Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Breaking News Frasor is Texas-bound

From inimitable Friend of Batter's Box Jamey Newberg's Newberg Report:

"The Rangers have signed free agent righthander Jason Frasor to a one-year deal, reported by Jon Heyman (CBS Sports) to be worth a mere $1.5 million....

 



"The 35-year-old reliever averaged a career-high 10.9 strikeouts per nine innings with Toronto in 2012.  He has held opponents to a .239 batting average in his nine-year career, including .229 by right-handed hitters.

"In a winter featuring a three-year, $22.5 million deal for Brandon League, a three-year, $21 million deal for Jonathan Broxton, and a three-year, $18 million deal for Jeremy Affeldt, the Rangers will pay new relievers Joakim Soria, Josh Lindblom, and Jason Frasor a combined $6 million in 2013.

"To make room on the 40-man roster for Frasor, Texas has designated recently claimed catcher Eli Whiteside for assignment."

Good move for the Rangers.  Not a peculiarly bad move to the Blue Jays, though. hey?

Posted by Mick Doherty on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 04:34 PM EST.
Frasor is Texas-bound | 174 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
vw_fan17 - Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 04:57 PM EST (#267633) #
As I said in the other thread:
IIRC, the Rangers already have a pretty solid bullpen (i.e. no chance for him to close there either). Given that we paid him significantly more last year ($3.75M per BR), [he] knows Toronto inside-and-out by now and has never pitched for Texas, why couldn't we talk him into a pay cut? At $1.75M, say, he would have been good bullpen depth, IMHO. Maybe you won't get an ERA+ of > 140 out of him again, but, if a few guys arms fall off, you should still be able to count on him for 110-120 ERA+ (i.e. average relief).

Also, while double-checking that JF is indeed the all-time appearances leader, I found that Casey Janssen, with 31 saves, is tied for 11th all time in Jays saves (tied with Joey McLaughlin). Not that unusual. But, with just 28 more saves this year to get to 59, he would rocket past Accardo, Frasor, Batista, Gregg, Timlin and Escobar all the way to 5th all-time, behind only BJ Ryan, Billy Koch, Duane Ward and Tom Henke. 122 saves would put him second all-time (i.e. 3 more seasons of 31 saves).

[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 05:45 PM EST (#267637) #
Now, Eli Whiteside is available on waivers.  I wonder if AA claims him...
[ Reply to This ]
Super Bluto - Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:11 PM EST (#267642) #
Well, he already kind of pitches with a drawl, so Texas might be a good fit.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:36 PM EST (#267643) #
Oh goodie, a relievers post. What happens if Darren Oliver retires? Will J.P. Howell (LHP) still be available? A.A. would have about $3.75 MM to spend then. Even if Oliver returns, A.A. was thinking about adding another top reliever! Who? And who still has options? Of those without options, who gets kept?
[ Reply to This ]
CeeBee - Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 08:17 PM EST (#267645) #
Oliver apparently want's more money to play this year...
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/01/darren-oliver-wants-raise-to-continue-playing.html
unless he's traded to Texas... Nice...... trade him I say.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 09:08 PM EST (#267646) #
Darren Oliver signed the contract, exactly as he wanted because he was RETIRING to be with his kids. When asked, he didn't say NO to his option picked up. AND NOW THIS CRAP! All those quality LHR were missed because A.A. was considerate to allow him time to decide - f--- him, he can retire - no raise, no trades.
[ Reply to This ]
JB21 - Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 09:12 PM EST (#267647) #
Woah, tell us how you really feel! Thank g Richard S S isn't our GM...
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 09:43 PM EST (#267648) #
Assuming Rosenthal and Morosi's report is accurate, Oliver isn't doing anything unethical. He wants more money and is attempting to renegotiate the terms of his option year contract. The Jays can agree and pony up (and/or trade him to Texas), or they can refuse.

Of course, by holding out for more money or a trade, Oliver is running the risk of ending up on the sidelines in 2013. It's not as if he can opt out and become a free agent.

I would be a bit surprised if the Jays gave in to his demands. You don't want to set a precedent for future negotiations.
[ Reply to This ]
Magpie - Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 10:45 PM EST (#267650) #
Think of it this way. Oliver is retired. On the one hand, he'll come out of retirement for $4.5 million. On the other hand, he'll give his hometown team a discount. Can't blame him for that.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 12:22 AM EST (#267653) #
"Oliver is running the risk of ending up on the sidelines in 2013"

I really don't think in his mind it's a risk. I believe he'd be perfectly OK with retirement. Magpie has it nailed.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 12:33 AM EST (#267654) #
, why couldn't we talk him into a pay cut?

Per MLBTR:

  However, the Blue Jays are over budget and are unwilling to give him a pay bump.  A source says that Toronto has stretched their budget so far that they might have to cut in other areas just to pay Oliver his original $3MM salary.
Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/toronto_blue_jays/#rLMhpykV5xFZJyic.99

Which maybe explains some things. I'd been assuming the Jays had that $3 mil in hand waiting on Oliver, with the liberty to spend it (On JP{ Howell for instance) if he retired. If this report is true, it certainly explains why Frasor, even at such a bargain price, wasn't in the plans.



[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 12:35 AM EST (#267655) #
Not a fan of guys who sign a deal then complain about it (which is what Oliver is doing really).  The advantage for the Jays though is that if he retires they get nada but they might get a useful spare part for him from Texas. 

Texas has lost a few from their pen - Mike Adams and Koji Uehara both left as free agents, Alexi Ogando moves to the starting rotation.  They added Jason Frasor but I don't know who else they might have added.  Oliver would be a big boost in that pen.  The Rangers have  14 B- or better prospects according to Sickles which is very impressive.  Hopefully AA can get one of those top 14 prospects out of Texas for Oliver - FYI not a hope for their super 2 and probably not for their top 8 prospects (all B or better). For comparison the Jays (pre trades) had 9 B- or better of which the two A-'s are gone (the Marlins trade was already done when the rankings were made).  So just 7 prospects in the Jays system who would have a shot at the top 14 for the Rangers.  Yup, time to see if they'll part with one or two for Oliver (and maybe a lower level prospect) so the farm is stocked up for mid-season trades.
[ Reply to This ]
Parker - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:25 AM EST (#267657) #
Could Oliver "retire" and then enter free agency when he announces his comeback for the 2014 season? Or do the Jays own his rights for his next year of ML service regardless of calendar year?

I'm just having a hard time (when trying to look at this from Oliver's perspective) seeing a professional athlete allow someone else to make the decision whether the athlete retires or not. Wondering whether Oliver's own worst-case scenario result from this demand is having to sit out a year as opposed to being forced into retirement. Assuming he can actually still pitch in 2014.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 08:12 AM EST (#267658) #
1) He made a lot of noise about RETIRING from the time he signed this contract.
2) He had a say in how his contract was written, to cover this.
3) Demanding more money, means he's not happy about pitching for Toronto. Throwing a gracious bone, he suggests a trade to Texas.

If this isn't morally reprehensible, then it's in very bad taste. HE IS GONE. If I could trade him to Houston for a bat, I would.
[ Reply to This ]
Dave Till - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 08:14 AM EST (#267659) #
Maybe the Jays could trade Oliver for Jason Frasor :-) More seriously: Oliver has two options - pitch for the Jays, or retire. Any other alternative requires cooperation from his current employer. He will only get that if it is in the Jays' best interest to give it to him.

As for Jason Frasor:
- He was a good pitcher but not a good closer. That happens sometimes. Not everybody can close.
- As someone else pointed out, he is a slow worker. This possibly contributed to his troubles with closing.
- He's relatively short - 5'9" according to Baseball Reference - but he throws hard. That's unusual. (Would a right-handed pitcher of his size even get signed today?)
- I always thought that he and Trever Miller needed to swap vowels in their names.

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 08:35 AM EST (#267660) #
Think of it this way. Oliver is retired. On the one hand, he'll come out of retirement for $4.5 million. On the other hand, he'll give his hometown team a discount.

I agree with this characterization - if Oliver is equally fine with either outcome (pitching or not pitching in 2013). If he actually has a preference for pitching this year, then his current stance risks his not getting what he most wants.
[ Reply to This ]
grjas - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:06 AM EST (#267661) #
Not a fan of guys who sign a deal then complain about it (which is what Oliver is doing really).

I agree. There is nothing legally wrong with what he is doing but pressuring a re-negotiation of a year old contract at the end of his career is downright sleazy. And if that's the type of guy he is, so be it. I'd rather be cheering for guys I respect...guys like Dickey.

From a business perspective, I agree that you can't now pay the guy more to return to Toronto. Management would look weak. On the other hand, if you can trade him for parts to Texas, why not. The Rangers of course have a lot of leverage- they are the only game in town- but something is better than nothing.
[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:28 AM EST (#267662) #
I haven't heard anything from Oliver or his agent so I am taking this "wants a raise to return" thing with a grain of salt. I saw nothing but professionalism out of Oliver when he was here and you know the leak didn't come from our front office.

Regardless of whether or not it is true, if Oliver wants to pitch this year he has one option: he can honour his contract! The Jays can't afford to give him a raise just because he strong arms them! Moreover, if Farrell taught us anything last year it is that you don't want someone here who is thinking about being somewhere else.

I guess there is always the highly unlikely possibility of Texas giving us fair value: the above talk of one of prospects 9-14 sounds fair, I just don't see it happening.
[ Reply to This ]
mathesond - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:39 AM EST (#267663) #
I like the perspective offered here - http://blogs.thescore.com/djf/2013/01/03/darren-oliver-twist-sanity-from-the-comments/
[ Reply to This ]
Subversive - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:43 AM EST (#267664) #

My emotional side says "screw him, let the jerk retire!".

My logical side says "If you can actually get something for him, go for it."

None of my sides say to pay him more than the contract he signed.

[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:56 AM EST (#267665) #
I agree Oliver never pitches for Toronto again. But I disagree that Texas has the upper hand. What Texas offers tells Oliver their value of him. If Texas doesn't give you value, don't trade him. If he won't retire, release him in Spring Training. (Is his contract fully guaranteed?)
[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:59 AM EST (#267666) #
I think the key here for why I'd be reluctant to re-negotiate is that this isn't Mariano Rivera/Pettite/Clemens deciding about retirement on a year to year basis.

You can't separate his salary last year from this option! Who is to say that the Jays were willing to pay him 4 million last season if they didn't have this option as well (maybe he only gets 3 million, or 3.3 on a one year deal). They negotiated that 4 million with the understanding that if played this season that it would be on these terms.

He is well within his rights to retire, but if the demands are true then he negotiated in bad faith last season and that shouldn't be rewarded for that.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:02 AM EST (#267667) #
The expression "spending time with the family" is typically used euphemistically to mean something very much different than "spending time with the family". It is often meant to entirely misrepresent a job dismissal or some other embarassment as a preferred and presumably less selfish and more honourable life decision. The expression is most often a grotesque distortion of the truth, the very reason it typically elicits sneers.

Now, when it comes to players at the end of their careers, deciding on whether they should keep on playing, there is reason to believe that the option to "spend time with the family" is a legitimate one and not simply a transparent bargaining ploy. And this seems to have been the widespread opinion about Oliver. Until now.

Oliver is certainly well within his rights to play the game he is purported to now be playing. I'll play at home for 3MM and abroad for 4.5MM (or not at all, for free). It doesn't smell particularly wonderful, but it is within the parameters of technically acceptable behaviour.

Still, I can't see the "spend time with family" argument being uttered with an entirely straight face. If I spend the season in Toronto, it will be painful as I will miss time with my family. But the mental anguish I would suffer can be mollified for an extra 1.5MM. With that extra money, above and beyond the 3MM that we previously agreed upon, I will miss them but should be able to sleep at nights. Yes, that incremental money will see me through the rough patch and allow me to heroically soldier on.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:06 AM EST (#267668) #
"- He's relatively short - 5'9" according to Baseball Reference - but he throws hard. That's unusual. (Would a right-handed pitcher of his size even get signed today?)"

Ask Marcus Stroman.
[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:07 AM EST (#267669) #
I just read about the Rays and their Arb process. It sounded a lot like AA's method. ie when numbers are exchanged then it is a hearing or a long term contract.

Regarding Oliver :-AA seems to be firm in his policies or tries to be. We will see how this plays out. I feel that the Bautista long term contract was unclear as to who wanted to do what as far as timing. I felt AA preferred to wait and maybe do something mid year. Bautista however was clear that no in season signing was going to happen. IMO.
Halladay also wanted no mid season trade distractions.

I am OK with both sides being clear in their desires.

I am waiting for clarity in the Josh Johnson situation. It is still early.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:21 AM EST (#267670) #
One of our holiday family discussions concerned "the monetary value of a life" as it relates to highway construction (among other purposes).  The numbers were pretty low, IIRC.  $1.5 million for a "family year" seems comparatively generous.

There is a pretty good chance that Oliver isn't worth $3 million in 2013, let alone $4.5 million.  He is 42 years old and a 3 year run of excellent performance doesn't mean nearly as much as it does when one is 32.  Aging is a truly wonderful thing.

[ Reply to This ]
Ryan Day - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:35 AM EST (#267671) #
Oliver already agreed to play in Toronto for $3 million in 2013 when he signed the contract. If he wanted more money, or simply didn't want to play in 2013, he shouldn't have agreed to the option year. It's not like he didn't know where Toronto was, where his family lived, or how old he was last year.

I can't really muster much outrage over the situation, but it will be interesting to see how Anthopoulos responds. Do you try to trade him to Texas, knowing they have the upper hand? Renegotiate the contract? Trade him to someone else who'll pay the $4 million? Or say it's a matter of principle and let him retire?
[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:42 AM EST (#267672) #
One of the nice things for me about the 92 WS championship was the long time Jays players that got a ring.

Stieb & Mulliniks, maybe G Bell. Alfredo. Tony in 93. D Bell & E Sprague had good timing.

I wonder if Jeff Kent got a ring for 92.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:51 AM EST (#267673) #
One other thing - none of us know the dynamic in the Oliver household. Maybe his wife is pressuring him to spend more time in at home, and has convinced him $3 million isn't enough to spend another season away.
In that case the end game wouldn't be getting a raise, it would be staying in Texas.
[ Reply to This ]
Krylian19 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:57 AM EST (#267674) #
Pretty certain that anyone who played in a single game got a ring...meaning Kent got one too.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:12 PM EST (#267676) #
A few factors in the Oliver case that some of us are forgetting:

1) the average MLB player salary in 2012 was $3.4-million. Oliver's performance, for a relief pitcher, was far above average, and is likely to remain above-average if he pitches in 2013. To me, it's understandable that Oliver doesn't want to accept a below-average salary for above-average performance.

2) An option year for a 42-year-old pitcher is a far different kettle of fish than it is for a 27-year-old or a 30-year-old. A younger player is obliged to honor his option year because the alternative is destroying his career and losing a potential 10 or 15 years of income. The situation for a 42-year-old, in probably his final year of playing, is much different. He has nothing to lose. The option year has no leverage over him. He can easily reject it and retire. His only loss is the $3-million for 2013, which probably doesn't have a lot of appeal to a player who has already earned a lot of money over his 20-year MLB career. Anthopoulos, being a shrewd GM, fully understands that Oliver can't be expected to obey the option-year of his contract as easily as a younger player would. Oliver, being perhaps more concerned about family life and psychological rewards than a younger player, is more likely to be insulted by a below-average contract, and more likely to request a raise. Anthopoulos also understands that.

3) Renegotiating a contract, when a player is obviously underpaid in relation to his performance, has happened before. It's not unprecedented.

4) The true question is Oliver's value versus his cost. His WAR last season was 1.9 (according to BR). If his value remains about 2 WAR in 2013, he deserves a higher salary. As a late-inning LHP with shut-down abilities, he has a definite value for a contending team, which the Jays now are. The only remaining question is whether the Jays can afford to increase his salary, and that depends on Rogers and their willingness to increase payroll further. But if the owners are willing to increase Oliver's salary by $1-million or $2-million or whatever he is seeking, the Jays should do it. He would definitely improve the Jays, and he would probably add to their win total.

5) Everything else -- the emotional reaction of the fans, the ideology about "honoring a contract" -- is irrelevant in making a rational decision about Oliver's situation. If the Jays can afford him, they should sign him.

6) All of this might be a moot question, because Anthopoulos may have already promised Beeston and Rogers that he will trade Oliver (or let him retire) so that the Jays can reduce their payroll by $3-million to compensate for a little of the additional cost of their other newly acquired players. I hope that's not the case, but it might be.

[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:22 PM EST (#267677) #
When someone talks about "family reasons", it has different meanings due to contract status. It matters whether or not someone is still under contract.

When Darren Oliver signed the initial contract, HE CHOOSE how he was going to be paid, so complaining about it now is in bad taste. He HAD A CHOICE when his option was picked up and not bought out, so anything he has to say is sour grapes.

I had always assumed either the kids would want him to play, or the wife would boot him out and tell him to go play as he was getting underfoot. This latest is sad.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:22 PM EST (#267678) #
A couple more points about Oliver:

According to BR, he has collected more than $46-million in salary over the course of his MLB career. In that situation, the $3-million option for 2013 is just 7% of his career earnings -- not a huge attraction for a 42-year-old who wants to spend more time with his family. The psychological rewards -- playing in the World Series, but not being seriously underpaid -- are probably a bigger factor for him.

And on the question of Oliver's value to the Jays: An article from Fangraphs last year suggested that each WAR in 2011 had a price of $6.1-million. (For relief pitchers, each WAR was priced at a phenomenal $19.3-million, but the author tends to see that as an unexplained anomaly.) Anyway there are lots of different systems for assessing the value of each WAR, but any way you slice it, the Jays would still be getting a bargain if they increased Oliver's salary to $4.5-million or $5-million and if he continued to be a 2 WAR pitcher.

Here's the Fangraphs article:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/positional-differences-in-the-price-of-war-2/

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:33 PM EST (#267679) #
Many things to factor in that is for certain.  Oliver probably had the higher dollar value for year one due to a fear he was at the end and felt he better get what he can year one and gave the Jays the option year with an understanding that he might not honour it - thus allowing the Jays the option of trading him and getting something.  Oliver was very good in 2012 but as China fan said, he is past 40 and at that point guys can go over the cliff performance wise extremely quickly. 

If I was AA I'd be talking with Texas.  They seem to be short in the pen and on offense (surprisingly enough) as their team OPS+ was just 102 last year and they are losing Napoli and Young and Josh Hamilton.  I could see an opportunity to do a larger trade involving Oliver, Rasmus and maybe even Lind.  That would clear out a lot of salary freeing up space for a mid-season trade while giving CF to Gose and opening up DH for whoever.  It'd be risky but Texas might have someone the Jays want (such as Mitch Moreland who is a 1B/DH/RF with a 101 OPS+ - Texas might be frustrated with him and be willing to give Lind a shot instead).  Doubt Texas goes for that though unless they feel desperate for another CF (don't know who they have lined up to replace Hamilton) in which case the Jays might want more than Moreland.  Also remember Texas has budget room as their current payroll estimate at B-R is lower than the Jays estimate (7th in the AL, 10th in MLB).

This will be an interesting challenge for AA - can he get value out of Texas and will he need to expand the trade to make it happen in a good way for the Jays?

[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:46 PM EST (#267680) #
China Fan, all of those are good points, and rest assured that I feel like the Jays are a better team with Darren Oliver than without him. I also recognize that 3 million would be an underpay for what he brings. But again, you are treating the two seasons of the contract independently, which I don't think is correct.

Darren Oliver signed a contract for 4.5 million last season with a team option for 3 million this season: that is a package deal! Evan Longoria doesn't get to renegotiate his 2023 salary because he is underpaid that year, the 13 million is part of why the Rays signed him to that extension, it was part of the value they were getting over the duration of the contract. If he plays in 2023 the Rays get to decide whether it is for them or not.

Similarly, we don't know what else Darren was offered last year but we do know that he wasn't offered 1/4.5 million. We know this because he would have just signed that contract instead of the one he signed. AA obviously placed some value in having that extra year of potential control. We also know that AA didn't promise to trade him to Texas after the first year of the contract. Again, had that been the case they simply would have done 1 year/4.5, they didn't. I repeat HE DID NOT SIGN FOR 1 YEAR. This of course should mean that, like JJ Hardy, Jose Bautista, Adrian Beltre or countless other underpaid stars, he does not get to negotiate a contract this offseason. He gets to retire or to pitch for the Blue Jays (or maybe to be traded for value).

Also, I think we are overplaying this retirement option. He either has a burning desire to play next season, or he's iffy but could be convinced. I don't want the second guy on my team. In my mind the Darren Oliver who is just waiting for our next road trip to Houston or Arlington is not going to put up a 2 WAR from the bullpen again.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:01 PM EST (#267681) #
"....Evan Longoria doesn't get to renegotiate his 2023 salary...."

Actually he "gets" to renegotiate his salary if his employer agrees. If he is seriously underpaid, he can certainly try to renegotiate his contract -- as other players like Roy Halladay and Alex Rodriguez have done. It's up to the employer -- do they want a happy player who is satisfied with his contract, or do they want a disgruntled player who knows he is underpaid?

Oliver is not in the same category as Longoria or Halladay, but he has the same right to request anything he wants. His alternative is to retire. Nothing illegal in it.

You can argue that Oliver's contract with the Jays was fair when he signed it, but it's also quite fair to argue that the Jays never expected Oliver to perform at such a high level in 2012. They got a player who delivered a much better performance than anyone expected. That's why Oliver wants to renegotiate his contract. If the Jays can't afford it, they have the right to trade him or let him retire, but Oliver isn't violating any rules by asking for a renegotiation. He can ask for anything he wants, as long as he can make a solid case for it.

As for the question of "burning desire" or being "iffy" in his desire: I don't think this is a big factor for a veteran like Oliver. The guy is a professional. If he plays, he will play professionally. And if he has a chance at the playoffs or the World Series, that's usually plenty of incentive for most players.

[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:20 PM EST (#267682) #
You are categorically right that if he has a chance at the playoffs/world series it is usually plenty of incentive. Just another reason (on top of the ability to make 7% of total career earnings in one season) to not give Oliver that raise.

While I recognize that Oliver isn't breaking any laws by asking for a raise, I do believe that the team should want no part of this. If the Jays agreed they would be opening up a can of worms that I don't think you want to open. What happens if Edwin Encarnacion is the next guy on the phone? Brandon Morrow? Jose Bautista?

Basically my response would be this:

"Darren I'll tell you what, I agree you are underpaid. Conversely, I believe that Adam Lind and Dustin McGowan are overpaid. If you can find a way to get them to collectively forfeit 2 million dollars you can have it."

"Actually, on second thought we have a number of underpaid players on this team, including a reigning NL Cy Young Award winner who is also close to retirement. If that 2 million dollars is freed up you are going to have to make your case against Dickey, EE, Morrow, Bautista and others; I don't like your chances".

"Oh, and incidentally, the 1998 Texas Rangers called. They heard that you were interested in renegotiating existing contracts based on performance. According to the current WAR equation you owe them 10 million dollars (The 3 million you were paid plus the 7 million in negative value you delivered). The 2000 Rangers and the 2004 Florida Marlins would also like a word."
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:26 PM EST (#267683) #
Jose Bautista is a good point. If he continues to hit 40 to 50 home runs a season, with an OPS of 1.000 and finishing in the top-4 in the MVP voting (as he has done in his past two healthy seasons), he'll certainly deserve a lot more than $14-million a season, and I would predict that the Jays will renegotiate his salary to give him a higher salary in 2014 or 2015.

Yes, the Jays could insist that Bautista must "honor his contract" and receive much less than what similar players are getting. But they wouldn't do that. They wouldn't create such unhappiness and dissension in a top player. They didn't do it with Halladay either.
[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:30 PM EST (#267684) #
Off topic: I'm seeing that Russ Canzler (briefly a blue jay in a series of waiver claims) was just claimed by the Yankees. The 4th time he's been claimed this offseason. Eli Whitside was claimed a bunch of times this offseason too. I'm sure there are others.

Two things come to mind: First, I wonder if we (either the Jays or MLB as a whole) are on pace to set a record for transactions in an offseason? Second, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether the need to make headlines and appear active plays a role in any of these claims. Would the Yankees make a relatively minor move simply to get a little extra newspaper coverage, to fuel furious debate on their battersbox equivalent and to make the front page of MLBtraderumors?
[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:46 PM EST (#267685) #
China Fan, I can't tell if you are being serious now or not. I usually respect your opinions on these things but the more and more we talk about this the more I feel like you think that baseball is governed by the NFL's CBA.

In the NFL the rewarding of underpaid players is balanced by the ability to cut overpaid ones. Baseball doesn't have that option.

Personally I think that New York already has enough financial advantages in place without adding these "bonuses" that you speak of. Every team in baseball has guys that are overpaid, guys that are underpaid, and guys that are paid just about right. Oakland tried to develop an entire system of finding ways to underpay guys. Heck Tampa Bay actually succeeded in doing so!

Rest assured that if we start handing out raises (without extensions) to Oliver and Bautista and EE and Morrow and Dickey then we will price ourselves out of competing quite quickly. Dickey is actually the most relevant here because we could be in this exact situation again in 3 years time with him.

Now I don't personally remember Roy Halladay getting a raise, but you tend to be fairly accurate with these things so I will take your word for it. Regardless, if he did get that raise it was because we weren't surrounding him with talent commensurate with him. We were cheaping out, he knew it, and it was akin to hush money. It also wasn't given by this regime which means its apples to oranges.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:48 PM EST (#267686) #
Yes, raises to Jays players are usually accompanied by extensions. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. So, yes, a raise to Bautista or a raise to Oliver would probably include an extension or an additional option year or whatever. (But in Oliver's case, an extension would be meaningless because he is unlikely to play in 2014, no matter what the contract says.)
[ Reply to This ]
Original Ryan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:11 PM EST (#267688) #
Jose Bautista is a good point. If he continues to hit 40 to 50 home runs a season, with an OPS of 1.000 and finishing in the top-4 in the MVP voting (as he has done in his past two healthy seasons), he'll certainly deserve a lot more than $14-million a season, and I would predict that the Jays will renegotiate his salary to give him a higher salary in 2014 or 2015.

I agree with much of what you've written about Oliver, but you lost me on the point quoted above. I really doubt the Blue Jays would renegotiate Bautista's contract like this unless it was tied to a contract extension. I can't recall an instance where an existing deal was torn up and a new contract at a higher salary was signed for the same number of years. I don't think this ever happened with Halladay. Without years being added to the deal or the threat of an out-clause being exercised, it just doesn't happen in baseball.

The situation with Oliver is different, as he's basically asking for more money in order to be talked out of retirement. While I'm disappointed that this may be Oliver's position, it's not something that I'm particularly upset about and I don't think the Blue Jays would be setting a particularly dangerous precedent if they did cave to his demands. Oliver seems quite willing to retire, and the Blue Jays knew that he might choose to call it quits even if the option was exercised. It's a somewhat unique situation.

If Oliver were 35 and still expecting to play in the majors for several more seasons (as Jose Bautista will be at the end of his current contract), it would be a bad idea to renegotiate the option year. Baseball has been pretty good at avoiding spring training holdouts, and a renegotiation of an existing deal could open the door to such things in the future. The Blue Jays would be intense pressure from the league to not give in under those circumstances.

[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:14 PM EST (#267689) #
"....I really doubt the Blue Jays would renegotiate Bautista's contract like this unless it was tied to a contract extension...."

Yes, that's what I was trying to say: a renegotiation that would be tied to an extension. (Sorry for failing to make this clear.)
[ Reply to This ]
eudaimon - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:18 PM EST (#267690) #
I think people are taking the Darren Oliver news a bit too personally.

Change is a part of life. Isn't it possible that Oliver has simply come to a new realization about what he wants his life to be like since he signed the deal?

Who knows what happened in his personal life. Maybe something really made him realize that he wanted to spend more time with his family. Maybe a friend died or a child of a friend died. Maybe he's starting to miss his kids a lot more and want to be a bigger part of his life. Maybe he took the recent elementary school shooting to heart and decided that he didn't want to take for granted that his family would be around forever.

I don't know Darren Oliver, but neither do any of you. I think that any statement implying Darren Oliver is a bad person because he desires a trade is ignorant. None of us know anything about Darren Oliver. Let's give the man the benefit of the doubt - reporters only know so much and often think to ask even less.

[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:19 PM EST (#267691) #

I have a problem with valuating performance based on a fixed dollar value per WAR. I don't think it should be modeled as a linear relationship since the talent pool in baseball is most definitely not linear, but rather the far right end of the Normal curve which is logarithmic. There are fewer players above average (though obviously not above median) as below average.

If we accept that one WAR is worth 5MM, then I don't think a 1-WAR player deserves 5MM, a 2-WAR player 10MM, a 3-WAR player 15MM, etc. With the understanding that the following numbers are for illustration only (and not the byproduct of number crunching), the valuation scheme should be something like:

1st WAR: 1.5 MM
2nd WAR: 2.5 MM
3rd WAR: 4 MM
4th WAR: 6 MM
5th WAR: 8.5 MM
6th WAR: 11.5 MM
7th WAR: 15 MM

So a 3-WAR player would not be worth 15MM but 8MM (1.5+2.5+4). A 6-WAR player would not be worth 30MM but 34MM (1.5+2.5+4+6+8.5+11).

This scheme, exponential rather than linear, reflects that each incremental WAR a player brings to the table is worth more than his previous incremental WAR. It places an increased value on the high end performers and a lower value on the low end performers. It matches, in principle, the way talent is distributed in baseball (and all pro sports). An exponential payout scheme for a logarithmic talent pool.

A 25-man roster of 1-WAR players should not be worth 125MM since we're only talking about a 68-win team. Using my scheme, again appreciating that the numbers are illustrative only, a 68-win team would be valuated at 37.5 MM. If nothing else, this modeling feels more appropriate.

I believe that 1-WAR players like Rajai Davis are worth much closer to my out-of-my-hat 1.5MM than the 5MM a linear model would suggest. Really, 1-WAR players are pretty damn close to "freely" replacable. And six 1-WAR players should not be considered as valuable as one 6-WAR player. You want those players at the far right of the Normal curve. They are scarce and they, by themselves, bring lots of WAR to the table.

Now, how does all this pertain to relief pitchers and someone like Oliver specifically? When it comes to valuating relievers, the context of their usage must first be considered. The top end relief pitchers, with the highest leverage indexes, deserve a premium. Their 60 innings might really be worth 90 innings when their context is considered. And from that starting point, a WAR calculation can somehow be derived. And then we can decide if a 1-WAR or 2-WAR relief pitcher is worth going crazy over.

My gut tells me that many relief pitchers are overpaid, many starting pitchers (innings eaters especially) are underpaid, far too many low-end players are overpaid and the very top performers are underpaid. I think that compensation is based on a linear model of valuating players, even if this is not done so consciously. But this linear scheme is based on a false premise, that the talent pool is linear.

 

[ Reply to This ]
Gerry - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:20 PM EST (#267692) #
Speaking of guys who want to be in Texas, Alan Ashby is leaving per Bob Elliott.  I liked Ashby a lot as a colour commentator, he will be missed.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:23 PM EST (#267693) #
I believe I was incorrect in characterizing the far right end of the Normal curve as logarithmic. It is exponential, just negative rather than positive.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:28 PM EST (#267694) #

Speaking of guys who want to be in Texas, Alan Ashby is leaving

This is extremely disappointing. There was a dark period before Ashby's arrival where the radio broadcasts were unlistenable.

[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:38 PM EST (#267695) #
If you go to the Fan 590 website, and listen to the call-in portion of the Primetime Sports podcast. Jeff Blair hosting says after spending as much as you have, to go all in, spending a few million more to keep Darren Oliver is neccessary. You can't find anyone of his caliber to replace him.

I'm disappointed in myself, but I must agree.
[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:41 PM EST (#267696) #
Oh man, i really liked Ashby. I don't know who they'll replace him with but I doubt he will be as talented.
[ Reply to This ]
Original Ryan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:42 PM EST (#267697) #
I'm also disappointed to hear that Ashby is leaving. As good as Cheek and Howarth were, I liked Howarth and Ashby even more. I always assumed Ashby was going to be a rental. With his strong connections to the Astros and Houston, it was obvious that he would jump at the chance to return if an opportunity came up.

I haven't had much of a chance to hear Dirk Hayhurst on the radio, but I have liked him in those limited opportunities. I'd have no objection to him getting the job, although he'll likely never be the analyst that Ashby was.
[ Reply to This ]
MatO - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:43 PM EST (#267698) #
What's interesting about baseball is that I don't recall an instance where a player has threatened to not play unless his contract is renegotiated in the free agency era.  I guess Oliver might qualify.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:45 PM EST (#267699) #
Chuck, that is a very good point you make here.  WAR per playing time might be a better valuation than straight WAR in this case.  If a pitcher can generate 1.1 WAR in 56 2/3 IP (as Oliver did based on fWAR) then is his value $4.8 million or more or less?  By doing that in 57 IP that would similar to the performance (on a per inning basis) as a starter who had 4.4 in 226 2/3 IP. Is his performance worth 1/4 of that starters?  More?  Less?  Jamie Shields was worth 4.3 fWAR in 227 2/3 IP last year, listed as worth $19.3 million, if both were free agents and the same age which would you expect to get the annual value listed here going forward?  Which is easier to find, 4 guys like Oliver or one like Shields?  Which is more valuable, a Shields plus Oliver or Clayton Kershaw (who has 5.5 fWAR over 227 2/3 IP) on his own?
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:52 PM EST (#267700) #
John, further to your line of thinking is the forecasting component. It is one thing to come up with a valuation of Oliver's 2012, but another entirely to forecast that he will be just as good in 2013. What you'd really want to do is forecast his 2013 performance as best you could and then valuate that. Notwithstanding the ridiculous late-career run that Oliver is on, it would seem prudent to forecast a regression in 2013 rather than more of the same.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:54 PM EST (#267701) #
Recent tweet from Jim Bowden:

JimBowdenESPNxm JIM BOWDEN
Jose Bautista told us his wrist is doing great & he is swinging at full strength w/o pain...said ready to go...#SXM
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:59 PM EST (#267702) #

Jose Bautista told us his wrist is doing great

No mention that he is in the best shape of his life?

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:12 PM EST (#267703) #
True enough Chuck, but I was trying to put disclaimers there too.  It more was interesting that Shields last year was almost exactly 4 Olivers in WAR and innings thus making it an easy comparison to use.  Which would you rather have, a starter like Shields 2012 or 4 Oliver's 2012?  Both are the same in fWAR but you'd either have a very strong pen or a very strong starter.  Are those worth the same or is one worth more?

Now, closer to what you were arguing earlier is ... Rasmus in 625 PA was worth fWAR of 1.4 vs Encarnacion's 4.4 in 644 PA.  Should we value those as Fangraphs does - Rasmus worth $6.1 million and Encarnacion worth $19.9 or should Rasmus be worth less than that and Encarnacion more?  I'd suspect if both were free agents and both were viewed as likely to keep doing the same in the future (unlikely, but lets go with it) I suspect Rasmus would be fighting to get a contract for 1/2 that while Encarnacion would easily get a $20+ mil a year deal.  Remember, I'm assuming both have done this for years before and are viewed as likely to stay there for the next few years.

A better comparison might be JPA vs Bautista - close in PA (27 spread) but JPA was at 1.3 WAR vs Bautista's 3.2 and going forward most of us would expect the same but more playing time for Bautista.  Would Bautista only get 3 times what JPA would or would he get more?  I suspect we'd see JPA get something like Buck did a couple years ago (around $6 mil a year)  while Bautista would easily be over $20 mil a year for more years (assuming health).  So the scale wouldn't be as aggressive as you put it, but those extra wins would be worth more than the first few.

[ Reply to This ]
Original Ryan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:20 PM EST (#267704) #
I seem to remember Omar Vizquel once threatening to hold out in spring training one year, but nothing came of it. I can recall at least one other player making similar threats, but I don't remember any names. I don't know of anyone actually holding out.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:28 PM EST (#267705) #

Are those worth the same or is one worth more?

I think you want the one player who accumulates 4 WAR all by himself. You now have 24 other roster spots to add WAR. If you use up 4 players for a combined 4 WAR, you now have only 21 roster spots to add more.

Rasmus in 625 PA was worth fWAR of 1.4 vs Encarnacion's 4.4 in 644 PA.  Should we value those as Fangraphs does - Rasmus worth $6.1 million and Encarnacion worth $19.9

The gist of my argument was that you shouldn't. Fangraphs is applying linearity in their model and I don't think it is justified. FG, to my mind, overstates Rasmus's valuation. Rasmus is getting far too much credit for his 1st WAR which barely separates him from "free" talent. By contrast, I argue that FG is undervaluing Encarnacion. His 4th WAR is far scarcer and much more valuable than Rasmus's 1st WAR. Rasmus's 1st WAR and Encarnacion's 4th WAR should not be valuated identically. WAR #1 is not hard to scare up in the market place. WAR #4 is much more difficult to find.

[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:30 PM EST (#267706) #

I don't know of anyone actually holding out.

Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale. Of course those were very different times.

[ Reply to This ]
jjdynomite - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:34 PM EST (#267707) #
A great primer on WAR logarithms, thanks Chuck and John N, as per usual.

Regarding Oliver, though, can we compare his internal WAR and project that going forward? We do have 19 full seasons to go on. True, AA likely got him on the cheap, as he posted a 1.9 WAR in 2012, but Oliver never reached that level since his age 28 year, as a starter, in St. Louis... in 1998. It's true he had 4 recent solid high-leverage years as a reliever in Texas and LAA, but none were as good as last season in Toronto, where, let's face it, that Jays were not playoff competitive for at minimum 1/2 of the season.

The people who are now dying for AA to fork up an additional $1.5 mil for Oliver to rent out a downtown Toronto condo for another 6 (hopefully 7) months will be the first ones decrying Oliver for not living up to the high standards that he himself set with his light-in-the-darkness performance in 2012.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:50 PM EST (#267708) #
Texas has been a thorn in the Jays' side of late. First with the Napoli trade (which admittedly worked out for Toronto in the long run), then with Uehara (who vetoed a proposed trade to Toronto prior to last season), now with Oliver and his agent pressuring the Jays to flip him back to Texas.

I think the Jays need to stand firm - either he plays for Toronto, retires, or is traded to Texas for a legitimately useful piece. I don't want to see Texas gain an edge on the Jays in the playoff race with a helping hand from Oliver.
[ Reply to This ]
JohnL - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:10 PM EST (#267709) #

Jose Bautista told us his wrist is doing great

No mention that he is in the best shape of his life?

Isn't that line reserved for the first day of spring training?

And count me among those who will greatly miss Alan Ashby. I only follow baseball on radio, and his time here has been terrific. It's hard to believe that we had to put up with Warren Sawkiw for 2 years, but Ashby shone even without the comparison. Low key, perceptive, just enough sense of humour and self-deprecation, and never afraid to point out faults on the field, without making a big deal of it.  I think he would have enjoyed finally watching a Jays team without Escobar.

I'm sure it's a great opportunity for him.

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:19 PM EST (#267710) #
No mention that he is in the best shape of his life?

On the one hand, it could be one of those "in the best shape of his life" -- you could interpret Bats' comments that way. Or you could take them at face value -- the guy has been swinging a bat, feels great and is pain free.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I believe Bautista. Still, it's one thing to be swinging pain-free for brief stints in a batting cage. It's something else altogether to stay healthy throughout ST, the gruelling regular season, and (hopefully) a playoff run.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:22 PM EST (#267711) #
I will miss Ashby too -- good broadcaster with a bit of an edge, just opinionated enough to make it interesting without making it all about him.
[ Reply to This ]
dan gordon - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:30 PM EST (#267712) #

Really disappointed to hear Ashby is leaving.  That's terrible news.  I can't stand J.Howarth, and at least with Ashby there, the broadcasts were listenable.

With all the money the Jays are spending, and with the damage they have done to their farm system, it would be a very poor decision to start going cheap in the bullpen.  They need at least 1 more guy, whether it's Oliver or somebody else, who can pitch in the last couple of innings of a close game or in extra innings.  Why spend $125 million if you are going to worry about spending another $3-$5 million on an important part of the puzzle.  Go for it or don't, there's no half measures - I actually agree with Blair on this one.

 

[ Reply to This ]
scottt - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:31 PM EST (#267713) #
Oliver can't play anywhere until he's played that one year with the Jays, right?

That doesn't seem to leave him with a lot of leverage.

Of course, the Jays could ask for some money back from Texas.
[ Reply to This ]
earlweaverfan - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:35 PM EST (#267714) #
If I was AA I'd be talking with Texas.  They seem to be short in the pen and on offense (surprisingly enough) as their team OPS+ was just 102 last year and they are losing Napoli and Young and Josh Hamilton.  I could see an opportunity to do a larger trade involving Oliver, Rasmus and maybe even Lind.  That would clear out a lot of salary freeing up space for a mid-season trade while giving CF to Gose and opening up DH for whoever.

John, I think you are on to something here.  Something twigged in my head about Adam Lind, and sure enough, Lind has hit far better in his career at Texas than at any other AL stadium, and by a country mile.  His OPS in that stadium is 1.063, the next best is the old Metrodome at .895 (tOPS equivalents at 166 vs. 134).

Whether Texas has anyone AA covets, and at which level, I am not clear, although if he was making it possible for Gose to come to the senior club, I would be looking for a couple of AAA-level prospects to help shore up Buffalo.

Then, in AA's shoes, if I was sending over $8MM in major league salaries to Texas, I would look around for another couple of position players who could round out my bench and give me other options in the field or at DH.


[ Reply to This ]
grjas - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:09 PM EST (#267715) #
I don't want to see Texas gain an edge on the Jays in the playoff race with a helping hand from Oliver.

Good point Greenfrog. I guess something may not be better than nothing if he helped Texas edge TO in the wild card.
[ Reply to This ]
grjas - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:38 PM EST (#267716) #
PS- is this the wildest BJ offseason ever? Following a season of hell.

Quitting manager, followed by coacheson the move, early stock up of relievers, return of a forgotten manager, mega trade 1, signing a star off suspension, a top prospect in legal trouble,mega trade 2, half emptying the minors, a whining HOF'er dissing the team followed by another signed as a running coach, Rogers opening the wallet, a radio commentator resigning and now a retiree thumbing his nose at a signed contract. And i'm sure i have forgotten somethings...

If the season itself is half as entertaining, we are in for a treat.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:04 PM EST (#267717) #
Probably the most active offseason since the 92/93 one, or the 90/91 one.  Those 2 in order....

1990/91:
Removed....
Free Agency: George Bell, Buddy Black, John Candelaria, Tony Fernandez, Fred McGriff, John Cerutti
Trades: Junior Felix, Luis Sojo

Incoming...
Free Agency: Ken Dayley (expense reliever), Pat Tabler
Trades: Willie Fraser, Devon White, Roberto Alomar, Joe Carter

So goodbye to 3 core pieces of the late 80's team plus 2 kids who looked good at the time (Sojo & Felix) plus 2 starters and a reliever, hello to 3 everyday all-stars, 2 relievers and a useful part.

1992/93:
Removed...
Free Agency: Tom Henke, Jimmy Key, Dave Stieb, Pat Tabler, David Cone, Candy Maldonado, Dave Winfield, Manuel Lee
Trades: Kelly Gruber, Derek Bell
Released: David Wells

Incoming...
Free Agency: Darnell Coles, Paul Molitor, Danny Cox, Dave Stewart, Tony Castillo, Dick Schofield
Trades: Luis Sojo, Darrin Jackson

Very busy as well, more for saying goodbye to most of the remaining core of the 80's teams (Henke, Key, Stieb, Lee, Gruber).  Still blows my mind they released Wells (he was a pain but a talented pain).
[ Reply to This ]
JohnL - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:31 PM EST (#267718) #
greenfrog, you really nailed it regarding Ashby:

...good broadcaster with a bit of an edge, just opinionated enough to make it interesting without making it all about him.

I'm not expecting a replacement of his quality, but hoping... Too bad Anthopolous couldn't pull off a trade. Howarth + Hayhurst for...?? Toss in Wilner. Who could we get back?


Regarding the active off-seasons, John Northey, somehow your usually excellent research put Fernandez & McGriff's exits into the Free Agency category...

[ Reply to This ]
Subversive - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:51 PM EST (#267719) #

"a whining HOF'er dissing the team"

I think I missed this, what/who was it? Link?

[ Reply to This ]
JohnL - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:51 PM EST (#267720) #

"a whining HOF'er dissing the team"

I think I missed this, what/who was it? Link?

I assume this referred to Vizquel, hired to provide leadership. who ended up whining about the lack of leadership. One of the "perfect" ends to a perfectly bad season. 2012 sort of captured the "Sandy" spirit... a superstorm indeed.

[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:58 PM EST (#267721) #

A few factors in the Oliver case that some of us are forgetting:

1) the average MLB player salary in 2012 was $3.4-million. Oliver's performance, for a relief pitcher, was far above average, and is likely to remain above-average if he pitches in 2013. To me, it's understandable that Oliver doesn't want to accept a below-average salary for above-average performance.

The average MLB salary has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Darren Oliver is being fairly compensated. Oliver got a contract from the Blue Jays last offseason that recognized he's one of the best non-closing relievers in the game who can't be relied upon heavily and should be used more sporadically to maximize results.

Darren Oliver didn't improve in 2012. He was the same guy when he was available last offseason, just a year younger. The fact that he took 4m + a buyout from the Canadian team should tell you that his market value was a lot closer to 3m, the number he now considers to be insulting.

[ Reply to This ]
JB21 - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:02 PM EST (#267722) #
So I shook our GMs hand tonight. And then prompty checked my wallet to see if it was still in my back pocket.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:19 PM EST (#267723) #
I was at the Drunk Jays blog and read the article in which Oliver's Agent spoke.

Yippie Ki Yay Mother(deleted) the sun sets in the West.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:38 PM EST (#267724) #
Heh. Price of copy/paste and trying to do so quickly (try doing stuff while someone from work is doing a chat, a daughter is talking to you and your wife comes into the room).  I thought I pasted Fernandez/McGriff into trades but obviously did not.

Checking other seasons that should've been busy but were not...
1985/6: after Bobby Cox left they said goodbye to Jeff Burroughs and Al Oliver (both retired), and that was about it.
1986/7: let go of Buck Martinez & Cliff Johnson (retired), Dennis Lamp & Bill Caudill (released), traded Damaso Garcia and Luis Leal to the Atlanta Braves for Craig McMurtry, Drafted Jose Nunez in the Rule 5
1987/8: said goodbye and don't let the door hit you on the way out to Garth Iorg, Craig McMurtry, Joe Johnson, Willie Upshaw and that was it for notable things after the great collapse.
1988/9: said goodbye to Jim Clancy, Rick Leach, Geronimo Berroa, Cecil Fielder, and Mark Eichhorn while signing Bob Brenly, Tom Lawless.  They got nada for those guys who left outside of a draft pick (Brent Bowers) for Rick Leach (nada for Clancy).
1989/90: goodbye Ozzie Virgil, Lloyd Moseby, Sil Campusano (rule 5), plus traded Jose Nunez to the Chicago Cubs for Paul Kilgus and  Kevin Batiste and Ernie Whitt to the Atlanta Braves for Ricky Trlicek - very bizarre as Whitt was coming off a 120 OPS+ season, his best ever but the Jays must have known something as he had a 40 in Atlanta and a 72 in Baltimore then retired.

Looking at that record one can see why Gillick was nicknamed 'Stand Pat'.  None of those trades brought anything of value here, players allowed to leave via free agency and rarely were offered arbitration so few extra picks.  The biggest winter move in that stretch (outside of dumping Fielder for nothing) was October 9th, 1988 when they signed Carlos Delgado as an amateur free agent.  I remember a feature on the Jays weekly TV show where they hyped him up like mad and I went out and got his rookie minor league card the next year in a set that also had Jeff Kent.

Also of note: Jays fever was high back then so those dull winters were torture.  Every move was viewed in every direction yet I remember how people felt it was time to dump Whitt, most didn't care that Fielder was gone.  Weird eh?
[ Reply to This ]
ComebyDeanChance - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 01:06 AM EST (#267725) #
Mickey Rivers was rumored to show up at the park not feeling well, but if you paid him extra he'd play that day. Darren Oliver seems to be about the same sort of guy. He signed a deal that got him guaranteed $4.5 if the Jays decline the option, and $7 million if they exercise it. After front-end loading the deal the back end doesn't look so good, and just like Mickey he'll sit it out without some extra money. Sad way to end your career. And another embarrassment to Toronto when his agent publicizes that he'll cost Toronto more than Texas after playing in Toronto and under contract to Toronto.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:12 AM EST (#267726) #
I think there is intangible value at stake in not being played. to wit, the surface appearance is that Texas can make virtually any offer and the jays are stuck with it because the alternative is that they let him retire and get nothing. But from my point of view, there is some value in not letting yourself be painted into that corner.

i would insist on getting fair value for Oliver or i'd let him retire - i would not accept a token return.

After all, concievably Oliver could be pitching against YOUR team in the playoffs - certainly he could cost you a win or two during the regular season in the right circumstance..

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:28 AM EST (#267727) #
the average MLB player salary in 2012 was $3.4-million.

Irrelevant.

What was the average salary for MLB relievers?

Oh, and if I wanted to be creative - i might suggest that the jays re-negotiate his deal with a phantom extension, if the terms could be legally worked out under the player's agreement.

something involving a player option for 2014 which - for instance - paid him $3 mil if he played (everyone knowing he's not going to) and the extension would include a $1 mil signing bonus to be paid at the begining of next season (regardless of his decision on the option) - thus he makes an extra million for 2013 but doesn't get it until a year from now.



[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 06:55 AM EST (#267728) #
"This scheme, exponential rather than linear, reflects that each incremental WAR a player brings to the table is worth more than his previous incremental WAR. It places an increased value on the high end performers and a lower value on the low end performers. It matches, in principle, the way talent is distributed in baseball (and all pro sports). An exponential payout scheme for a logarithmic talent pool."

I don't have anything to add, but want to applaud this post. Most insightful thing I've read here in a long time.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 11:47 AM EST (#267729) #
It's a little more complicated than that, in my view, because of roster size, innings and positional constraints, and more importantly because of the lack of a free market in less than six years experience talent and the constraints from the luxury tax..

Imagine that one attempted to construct a roster of 25 players worth 2 WAR, with 10 pitchers all giving you 140 innings and 15 position players each getting about 400 PAs.  You'd have a 50 WAR team, i.e. a likely pennant winner, but no team tries to construct a pennant winner this way.  Most teams attempt to get much (or most) of their talent base out of pre-free agency players, and to fill remaining needs as best as possible.  For this reason, the market for a 4 WAR third baseman will almost surely not be 4 times as large as the market for a 2 WAR shortstop.  Some clubs do not need a 4 WAR third baseman. For others, the money spent on improving on  the existing 2.5 WAR third baseman (say) could be better used.  In the case of the 2 WAR shortstop on the open market, the possibility of converting an existing shortstop to another position (second base, third base, centerfield) increases the possibility of interest from more clubs. 

The value of additional WAR is, I agree, not linear, but it is also not exponential.  The idea that a 7 WAR player ($40 million) is worth $15 million more per year than a 6 WAR player ($25 million) is quite substantially off.  At this level, the market for the talent may be very, very small and depending on the existing payroll of the potential suitors, the incremental value may indeed be linear because of the effect of the luxury tax. 
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 12:17 PM EST (#267730) #

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/01/darren-oliver-wants-raise-to-continue-playing.html   Even A.A. is opposed to paying Darren Oliver more.   Darren plays or he retires while still under contract.   Retired or not, Blue Jays control his rights through 2013, and he plays for no one else.   I think that has value.   I don't know what the ethics and morals of this means, but what Oliver wants is extortion.  

If Texas is not willing to hit a Grand Slam HR with this trade, they don't get.squat.

Precedent http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Precedent  is what A.A. doesn't want to set and there's 29 other G.M.s to thing about.   Although I have not idea, MLB might have get involved to clarify/resolve legalities. 

[ Reply to This ]
grjas - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 12:40 PM EST (#267731) #
"a whining HOF'er dissing the team". I think I missed this, what/who was it? Link?

Sorry subversive- poetic licence. Referring to eventual HOF'er Visquel's comments as per below

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/story/2012/09/29/sp-mlb-omar-vizquel-toronto-blue-jays-comments-john-farrell.html
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 01:29 PM EST (#267732) #
"....what Oliver wants is extortion...."

It's actually called capitalism.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 01:45 PM EST (#267733) #
".....What was the average salary for MLB relievers?...."

The average salary for MLB relievers in 2011 was about $2-million. I assume that's increased somewhat since then, and the average in 2013 would be $2.5-million or more. But if you're insisting on the absolutely most relevant number, let's toss out all the middle-inning relievers (since Oliver was a late-inning reliever). And let's toss out all the rookies and sophomores and the mid-season call-ups and the marginal relievers who filled out the bullpen for a season because of injuries. In that case, I'll wager that most relievers in the Oliver category (late-inning high-leverage veteran) would be getting $4-million or more. My point remains: if you insist on paying Oliver only $3-million in 2013, you're asking him to accept less than his peers, even though his performance in recent years was better than most of his peers. And if you're insisting on paying him less than his peers, Oliver might just retire. So you lose him. That's not extortion -- that's just reality.

Anthopoulos understands this, and he also understands that this is the bluffing stage of the procedures. Oliver's agent is talking tough, and AA is also talking tough. (Although AA also told Chris Toman yesterday that he wouldn't rule out the possibility of restructuring the contract.)

The real question, and the unknown factor at this point, is the state of discussions between AA and Rogers. Do they prefer to get rid of the Oliver contract, so that the heavy cost of the other off-season acquisitions are more palatable? Or does AA see Oliver as a big upgrade over the current 7th pitcher in the bullpen (Loup or Cecil) and is he keen to find a creative way to solve the issue? If Rogers was perfectly willing to pay $3-million for Oliver in 2013 (as suggested by AA's decision to trigger the option clause), then maybe an additional $1-million or $1.5-million isn't a big deal. We will see.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 01:58 PM EST (#267734) #
"....The fact that he took 4m + a buyout from the Canadian team should tell you that his market value was a lot closer to 3m...."

Oliver knew there was a strong possibility of him retiring in 2013. The only thing that he definitely accepted was the $4-million for 2012. That tells me that he valued himself at $4-million a season, not $3-million a season. Quite probably he postponed the question of his 2013 value, knowing that he could reopen the negotiations at the end of 2012 if he had a strong season and if the Jays wanted him to refrain from retiring. He knew that he would have leverage: the option of retiring, which is a much more attractive option for him than for a younger player. Why do we believe that he promised to pitch for $3-million in 2013? He's not a slave, and he didn't make any such promise. He agreed to think about it at the end of 2012, knowing that he could always retire and he could always try to request a restructuring of the contract.

As for his market value today: you're not suggesting that Oliver would receive only $3-million on the open market if he was a free agent today after a 2 WAR season?
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 02:15 PM EST (#267735) #
It's actually called capitalism. Are you sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism It's also called a precedent no one wants to start, otherwise known as extortion, which usually involves jail or at least being fired for most people. 1) The first time any details of Oliver's demands (prior to A.A.'s knowledge) are known it because of a "press release". http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/LHP-darren-oliver-mulling-retirement-if-toronto-blue-jays-will-not-up-salary-or-trade-him-010313  At no time could I determine that Oliver's Agent had spoken with A.A. first  2) A.A. has made his decision. http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130104&content_id=40857778&vkey=news_tor&c_id=tor   It was plain from the start, Oliver would play 2012 and retire.  He's presently under contract.  If he retires, he plays for no one else in 2013. 3) I guess he retires. 
[ Reply to This ]
Paul D - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 03:21 PM EST (#267736) #
The idea that this is extortion is ludicrous. 

AA also quite explicitly doesn't say that Oliver will play for Toronto or for no one at all next year. 
[ Reply to This ]
Magpie - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST (#267737) #
Oliver must also be thinking "Holy crap, Jeremy Affeldt is getting $6 million a year? For three years? Jeremy Affeldt? I'm way better than him now, and I'll probably still be better than him three years from now, when I'm 45."
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 04:34 PM EST (#267738) #

Sergio Santos is reported to be recovered from Offseason Surgery and is expected to be ready for the Season start.   I don't see any information to the contrary.   Casey Janssen is also reported to be recovered from Offseason Surgery and is expected to be ready for the Season start.    I don't see any information to the contrary here either.

Steve Delabar (73.0 IP), Esmil Rogers (78.2 IP), Brad Lincoln (88.0 IP), Aaron Loup (30.2 IP), Jeremy Jeffress (38.2 IP) are effective relievers (as people say) but just a little bit inning limited (since becoming an effective reliever)..  

Brett Cecil, while experienced, might be considered effectiveness limited.    J.A. Happ is happier and more effective Starting.    As for who else might be in the Bullpen, only A.A. knows.

[ Reply to This ]
jjdynomite - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 04:55 PM EST (#267739) #
"Oliver must also be thinking "Holy crap, Jeremy Affeldt is getting $6 million a year? For three years? Jeremy Affeldt? I'm way better than him now, and I'll probably still be better than him three years from now, when I'm 45."

---

All well and good, Magpie, but when Oliver was Affeldt's current age, 33, in 2004, he himself racked up a poor -0.7 WAR playing for FLA and HOU. So 9 years ago Oliver would not have been able to convince too many GMs that he would have been better 3 years later, let alone 9 years later, and so deserve an above-average high-leverage lefty reliever contract.

This is all kind of a moot point. Sure, Oliver "deserves" more than $3 million for 2013 based on his 2012 results, but Joey Bats "deserved" $30+ million, not $8 million, for his 2011 8 WAR season. Them's the breaks. Signing one-off year-to-year contracts are huge risks for the player, as they are dependent on continued improved performance while also aging, which, unless PEDs are involved, are usually contradictory events.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:14 PM EST (#267740) #
The idea that this is extortion is ludicrous.

AA also quite explicitly doesn't say that Oliver will play for Toronto or for no one at all next year. 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion?s=t   I think it fits, you might not.  

...Anthopoulos said. "As far as restructuring his contract, I would never say never, but his contract is his contract. That's what we signed him to.   Being under contract means you CAN NOT play (work) for anyone else and quitting or retiring doesn't legally change that.   So if he's not traded, it doesn't matter what Toronto does, it doesn't matter what Oliver does, they control Oliver's rights for 2013. 


 
[ Reply to This ]
Mylegacy - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:47 PM EST (#267741) #
AA also went on to say that when opening existing contracts it had only been done as part of a "contract extension." However, he's not categorically rejected the "trade" route.

I'm ambivalent, (funny actually, I used to be Catholic then became an Atheist and now for some unfathomable complexity I've become an Ambivalent - who says you can't teach an old Scotch sipping dog new tricks?)  I say explore the limited trade opportunities and knowing the Silent Assassin who knows what trinkets might appear - or just let the guy retire.

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:59 PM EST (#267742) #
My decidedly non-statistical view is that the 'pen could use at least one more solid veteran guy like Oliver. The Jays have a number of good arms but some of them are inexperienced and there will be attrition.

On the other hand, the Jays thought they were acquiring some stabilizing veteran savvy when they signed Cordero, so who knows.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 06:01 PM EST (#267743) #
Just curious: if the Jays found an extra million dollars and signed Oliver for $4-million for 2013 (calling the additional million a "buyout for his 2014 option" or something creative like that), would anyone here object to it? Would anyone here be so wedded to principle and honor that they would prefer to see Oliver retire, rather than having him available in the 8th inning in crucial games against the Yankees and Rays in September?
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 06:34 PM EST (#267744) #
My concern would be for the message it sends for future negotiations. It would make the front office look as though it can be pushed around.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 06:45 PM EST (#267745) #
That's a good point about the potential impact on future negotiations with other players, and it's the only really strong counter-argument that I can see. Still, if the renegotiation was done creatively enough, it could be portrayed as a unique set of circumstances, without setting any precedent for others.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:47 PM EST (#267746) #
I don't know, to me it sounds as if Oliver doesn't want to play in Toronto in 2013. His agent said it would take "a lot more money" for him to play in Toronto than it would for him to play in Texas. It also speaks volumes that his agent is saying these things publicly rather than directly to AA.
[ Reply to This ]
Magpie - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:50 PM EST (#267747) #
when Oliver was Affeldt's current age

But that's not what Oliver's thinking about. He's more likely thinking something like "Playing for half of what Affeldt gets? Am I a chump? I'm not going to do that unless I get to stay home."

Anyway, it certainly is an unusual set of circumstances. Normally, the player has no leverage in such a situation. What's he going to do? Walk away from the game? So Oliver has a unique piece of leverage - he really could just walk away. It doesn't sound like he needs the money.

And normally the team's only motivation in these circumstances is to keep the player happy, perhaps with an eye to future negotiations down the road. Which doesn't apply here either, and seldom does much good anyway. I think most of the time a players is pretty dumb if he lets things like "loyalty" determine his best course of action.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:51 PM EST (#267748) #
3 years from now RA Dickey will be 41 with similar career earnings to Oliver. He'd have to turn down 12m to retire (and not just 3) but once you bump up Oliver's salary there's a potential ripple effect to Dickey's team option. If Dickey is pitching well enough for the team to pick up the option it's likely he's worth well more than a league average SP and that he'll be getting severely underpaid to return.

If Oliver is worth more than 3m and the Jays have the $ to pay market value for relievers, capitalize on Oliver's team friendly contract by trading him for an asset and use that money to sign somebody else.

For me it comes down to this - if Darren Oliver needs to be coaxed out of retirement by having $ tacked on to the 3m option, I think the team is better off without him. I would've thought he'd be more excited to chase his first World Series ring after seeing the additions made around him.

Andy Pettitte came out of retirement for a minor league deal worth 2.5m after being offered over 10m guaranteed that same winter.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 08:08 PM EST (#267749) #
When is Luis Perez scheduled to return? He could be a useful midseason addition to the 'pen.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 10:00 PM EST (#267750) #

If prior to January 1st, at least right after the Dickey acqusition, without the Jeff Frye Media misadventure (sticking his foot in his client's mouth) occurring, A.A. might have been able to do something, if he was asked.   Maybe an extention of a one-year option with buyout, and a signing bonus payable in 2012.   But to learn about it first from the Media, never hearing anything from Darren Oliver, whom he talks to frequently, literally killed any chance of a deal.   There might be a trade, but not unless A.A. get exactly what he wants.   He still holds his rights through 2013.

Luis Perez had his Tommy John Surgery Tuesday, 17 July 2012.   They say 12-18 months, while I think 18 months for most effectiveness (and rarely care about anyone else's opinion on this matter).   I don't know how much faster a reliever might be in his recovery, but 12 months is pushing it.  Mid-August would be the earliest, out of need. 

[ Reply to This ]
scottt - Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 10:19 PM EST (#267751) #
So basically, the guy comes with a negative attitude and is likely to regress being 42.

Why didn't he sign with Texas in 2012 if he wanted to play there?
He had two good years there in 10-11.
Not enough money offered?
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 01:16 AM EST (#267752) #
Texas got a pick between the Jays Smoral and Nay picks for Oliver. My guess is part of the deal between the Rangers and Oliver was an agreement he would decline arb if he ended up as Type B.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 06:17 AM EST (#267753) #
Meanwhile, in non-Oliver news: former top Jays prospect Justin Jackson has tweeted that he is switching to a new job: pitching.

The former shortstop and first-round draft pick is going to try emulating Sergio Santos (another ex-shortstop and first-round pick) by trying out the pitcher's mound.

There's no question that Jackson is athletic -- he's played SS and 2B and CF in the past few years -- but he's never managed to hit. By the time he reached the AA level in 2011 and 2012, his OPS sank to .606. He's now 24 years old, so the pitching gig is his last kick at the can.

Jackson tweeted last night: "My arm was my number 1 tool so it's time for me to explore it #MoundTime"
[ Reply to This ]
scottt - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 07:40 AM EST (#267754) #
If Texas let him walk to get a pick, I don't see them offering much for him in a trade. He must know that himself.

What's in it for his agent in a case like that?
[ Reply to This ]
lexomatic - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 08:34 AM EST (#267755) #
What's in it for his agent in a case like that?

% of an extra million or so in salary.


I don't think there's anything wrong with Oliver playing this card, but I also don't think it's wrong for fans to be upset, and to laugh in his face, saying "you signed the contract, play or retire." It's not extortion though.

I would let him retire for the following reasons
1) age. He could become suddenly ineffective at any time.
2)relievers are generally less reliable in performance from year to year. They also don't put up 1 WAR seasons very often.
A solid bullpen might put up 3 WAR on its own. Counting on him to pitch at the level he has for the last 5 years is unrealistic. This is why comparing him to market value for reliever (Affeldt) isn't realistic. Someone would've paid, I'm sure, but wouldn't make it a better deal
3)If he can't be motivated to play for a contender, he's not that motivated.
4)impact on future negotiations. I think this is overstated, but not negligeable.This wouldn't be an issue if the player/agent spoke to the team first instead of the media.

I don't pursue a trade with Texas because
a) the likelihood of getting something useful is minimal
b) there is a chance Oliver hurts your chances of making the playoffs,or in the playoffs
c)I don't think expanding trade discussions would get anything worthwhile, and I want Gose in AAA one more year, and I think trading Lind for anything is unrealistic....especially after Berkmann signing. 

Ya, I repeated a lot of what everyone else said. It's hard to care about someone who hasn't been part of the team for a while, isn't a big piece, and isn't someone I expected or wanted to stick around for a while.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 10:34 AM EST (#267756) #
I don't see how one could argue it's not worth bring him back due to his age and chance of regression, yet be concerned that trading him to another team (a non-division rival at that) hurts the Jays playoff chances.

There is only one reason not to bring him back, and that is if he refuses to play for the $ agreed to when his contract was signed.

AA should pursue a trade with Texas. If he's offered something worthwhile, trade him. If not, let him retire.
[ Reply to This ]
lexomatic - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 11:06 AM EST (#267757) #
Totally off topic...

This is what Brock2 thinks Brett Lawrie's career will look like after last season.

career/2013
Gp 3001/153
AB 10969/606
R 1615/91
H 2932/154
2b 556/31
3b 73 /7
hr 321/20
rbi 1388 /81
bb 993/46
tb 4597/253
avg .267/.260
obp .328/.307  * walks only
slg .419/.429

I'm don't like that obp and slg, but otherwise just straight-up stats wise, guess who's a good comparable (especially if the defense holds up)?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/robinbr01.shtml

Why do I feel disappointed about a rough projection that compares a Jay to  HOFer?

[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 01:41 PM EST (#267758) #

For a wild idea, teach all relievers how to play 1B, makes it easy, late in games, to keep switching from RHP to LHP to RHP to LHP..... and use only two pitchers.   That either makes too much sense or no sense at all.  

Hockey's back for those so inclined.   I'm not, puts me to sleep, I'd rather watch oil-based paint dry (dries ssssssssslowly).

I think A.A. is done, he's not trading Oliver and there's not much out there worth going after, at their price.   If Drabek and Hutchison pitch for the Blue Jays this season, the Jays will be desperate for Pitching.   I believe we are better served by having them available for 2014 first.

The Bullpen looks fuller, J.A. Happ (6th Starter/Long Relief) and Brett Cecil (check his splits) are our Left-handers (2).   Sergio Santos, Casey Janssen and Steve Delabar are ideal in Late Innings (3).   As for the two remaining spots: Brad Lincoln (Long Relief) and Aaron Loup (LHP) have an option(s) left, but I'm unsure as whether Esmil Rogers (Power Arm) does.   Jeremy Jeffress (Power Arm - Control Issues) is without options.   Then we have whatever waiver claim that survived (although I thought A.A. made those claims just to occupy other G.M.s).  

Bonifacio is Infield/Outfield, while Izturis is Infield only.   If one of those is our 2B, whose the other IF/OF type on this Team (at least as good as Emilio or Maicer).   Or do we take someone who hits lefties well?

This post is dragging, so feel free to comment/complain/disregard as you see fit.

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 02:02 PM EST (#267759) #
Sigh, hoped to have no NHL this year - lost all interest the last time a full season was lost and figure the less hockey the more baseball coverage there would be.

The L/R/L/R stuff with a reliever moving to 1B or LF or RF (depending on situation) has been done a few times but generally managers hate to risk their players like that.  I know the Mets did it under Davy Johnson against Pete Rose's Reds (drove Rose nuts) in 1986 (Orosco/McDowell in a 14 inning game, alternating between P/RF/LF depending on the hitter). Yes, the Mets won with Orosco making one out in the outfield (2nd out in the 13th inning) and the two of them working a total of 5 innings.

[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 02:33 PM EST (#267760) #
My only worry with the lhp/1b/rhp thing is that you end up with a really long at bat and your other reliever gets completely cold.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 02:48 PM EST (#267761) #
. Sure, Oliver "deserves" more than $3 million for 2013 based on his 2012 results, but Joey Bats "deserved" $30+ million, not $8 million, for his 2011 8 WAR season. Them's the breaks.


This.

[ Reply to This ]
Original Ryan - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 09:11 PM EST (#267762) #
Per the official rules:

Rule 3.03 Comment: A pitcher may change to another position only once during the same inning; e.g. the pitcher will not be allowed to assume a position other than a pitcher more than once in the same inning.

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 10:46 PM EST (#267763) #
Wonder when that was added into the rules?  I remember watching that game on TV years ago and Rose was fuming and asking the umps many times about how can this be legal.  Wonder if it affects things like the bizarre Fielder at 3B/2B, Gruber at 2B/3B game on May 2nd 1988?  18 times they switched positions in a 7-5 loss to the Mariners.  A bit of a joke, but what else do you expect from Jimy Williams?
[ Reply to This ]
CSHunt68 - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 12:32 PM EST (#267765) #
It only happened once an inning during that 86 Mets Reds brawl game. The rule has nothing to say about position players, so that May 2 1988 game is unaffected. I'm wondering why it was even noted on the official scoresheet, swapping places from 3b to 2b. Bizarre.
[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 01:17 PM EST (#267766) #
Maybe Jimy Williams was just way ahead of the curve with advanced metrics. Its possible that they were just doing the Lawrie shift and the scorers didn't know what to do.

We're starting to get back to my childhood so memories may be a bit jumbled but my read is that this would be a perfectly plausible explanation except for the presence of "Jimy Williams" in there.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 01:56 PM EST (#267767) #
Okay, one last comment on Darren Oliver, because I've stumbled across an interesting compromise solution on another site. If Oliver goes on the voluntary retired list, he is still permitted to return to the Jays after waiting 60 days from the start of the season. So potentially he could get to spend an extra 3 months with his family, and then -- if he stays in shape -- he could return to the Jays for the crucial final 4 months of the season and potentially the playoffs. As for his salary, it could be negotiated: something less than $3-million perhaps, but not a completely pro-rated amount, so that his salary per month is higher than it would be if he played the full season.

Not a perfect solution, perhaps, but maybe better than letting him walk or trading him to a competitor for a C-grade prospect.
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 02:26 PM EST (#267768) #

I can't blame Oliver.  When he signed the contract with the Jays, he probably thought it was his last year.   So, he is saying "if you want me to play, I want X amount of money.  If not, I will just retire.". 

He also has leverage.   Not having a good lefthander in the bullpen could be a big issue for the Jays.  It would cost them a couple prospects for sure to get one.

I hope the Jays find a couple extra million somewhere to get him to stay. 

[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 02:28 PM EST (#267769) #
I saw that solution too CF, and I don't hate it.

I would point out that we do have to factor in additional (non-financial) costs however.

That compromise would presumably require us to keep a spot on the 40-man roster for Oliver and would require us to reserve that 3 million dollars for him as well. If come June Oliver decides he likes his retirement then we might have missed opportunities because of this.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 02:41 PM EST (#267770) #
Well, it was quite obvious they were switching and I suspect Williams had to tell the umps each time.  I'm sure it didn't endear him to the umps either.  Better to just leave Fielder at 3B for the whole game.  The plays affected...
bottom of 1st: Gruber at 3B throws out Cotto at 1B
bottom of 3rd: Gruber at 3B, rundown P-3B-SS-3B
Bottom of 4th: Gruber at 2B, DP 2B-1B
Bottom of 6th: Fielder at 2B, groundout P-2B
Bottom of 7th: Gruber at 2B, DP 2B-SS-1B
Bottom of 8th: Fielder at 2B, pop up to 2B
Bottom of 8th: Gruber at 2B, groundout 2B-1B

So no errors, Fielder got to 2 balls at 2B, if he was left at 3B he would've got 2 chances as well but probably harder ones.  What is funny is it happened again 2 days later, Fielder PH for Leach  who was hitting for Manny Lee and did the 2B/3B shuffle with Gruber again.  End result was, again, a Jays loss.  Only one play, a ground ball to 3B for a single with Gruber at 3B.  I'm guessing someone talked to Williams after that and told him 'please stop doing this' as that was the last time Fielder played anywhere but 1B/DH.

[ Reply to This ]
Magpie - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 03:43 PM EST (#267771) #
Maybe Jimy Williams was just way ahead of the curve with advanced metrics.

Jimy? Nah. The team had just sent Nelson Liriano down (and either couldn't or wouldn't bring him back up), leaving them with only two middle infielders on the active roster. And then Manuel Lee couldn't play.

The Gillick-era Jays often had some very odd roster constructions, and this - going without a backup infielder - was just one of them. Williams' solution was to flip-flop Fielder with a real infielder depending on whether the batter was LH or RH, hoping to keep the non-infielder away from the ball. Fielder did the switching with Gruber on May 2, Pat Borders the day after, a game they won. Lee returned to the lineup on May 4, but Williams, either emboldened or trying to send Gillick a message, felt free to pinch-hit for him the day after that and do the Fielder-Gruber shuffle again.) Liriano was back a week later.

Just over a year later, Cito Gaston would find himself with more catchers (Whitt, Borders, Brenly, Myers) on his roster than outfielders (Bell, Moseby, Felix.) I'd never seen that before. Or since. Sure enough, one of the outfielders (Moseby) went lame, and Gaston ended up playing his third-baseman in the outfield.

For two weeks. Before Gillick sent him an actual outfielder.
[ Reply to This ]
CeeBee - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 04:54 PM EST (#267772) #
Maybe it was Gillick sending Williams a message?
[ Reply to This ]
Magpie - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 06:55 PM EST (#267773) #
At the time, it was just described as "Oops." That if they'd known something was wrong with Lee, Liriano would not have been sent down. Memory tells me it was a minor injury that Lee hadn't mentioned to anyone until Liriano was on his way to Syracuse.

As a manager, Jimy Williams was a juggler - one of those guys who sends pitchers back and forth from the rotation to the bullpen, changes his lineup incessantly - he changed his starting second baseman every month once Damaso Garcia was gone - so this situation was tailor made for him. Even before this strange adventure, Williams had used Rance Mulliniks at second base (he came up as a shortstop), Cecil Fielder in third base (several times) and left field, George Bell at second base (he'd played 3b a couple of times), and Kelly Gruber pretty well everywhere. His two best starters, Dave Stieb and Jimmy Key, were both used as pinch runners.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 07:51 PM EST (#267774) #
Tommy Hottovy was DFAed by Texas.  He might fill a depth need here.
[ Reply to This ]
PeterG - Monday, January 07 2013 @ 09:58 PM EST (#267775) #
Agreed. I expect him to be claimed.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 03:29 AM EST (#267789) #
I don't know why people are giving Oliver a pass in the Jeff Frye mistake. I think that to do so is stupid. A.A. found out about Oliver's demands when a reporter asked him about it. If anyone bother to read the article, A.A. was diplomatic about it, but he was pissed. There is no way A.A. sets precedent for any one else by giving into press driven demands. If you can't talk directly to A.A. first about your needs, you deserve nothing. Oliver plays in Toronto for $3.0 MM or he retires.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 09:12 AM EST (#267791) #
2013 Toronto Blue Jays, according to ZIPS.

I'll take the over (better performance) on Dickey, Bonifacio, Lawrie and Izturis.  I'll take the under on Kelly Johnson (!) and Rasmus.  Dickey is, in fairness to the poor people who design these projection systems, about as hard a case as you are going to get. 
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 09:24 AM EST (#267792) #
Given how AA operates I suspect Oliver will be on the restricted list for the start of the season unless Texas gives AA a crazy good offer.  LH relievers at this time of year don't normally get much in trade, but mid-season they sometimes do so might as well just let him stew all year after the stunt pulled.  I mean, you know AA likes things to be kept behind closed doors so why not try everything you can that way (if Frye said he let AA know awhile ago and nothing has happened so he felt the need to go public for example) and then, if he hasn't done anything by spring you can go public with it as at that point it is either trade or retire.  Going public now was just asking for it to blow up.  A smart agent stays behind closed doors until it is clear that method won't get what you are after.
[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 10:23 AM EST (#267793) #
"2013 Toronto Blue Jays, according to ZIPS."

Good stuff. Is it normal for ZIPS to be bullish on hitters and bearish on pitchers? If I were to play the Over - Under game almost all of my Overs would be pitchers and my unders hitters.

[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 10:42 AM EST (#267794) #
Historically, ZIPS tended to be generally more conservative than other systems in its projections of both pitchers and hitters.  If I recall correctly, it has done as well or better than most in projecting pitchers, but not as well as some systems in projecting hitters.

FWIW, you can construct a reasonable ballclub with a 50 WAR projection, or a low 90 win total.  You will also find in the projections some objective support for the notion that the club is better off with Gose in the starting lineup and Lind on the bench; for myself, the team defence improvements (above and beyond Gose's defensive contributions in centerfield already measured in the WAR figures) and the possibility of increased durability from Bautista playing first base instead of right field would be as important. 

[ Reply to This ]
Rich - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 11:40 AM EST (#267795) #
I can't blame Oliver.  When he signed the contract with the Jays, he probably thought it was his last year.   So, he is saying "if you want me to play, I want X amount of money.  If not, I will just retire.".

If this was the case then he should have signed a 1 year deal.  He knew full well what he would make in 2013 and who he would play for when he agreed to the option year.  If he can be traded to team's benefit I wouldn't hesitate but I have no problem with the Jays letting him stay at home.  If he doesn't like the situation he's in he should blame the guy in the mirror.
[ Reply to This ]
Paul D - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 11:51 AM EST (#267796) #
Richard - you keep saying stuff like "then he can just sit at home" like it's a detriment to Oliver. He's perfectly fine with sitting at home. That's not a problem for him. Signing a one-year deal with the Jays wasn't an option, since they insisted on the option year.
[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 12:10 PM EST (#267797) #
Buzz Oliver? 
[ Reply to This ]
Beyonder - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST (#267799) #
Of course we don't really know whether Oliver genuinely wants to retire, or whether he is simply using the threat of retirement as a ploy to get more money. But I don't think there is anything wrong with what he is doing ethics-wise regardless. He has lived up to the letter of his contract. That is all an individual dealing with a big business is required to do.

Anyone who is really vexed about this situation and wants a target for their anger should perhaps look to AA. He failed to lock Oliver up for two years when he likely could have.
He also appears to have negotiated a worthless option. If he ascribed value to that option and paid for that value, then AA got taken fair and and square. Having failed to lock Oliver up, the team must now deal with the consequences of that decision.

The Jays would be expected to take advantage of any contractual language that operated in its interest. Hard to fault Oliver for doing the same thing.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 01:13 PM EST (#267800) #
Guaranteeing 2 years to Oliver would've been stupid, and the option was far from worthless. It helped bring Oliver to Toronto in 2012 for less money (the 500k buyout presumably would've had to be partially tacked on to the 2012 salary otherwise) and it ensured that if Oliver plays in 2013, it's for the Jays at a price they are comfortable paying (or for another team after the Jays have recouped the value).

If the choices were Oliver for 1/4.25m or 1/4m plus 500k buyout/3m team option, I'm taking the latter every time.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 01:37 PM EST (#267801) #
China fan mentioned a solution earlier in the thread - Oliver retiring for 60 days and then returning later in the season.

If you look at Oliver's splits pre- and post-AllStar last year, as well as the past 3 year total, you see outstanding early season and mediocre late season. This makes sense considering his age.

Maybe by starting his season 3 months later, the team would get the terrific early season results, without the wear-and-tear decline. Instead of a worn down Oliver during the stretch run and postseason, he would have a lot more chance of being a positive difference maker rather than an aged question mark.
[ Reply to This ]
vw_fan17 - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 02:00 PM EST (#267802) #
Anyone who is really vexed about this situation and wants a target for their anger should perhaps look to AA. He failed to lock Oliver up for two years when he likely could have.

A 2-year contract or a 1 year contract + 1 year team option WITH AN EXERCISED OPTION are contractually EXACTLY the same situation. That is, even if Oliver had signed a 2-year (or 3-year, or 100-year) contract, there would be nothing to prevent him from retiring right now unless he got more $$$ - see Gil Meche for an example of the opposite (retiring because he felt he wasn't earning his $$). Nothing in a contract REQUIRES a player to play - it's a free country, you can't FORCE someone to play baseball, regardless of the contract they signed. A contract CAN say that IF you want to play baseball in a given year, you must play for this team. If Oliver does not want to play in 2013, NO legal contract can force him to play. So I don't understand the distinction - AA effectively locked him up for 2 years with a chance to avoid the 2nd year of a bad contract. That's MORE valuable than a straight 2-year contract, not less valuable.

He also appears to have negotiated a worthless option. If he ascribed value to that option and paid for that value, then AA got taken fair and and square. Having failed to lock Oliver up, the team must now deal with the consequences of that decision.

At best, this is a non-sequitur. There WAS value to the option (as opposed to your "lock him up" suggestion - given Oliver's age, that would have been LESS valuable) - if he bombed terribly and had a 6.93 ERA, we would be bound to pay him in 2013 for useless innings with a 2-year contract. With the option, if he had stunk up the joint, or gotten injured, or whatever, we could have walked away for $0.5M, IIRC. That TOTALLY has (had) value. It's just that the potentially bad situation that the option protected against didn't occur. Just because you didn't need it, doesn't mean that getting a life insurance policy had no value.

This post just seems like you're finding any possible reasons (even invalid ones) to put down AA.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 02:39 PM EST (#267803) #
No one elected to the Hall.

It was a tough ballot, but the writers as a group didn't exactly show "the wisdom of crowds". 
[ Reply to This ]
CeeBee - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 02:56 PM EST (#267804) #
Wonderful job once again by the BBWA. might as well let the fans do the voting..... couldn't be any worse!
[ Reply to This ]
Dave Till - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 03:49 PM EST (#267806) #
Oliver must also be thinking "Holy crap, Jeremy Affeldt is getting $6 million a year? For three years? Jeremy Affeldt? I'm way better than him now, and I'll probably still be better than him three years from now, when I'm 45."

I'm kinda neutral about the whole Oliver thing. What the hey - he loses nothing by asking for more money. But I have to say this: Oliver is old enough by now to know that life isn't always fair. That's kind of Rule #1 of life. Sure, he's underpaid. But he doesn't have terminal cancer, and isn't living in a war zone. He's made millions of dollars throwing a round object, so he's kind of won the lottery of life, dontcha know.

Sorry to repeat myself, but: AA holds the cards here. Unless he gives Oliver a break, Oliver has two options: play for the Jays in 2013, or retire.
[ Reply to This ]
Beyonder - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 04:07 PM EST (#267807) #
"Guaranteeing 2 years to Oliver would've been stupid". Not necessarily, especially if you got a bulk deal allowing you to pay Oliver a lower average annual value. If you were really concerned to have him play the 2nd year, you could try to backload the 2nd year of the deal. See if he retires then.

"The option was far from worthless. It helped bring Oliver to Toronto in 2012 for less money (the 500k buyout presumably would've had to be partially tacked on to the 2012 salary otherwise)"

You can't possibly know this 92-93. The 500G buyout could well have been compensation for agreeing to the option in the first place. Assuming that it is deferred salary from 2012 is guesswork.

"and it ensured that if Oliver plays in 2013, it's for the Jays at a price they are comfortable paying (or for another team after the Jays have recouped the value)."

Obviously it didn't have the effect of ensuring anything. They don't have him now at a price they are comfortable paying. If they do manage to persuade him to pitch it will only be at a price higher than the one bargained for last year. Compared to a one-year deal, the option didn't provide any value.


VW_fan. Looking back on my earlier message, I can see that I confused the issue, but when I said that the option offered "no value", I meant, no value compared to a one year deal (which is apparently what Oliver wanted to sign but for AA's insisting on the option even after Oliver advised him that there was a good chance he might retire). You are right to point out though, that even a two year guaranteed deal wouldn't have had the effect of forcing Oliver to play. I was wrong to suggest that.

And I have no wish to run down AA. On the whole I'm a big fan. I just don't think there is anything wrong with Oliver using whatever leverage he has to negotiate the best deal he can for himself -- just as I expect AA to do the same.
[ Reply to This ]
vw_fan17 - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 05:26 PM EST (#267809) #
"Guaranteeing 2 years to Oliver would've been stupid". Not necessarily, especially if you got a bulk deal allowing you to pay Oliver a lower average annual value. If you were really concerned to have him play the 2nd year, you could try to backload the 2nd year of the deal. See if he retires then.

(thanks for the comments, that clears most things up). Except this. If you offered Oliver a 2-year contract for $1M/$6M, he MAY not have retired after the first year. But, he probably wouldn't have signed the contract either, IMHO, given that he was leaning towards retirement after 2012 already. He would have wanted a front-loaded contract so that he could collect a reasonable amount of $$ for playing just in 2012. No way he signs for much less than $4M in 2012, IMHO. Maybe we could have done $3.25M/3.75M, and it would have been enough to get him back this year. MAYBE. And it might have been enough in 2011, but not in 2013 - people CAN change their minds, especially after seeing the Jays open the vault this offseason. IMHO, without changing the total over 2 years from $7M to something higher, there was no way Oliver was going to play here for 2 years without complaining/asking for more/asking to be traded, no matter how the contract was structured (team option, player option, mutual option, straight 2 year contract) - either not enough $$ in 2012 to get him to come here in the first place, or, if we moved too much $$ to 2012, not enough $$ left in 2013 to get him to come back. As I recall, he didn't want the option, but it was more of a courtesy to AA.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 05:49 PM EST (#267810) #

Not necessarily, especially if you got a bulk deal allowing you to pay Oliver a lower average annual value. If you were really concerned to have him play the 2nd year, you could try to backload the 2nd year of the deal. See if he retires then.

No clue what this means. The concern was that you'd be guaranteeing a 41 year old reliever two years of salary, which is never a good idea unless that salary is the MLB minimum.

You can't possibly know this 92-93. The 500G buyout could well have been compensation for agreeing to the option in the first place. Assuming that it is deferred salary from 2012 is guesswork.

Fair enough, but if you're going to suggest that the buyout was Oliver's compensation for a team friendly option, you need to then accept how that option IS team friendly. You've been suggesting it wasn't.

"and it ensured that if Oliver plays in 2013, it's for the Jays at a price they are comfortable paying (or for another team after the Jays have recouped the value)." (me)

Obviously it didn't have the effect of ensuring anything. They don't have him now at a price they are comfortable paying. If they do manage to persuade him to pitch it will only be at a price higher than the one bargained for last year. Compared to a one-year deal, the option didn't provide any value. (Beyonder)

You completely ignored what I said to erronenously assert again that the option provided no value. The Jays DO have Oliver now at a price they are comfortable paying. Whether or not he plays is up to him. And they did ensure that if Oliver plays in 2013, it will be only for them at their price or for another team once they receive value.


 

[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 06:35 PM EST (#267816) #
Oliver can ask for more money. That's certainly within his rights. I think AA should consent to that request with the proviso that Oliver repay Texas and Boston for the years 2000-2002:

2000:  5MM, 7.42 ERA, 108 IP
2001:  7MM, 6.02 ERA, 114 IP
2002:  7MM, 4.66 ERA, 58 IP
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 08:30 PM EST (#267822) #

Darren Oliver was signed a contract with the Jays, 30 Dec.'11, well after the majority of the first tier and most of the second tier had signed.   As relievers went, he was basically a very secondary signing.   The Contract he signed then, was his choice.   He signs the contract he chose, not what was forced on him.   As the 2012 season closed, he listen to everything A.A. was saying about making his team better, and blew it off.   The decision between picking up the option and paying a buyout was his choice, A.A. always gives choices, nothing is forced.

When the first time you ever hear about Oliver's demands, coming from a Reporter, that's a bad mistake.    At no time was A.A. informed of this prior to the Reporter's inquiry, and he talked with Darren often.   There was ample time then to discuss this then.   Any chance of Oliver playing for anyone but Toronto before 2014 is remote, and that is as it should be.

[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 10:10 PM EST (#267823) #
Before Frye started blabbing to reporters, AA considered Oliver as retired. By my reckoning, retired players over the years have contributed exactly zero value to their ballclubs - zero WAR, zero W's, K's, IP's, - ziltch, nada. They also seem to have zero trade value.

So Frye runs off at the mouth, and suddenly Oliver isn't quite retired and may be worth something to the Jays; either on their ballclub or through trade.

This is a bad thing?
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 01:40 AM EST (#267825) #

No 'Fried' ran off his yapp about Oli's demands, and no one of that group ever spoke to A.A. about it, despite A.A.'s talks with Oli.   First news about comes from a Reporter!   A.A. figures Oli's retiring no matter what (kids).   Oli hasn't officially spoken about the matter yet.   So all Blue Jay plans don't include Oliver going forward.   That might be a good thing.

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 05:39 AM EST (#267829) #
It was a tough ballot, but the writers as a group didn't exactly show "the wisdom of crowds".

Laying aside the PED guys, I'd have voted for Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell and Raines.

but I take great solice in knowing that Jack Morris is still on the outside.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 11:27 AM EST (#267852) #
Is there any reason to believe the first time AA heard of this was through the media and not through Team Oliver?
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 11:51 AM EST (#267854) #

Must be terrible to think we live in a world where no one speaks the truth.   This article: http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130104&content_id=40857778&vkey=news_tor&c_id=tor , in paticular, this item: Anthopoulos, who was not aware that Frye had gone public with those comments, was visibly surprised when it was brought to his attention and was not keen on the idea of meeting Oliver's demands.   "I don't want to really get into the trade talk; things can happen," Anthopoulos said. "As far as restructuring his contract, I would never say never, but his contract is his contract. That's what we signed him to.   I don't see us doing that."   indicates it was news to him.   There were more articles that dealt with this - it's news to him.

[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 12:12 PM EST (#267859) #

Anthopoulos, who was not aware that Frye had gone public with those comments, was visibly surprised when it was brought to his attention

AA being surprised Frye went public with his comments is very different than what you've been suggesting that Oliver first took his demands to the media, not to the front office, and that AA didn't hear anything of it until he spoke to reporters at the Dome during that coaching clinic.

[ Reply to This ]
Beyonder - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 12:26 PM EST (#267860) #
92-92: "Fair enough, but if you're going to suggest that the buyout was Oliver's compensation for a team friendly option, you need to then accept how that option IS team friendly. You've been suggesting it wasn't."

This is faulty logic. Just because I convince someone to compensate me for providing them with an option does not mean that the option actually had value. It means the buyer perceived it to have value. I expect AA perceived the option to have value (which is why he "insisted" on it IIRC). He appears to have been wrong about that -- the team is in no better position than it would have been if they had simply signed Oliver to a one year deal. This is why I say the option had no value.

[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 12:57 PM EST (#267864) #
I agree with 92-93 on this. Anthopoulos probably already knew about Oliver's request for more money -- he was simply surprised that Frye went public with it, because AA tells everyone to keep quiet about contract negotiations.

I disagree with Hypobole's suggestion that AA had already considered Oliver to be retired. Anthopolous has publicly stated that Oliver is "likely" to be retiring, but he knows that anyone can change their mind. He has said that Oliver can freely decide about retirement at the very last minute -- even two days before training camp.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 01:04 PM EST (#267866) #
It is a shame how the Oliver story has gone.  Frye should've told Anthopolis that he needed an answer on a trade or raise by a certain date or he'd go public with it.  That creates pressure on AA to do something and allows him not to feel ambushed as it appears he was.  AA seems to have been very accommodating to Oliver with the willingness to let him decide on retirement or not right up until spring training without saying a bad word about it.  Imagine Boston - they'd be all over him as soon as the WS was over and demanding an answer and if not getting one would be tearing him a new one in the media.
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 02:43 PM EST (#267873) #

This is probably foreshadowing to what will happen to Oliver

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/01/blue-jays-claim-tommy-hottovy.html

 

[ Reply to This ]
vw_fan17 - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 03:11 PM EST (#267874) #
This is faulty logic. Just because I convince someone to compensate me for providing them with an option does not mean that the option actually had value.... the team is in no better position than it would have been if they had simply signed Oliver to a one year deal. This is why I say the option had no value.

I can see your argument - up to a point. Do you also say that buying car insurance has no value because you don't plan to have an accident this year? This isn't a lottery ticket where odds are known ahead of time - this involves real people who can and DO change their minds.

At THIS TIME, it appears the option wasn't very useful. However, if somehow (I'm not saying it's likely), Darren Oliver changes his mind (he's done it before!!) and is part of AA blockbuster #3, or even if we trade him to the Rangers for a useful part (which he's already said would be acceptable, and the Rangers just DFAed a LH reliever we picked up - perhaps a handshake agreement between AA and the Rangers???), or even if he comes out of retirement in August after we lose all our LH relievers to injury to pitch effectively and help us make the playoffs/WS OR the same thing happens to the Rangers and we trade him at the deadline to TX for a decent prospect to help them win, will the option have had no value?

I would say that, right now it APPEARS that the option was of little value, but it might still turn out to be quite valuable, although with low odds. Probably lower odds than a draft pick, but higher than a lottery ticket. He's not the first professional athlete to "definitely, absolutely, 100%" retire, and then a month or two later realize he still wants to play or gets talked into coming back a la Pettite. If MLB works the same as the NHL, if he ever decides to un-retire, the Jays retain the rights to his next year of service, having picked up the option, until he's "officially" retired. I'm not sure what would happen if he ever un-retired after officially retiring - I think he'd have to get re-instated, and he'd probably still owe the Jays a year of service. Again, very low odds that anything happens on that front, but not 0. Stranger things have happened.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 03:11 PM EST (#267875) #
Two thumbs up for the Hottovy claim.  I guess the remaining thing is the utility infielder.
[ Reply to This ]
vw_fan17 - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 03:13 PM EST (#267876) #

This is probably foreshadowing to what will happen to Oliver

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/01/blue-jays-claim-tommy-hottovy.html

Any chance this was a handshake agreement between AA and Texas as part of a future Oliver-to-Texas trade for a PTBNL/cash?

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 04:14 PM EST (#267877) #
vw_fan17 - uh, no.  Tommy Hottovy is a AAA guy who has a total of 13 1/3 mediocre ML innings.  He is another AA attempt to add depth to the AAA team via the waiver process (claim, send down, lose, re-claim, send down, hope to hold).  Chad Beck sent back down off the 40 man in a similar attempt. 

If Oliver is traded I expect the Jays will want a real ML reliever in exchange or at least someone they wouldn't be playing waiver wire tag with.

[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 04:16 PM EST (#267878) #
Hottovy had pretty good peripherals in AAA last season, but he's still a 31-year-old who has only pitched 13 innings in the majors in his entire career. He has bounced around to 3 different teams in the past 14 months, and he was just DFA'd by Texas earlier today. I find it hard to believe that he would be an incentive to the Jays to persuade them to give Oliver's rights to Texas.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 04:19 PM EST (#267879) #
John beat me by 2 minutes....
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 07:32 PM EST (#267882) #
The Jays aren't going to trade Oliver to Texas unless it makes sense.  They are going to be contending with Texas for Wildcard and playing them this season.  There is no reason to make them better.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Friday, January 11 2013 @ 10:56 AM EST (#267896) #
"He appears to have been wrong about that -- the team is in no better position than it would have been if they had simply signed Oliver to a one year deal."

Without the option, Darren Oliver would've been free to sign with whoever he wants for whatever he wants. Instead he can either retire or pitch for the Jays at 3m. There's value in that whether or not you've decided in your head it's a guarantee Oliver won't pitch for 3m.
[ Reply to This ]
Magpie - Friday, January 11 2013 @ 01:02 PM EST (#267903) #
I wonder if Frye is trying to make something happen. After all, if Oliver retires, what's there for him to do? Oliver tells him something "I'm too old for this. Spending the entire year away from my family just wasn't that much fun. I'm done." And Frye asks "Well, if they gave you a big raise would you come back? Maybe? How about if you got to play in Texas? Would you come back then? Maybe I can make it happen."

Not that anybody knows anything, and if Oliver himself has said anything I missed it.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Friday, January 11 2013 @ 02:45 PM EST (#267907) #

I don't know what Oliver's offseason "get ready" routine was, but the chances are good he hasn't following that routine this offseason, so will he be any good?

A): If Oliver pitches for Toronto and is as good as ever, it's to Toronto's advantage.  

B): If Oliver retires, it's still to Toronto's advantage.

C): If it's none of the above, then it's not to Toronto's advantage.

[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Friday, January 11 2013 @ 04:42 PM EST (#267910) #
Ridiculous, although at least you got A) right.

What if he retires and our lefty relievers do a 2012 Coco Cordero?

What if he gets traded to Texas and he does a 2012
Coco Cordero?
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, January 11 2013 @ 05:29 PM EST (#267912) #
Who knew that Darren Oliver's dangling option year could spawn ten-plus days of debate? (You know it's early January when _______.)
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 12 2013 @ 03:17 AM EST (#267918) #
What if he gets traded to Texas and he does a 2012
Coco Cordero?

2012 Cordero was foreshadowed by 2011 Cordero.

No such signs apply to Oliver.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Saturday, January 12 2013 @ 10:07 AM EST (#267919) #
"2012 Cordero was foreshadowed by 2011 Cordero.

No such signs apply to Oliver."

I would agree fewer signs apply, but over and above the age thing (even the best players usually end up falling off a cliff at the end of their careers) there are signs:

Oliver 2nd half 2012: 6.48 K/9, 2.88 BB/9, 2.88 ERA, 3.37 FIP, 4.62 xFIP.

Cordero 2011: 5.43 K/9, 2.84 BB/9, 2.45 ERA, 4.02 FIP, 4.14 xFIP.

Was Oliver's 2nd half merely an old player tiring later in the season or the precursor of an inevitable decline? No one can say for sure.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, January 12 2013 @ 08:24 PM EST (#267924) #
I was unaware that Oliver's 1st & 2nd half splits were that different. Zero reports have ever been made this offseason about Oliver starting to throw. Chances are good he's not as good this year as last. I will allow better than average to be his fate, beside costing $3.0 MM and taking up a roster space.

We need to see what J.A.Happ (LHP) could give us this year as 6th Starter/Long Relief. He's a Free Agent after 2014, so it would be nice to see if he should be extended. We need to see what Brett Cecil (LHP) could do as Long Relief/Spot Start as this is his final pre-arb year. After 2013, non-tendering be a issue. Aaron Loup (LHP) is young and pitched well last year. We need to see what his future brings as he's pre-arb for several years. Every cent now counts.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Saturday, January 12 2013 @ 10:02 PM EST (#267926) #
Interesting to split Oliver's season up.
K/9: Over 10 in April & June, 7.2 to 8.3 in May/July/August, 4.8 in Sept.
BB/9: too small a sample per month but not a ton of variance (one less walk or one more would totally shift a month)
HR: gave up one in each of April, June, Aug and none in May, July, Sept.

The only real warning sign is the low K's in Sept but that was over just 9 1/3 IP so how much weight to put on it?  Remember, we're talking very, very few innings here.  31 2/3 IP in the first half, 25 IP in the second half.  Twice in the 1920's a pitcher threw more innings in ONE GAME than Oliver did in the 2nd half  on May 1st 1920 - Booklyn vs Boston - 1 all tie after 26 IP with 2 complete games - http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BSN/BSN192005010.shtml  FYI: the next day the same teams played a 19 inning game 2-1, also with 2 complete games, and Boston's next game was 11 innings.  Imagine that happening today, a team playing 3 games totaling 56 innings.  Ouch.  Somehow doubt anyone would get a complete game except maybe Roy Halladay in the 11 inning affair (he is known for endurance and low pitch counts).

[ Reply to This ]
Frasor is Texas-bound | 174 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.