Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

Today is day one of the winter meetings, this year in Dallas.  The baseball scribes are expecting a lot of activity this week now that the new CBA has been agreed to.  Expect free agent signings and trades galore.  But don't be surprised if not much happens.  Our own AA is not a big fan of these meetings, he has said you can get more done via texts and phone calls in your office than you do at the meetings.  But the meetings are good for PR and baseball knows PR.

Richard Griffin caught up with AA as he arrived yesterday and he has some interesting quotes.



First he addressed the Prince Fielder rumours:

I expect to be linked to practically every player. I guess I would say from a media and fan standpoint, as a rule of thumb, if something leaks, then it’s probably inaccurate, or if it leaks that it’s done, then it’s probably done.

That is AA speak for "no we will not be signing Prince".

But then AA does say:

Does he think he’s close to a deal?

“I thought about it on the plane,” he said. “We’ve got some things that are at the five-yard line. There are some things that are available to us that are intriguing and interesting. I’m just struggling with them. There are things that we can do and I guess when you know they’re tough then you know they’re probably fair on both sides. I have a few that I could do right now. There’s frameworks of deals that can be made, both trades and free agency, that both sides would have to decide if they want to do it, but I think both sides are intrigued.”

Do these 5 yard line trades turn into scores?   We could find out today.

AA also talks Jeff Mathis, it sounds like he is a keeper:

“I think everyone knows what Jeff is,” Anthopoulos said. “It’s a backup role and it really slides into what Jose Molina did last year. You look at when we signed Molina from the Yankees as a 34-, 35-year-old. I think he had a five-something OPS at the time and he was known as a great defender, a great game-caller. Jeff’s in a similar boat where you’re looking at 100-odd at-bats like Molina had.

“He’s great with the staff. At the backup position we’re looking for defence first, game calling, athleticism. I don’t know that there’s a lot of backups out there that hit well. Normally if you hit well, you’re not a backup.”

 

Jeff Blair also chimes in from Dallas with many of the same comments.  He adds on Fielder:

Anthopoulos reiterated that the Blue Jays will not offer seven- or eight-year free-agent contracts – Fielder wants 10 years

That sounds pretty definitive to me.

Blair also says the Jays are looking for pitching;

Anthopoulos said that he is pleased with the Blue Jays' position players, an indication the focus will indeed be on pitching. The Chicago White Sox and Atlanta Braves have pitching to move, and Anthopoulos said that one of his own prospects, 21-year-old right-hander Drew Hutchinson who was 14-5 with a 4.89 strikeout/walk ratio and 1.038 WHIP at three levels in 2011, could be ready to pitch in the majors in 2012. It was clear as he listed Chad Jenkins, Nestor Molina, Deck McGuire and of course Henderson Alvarez as minor-league pitchers on the cusp that he would consider moving Kyle Drabek in a deal that would bring in another pitcher capable of giving the team 200 innings in the majors.

Blair also reminds us that Kelly Johnson has to accept arbitration by Wednesday night.

Stay tuned for a big week of news, or not.

Jays Ready To Wheel and Deal? | 79 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
85bluejay - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 09:39 AM EST (#247753) #
I am very happy to hear that AA is staying the course and doesn't feel any pressure to do something to appear to be contenders in 2012 - I fully buy into the idea that just keeping acquiring quality/upside talent (major league & prospects) and the team will let you know when it's ready to contend - follow the Rangers model - they didn't start trading for stars/signing big time FA until the team showed in 2010 that it was ready to contend - I'd rather the Jays do nothing this week than have them overpay in prospects/money - as AA said it's easy to make a mistake this week. I won't be upset if the Jays come home empty handed.   
ayjackson - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 10:02 AM EST (#247755) #

Olney tweeted that the Angels could trade Santana to free up additional FA dollars.  I'd be intrigued with the possibility of signing and extending Santana.

Unfortunately, Olney reasons that they could then sign CJ Wilson and Aramis Ramirez, which doesn't make sense.  Why sign Wilson over Santana?

John Northey - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 10:05 AM EST (#247756) #
To my thinking the biggest element is for AA to stick to his guns. If he is happy with, say, signing Fielder for 5 @ $25 per year then don't offer a penny or year more. Don't get caught up in the excitement of the moment.

Hopefully he can pull a few tricks off though. Find a solid second baseman (probably on Thursday after he knows 100% for certain about Johnson) and an ace level pitcher (be it kid who isn't up yet or vet major leaguer). Do those two things and we'll have plenty of 100+ post threads :)
John Northey - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 10:35 AM EST (#247759) #
Wilson over Santana would be due to the Angels having a belief that Santana entering his age 29 season isn't a true ace (one season over 120 ERA+ in 2008, one more over 110 last year) while Wilson entering his age 31 season is (134 and 152 ERA+'s his 2 seasons as a starter).

Ratios...
Santana: 7.2 K/9, 2.9 BB/9, 1.1 HR/9 (career)
Wilson: 7.9 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 0.5 HR/9 (last 2 years - was reliever before that)

No question Wilson has shown a lot more at the ML level as a starter than Ervin Santana has. If all else was equal I'd go for Wilson as well. Santana is making $11.2 next year and $13 mil the next (or $1 mil buyout - team option).
Lugnut Fan - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 11:13 AM EST (#247761) #

I don't every really expect much to come out of the winter meetings.  The hype always seems to outrank the actual event.  They do however set up things that happen later in the winter.

I'm with most everyone here.  Build your core and then go after the big free agent splash that puts you over the top.  I hate to see them get into a position of signing a free agent and then not being able to move him when he doesn't perform because of his contract (Ala Alfonso Soriano, Chicago Cubs).

92-93 - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 11:18 AM EST (#247762) #
The Rangers play in the AL West, where that sort of plan can be implemented because the competition isn't spending 150m+. The Rangers, in all their glory, are 41-47 vs. the AL East the last 2 years when they've been to the World Series. The only way to win in the AL East the last 15 years has been to spend money or completely tank for so long you back your way into elite talent with your top draft picks. The only thing Texas' success teaches me is that Toronto needs the schedule to be balanced or to get the heck out of the AL East to compete if they refuse to even approach league average on their payroll.
greenfrog - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 11:40 AM EST (#247763) #
I think Fielder at 8-10 years is a terrible idea. I'm confident that AA and Beeston aren't going there.

Would love to be a fly on the wall for some of these five-yard situations. I imagine AA felt the same way about Marcum/Lawrie last year. Glad he pulled the trigger on that one, but I imagine now he's looking at trading prospects for young/controllable talent. And you just know other teams want the Jays' top prospects in return.
sam - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 12:04 PM EST (#247764) #
Is it me or do you just want to punch some of these journalists who keep reporting that the Jays are rumoured to be strong players for Pujols or Fielder. I mean, are the Jays going to top 9 years $200 million for Pujols or 8 years $180 for Fielder (both are the offers they received from their respective teams). I mean, I'd love to dream of either one coming, but it's not happening.
ayjackson - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 12:15 PM EST (#247765) #

I don't think the Brewers have an 8 year deal for Fielder on the table.  They may have at one point, but I've read six years $120m is the lates from the Brewers.

I agree with Pujols though.

John Northey - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 12:21 PM EST (#247766) #
While the Jays won't go 8 for $180 or 9 for $200, they could go 4 or 5 at $25 per which is quite a bit more per year. The trick is what the players want and think of their own future.

Pujols would be foolish not to take a 9 year deal as odds are in 5 years he won't be a $25+ million a year player anymore. Fielder, on the other hand, will be early 30's and could get another 5+ year deal at that point, especially if the Yankees/Red Sox have payroll space cleared out by then (given neither wants to go drastically over the $189 million level and get hit with stronger penalties).
sam - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 12:47 PM EST (#247767) #
See I don't understand why everyone thinks it's reasonable (in baseball terms) for Fielder to accept something like five years $120 million. If I understand the thinking correctly, I see a serious issue with some of the logic. On the one hand, people seem to be saying that if Fielder were to sign a five year contract for $125 million he would be earning a higher base salary over a shorter term, and avail himself to another big pay day. OK. Then on the other hand, the thinking goes that if you were to sign Fielder to a 8-10 year contract with a base salary of $18-22 million, two or possibly three of those later years Fielder will be below market value because he'll be too big to man first base or there'll be health issues due to his weight. I mean, it seems like people who seem to be saying that a shorter contract is attractive to Fielder because he'll get another similar payday are also saying that a longer term contract is unattractive because his value will substantially decrease over the course of the contract? I mean if questions are now being posed of Fielder's long term longevity, what do you think they'll be in five years? If Fielder does have an injury or is relegated to DHing, he probably doesn't have the same market value.
John Northey - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:13 PM EST (#247768) #
The trick is the ego of the player. Most players see themselves as peaking later than they really do, see themselves being the exception, etc.

A 4-5 year deal today for Fielder means he would be on the outside edge of his prime when he ends it, at which point salaries might be higher than today, thus a $25 mil a year deal won't be as big a deal as it is now. MLB has not seen A-Rod's $250 mil deal broken yet except by his renewal with the Yankees a few years ago. That is extremely odd in MLB as records used to be broken then many players would climb up there in either per year or net value. Odds are high that average salaries will start to climb very soon so that a $20 mil a year deal is more like a $10 mil is today. Thus if you are a player who is willing to take a risk then a 4-5 year deal today could lead to a much bigger total value over 8-10 years. 5 at $125 vs 8 at $180 means that for those 3 extra years all he'd need is $18.5 mil a year to 'win'. Also, with taxes for the wealthy likely to jump in the next few years (the 99% pressure is high in the US from what I'm reading) a big upfront bonus could help cut that spread down further, not to mention having the cash now vs later (backloading is a big deal in those 8 year deals).

Now, what about the team? Reduced risk of having a guy around 3 years too long, big more cost today but if the budget fits today then you might not have an issue.

The Jays could, potentially, give Fielder a big chunk up front (in 2011 even) and another chunk pre-election in the US thus allowing him to avoid a big tax hit. Some less capitalized teams wouldn't be able to do that. It'll be interesting to see what contracts do look like as the threat of higher US based taxes show up.
Ron - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:30 PM EST (#247770) #
I wonder if the Cardinals are going to select their 3 minor league players from the Jays during the Winter Meetings. I believe the deadline to select the players is the end of this month and they also have the option of getting cash instead of the players.

Either way I'm really looking forward to watching the Winter Meeting on the MLB Network . What channel is it on? ............

sam - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:39 PM EST (#247771) #
John Northey, that's an interesting take on it. I've heard reference to state tax policies influencing basketball players, but I've yet to really see any conclusive evidence that players have chosen destinations based on state or federal income tax policies. I'd imagine it's a very small factor in the process.

I'd imagine Fielder will probably be thinking of the other first basemen who have inked similar long term deals if he were to entertain a shorter term deal. As much as a deal would hinge on his own performance, executives will probably look at how some of the other first basemen and how they have performed in their mid thirties. I see Prince Fielder's numbers, body, and situation similar to Ryan Howard. Howard is now 31. These past two seasons he's put up very good numbers, but they've been subpar to the numbers he's put up in his twenties. He's also been hit my injuries recently as well. Howard I believe has a contract that pays him $25 million for the next 5 years. According to Fangraphs he's been a $5 and $7 million dollar a year player over the past two seasons. I mean, if Howard were to become a free agent at 33 or 34, I highly doubt given his production and health that he'll get another 5 years and anything north of $15 or $16 million a year.
John Northey - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:43 PM EST (#247772) #
Pujols is now rumoured to the Jays...
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/market-for-pujols-is-a-question/article_a0bfea4d-c90c-5167-8d42-437195ae4743.html

Jays listed as an 'odd fit' as the Jays aren't contenders and Pujols has said 'contenders only', yet he is talking with the Marlins...

Pujols is not a guy I can see accepting 5 years or less though. He rejected a 9 year deal earlier for nearly $200 mil ($22.5 a year) and his age (entering age 32 season) suggests a steady decline over the term of any deal.

Now, the issue with Pujols is that you are starting at a MUCH higher level than with anyone else. His lifetime OPS+ is 170. Only 3 times in Jays history has a player had an OPS+ that high (Olerud 1993, Bautista 2011, Delgado 2000). Think about that, over 11 years Pujols' average year has been in that territory. He has had 3 seasons with an OPS+ that would be a record for Jays history. His WORST season (150 OPS+) has been beaten only 8 times in Jays history (Fred McGriff 3 times, plus Delgado & Bautista one more time each).

So, the old offer was $198 over 9, but would he bite at $150 over 5 ($30 per)? Would it be worth it? Would he think he could get 4 years at $10 per after it? His B-R WAR was 5.4 last year, but was over 7 the year before, 8 the year before that, and over 9 the year before that one. fWAR is 5.1/7.5/9.0/9.1 for the past 4 years. Fangraphs puts a dollar value of $22.8/$30/$40.4/$40.9 on those seasons. So the Cardinals last offer fit last years value, but could he hold the pre-2011 value (5 years prior valued well over $30 per)? I know many don't care for that dollar value, but it does give an idea as to how a player could bring that type of value to a team (strong d/extremely strong o).

I can't see the Jays setting new records for pay to a single player, be it per year or total value. Still, it is fun to imagine.
Gerry - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:43 PM EST (#247773) #
Buster Olney tweets that the Jays were interested in Martin Prado but the two teams didn't match up.  He said the Braves were looking for a LF thumper.  Prado for Thames, who says no?
TamRa - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:46 PM EST (#247774) #
"Is it me or do you just want to punch some of these journalists who keep reporting that the Jays are rumoured to be strong players for Pujols or Fielder."

Not me.

I start with a few assumptions:

1. Alex is a ninja, he's never where they think he is
2. Alex, he of reluctance to speak, HAS said he's not going to 7,8 years

so I ignore them, I don't get my hopes up. I take it as a given the "rumor" is coming out of the agent's office. If I get surprised, then the joy is the same, maybe even better...if I'm right, I'm not disappointed.

Meanwhile, while the gullible think Alex is doing nothing with his right hand, he's scoring the next Lawrie deal (or some such) with his left hand to get a guy no one else realized was available.
James W - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:49 PM EST (#247776) #
You're currently missing "Baseball's Seasons", the story of the 1967 Cardinals. At 2:00, the MLB Network Special "Don Zimmer: I've Seen It All". Both have nothing to do with Winter Meetings.
Mike Green - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:50 PM EST (#247777) #
Prado for Thames, who says no

Thames for Prado
who says no

A little more than Hallmark, a little less than Auden. 
ayjackson - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:51 PM EST (#247778) #

Prado-Thames seems in the realm of fairness, but apparently the Braves want a RH bat.  Perhaps a three-way with the Sox for Carlos Quentin.

The market for Fielder looks very small.  Morosi is suggesting that Rangers, Angels, Cubs and possibly Brewers may be out due to Prince's desire to play in the Eastern timezone.  Seems like pure speculation, but intriguing.  Washington still look like the favourite to me.

Lugnut Fan - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 01:55 PM EST (#247779) #
The earliest you will probably see any winter meetings talk is at 5:00 with Intentional Talk and then at 6:00 will be hot stove where it will be pretty much exclusively winter meetings coverage.
TamRa - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 02:11 PM EST (#247780) #
"See I don't understand why everyone thinks it's reasonable (in baseball terms) for Fielder to accept something like five years $120 million. If I understand the thinking correctly, I see a serious issue with some of the logic. On the one hand, people seem to be saying that if Fielder were to sign a five year contract for $125 million he would be earning a higher base salary over a shorter term, and avail himself to another big pay day. OK. Then on the other hand, the thinking goes that if you were to sign Fielder to a 8-10 year contract with a base salary of $18-22 million, two or possibly three of those later years Fielder will be below market value because he'll be too big to man first base or there'll be health issues due to his weight. I mean, it seems like people who seem to be saying that a shorter contract is attractive to Fielder because he'll get another similar payday are also saying that a longer term contract is unattractive because his value will substantially decrease over the course of the contract? I mean if questions are now being posed of Fielder's long term longevity, what do you think they'll be in five years? If Fielder does have an injury or is relegated to DHing, he probably doesn't have the same market value."

---------------
It's a matter of relative risk.

for the team, the risk is "if this guy goes south, as Howard seems to be doing, then i might be paying a somewhat above average guy like he's a superstar in the last 3-4 years of the deal"

For the player, the risk is that that turn south happens before the five year deal is up.

It depends on the players confidence and risk aversion. if the player REALLY believes he can hit with Pujols over the next five years, he wants the shorter deal and the bigger payday five years from now, if the player wants secure money as a hedge against a downturn, even if that means leaving theoretical dollars on the table, then he holds out for 8 or 10 years.

From the team's perspective, there's less ego involved - it's a cold calculation - is the risk of overpaying, possibly significantly, in the out years worth the gamble that you might, in fact, be underpaying him somewhat in those years if he maintains the performance level.

I think Todd Helton is a decent example of what might happen on a long term deal.
The original contract was altered with an extension before 2011 but here's how it was originally structured:

From '06 to '10 he made 16.6 annually, then 19.1 was set for 2011, and 23 for 2012.

over those years this was his OPS, even playing in Colorado-
.880
.928
.779
.904
.728
.850

Arguably for three of the six years he was significantly overpaid (under the original terms) and would have been in the upcoming year.

But if he'd have continued at the level of the previous six years, he'd have been quite the bargain over the whole course of the deal and even justified making 23 next year.

So, in hindisght, was it worth it to the Rockies to gamble that they'd end up overpaying by - ballpark - 15-20 mil on the chance they would end up with 20+ mil in savings?

You could argue it either way.

Going back to the player point of view, that big contract was signed after 2002. Helton's combined OPS over the next five years was .994

How big a contract could he have signed in the winter of 2007 (the same era people were giving huge money to Beltran, Hunter, Wells, Santana and others) based on that? What he actually signed for was 91.9 mil over those five years - would it have been worth the wait to turn that into...say...110?

Probably not. But it's at least a valid question and different players might make different choices.
TamRa - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 02:14 PM EST (#247781) #
"Prado-Thames seems in the realm of fairness, but apparently the Braves want a RH bat. Perhaps a three-way with the Sox for Carlos Quentin."

an interesting thought but - as much as the jays love Beckham, might they not rather have him than Prado...on the other hand with the Sox cutting costs, might they rather move Prado along rather than Beckham?

There does seem to be potential in all that though
TamRa - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 02:17 PM EST (#247782) #
ok, I've never ever done a "let's get O-Dog post before BUT

MLBTR says the padres are looking to do a pure salary dump on hudson, and i'm guessing that will be hard to do SO what about this:

Teahan for Hudson

Padres save 2.5 mil (maybe we could kick in another mil, mil and a half) we get a stopgap 2B and rid of a player we are probably just going to eat the contract on anyway.

Why not?
Mike Forbes - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 02:19 PM EST (#247783) #
Thames could interest the White Sox and Carlos Quentin could interest the Braves. We know that (well, believe) the Jays are after Prado to play second. It makes sense, but Alex Anthopolous will probably surprise us and grab Hanley from the Marlins or something.

Spifficus - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 02:24 PM EST (#247784) #
While we're on the topic of using the White Sox to get what we want, I'd kick the tires on Thorton... or any of Crain, Santos, or Reed, really (well, Sale, too, but that's more of a pipe-dream).
Geoff - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 03:26 PM EST (#247786) #
If Fielder was to choose, he should go the AJ Burnett/Arod route and get as many years as you can get with an opt out halfway into the contract.

While it may sound silly for him to want a contract length as short as 5 years, the market for dollars spent on the big talents can only increase. So get a contract guaranteeing you 5, 6, 9 years for security but also get the option to get out of the contract after a few years, given a) you still perform at a high level with good health; and b) the market has inflated. You put in a few years of good production, then you secure a greater contract. Maybe the original  team signs off thinking he will be driven to perform for his opt-out opportunity(-ies).

Fielder's agent is Scott Boras, correct? Not beneath the man to use rumors to stir the pot.

Whoever picks up Fielder may be asked to sign Manny as well as break down some barriers in the marketplace. Whatever contract Fielder signs, it should be expected to be monumental. Funny if Pujols' camp is using Jays as well to spark interest. Albert's agent is lagging far behind Boras' ability to stir noise and negotiating leverage among clubs. Dan Lozano will have to step up his game, and not the dirty one that gets featured in tabloids.

John Northey - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 03:34 PM EST (#247789) #
Nice idea TamRa, but depends on how much payroll cutting the Padres are doing. They might not want to get any salary back, thus making it a bit harder. Still, I see Hudson as a fall-back position if the Jays can't get a higher level 2B for 2012.
Gerry - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 03:49 PM EST (#247792) #
Blue Jays inquired on Daniel Murphy of the Mets, according to MLBTR.
FranklyScarlet - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 04:10 PM EST (#247794) #
O Dog is not out of the question, TamRa.
He's a great "leader" in the infield, something which has been missing a bit.
Offensively, he's a little bit of a question mark, but I DO think you may be spot on!

Chuck - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 05:15 PM EST (#247796) #

Offensively, he's a little bit of a question mark

His OPS+s in 2010 and 2011 were 96 and 94, above average for his position. Still, he'll be 34 next year and staying healthy has always been an issue for him, particularly in his 30s.

He's a great "leader" in the infield, something which has been missing a bit.

I'm not sure what's implied by the quotes around leader. I'll assume you weren't being sarcastic, first impressions notwithstanding. I'm curious how you know he's a leader and what the manifestations of such would be on the team's infield? What specific problems would this leadership address?

Geoff - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 05:28 PM EST (#247797) #
I'm curious how you know he's a leader

My guess is that he is always talking on the diamond (and off), therefore he must be providing leadership. Talking people are de facto leaders. Quiet people need not apply.
Ducey - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 06:29 PM EST (#247798) #

My guess is that he is always talking on the diamond (and off), therefore he must be providing leadership. Talking people are de facto leaders. Quiet people need not apply.

Maybe O-Dog is a leader, maybe he isn't.  But you are so off base on your general assumption that you could be picked off by my grandma while she was asleep in the bathtub with the bathroom door closed.

 

bpoz - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 06:57 PM EST (#247800) #
I am with you FranklyScarlett on leadership.

Some people think that it does not exist in baseball or so I have read. BUT...The Jays in 1992 against Eck showed something that I believe exists. Was it leadership, intangibles, spirit or some other word to describe it. If people do not know the game I am referring to please ask and someone will bring you up to date much better than I can.

I see Lawrie & Thames definitely having that SOMETHING. Listen to Lawrie in the Wilner playoff interviews, he is loaded with spitit. I missed Thames interview but he predicted or guaranteed a playoff spot next year. JPA, Snider, Cecil, Litsch and others have the fire.

I think they will pick each other up and I would absolutely love some Swagger out of the Jays in 2012.
Mylegacy - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 07:47 PM EST (#247802) #
"I'm curious how you know he's a leader."

Elementary, he was the first one to point out JP looked like a pimp.


sam - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 08:07 PM EST (#247803) #
I have lots of fire and a desperation to see the Blue Jays win probably more than any guy. But hey, I can't throw the ball 95 miles per hour, nor can I hit .300. "Leadership" and "Fire" mean very little in baseball if you don't have the talent to play against the Yankees and Red Sox. I think a lot of those players sure want to win, but I don't necessarily see the ability just yet to beat those types of teams. We've watch Jesse Litsch and Brett Cecil compete against these teams for two plus years, they simply do not have the talent to beat good teams. Brett Lawrie certainly looks like he does, but he's only played 40 or so games, and JP Arencibia hit .220 last year. Intangibles only play if you're good.
adrianveidt - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 09:38 PM EST (#247806) #
I missed Thames interview but he predicted or guaranteed a playoff spot next year.
Thames guaranteed the Jays would double their player salaries budget this offseason? I'm impressed.
85bluejay - Monday, December 05 2011 @ 11:43 PM EST (#247810) #
Because they have to wait until Wednesday night to find out if any of the players offered arbitration accept, it's likely the Jays are going to have a quiet week and to be active in the coming weeks - the deadline should have been this past Sunday night.
raptorsaddict - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:20 AM EST (#247813) #
Just for posterity, my prediction is that if the jays did sign The Prince, it would be for 5 years at an absurd AAV. My guess is 5 years/165 (33 million/year).
melondough - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 10:07 AM EST (#247816) #
"Just for posterity, my prediction is that if the jays did sign The Prince, it would be for 5 years at an absurd AAV. My guess is 5 years/165 (33 million/year)"

I wonder how Bautista would feel about that?

I found the following on the Baseball America site. Can anyhow confirm if this applies to Jays this year or if it was used as an example starting with 2012 picks?

"Teams get an extra year of protection for compensation picks for failure to sign draftees from the first three rounds. For example, the Blue Jays get the 22nd pick in 2012 after not signing No. 21 overall choice Tyler Beede in 2011. If Toronto can't come to terms with the compensation selection, it would get another one in 2013."
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/

Lastly has anyone yet found concrete evidence to support which slots are "protected" under the modified type A status (i.e. top 10, or top 15)? I know there were a few assumptions made a couple weeks back but they seemed to be based more on interpretation than fact. If anyone knows kindly provide link.  I know it must be at least top 10 because the Marlins finished in slot 9 and Padres had to settle for a 2nd round pick + supp for Heath Bell.
92-93 - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 11:42 AM EST (#247820) #
Can we please put to rest this idea that the Blue Jays aren't allowed to pay anyone more than Jose Bautista lest they offend him? Bautista knew what he was getting into when he signed the contract - he understood that he had one year of MLB success and was being offered 65m guaranteed for that. He knew that he could have played out the 2011 season and received much more as a FA, but he also knew that he could have reverted back to his career levels in 2011. One would hope Bautista realizes the difference between his contract extension with one year of excellence and an elite FA with 6+ years of track record.
melondough - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 11:42 AM EST (#247821) #

Also there are some rumors that the Jays won the posting bid for Japanese SS Hiroyuki Nakajima.   Apparantly they will announce the winner of the bid today or tomorrow. Somewhat speculative to assume Jays have highest bid but it comes from a tweet from Nomo's and Irabu's former agent who also states that he could be wrong. 

He hit .297 with 16 homers and 100 RBI in 144 games last year.   I guess if the report is true (still speculation according to Bob Elliott) then they could move him to 2B if they don't re-sign Johnson or someone else.  If they sign Johnson then I believe they do not have to follow through with the process and would get their posting fee back (which if I am right about then it really leaves the posting process open to abuse by teams that are trying to "block" competiors).  

Seems like an odd fit.   Would Jays need to hire a translator just for him?   If so they might as well get Darvish but he speaks english I think.

Time will tell how accurate this is. 

Paul D - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 12:48 PM EST (#247828) #

mlbtraderumors: 

The Blue Jays acquired reliever Sergio Santos from the White Sox for righty prospect Nestor Molina, announced the team.

Paul D - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 12:57 PM EST (#247829) #

 

I assume this means Santos closes and that the Jays go with a cheap bullpen (Janssen will be the highest paid?)

Hopefully the money they saved goes into the team.

Forkball - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:08 PM EST (#247830) #
Interesting trade.  My initial reaction was that it was way too much, but given Santos' contract there's a lot of value in that.

The other part of it is what to make of a converted player with limited experience (which I guess is a description of both players!).  Which could go two ways - either he could be a highly variable reliever, or will only get better from last year.

Makes you wonder what the A's were looking for in return for Bailey, and who the Jays preferred of the two.

I'm torn, but it's certainly a bold move that makes the Jays better in the short run.

Paul D - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:09 PM EST (#247831) #

 

here's Santos' contract, from Cot's:

 

Sergio Santos rhp
3 years/$8.25M (2012-14), plus 2015-17 club options

  • 3 years/$8.25M (2012-14), plus 2015-17 club options
    • signed extension with Chicago White Sox 9/30/11
    • 12:$1M, 13:$2.75M, 14:$3.75M, 15:$6M club option, 16:$8M club option, 17:$8.75M club option ($0.75M buyouts for each option)
  • 1 year/$0.435M (2011)
    • re-signed by Chicago White Sox 2/11
  • 1 year/$0.4M (2010)
    • contract purchased by Chicago White Sox 11/20/09
    • re-signed by Chicago White Sox 3/3/10
  • drafted by Arizona 2002 (1-27) (as shortstop)
  • ML service: 2.000


 

Wedding Singer - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:11 PM EST (#247832) #

Santos is entering his age 28 season and signed for the next three years at a very attractive rate:

2012: 1M

2013: 2.75M

2014: 3.75M

The club has options each year at 6M, 8M and 8.75M from 2015-2017. Santos is a very attractive asset given the going rate for quality closers (8M - 12.5M). Assuming Santos is still performing, even those last three years should look exceptionally cheap if you apply an inflation rate of 4-6% to salaries.

I guess the question is, will he perform? We're all aware that Santos was a failed SS prospect before converting to pitching in 2009. Given his limited pitching experience, his numbers look phenomenal. He struck out 36% of batters he faced last year, while walking 11%.  The K rate skyrocketed from 2010, while he shaved off half a walk per nine. His slider, according to pitch values, was one of the most unhittable pitches in the game. The fact that he didn't start pitching until he was 26 should bode well for his health, as he has very little mileage on his arm.

I'll leave it to those on this Board who are far more educated than I am on Nestor Molina to comment on the quality of the prospect that we gave up. I know his numbers were excellent last year. That being said, I give this acquisition two thumbs up!

 

Denoit - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:12 PM EST (#247833) #
Santos has some filty stuff, 5.8 hits/9ip and 13.1!! SO/9 last year. Walks are a little high but if guys cant hit you i guess its alright. I think he can be one of the better closers in the game. He also doesn't have many miles on that arm being a converted SS. I know there was a lot of talk about Molina, but his upside was that of a mid rotation guy, or back end of the bullpen. Jays get a sure thing in Santos. This trade hopefully works out for both teams. Anthopolous cant steal everyone.
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:14 PM EST (#247834) #
There's a lot to like about Santos. The Jays basically have him for six years at a significant discount provided he continues to put up similar numbers as last year.
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:14 PM EST (#247835) #
Santos was extended in October, and the money involved is reasonable.  I think that Molina can be as effective as Santos and at a lower cost, but he hasn't done that yet and Santos has.  I am glad that the club has spent a reasonable amount on a "proven closer", and can now get on with improving the club in other ways. 
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:22 PM EST (#247837) #
It's a good trade really. I mean the Jays have surplus of prospects and they need to start upgrading the ML Roster. Santos gives the Jays cost-certainty in the bullpen and the potential to have a top tier closer for six years.

It does raise the question what the going rate for Bailey or Street is. I'd imagine that the A's are asking for at least Yonder Alonso or one of the Reds' catching prospects in return.
ayjackson - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:23 PM EST (#247838) #

It's nice to have SSPC* on board and while a B+ pitching prospect is always tough to part with, especially for bullpen help on a team that isn't a contender (stay tuned?), there are plenty more where that one came from.

*Sergio Santos Proven Closer [TM]

Paul D - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:27 PM EST (#247839) #

There's one important unanswered question - does Santos have a cool closer song?

BalzacChieftain - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:29 PM EST (#247840) #

Looks like a good deal for the Jays. AA and staff were probably projecting Molina to hopefully become a Santos-like pitcher. This essentially trades away the risk that he doesn't pan out and acquires the near-ceiling of the prospect, also cost-controlled.

That being said, I know that a lot of posters around here have seen Molina pitch and may have different opinions. A lot of what I've read elsewhere (second-hand, I know) is that he projected as a high-leverage bullpen arm.

johnny was - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:29 PM EST (#247841) #
Santos is a pretty solid reliever, but away from US Cellular has some extremely impressive career splits, holding hitters to a .219/.295/.303 line, 3.24 K:BB and an ERA of 1.30.




sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:29 PM EST (#247842) #
Gotta think Marco Paddy had some say in this deal. I could imagine the Jays saying Hutchison or Molina and Kenny Williams turning to Paddy and saying Molina!
85bluejay - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:30 PM EST (#247843) #
I good fair trade as many scouting reports had Molina ending up in the BP & that's what prospects are partly for - we sol high on Molina - The irony is that we had Santos for 2 years as a ss prospect - pity the old regime didn't convert him.
Wedding Singer - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:34 PM EST (#247844) #

"a B+ pitching prospect is always tough to part with, especially for bullpen help on a team that isn't a contender (stay tuned?), there are plenty more where that one came from."

If you look at Sickels list, there are five other B+ pitching prospects after Molina (Syndergaard, Nicolino, Norris, McGuire, Hutchison) and three more B- (Sanchez, Wojciechowski and Cardona) behind them. According to Sickels, grade B prospects have a good chance to enjoy successful careers. Some will develop into stars, some will not. Most end up spending several years in the majors, at the very least in a marginal role.

I don't mind giving up a top pitching prospect when so many more are in the pipeline.

 

John Northey - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:36 PM EST (#247845) #
Very interesting trade. AA has been saying that Molina was a bullpen candidate for a little while and maybe that was his way of saying 'give us a closer today for one tomorrow'.

Santos' wildness makes me a bit nervous (4.1 BB/9 last year) but those K's - oh those K's. For a guy who just started to pitch in 2009 it is quite the thing.

So, AA's ninja rep gains more strength as no one saw this one coming.
sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:38 PM EST (#247846) #
I still can't get over the Marlins. I mean, it looks like they might increase their payroll by $50 million dollars next year.
Gerry - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:40 PM EST (#247847) #
A "proven" major leaguer is more valuable than a prospect so I like this deal.  Molina could turn into a #3 or 4 starter, or be a reliever but there is always a risk.
melondough - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:40 PM EST (#247848) #

Lost in all of this is that NOBODY saw this coming.  AA is true to his word. If it is rumored it is probably false and if a deal goes through it will likely be news to most.  Now we know what he meant when he said he has some deals on the 5 yard line but they are hard decisions to make.

It's unbelievable how he is able to work so effectively and in such secrecy.  I wonder if he says to other GM's/Agents "I will get back to you but if word gets out that I am interested then the deal is off and I won't even have to throw cold water on it because the media knows I never respond to rumors"

whiterasta80 - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:44 PM EST (#247849) #

Wow, didn't see Santos coming at all.  Not a bad deal given our needs and the relative shortage of available relief talent.  That being said we've gone from (potentially) Nathan or Papelbon to Santos.  As long as that money shows up somewhere else (Darvish, Prince, Albert, overpaid but productive bat/arm, FA next year...) I'm quite pleased with this deal.  If we're going the route of cheapskates I'll be annoyed.

 

sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:44 PM EST (#247850) #
As matter of principle for the Jays, I like this deal. Molina projected out to mid-rotation at best on a good team. It's not about developing prospects, but developing prospects who have potential to be perennial all-stars. Those prospects the Jays should hang on to, but the guys that don't have all-star potential should be moved on in the right kind of deal. I hope Nestor Molina has a long, successful career, but ultimately this is a good deal for the Jays.
Matthew E - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:46 PM EST (#247851) #
Wow, didn't see Santos coming at all.  Not a bad deal given our needs and the relative shortage of available relief talent.  That being said we've gone from (potentially) Nathan or Papelbon to Santos.  As long as that money shows up somewhere else (Darvish, Prince, Albert, overpaid but productive bat/arm, FA next year...) I'm quite pleased with this deal.  If we're going the route of cheapskates I'll be annoyed.

Some people would complain if they were hanged with a new rope.

It's a coinflip as to which of the three relievers you name will be better next year.
Beyonder - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:48 PM EST (#247853) #
If Chisox are truly in full rebuilding mode, isn't Konerko an asset they should be willing to move?  He's on a short but reasonable deal given his production.  Lind plus what gets a deal done?
Paul D - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:49 PM EST (#247854) #

 

Makes me wonder about the deals AA talks about that don't happen.

whiterasta80 - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:50 PM EST (#247855) #

melondough, the only way that threat works is if he's already backed it up.  I suspect AA has already walked away from FA contracts, trades etc... on the basis of things getting out. 

sam - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:50 PM EST (#247856) #
You know come to think about it, the Jays have so many guys on team-friendly contracts at key positions. I mean their ace (Romero), star player (Bautista), closer (Santos), short stop and first baseman (Escobar and Lind). And then everyone else is under team control for at least the next couple years. AA is really a master at getting value for his dollar.
Gerry - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:51 PM EST (#247858) #
It would be interesting to know how much negotiating went on in this deal.  Did the Jays always want Santos or did they start with Thornton?  Did the Sox always want Molina or did they go through Drabek, Hutchison or someone else first?   Oh to be a fly on the wall!   I doubt AA will spill the beans on the background.
BlueJayWay - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:52 PM EST (#247859) #
That being said we've gone from (potentially) Nathan or Papelbon to Santos.

Nobody should be very much surprised if Santos were the best of those three next year.
BalzacChieftain - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:56 PM EST (#247862) #

Papelbon > Santos >>>>>>> Nathan

TimberLee - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:58 PM EST (#247863) #

Well, spifficus (above) saw Santos as a possibility for the Jays and he deserves recognition for that, I'd say.

(Apparently we now have a separate thread for Santos.)

melondough - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 01:59 PM EST (#247865) #

It looks like Williams thinks he got a deal done that he thought would have taken a starter in return to get done.  From the Chicago Sun-Times:

“He has a 90-96 mph fastball that bores in on right-hand hitters, keeps the ball down, can hit outside corner, inside corner, take it upstairs if he needs to — he has a swing-and-miss type splitter that drops off the table, a plus slider and an equally effective changeup.  We are very happy that we were able to acquire him. I did not anticipate that it would take Sergio to do it. I was thinking it would take starting pitching but the opportunity to present itself.’’

whiterasta80 - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:00 PM EST (#247868) #

Matthew if you look at my post history I am as optimistic about the Blue Jays as anybody on this board. This is almost certainly just another wise move by a brilliant GM who understands player value better than anyone in the game.  I'didn't mean to suggest that I will be grouchy if we don't get Prince Fielder on board this offseason, that's ridiculous.

I have, however, been left a little jaded by the Pittsburgh's and Florida's of the world out there. I believe good teams overpay talent from time to time and if they're run properly they can afford to do this. I am mostly confident that the Jays will spend when the time comes, but rest assured I won't be a Florida/Miami fan who supports teams which won't invest at all.

benplot - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 02:07 PM EST (#247874) #
Griffin seems to thin that Santos is best served as a set up man: " ... and would be best served as the eighth inning option to an established major-league closer". "Santos is a good acquisition as long as he is not the promised one as the 2012 closer".

Does he think that AA is going to sign another high leverage reliever?
scottt - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:19 PM EST (#247969) #
Was that before or after AA said "He's got the ninth for us"?
Gerry - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 10:12 PM EST (#247980) #
The Mets have signed Jon Rauch and are rumoured to be about to sign Frank Francisco.
TamRa - Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 10:51 PM EST (#247984) #
"Nobody should be very much surprised if Santos were the best of those three [Papelbon, Santos, Nathan] next year."

+1
Jays Ready To Wheel and Deal? | 79 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.