / Rays pitchers 653 OPS against). That's more like the difference in park effects between Las Vegas and Safeco

I find that hard to believe. But maybe I'm over my head on that subject.
James W - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 03:20 PM EDT (#244268) #
Keeping in mind the usual caveats about single-season park factors, Rogers Centre comes in at 1.128, and the Trop is 0.811 for runs this year, or The Trop is 71.9% of Rogers Centre.
greenfrog - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 03:39 PM EDT (#244271) #
Wow, that's a really extreme split. Just a couple of years ago, the Trop was a more hitter-friendly park than the RC (0.996 to 0.937). I'm not sure what to make of these stats - does one park really become that much more of a hitter-friendly venue from one year to the next?
China fan - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 03:40 PM EDT (#244272) #

TamRa, I fully agree that Romero has been under-rated, and he fully deserves to be considered a #1 or a "stud" or whatever you'd like to call him. That doesn't alter my point about Morrow and Cecil.

And please don't assume that I am favoring the Rays or other teams just because I'd prefer to push Morrow and Cecil down the rotation a little. I never "pencilled in Matt Moore as a #1" or anything like that. (I would note, however, that Moore is five years younger than Morrow, so nobody can really compare them anyway.)

You're convinced that Morrow is "a stud." My only point is: a pitcher should be assessed on his results over a full season. Not on the height of his ceiling, or the speed of his fastball, or his xFIP numbers, or the number of strikeouts that he racked up in a single game.

If you use the word "stud" as a synonym for "a pitcher with vast talent who could someday be a great pitcher", then okay, I agree with you.

bpoz - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 05:15 PM EDT (#244278) #
Shane, That was a great interview/article with AA in the Boston Herald.

Somehow watching AA work is like watching a magician. He explained the challenge of winning in the AL East. I am glad to be witnessing his attempt from the beginning.

So just to list some things to watch about AA in his actions.
1) He does not have to reveal any of his plans until he wants to.
2) FA route is his last choice. Trades his 1st choice.
3)The draft will not take him all the way.

I really like the employee comment that he will consider anything even something inconceivable.

I think this gives us a base on the kind of moves he will consider and the moves he will not consider.

Thomas - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 05:42 PM EDT (#244279) #
Romero has fought tooth and nail for respect and still probably is under-rated, David price has been assigned defacto Ace status from his first pitch in the majors - is Price schooling Romero this year?

I'm not sure what your point is. I don't think anyone debating the strength or lack thereof of Toronto's potential 2012 rotation has ever done anything but pencil Romero at the front of the rotation. I was optimistic but cautious after Romero's rookie year, along with others, and I don't apologize for being so. I'm not anymore. this is a classic example of what i mean - if the competition has a stud, we can just go ahead and quake in our boots over him - if the Jays have a stud (and Brandon Morrow has EVERY BIT as much upside as Moore) then we can go ahead and hold our collective breaths as we await the impending and inexplicable (but yet not unexpected) collapse.

Again, this might just depend on what you mean by "stud," but equating Brandon Morrow and Matt Moore is silly. First of all, I don't think everyone is pencilling in Moore as a number one starter. They are saying he is likely to be a formidable force in the top half of Tampa's rotation for years to come with a significant chance of becoming an ace.

Second of all, Brandon Morrow has a major league track record we can evaluate. Matt Moore does not. If Moore had made 69 starts with a 4.68 ERA in the majors, I do not think people would evaluate him the same way they do now. His upside may remain the same, but people would be less optimistic about his likelihood of reaching or approaching it. Ignoring Morrow's major league history and projecting him as a number two starter based on great stuff isn't the best way to approach things, in our/my opinion. Otherwise, every year AJ Burnett would be pencilled in as a number two starter.

Third, Morrow's minor league track record compares unfavourably to Moore's. He has a 3.81 ERA over 33 minor league games. He spent the most time at Triple-A - 16 games - with a 4.02 ERA. Moore has a career 2.64 ERA in the minors and has a 1.92 ERA in 27 starts between Double-A and Triple-A. I'm using ERA here as an illustrative point, but his K/9, BB/9 and H/9 rate all exceed Morrow's numbers, as well. As good as Moore's numbers are, his stuff and his peripherals both support them.

Fourth, I don't believe Brandon Morrow has Moore's upside and I would be surprised if any serious prospect source said that he did (BA, BP, Law, Sickels, etc...). I invite you to prove me wrong on this point if you can get them to respond to a mailbag question or tweet. However, even if he does, the likelihood of Morrow reaching it is significantly lower than Moore's likelihood of reaching his upside. The world is littered with failed pitching prospects, but if I had to bet whether the number one pitching prospect in all of baseball or Brandon Morrow would consistently put up low-3 ERAs for the majority of the next decade, I know where I'd place my money.

Shane - Monday, September 19 2011 @ 07:19 PM EDT (#244289) #

Surprised that Yunel Escobar is not looked at more fondly here @ Battersbox. That offence, defence at SS and at those ridiculous low $$ rates. Check out how many short stops the Blue Jays have gone through since Tony Fernandez days, it's probably like 40 some guys. I'm sure Boston would take him.

TamRa - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 02:48 AM EDT (#244292) #
I don't think anyone debating the strength or lack thereof of Toronto's potential 2012 rotation has ever done anything but pencil Romero at the front of the rotation.

EVER?

I don't think everyone is pencilling in Moore as a number one starter.

Greenfrog in 244239 said he had "#1 starter projection" (which he does, I'm not disputing that) - it's the confidence with which we praise the rivals' players which I'm noting, and the corresponding lack of confidence in our own.




Third, Morrow's minor league track record compares unfavourably to Moore's.

Eh? Morrow pitched 16 innings in the minors before Seattle foolishly rushed him to the majors, Moore has posted right at 500!!!! How can you even remotely compare the two given how Morrow was handled? Indeed Morrow has only 111 in all even at age 26. You don't think that impacted the results, both in the minors and in the majors? Laying aside the ridiculousness of comparing thier minor league work under such circumstances, i think pretty much any evaluator would suggest that very very few SP are going to dominate in the majors after little more than half a season of minor league innings in his entire career.

And I don't think it takes a homer to suggest that you MUST be some kind of special prospect to be promoted that quickly. Simply put, Morrow's lack of a normal development track similar to what Moore (and Price, and Hellickson) got isn't his fault and certainly isn't something that should be used to argue against his talent or his ceiling. I think it's pretty darned likely that if you took any of those three pitchers and tossed them into the majors a 22 with 16 IP in the minors that they might not exactly be slapping aside the Cy competition by 26.

I'm sorry for the arm chair psycho-analysis but i still say - this is exactly an illustration of my point: all it takes for a highly talented player to be highly regarded among some jays fans here (not all!) is to put that man in the opposing uniform, all it takes to get a discussion of his flaws is to put him in a Jays uniform.


the likelihood of Morrow reaching it is significantly lower than Moore's likelihood of reaching his upside.

A lot of people would have said something similar about Justin Verlander 3 years ago too. And he had a much more normal development track than Morrow (hell, almost everyone has had a more normal development track than Morrow).

Maybe this is just a function of the "next big thing" syndrome (similar to how folks are already counting the days until Gose replaces Rasmus) but it sure looks like bending over backwards to prove one is not a homer.
 

TamRa - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 03:05 AM EDT (#244293) #
You're convinced that Morrow is "a stud." My only point is: a pitcher should be assessed on his results over a full season. Not on the height of his ceiling, or the speed of his fastball, or his xFIP numbers, or the number of strikeouts that he racked up in a single game.

But his xFIP and his K's and so forth ARE part of his "results"

His results by the great majority of measures over his Blue Jays career have been excellent. He's mostly considered a disappointment specifically because observers unanomously agree he is really really really good in terms of talent.

(again, not unlike how Colby Rasmus can hit as good as the better CF in the game last year and yet be considered something of a disappointment - because pretty much everyone is convinced how good he his on talent)

As I mentioned above, Verlander was - on the surface - a "disappointment" three years ago as a 25 year old pitcher. It is of course true that guys like that sometimes don't step up to the elite level, but in my recollection usually when they fail they fail spectacularly, rather than just being "pretty good but not elite

Even if I'm wrong about that, the fact remains that for all the number tossing, Moore (just as Drabek and Hellickson were one year ago)  is a guy who hasn't done ANYTHING in the majors yet, and we can spend all night reminiscing about the wonderful minor league studs who came to the majors and flopped - and Moore could certainly do just that. (though he probably won't)

Whatever Morrow has done, he has been a pretty good MLB pitcher, he hasn't flamed out and crashed in failure - we don't know yet whether Moore will - heck we have more major league evidence that Alvarez will succeed right now than we do that Moore will.

does that mean I THINK Moore is over-rated? no way! I think he deserves the press he is getting. but i disagree with Thomas' notion that he's much more certain to hit his ceiling than Morrow is. I think in a year, maybe two, this board will be literally dripping with praise for what a monster Brandon Morrow is.

there was a time, we all know, when quite a few people were dead certain Romero was a bust (and he certainly provided the temptation to reach that conclusion) - the lesson to learn is if a guy has a ton of talent, be very hesitant to write him off as not likely to reach his ceiling.

As for what a prospect will do and when, a year ago people would have said in most cases that Hellickson and Drabek had similar chances to have a ROY candidate season (though Hellickson is usually a better regarded prospect) and NOBODY would have thought it even sane to suggest how badly Drabek actually preformed.

And yet we see what happened. I wonder why when the jays are promoting kids it's easy to say "prospects will break your heart" but it's hardly ever voiced when we are talking about the Rays?
Thomas - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 03:59 AM EDT (#244294) #
?EVER?

Poor word choice, but I pretty obviously meant "recently." Romero has proven himself over three big league seasons now, the last two of which have been quite good. My point was that after demonstrated success, most Jays fans are not skeptical of Romero's chances of being effective going forward, contrary to what you seemed to suggest. but i disagree with Thomas' notion that he's much more certain to hit his ceiling than Morrow is.

I never said certain. I said likely.

And I don't think it takes a homer to suggest that you MUST be some kind of special prospect to be promoted that quickly. Simply put, Morrow's lack of a normal development track similar to what Moore (and Price, and Hellickson) got isn't his fault and certainly isn't something that should be used to argue against his talent or his ceiling....

I guess we disagree here, as I think you can do exactly that. In my opinion, Morrow's uneven development path impacts his chances of being a top-tier major league starter. If I had two pitchers who were otherwise equal and one had taken a normal development path to the major leagues and one who was jerked around as a reliever and starter, I would certainly take the former over the latter as I would have more confidence in him consolidating his talent at some point in the future. It isn't his fault, but you also can't pretend it didn't happen. Some pitchers mature later and I don't think the door is closed on Morrow's chance to be an upper-tier starter, but his development path didn't occur in a vacuum that failed to impact his likelihood of reaching his ceiling. The Roy Halladay circuitous path to success is not the blueprint.

And yet we see what happened. I wonder why when the jays are promoting kids it's easy to say "prospects will break your heart" but it's hardly ever voiced when we are talking about the Rays?

Part of that reason is because many of Tampa's pitching prospects are really, really good (Price, Hellickson and now Moore) and Toronto's usually aren't. The biggest drop in any Top 100 prospect list is between the first 10 and second 10 prospects and then the top 20 to the next 20. The Jays won't have any pitching prospects in the top 20 in baseball (and very possibly top 40), whereas Matt Moore will be number three. Last year, Jeremy Hellickson was the number 6 prospect according to BA, whereas Drabek was number 29. That is not an insignificant gap at all.

I don't know anyone who is pencilling in Alex Torres, Alex Cobb, Chris Archer or Alex Colome into Tampa's rotation next year or in 2013 and the Torres and Archer, in particular, could rate nearly as highly as Hutchison, Molina, McGuire or whomever else you choose in Toronto's system. Some of those prospects will disappoint Tampa fans, but there is a lot more reason for them to be very excited about Moore and to think he has a much better chance of hitting or coming close to his ceiling than those four names.

dawgatc - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 04:43 AM EDT (#244295) #

That the Jays met the league average for signed picks doesn't make me that fuzzy really .Not all the teams in baseball dumped so much in contracts or promised to reinvest it in the future.We can disagree on how much money they actually make but I believe i am closer to the truth.The jays and Rays had way more picks than all other teams;so logic would follow that they should be spending the most money - why else have all those picks?Also the Jays have way more scouts than other teams;but for what reason? The Beede camp says they didn't hear back from the Jays for 2 monthes until draft day and by telephone. That seems odd to me.As a season ticket holder;I like to have a reason for optimism and personally I don't see the comittment >Seems to me that they're shooting for 3rd place and i just find that boring.I also don't forget that just 3 years back they failed to sign Paxton'Eliopolis and Barrett.At that point i gave them the benefit of the doubt but I'm afraid thats it for me.-If you're more optimistic thats good but I'll be watching on tv and saving my money.

?

Spifficus - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 05:28 AM EDT (#244296) #

That the Jays met the league average for signed picks doesn't make me that fuzzy really.

Your starting premise is wrong... They were a top 10 spending team in the draft, even without being able to ink their top pick (while apparently showing a willingness to sign him for a >2x slot deal at $2.5M). As for the Beede camp... notice that next to no one began negotiating until a day or two before the deadline? That's what the advisors are telling the kids - if they wait, they'll get more money. On the whole, the advisors are correct, though it does pose risk. I mean, you can think what you want, but it doesn't seem right to leave these, erm, contentious details dangling without rebuttal.

Thomas - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 05:30 AM EDT (#244297) #
is Price schooling Romero this year?

...But his xFIP and his K's and so forth ARE part of his "results"

David Price, 2011 - xFIP 3.25; ranks 6th in the AL (min 130 IP).
Ricky Romero, 2011 - xFIP: 3.81, ranks 21st in the AL.

By that measure, one could very easily answer yes to that question.

John Northey - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 08:00 AM EDT (#244298) #
Lets look at the Jays results in the draft of 2011.

Picks pre-2nd round signed: 4/5
Picks in first 10 rounds signed: 11/15 (picks in 9th & 10th not signed)

Yes, it is unfortunate they didn't get their first pick. However, they still got a ton of high end guys signed.
China fan - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 09:10 AM EDT (#244299) #

....Whatever Morrow has done, he has been a pretty good MLB pitcher....

Although earlier you called him "excellent" and "a stud," you're becoming more accurate when you call him "pretty good." 

And your point about the psychology of Jays fans is interesting, except that I think it works the other way: we tend to assume the best of our pitchers because we've seen their peaks and seen their potential, and we have a psychological tendency to forget that they haven't really fulfilled their potential yet.

I don't think Anthopoulos wants a #1 pitcher and then a bunch of "pretty good" pitchers in the other rotation slots.  He wants a #1 and a 1A and several #2 or #3 pitchers at worst.  Because that might be the only way to get into the playoffs.  If he goes into next season ASSUMING or HOPING that Morrow and Cecil will be studs, it would be a complete gamble, and unlikely to pay off.  There would be less pressure on those two pitchers if we look at them as #4 or #5 pitchers who don't have to perform at their absolute best all the time.  Then we'll have a more realistic perspective, knowing that the Jays are unlikely to contend unless they acquire a Darvish or a top free agent -- or unless they are willing to wait a year or two until the proper development of Alvarez, Drabek, Hutchison, Molina etc, which could take time.

greenfrog - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 09:29 AM EDT (#244300) #
We tend to think of the Rays as being blessed with a plethora of high 1st-round picks, which is true as far as it goes, but the impressive thing is that its front office (far from being merely lucky) acquired a number of its starters in later rounds:

Price: #1 overall (2007 draft)
Shields: 16th round (2000 draft)
Niemann: #4 overall (2004 draft)
Davis: 3rd round (2004 draft)
Hellickson: 4th round (2005 draft)
Moore: 8th round (2007 draft)
McGee: 5th round (2004 draft)
Matthew E - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 10:49 AM EDT (#244303) #
I don't think Anthopoulos wants a #1 pitcher and then a bunch of "pretty good" pitchers in the other rotation slots.  He wants a #1 and a 1A and several #2 or #3 pitchers at worst.

Yeah. I mean, if you can do it, why wouldn't you aspire to have, using your terminology, a #1 and a #1A and a #1B and a #1C and a #1D? Except, until you have those guys, you go with the best of the guys you have, particularly when (as in this case) the guys you have have the potential to become that good.

I've started thinking about it like this. The Jays need to build a team that is far and away the best team in baseball in order to have any chance at all of competing with the teams ahead of them.


ayjackson - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 11:22 AM EDT (#244306) #

I don't think Anthopoulos wants a #1 pitcher and then a bunch of "pretty good" pitchers in the other rotation slots.  He wants a #1 and a 1A and several #2 or #3 pitchers at worst.

I agree with this.

The question I have, is does AA think Darvish is a 1a or 2 for next year, or does he think he's another Morrow, Drabek, Alvarez and McGowan?  That is, is he another guy with the "stuff" to be a number 1a, but with no track record of doing so (in MLB)?

I think he'll look at him as one of the latter and pass during FA.  He'll improve by trade or go with the current lot.

 

bpoz - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 11:37 AM EDT (#244307) #
If we could have 5 SPs healthy & performing like J Verlander, that would be great. I mean J Verlander of this year, not the previous years.
Would it not be sweet to enter 2012 knowing that you have 5 20+ winners. I think it would be a word I don't know and might have to invent.

Obviously Detroit fans are going to expect better from Verlander next year. It would be a shame if he got injured (fatigue) or somehow could not repeat his performance.
bpoz - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 11:53 AM EDT (#244308) #
ay, I agree with every thing you said.

Lets make a gentleman's pact among all Bauxites and report ASAP when AA lets us know about Darvish being a #1 or for that matter any of our pitchers. I remember Drabek & Stewart were called about equal at the end of last season.

OK!! I am kidding. I don't expect AA to say that BUT I do enjoy and respect Bauxites for taking the time to share their opinions/evaluations.

I am kidding again BUT remember the great scouting reports/talent evaluations we used to get on our draft choices. Goins, Shimph for example, I don't seem to find these short write ups as easily any more regarding our 2010 & 2011 drafts.
China fan - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 12:25 PM EDT (#244311) #

.....until you have those guys, you go with the best of the guys you have, particularly when (as in this case) the guys you have have the potential to become that good....

Sure, they have potential, but should the Jays simply fill out the rotation with a bunch of Morrow-type guys and hope that they fulfill their potential? A lot of pitchers have great potential that's never fulfilled. Your argument seems to imply that a player's potential will always be fulfilled, and that Anthopolous should therefore be content to await the development of his current staff and prospects, rather than trying to acquire a good pitcher by free agency or trade. The logical conclusion would be: no attempt to sign Darvish, and no attempt to acquire a good pitcher if one is available on the trade market or the free agent market. All because of the optimistically forecast potential of your existing guys, which could take many years to develop or might never arrive at all. I'm not being defeatist, I'm being realistic. I think Anthopoulos won't just await the development of prospects, he'll take a somewhat more active approach, looking for at least one pitcher who can contribute immediately (meaning in 2012 when Bautista is still near his peak).

hypobole - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 12:52 PM EDT (#244313) #
The Jays will make a bid on Darvish if/when he's posted. However, I can't see them being the highest bidder simply because the Jays place a value on players and will be extremely unlikely to go over that value. The Yankees should be both more willing to overspend and in more dire need of starting pitching, in addition to other teams both flush with cash and holes in their rotations.

As far as the draft is concerned, % of picks signed is meaningless. The Jays in the past have drafted low upside college guys and signed a vast majority of them, but all that did was flood the system with organizational filler and little in the way of true prospects.

This year, the Jays probably drafted but didn't sign more high ceiling talent than any other team, and yeah, I along with others found that disappointing. But they did sign a lot of those high ceiling players as well, adding a ton of true prospects with the almost $11 million they did spend.

Then there are the Latin July 2nd kids the Jays signed, with the 4 most highly regarded of those prospects receiving a total of $7 million. That has to factor into the building of the farm as well.

So all in all, the Jays could have done better, but the argument could be made the Jays added as much real talent to their minor league system as any other club in baseball.

Matthew E - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 01:25 PM EDT (#244314) #
Your argument seems to imply that a player's potential will always be fulfilled, and that Anthopolous should therefore be content to await the development of his current staff and prospects, rather than trying to acquire a good pitcher by free agency or trade. The logical conclusion would be: no attempt to sign Darvish, and no attempt to acquire a good pitcher if one is available on the trade market or the free agent market.

No. It's a balancing act. But if you can't get a guy who can be great for you right now and for years to come, I'd rather use a guy who might be great someday than a guy who will never be great but who's decent now.
John Northey - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 01:56 PM EDT (#244315) #
The one interesting variable with Darvish is Aroldis Chapman. AA said after the fact that he regretting not going higher - which means he felt he could've outbid Cincinnati I suspect.

Now, Cincinnati has seemed to decide Chapman is a reliever for some reason, and rushed him thus helping explain his poor results (7.6 BB/9 vs 13.1 K/9 over 51 games, 46 IP). I doubt that will hurt AA's opinion of what he could've/should've done.

Chapman was a Cuban free agent who was 22 and had almost no track record at a high level (I don't count most international tournaments as equal to the minors or Japan). Yet he got $30 million.

Darvish has a track record vs Japanese players (equal to AAA roughly), and he showed talent at the WBC (2.08 ERA, plus a save vs the USA all-stars). He is entering his age 25 season and would be controllable for 6 years if signed. Easily worth double Chapman, the debate becomes how much above that do you go (salary & fee)? AA I'm sure is debating that one big time, plus knowing the Yankees & Sox will be in the running will make him debate it even more (weaken opponent, strengthen yourself).

The Jays could win the Darvish sweepstakes, but like others I wouldn't bet on it but I also wouldn't say 'no way'.
BalzacChieftain - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 03:03 PM EDT (#244316) #

I would also put my feet firmly in the camp of We Can't Just Wait For Pitching To Develop. I would have to admit I wasn't there before this season because of what looked like a ton of quality starting pitching depth: Romero, Morrow, Cecil, Drabek, Litsch.. I think I'm forgetting someone, but that looked pretty damn good before the start of the season, didn't it?

I would also suggest that the addition of quality is imperative rather than taking a flyer on the Jojo's and Villanueva's of the world. Of course they have their uses, but they're not cut out for an AL East rotation that intends to compete.

greenfrog - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#244318) #
I'm less interested in the question of whether we need to add top-of-the-rotation talent (more is always better) than in how you go about acquiring it. I mean, teams aren't exactly lining up to trade the Matt Moores, Clayton Kershaws, and Julio Teherans of the world.

One option is to trade talent for talent (eg, Josh Beckett for Hanley Ramirez). Another is to look for talented-but-flawed types (eg, Brandon Morrow). Yet another is to try to poach an electric arm from an unwitting GM ("Hey Brian - I hear you need some offense. How about Alex Rios for that Lincecum guy?"). Or maybe you package some very good prospects for someone under contract for a couple of more years (the Grienke/Marcum/Jiminez route). This year, there's also a guy in Japan who might be available on a cash-and-carry basis.

I'm sure AA and the front office have a short list of arms they would love to acquire. The question is, how the heck do you get them?
uglyone - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 04:13 PM EDT (#244324) #
I think those Home/Road splits are very interesting, and certainly tell us that the Rays have an advantage in terms of their pitcher's stats, though I'm not sure it's as big as those splits would say. They also have a clear defensive advantage which also helps.

That being said, the notion that our current starting staff matches up to Tampa's is just.....wrong.

I'll use 2yr splits to add some depth to the numbers (numbers only as starters):

TOR -----
TBR D.Price (25): 63gs, 6.7ip/gs, 8.4k/9, 2.9k/bb, 44.4gb%, .276babip, 3.05era, 3.30fip, 3.54xfip

Jays don't have anyone that quite matches up to Price's numbers across the board.

TOR R.Romero (26): 63gs, 6.8ip/gs, 7.3k/9, 2.1k/bb, 55.1gb%, .266babip, 3.35era, 3.87fip, 3.70xfip
TBR J.Shields (29): 64gs, 6.8ip/gs, 8.3k/9, 3.7k/bb, 43.6gb%, .302babip, 3.90era, 3.76fip, 3.35xfip

Ricky and Shields are comparable.

These top-3 are a clear cut above the rest of the guys, and the Rays have 2 of them while the Jays only have 1.

TOR B.Cecil (24): 46gs, 6.3ip/gs, 6.2k/9, 2.2k/bb, 41.9gb%, .281babip, 4.28era, 4.30fip, 4.23xfip
TBR J.Hellickson (24): 31gs, 6.5ip/gs, 6.2k/9, 6.1k/9, 2.1k/bb, 34.8gb%, .225babip, 2.80era, 4.08fip, 4.43xfip

Cecil and Hellickson are comparable. (Hellickson has a shiny era but that babip is flat out unsustainable)

TOR B.Morrow (26): 54gs, 5.8ip/gs, 10.5k/9, 2.9k/bb, 37.8gb%, .321babip, 4.75era, 3.40fip, 3.49xfip
TBR J.Niemann (28): 51gs, 6.0ip/gs, 6.8k/9, 2.4k/bb, 45.2gb%, .270babip, 4.21era, 4.36fip, 3.97xfip

Morrow and Niemann are comparable. (Morrow might have more upside, but performance wise he doesn't have the edge).

TOR D.McGowan (29): 2gs, 4.0ip/gs, 4.5k/9, 0.6k/bb, 64.0gb%, .208babip, 7.88era, 6.27fip, 5.74xfip
TOR C.Villanueva (27): 13gs, 5.3ip/gs, 5.2k/9, 2.6k/bb, 33.6gb%, .302babip, 5.15era, 4.11fip, 4.46xfip
TOR J.Litsch (26): 17gs, 5.5ip/gs, 5.0k/9, 1.7k/bb, 44.7gb%, .291babip, 5.23era, 4.97fip, 4.63xfip
TBR W.Davis (25): 56gs, 6.1ip/gs, 5.6k/9, 1.8k/bb, 37.7gb%, .277babip, 4.24era, 4.72fip, 4.69xfip

Davis is probably comparable to guys like McGowan/Litsch/Villy, but I might even be being too generous three.

So in terms of vets, we're a full elite ace away from matching up with the Rays.

Then we get to prospects...each team has two guys that have been borderline MLB ready this year.

This year's numbers (I'll include relief numbers for the prospects):

MLB

A.Cobb (23): 52.2ip, 6.3k/9, 1.8k/bb, 54.0gb%, .284babip, 3.42era, 3.60fip, 3.89xfip
H.Alvarez (21): 49.2ip, 5.5k/9, 3.8k/bb, 54.5gb%, .282babip, 3.62era, 4.10fip, 3.54xfip
K.Drabek (23): 75.2ip, 6.1k/9, 0.9k/bb, 45.3gb%, .299babip, 5.47era, 5.35fip, 5.03xfip
M.Moore (22): 4.1ip, 8.3k/9, 2.0k/bb, 53.8gb%, .308babip, 6.23era, 5.55fip, 4.29xfip

AAA

M.Moore (22): 52.2ip, 13.5k/9, 4.4k/bb, .291babip, 1.37era, 2.02fip
A.Cobb (23): 67.1ip, 9.4k/9, 4.4k/bb, .331babip, 1.87era, 2.70fip
K.Drabek (23): 75.0ip, 5.4k/9, 1.1k/bb, .378babip, 7.44era, 5.80fip
H.Alvarez (21): ---

AA

M.Moore (22): 102.1ip, 11.5k/9, 4.7k/bb, .263babip, 2.20era, 2.62fip
H.Alvarez (21): 88.0ip, 6.8k/9, 3.9k/bb, .286babip, 2.86era, 3.45fip
A.Cobb (23): ---
K.Drabek (23): ---

As of now, Moore is a better prospect than Alvarez, and Cobb a better prospect than Drabek. The Rays have an advantage here even in MLB-ready prospects.


The Jays do have a wildcard that might make up some of that difference - they have 3 or 4 prospects in AA that are good to excellent, and who should all be borderline MLB ready at some point next year in Hutchison, Molina, McGuire, and Jenkins. Hutchison and Molina in particular put up near similar AA numbers as Moore did this year, albeit in much briefer stints, they may well be that level of prospect next year.

Those kids might change the comparison, but right now the Jays fall well short.
hypobole - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 04:42 PM EDT (#244327) #
John - I don't remember AA ever saying he wished he had bid higher on Chapman. IIRC what AA did say was he regretted not having sufficient information on him to be able to make a proper bid.

Uglyone - Don't disagree with your basic premise, but comparing AAA pitching lines between Durham and Las Vegas is almost meaningless.
uglyone - Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 05:01 PM EDT (#244328) #
I wish I could believe it was meaningless enough to make up for the difference in AAA stats there, but I don't think it is.
TamRa - Wednesday, September 21 2011 @ 02:06 AM EDT (#244349) #
That being said, the notion that our current starting staff matches up to Tampa's is just.....wrong.

for the record - I didn't say "matches up", i said/implied that it was much closer than the typical discussion implied (as in the "would love to be even half as good"[paraphrased]) comment above.

I myself think they have the edge and I like our staff better than anyone here, I just can't agree they have a HUGE edge.

dawgatc - Wednesday, September 21 2011 @ 03:56 AM EDT (#244352) #
The Jays may have been top 10 in money spent but they should have been top 2 based on the number of picks and the promises they made after getting rid of contracts.They failed to sign 10 picks in the top 20 rounds where most of your success comes.That is the WORST record in all of baseball and its not really close.The Pirates who led all of baseball in spending had 8 unsigned and everyone else is 7 or less.You might have to go back quite a few years to find another team with a signing record as dismal as that. sure glad they have all those scouts.go leafs go!!!!
Spifficus - Wednesday, September 21 2011 @ 06:22 AM EDT (#244355) #

Of course they didn't get as many done - they also took more high-upside high school talent than anyone in the draft and that carries more risk that they won't sign. Only 4 of the first 25 picks (to round 20) weren't high school. Nobody else came close to drafting like that. Also, most of those unsigned picks you mentioned were in the 10-20 round range, which, in this case, were still valuable picks... because of the Jays hyper-aggressive draft. Because of that aggressive drafting style, though, rounds 1-9 were very valuable, and rounds 21+ appear more valuable than usual, too.

bpoz - Wednesday, September 21 2011 @ 11:48 AM EDT (#244371) #
I am disappointed that the Jays only $11mil on the draft this year. I was hoping for Mylegasy's $20mil target.

So what is the $ number in total. I have $11mil draft + $7mil Intl FAs after July 2/11, but would like to add the Intl FAs from after July 2/10 signing deadline to July 2/11, Labourt is all I can think of @ $300,000 I believe.

With that knowledge in hand, What is AA's MO?

My Take looking at just rounds 1-20:-
1) I will only be able to figure out a fraction of his strategy.
2) $11 total spent in 2010 & 2011 was a coincidence ie some got away. We know of LaCava's outburst.
3) Deck Mc got $2Mil & Thon Jr $1.5mil, so that is 25%. D Norris @ $2mil was the high mark. I don't know anyone else who got over $1mil.
4) DOB 1990 4 picks & all signed. 1991, no picks. I really hope they are good ie decent ceiling, because that is 4 HS alternatives that may have had the higher ceiling but came with the risk.
5) This one I state because it amuses me. I can hear AA saying, we get an exclusive window of negotiating rights on every player we draft. I guess with a lot of high ceiling picks chosen, you can afford to not sign some, this is MY LOGIC and of course it does not have to be true.

Is this of interest to anyone? I am quite passionate about this whole event.

Spifficus - Wednesday, September 21 2011 @ 03:40 PM EDT (#244399) #

I'll take a stab at some of these. First, my memory (with my usual memory caveats in place) says you're probably right on the combined total for 2011. Not sure on 2010.

The overarching AA MO appears to be be aggressive on amateur talent, trusting your scouts and not consensus. This is where draft picks like Musgrove, Grabawski, Syndergaard, et al come into play. Also, take the risk on the higher upside talent. This can be through projectability (see the previous examples, plus many others), injury (Stilson, Chin), or signability (Beede, Comer, Norris as the big three from this draft).

3) In addition to Norris, Comer was at $1.65M, and Anderson fell just shy of the $1M threshold by $10k. Additionally, Toronto had the most $500k+ signings in the draft, at 10.

4) I'm not sure about Burns and Mooney, but Stilson and DeSclafani are both high upside college arms. Stilson was in contention to be a first round arm before his partial labrum tear. In a blurb, mlbbonusbaby.com says "Stilson works with four pitches and good command. The fastball is big and is delivered on a downward plane with late arm side run; the curve ball is a hard 12-6 offering that can be used effectively as a chase pitch; the change is his best off speed with arm side fade and tumble, generating plenty of empty swings; finally, the slider has some late horizontal movement away from right handers but is his least refined offering.". DeSclafani was a mid-90s power arm out of the bullpen, who some feel could start.

My thoughts on this draft post signing deadline is that it was a really good haul of high upside talent tempered with disappointment that Beede didn't sign to cap it off. I linger on the latter for a moment, and then see the forest for the trees, and look at the overall result.

bpoz - Wednesday, September 21 2011 @ 05:26 PM EDT (#244406) #
Thanks Spifficus. The Beede non signing...they both stuck to their guns on the $1mil difference. AA has his ways, just like setting his own Arb deadline. Also IMO all the negotiators, AA, Lacava etc... have to stay within the $ limit agreed upon by the group on each player. AA may not want Lacava coming to his office and saying "Its a wrap @ $50K above the limit", but I don't know.

WOW!! Is Comer that good, I hope so. But a lot has to do with negotiating... how much $ to give up University.
TamRa - Wednesday, September 21 2011 @ 09:56 PM EDT (#244410) #
what happened to my previous post?

Labourt is not remotely the sum of their IFA spending.

Here's one list-

RHP - Roberto Osuna - Signed  for an estimated $3,000,000+
CF - Jesus Gonzalez- Signed  for: $1,400,000
SS - Dawel Lugo –  $1,300,000
SS/CF - Wilmer Becerra – $1,300,000
LHP - Jairo Labourt -  $350,000
RHP - Osman Gutierrez –  $210,000
OF - Francisco Tejada - $150,000
RHP - Manuel Cordova –  $TBD
RHP - Alberto Tirado -  $TBD
RHP - Yeyfry Del Rosario -  $TBD

that's $7.5-8 mil right there. that gets you up close to the $20 mil area.


dawgatc - Thursday, September 22 2011 @ 02:34 AM EDT (#244413) #
I may be wrong but I thought the Jays said they would be plowing that wells money back into hte draft .With all their signings intl.plus draft it comes to just under 20 mill.- but that means they had no budget for either event - I still must say they pocketed most of that money -I'm not unhappy with their picks;I really have to trust their scouts on that one but would have liked to see them spend more on the draft.-8th place in spending is disappointing given they had so many picks.Someone mentioned Lacava,s rant but i never heard that story -can someone enlighten me?   thanx
hypobole - Thursday, September 22 2011 @ 08:45 AM EDT (#244417) #
So if you combine the draft with IFA signings, how many teams spent more than the Jays on amateur talent this summer?
bpoz - Thursday, September 22 2011 @ 10:36 AM EDT (#244427) #
Let us try to add up the spending accurately. Estimates are OK and can be updated later.

If the Intl FA signing period STARTS July 2nd, then IMO any signings before July 2nd should go against the previous year. I am willing to be wrong so which is it? The July 2nd signings are for 16 year olds and it has a deadline. So Jario Labourt DOB March 7/94 signed after the deadline, I could be wrong but I am so sure of this. So that small window is for Elite prospects, for example A Cardona DOB Jan 16/94, 2 months older than J Labourt. So while this does not sound correct about a singnig deadline given the similar ages of Labourt & Cardona, I AM sticking to my story and am begging for someone to please explain why I am right or wrong.

The Lacava blow up story is a 2010 signing that backed out at the last minute. I believe he threw the paper work around his office while breaking the silence rule.

IMO some of V Wells saved $ are going to M Teahen and what ever other costs the Rasmus deal entailed. Also IMO we did not get full value for J Rivera. I don't know the budget details of how the saved $ are allocated nor do I know how any $ overvalued players acquired are being allocated.

While we are on the subject, there are additional costs for the extra scouts, the extra farm team, Possible extra specialty coaches like M Mordicia & L Rivera.
hypobole - Thursday, September 22 2011 @ 11:05 AM EDT (#244433) #
bpoz - Wasn't it Tinnish who threw his papers in frustration after Ehlers backed out of the deal they had supposedly reached?
bpoz - Thursday, September 22 2011 @ 04:28 PM EDT (#244464) #
Yes probably Tinnish was the guy.
Advance Scout: New York Yankees, September 16-18 | 191 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.