Looking at the pitching matchups for the next 4 games (Felix on Friday), if the Jays manage a split, they should be happy - with that rotation, I expect the A's to make a 2nd half run.

Mike Friers & Chris Colabello are both late bloomers trying to establish themselves, both inexpensive & same # of years under team control - if as rumoured, the Brewers sell high on Adam Lind (to Pirates?), then they would need a 1B going forward & Colabello would fit the bill - great if the Jays can also get Gerardo Parra - Fiers & Parra for a package that includes Colabello - I think that's very doable

I'd part with a lot for a true ace like sonny gray. not too sure about fiers - a package around colabello is 95% package.

What would people give up for gray? norris, hoffman, pompey, dickey, $10m?

Sonny isn't going anywhere, but Kazmir could be traded if the A's don't do well in the next 10 games.

Zero interest in a rental like Kazmir. Most teams wouldn't deal Gray, but A's aren't most teams. Sometimes get rid of pitchers enterring expensive years of their careers.

For Gray, I'd probably go one of Hutchison, Norris or Hoffman, then Pompey or Alford, then Boyd or Castro, with someone like Labourt or Reid-Foley as a fourth piece. I wonder how close that would be. It's a good blend of present and future, but it's probably light. Worth a dream, anyway.

It's an intriguing idea, but a trade along those lines also has the potential to end up being similar to the Bedard - Jones/Tillman/Sherill/Butler/MIckolio trade.

If I were Beane, I would ask for Norris, Osuna, Alford and a couple of promising lower level prospects in return for Gray.

I'd give my left arm for Sonny Gray.

He's still pre-arb for next year too. According to bbref he doesn't even start hitting arbitration until 2017.

Aaron Sanchez might not be in the majors soon. He pitched two thirds of an inning, threw more balls than strikes, walked a couple, and gave up a couple of runs, and left with a runner on. Two passed balls didn't help, Sean Ochinko had some trouble with his movement.

Sonny Gray is a very fine pitcher, but let's not get carried away.  He has been getting a fair bit of help from the Oakland defence and the park.  Personally, I'd rather have Stroman (or Archer or several others) in 2016. 

The thing about young pitchers is that you never know when an injury will strike.  Gray is a pretty good bet, but I wouldn't send a package of 4 good players for him.

The park, I'll spot you, but the Athletics defense hasn't been any great shakes this year. There are others I'd rather have instead, but it's a short list, and he's probably the most-available (due strictly to the GM) non-rental on it.

As for Stroman, Gray is basically a more proven version (without even going down the short righty angle). Good command, power stuff, ground-ball inducing, weak-contact, efficient pitchers. Of course, they're not mutually exclusive - we can (in theory) have both! Why choose?

Was going to go to the game today with daughter #1, but ended up feeling a little queasy + headache in the hour before we would have had to leave. Tomorrow's already planned for our "stay-cation", and I don't want to do a noon game in Oakland in July, unless we get some shade.. Ah well, there's always next year.. Would have been nice to see Buehrle vs. Graveman. Go Jays!

At this point, I would rather see the Jays keep their elite prospect talent and target a competent-but-unglamorous starting pitcher who won't cost all that much. The Jays should have a good team next year. There is no need to mortgage the future for a chance at seeing the 2015 Jays (who are currently .500 and some distance out of a playoff spot) surpass the teams ahead of them.

I would give up some solid talent for Gray, but I wouldn't start shipping out multiple top-75 or -100 prospects like Norris/Hoffman/Pompey/Alford or young major-leaguers like Osuna.

Anthopoulos had an excellent off-season. I think he's figured out a few things about trades and team-building. I expect he'll make an intelligent move(s) or abstain from making a move if a good deal isn't on offer.

Four and a half years of a front-end starter has quite the price. Oh, and he's durable - I don't think he's missed a start as a pro, vs the dreaded Erik Bedard comp, who already had a significant injury history before his trade (and only 2 years left before free agency).

This is the kind of guy you push the chips in for. It might not work out but that's true of lots of things, like crossing the street in a crosswalk or eating chokeable food such as (apparently) peanut butter.

jays sign joba to a milb deal.

thought this was a possibility. he waa decent last year.

how about packaging norris + hoffman + sanchez for Gray?

I personally see that group of three having the next home-grown top of rotation starter in it, so while I'd take my chances and put one of them in the trade, I wouldn't want to do any more than that.

Does anyone know if Bob Davidson wears contacts and if he forgot to put them in before the game? It's only the third inning and his strike zone has been, interesting?

yeah i offered that as i like stroman, osuna - and gray - quite a bit better than any of those three, so it wouldn't pain me as much.

A side note - the Oakland announcers (Ray Fosse and Glen Kuiper) are one of my favourite TV crews, probably only behind their Brothers (literally for Glen) across the Bay, with Duane Kuiper and Mike Krukow covering the Giants.

Love Kuiper & Krukow, ever since EA's MVP Baseball.

It's interesting - the Cardinals have had a tremendous run of success over the last 20 years, but they rarely seem to "push the chips in" in a trade for that one player to put them over the top. Maybe there's a better way?

http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/stl/history/year_by_year_results.jsp

Yankees win another close game, move to ten games over .500 (+28 run differential). Damn Yankees...

Greenfrog, I like the Cardinals analogy. You can't be unwilling to trade a good player (Rasmus), but you don't empty the farm for a one year run.

Personally, I'd prefer trade for a B/C-lever starting pitcher (or two) than go all in for a rental. If you're going to do a 4 for 1 deal, it better not be for Cueto (not that I think AA would do that).

I think our chances next year are as good/better than this year. More time for a pitcher or two to step forward, and your prospects are that much closer to the show and worth more.

i really love buehrle.

a lot.

There are many better ways, including hiring ninjas to incapacitate your opponents before game time. That said, when they've had a glaring weakness, they've either filled it internally, or moved to fill it. That could be done with a cheaper rental (Westbrook), an expensive rental (Holliday, Jackson), or a non-rental (Lackey). In the Jays case, a dependable front-line starter is a weakness not just for this year but also going forward. Paying sticker price or a touch above for someone like Gray doesn't phase me.

Ray Fosse talking about Martin just prior to the HR, "He is a very good defensive catcher, and anything he adds offensively is a bonus... And there's your bonus."

Graveman was impressive at times tonight, but man…the Blue Jays just torched him in the end, big ballpark notwithstanding.

This game shows why losing Graveman didn't bother me much. He's a good depth guy, but I don't think his stuff plays in the AL East or the ballparks in the east. In Oakland he can max his potential in a pitchers park in a division of pitchers parks.

So, about those A's:

Billy Butler
Billy Burns
Billy Beane

Am I missing something here?

Also: the Jays' left fielder now has a .610 OPS and plays poor defense (he was almost involved in a serious collision with Pillar earlier tonight). Can we do something about this, like, yesterday?

pompey played LF in Buffalo tonight.

this roadie is probably zeke's last stand.

and yeah, graveman is kinda jesse Litsch.

I was not very impressed with Graveman tonight. If this is indicative of his stuff, he has little room for error and needs to paint the bottom two corners with every pitch.

Davisdon has also made his submission for worst called game of the year with this performance.

Of course Schultz is up in a 7-1 game - right before a 3 game stretch of what are likely to be low scoring/tight games. The situation is made for you low leverage relievers. Gibbons never learns

I like the Joba Chamberlain Signing. The bullpen needs a good veteran arm.

They will probably end up with Fiers for B grade minor leaguer. I can live with those two additions. Unless we can get an arm like Gray that will be in the rotation for a couple years, I like to see them stay away from the rentals

"Gibbons never learns"

And Bauxites never cease to find a reason to jump on Gibbons.

Of course Schultz is up in a 7-1 game - right before a 3 game stretch of what are likely to be low scoring/tight games. The situation is made for you low leverage relievers. Gibbons never learns.

He's probably the 5th best reliever on the team, so I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

aside from osuna, our relievers are interchangeable.

and i have to say, i sure hope they make sanchez earn a promotion. i don't think he's near an automatic upgrade on guys like delabar and tepera.

I had similar thoughts today on Sanchez. Listening to The Fan a little, reading Stoeten -- a lot of people seem to see this move as some sort of answer, which I don't get. First of all, I've never felt there was much of a problem. (Mike Green's post re. BABIP and the bullpen at the end of the Rays thread was excellent; I've been meaning to respond to that when I get the time.) But even if you think the bullpen's a problem, I don't see how you can have much confidence that Aaron Sanchez, who's suffered from control problems most of the year, is going to settle things down.

Sanchez may need a few more tuneup outings.  If he doesn't get those tuneups in Buffalo, he could get them in low-leverage situations in the Toronto bullpen.  But it's misleading to compare his 2014 and 2015 seasons, and it's misleading to extrapolate his BB rate of this season as if it will automatically be replicated in his new bullpen role.  Last year he was pitching as a reliever; this year he was pitching exclusively as a starter.  Not unexpectedly, his BB rate was higher as a starter.  But he proved last year that he can be an excellent reliever, and he also proved that he is quite capable of two high-leverage innings per outing.  That's highly valuable.  If he did it last year, there's no reason to think he can't do it again this year.  His sample size as a reliever in 2014 is far bigger than the sample size of his rehab stint this year, so why would we give more weight to the smaller rehab sample?  If he needs a couple more tuneups, he can get them in Toronto in low-leverage situations, since he won't be immediately tossed into the high-leverage role.

As for the Toronto bullpen in 2015:  we've had endless debates about it, and I acknowledge that the bullpen's overall numbers aren't bad.  But the reality is that the Jays have 15 blown saves this year -- the largest number of blown saves in the league.  It can't be ignored.  The bullpen has to be strengthened.  Sanchez is the best guy to do it.  (Assuming that Papelbon and Chapman are too expensive, which they probably are.) 

Sanchez's stuff is incredible in relief. He was dominant last year. I don't think it hurts the bullpen at all. The only question for me is if he is more useful as a starter this year.

I do think he deserves a chance to start. He did show glimpses of becoming a really good pitcher this year. It will be interesting to see how they handle him this off-season.

If the Jays need Sanchez in the bullpen for the rest of this season -- and if they can find a decent 5th starter to replace him, whether it's Doubront or Norris or a trade acquisition -- then Sanchez should definitely be stretched out as a starter in the spring of 2016, so that he can compete for a rotation spot next year.  The only thing stopping him from joining the rotation now is the lengthy rehab stint and the slow process of building him back up to his former role as a starter.  He's not ready to go 7 or 8 innings as a starter now, so it makes sense to put him in the bullpen for the time being. That won't stop him from competing for a rotation spot next season.  He certainly deserves the chance.  And he showed in May and June that he is quite capable of doing very well in a rotation role.

The Jays are now alone in second place in the AL East.  They're just 3 games out of the last wild-card spot (currently held by Minnesota), and no other teams are between them and Minnesota.   They have 67 games remaining.  They've won 3 of 4 games since the all-star break.   When you consider all of this, the playoffs are definitely still within reach.  They shouldn't "sell the farm for a rental" but they shouldn't give up on the season either.  If they can acquire a rental for a reasonable price, they should do it.  If they can acquire a starting pitcher who is under control for another year or two, and if the cost is one or two good prospects or veterans who can be replaced, they should definitely consider it. 

I think you'll see AA acquire some help at the deadline. i think he picks up a solid SP someone like Latos or Cashner but it won't cost him a ton. Maybe Miguel Castro (too many talented guys ahead of him) and or Matt Boyd. MLB ready guys. Sanchez and Norris will be up in a week or two and will go to the bullpen.

3gms out of a playoff spot, 4.5gms out of 1st, best run diff in the league.

of course they should go for it.

I still think a trade with San Diego centered around Shields is a good fit. In theory, his contract is affordable with Dickey, Buehrle, and Navarro coming off the books.

Getting the Padres to add Kimbrel would probably empty the cupboard a bit, but the Marlins and Astros trades show that Anthopolous isn't afraid to do blockbuster type deals.

The Jays are … just 3 games out of the last wild-card spot (currently held by Minnesota), and no other teams are between them and Minnesota

Actually, Houston leads the WC standings. Minnesota is game behind them. The Jays are 3 GB of Houston. So, the Jays would need to pass two teams to win the WC race. TB, Baltimore, and Detroit are right behind the Jays.

aside from osuna, our relievers are interchangeable.

That's what you believe. I don't think for a second that Gibbons views them that way.

but if they are interchangable, does it matter what he thinks? it makes the best and worst bullpen strategies 90% moot.

No doubt everyone wants to see the Jays win this year. The question is, what is the most intelligent way to go about strengthening the team's chances without giving up too much future value? Lots of room for debate here.

I think we're set up well for 2016 too. So not sure why you'd weaken 2016 for the sake of 2015. If there's a move, make it for a player that strengthen's the team for a few years.

Further to that, is anybody pitching poorly right now in our rotation?

Nothing wrong with Jesse Litsch. Apart from health issues.

aside from osuna, our relievers are interchangeable.

Loup isn't interchangeable with anyone. He should be used against 2, maybe 3 lefties, as early as possible to limit pinch hitting.

Actually, Houston leads the WC standings. Minnesota is game behind them. The Jays are 3 GB of Houston. So, the Jays would need to pass two teams to win the WC race. TB, Baltimore, and Detroit are right behind the Jays.

There are two wildcards. As it stands right now they don't have to pass two teams.

See, I wouldn't say Sanchez has "proven" anything, or that he "is" (present tense) incredible in relief. He had (past tense) a terrific ERA last year, and a good though (for a reliever) not great xFIP. This year he put together a nice string of starts (but more like four, not seven) before his injury, nice enough that I think he should be in the rotation, but he's still only replacement level on the year, and projected as such. He has the potential to be great but that's all we really know. We'll know more soon enough.

AA has been talking about wanting more than a rental so someone for 2016 as well.  Only a couple of #1 types are available who are signed that we know of.  Other tea leaves have been that whoever he is talking most with is on the edge of contention and cannot make up their minds if they are going for it or not.

In the AL edge guys are pretty much everyone.  Furthest out are Seattle, Oakland, Boston but all are within 9 of a playoff slot.  NL are Colorado, MIlwaukee, Cincinnati but only Colorado is 10 out.  I generally use 10 out as 'time to write the year off'. More than 5 out come September is also 'screw it' time.

I'd say check for guys who have hit arbitration years (at least) and are signed or under team control in 2016 and could be a #1 and those are who I suspect AA is chasing.  Other teams iin the 5+ out range are ChiSox Rangers, Cleveland in AL, Arizona, SD, Atlanta, NYM in the NL.  A bad week and any of them could be sellers.

"....The Jays are 3 GB of Houston....."

The Jays are 4 games behind Houston, but they don't need to catch Houston, they need to catch Minnesota, since there are 2 wild-card teams.  The Jays are 3 games behind Minnesota, with nobody between them.

Minnesota has lost 3 games in a row.  People have been suggesting for a while that the Twins are worse than their record suggests.  If their luck ends and their underlying weaknesses are exposed, the Jays should have a good chance to catch them.

Of course other teams will get hot in the meantime.  The Orioles might make a trade-deadline move.  They're the team that worries me in the wild-card race.  (Acknowledging the caveat that the wild card is a very risky way to enter the playoffs.)

but if they are interchangable, does it matter what he thinks? it makes the best and worst bullpen strategies 90% moot.

I believe it does. Even if you're accepting the premise that the relievers are interchangeable (which is a separate argument), it certainly matters how Gibbons views them as, for example, it offers a) a way to evaluate his use of the bullpen and b) a clue as to how he may use any relievers the club will acquire/promote in the future.

If you think that Gibbons currently views Schultz as his second-most reliable reliever, then his usage pattern of Schultz offers an indication of how he may be likely to use Sanchez, for example, if he leaves Osuna as the closer. I'm not saying he would use Sanchez identically to the way he uses Schultz currently (or used Delabar during his hot streak), but I think it would offer informative indicators.

Right, two WC teams...forgot about that innovation. Thanks for the refresher. But as I've argued in previous seasons, a WC berth is not the kind of goal you go "all in" for by chasing a costly rental, as it only gives you a 50/50 shot at the playoffs. It's one-and-done for the losing team.

Also, remember that the Yankees are likely to acquire players at the deadline, too. So if the Jays add (say) a SP and a reliever worth a total of 2 WAR this year, and the Yankees do the same, the Jays aren't really any further ahead in the divisional race. And if the Yankees add players worth more than the players add, the Jays will actually lose ground.

The challenge is to get the best of the guys available and to have internal reenforcements.  The Jays have Sanchez, Pompey, Joba, and hopefully a few others who will help.  The Yankees this year are very thin from what I recall.  Another factor is Tigers' Price, Cespedes on trade block: Report (via the Star).

It looks to me like the market has changed in ways that are more favourable to buyers than expected.  I count 12 teams that rationally might be sellers: Red Sox, White Sox, Rangers, Mariners, Athletics, Marlins, Phillies, Reds, Brewers, Padres, D'Backs, Rockies.  Three teams seem to me to be on the bubble (for different reasons): Rays, Indians and Braves.  It seems to be roughly an evenly matched market. 

"....He had (past tense) a terrific ERA last year, and a good though (for a reliever) not great xFIP...."

Shi Davidi was speculating last night that Sanchez will need another one or two Buffalo outings before he's ready for Toronto, which seemed pretty obvious after his poor outing yesterday.  Luckily the main Jays relievers are relatively well-rested, so they don't need Sanchez immediately anyway.  Fair point about his xFIP last season, but Fangraphs also suggests he was good for 0.5 WAR in just 33 innings last year, which would put him ahead of anyone except Osuna and Hendriks in the current bullpen.  Of course it's fair to say that Sanchez is still relatively untested, but I don't think he should be judged on the basis of his rehab appearances or his starting-rotation work if the Jays plan to use him as a reliever. Unless the injury has some long-term effects, the best leading indicator is his 33 innings of last year.

I like the Joba Chamberlain Signing. The bullpen needs a good veteran arm.
The Jays have Sanchez, Pompey, Joba, and hopefully a few others who will help.  The Yankees this year are very thin from what I recall.

Interesting names on released:

OF Jose Constanza - age 31
LHSP Joe Paterson - age 29
RHSP Mike Bowden - age 28
OF Brett Jackson - age 26, 2009 Cubs' June draft first rounder
C Guillermo Quiroz - age 33

If

Dickey and Thole are traded, Quiroz the former Jays can be a backup until any of our young catcher is ready for MLB
Paterson, especially Bowden can be better, do the Jays have last laughs against divisional rivalries - the Red Sox and the Yankees - that developed Bowden and Joba.
Constanza is a Jays, do we have enough OF in double A or triple a ?
Jackson is a Jays, will the Jays find something interesting in him as he was a June draft first grounder ?

...which would put him ahead of anyone except Osuna and Hendriks in the current bullpen.

You're assuming Hendriks is still alive.

I personally was fine with Sanchez in the starting rotation and felt that Hutchison was the real issue at the time. I wonder if the move to the bullpen is about limiting his innings. Maybe he's just not a guy who can throw 160-200 innings and we're finding that out.

You're assuming Hendriks is still alive.

He lives in our hearts.  It reminds me of a favourite scene from a movie.  In the Australian film The Dish, a kid in a rock band with school friends gets up to play at a school talent night or something like that.  The band is dressed very conservatively and the guitarist announces that he is going to play a song by "James Hendriks".

One guess as to who the only current member of the bullpen not to be mentioned in John Lott's article is.

Let's assume that you believed that Osuna was your best reliever, and that Schultz and Hendriks were interchangeable, that Cecil was slighly better than Loup and in particular more effective against RHB, and that Delabar and Tepera are somewhat below the other 5 in ability.  That would be a reasonable inference based on the statistical record and observation. What then would be the optimal usage?

It seems to me that there are a number of possibilities, but none of them would involve Hendriks pitching once in three weeks for the grand sum of 21 pitches.  I hope that they have a low leverage opportunity for him soon because there is sure to be a lot of rust.

my worries with sanchez actually just have to do with his relief innings last year - namely his unsustainable .157babip and 84.1lob%. even his mote sustainable but still low 6.3hr/fb%. and of course the vagaries of youth, small sample size, and his inconsistent history.

add the fact that we have 5 rhp with pretty dang good numbers and stuff right now, and i just think he should be treated like the rest of them, not as an instant high leverage savior.

i will say that like osuna, i do think he has that slightly eerie confidence that i like his chances of not melting down in high lev situations, though.

You're assuming Hendriks is still alive.

I have been away a while and not following the team terribly closely. Is Hendriks hurt or in the dog house? Gibbons seemed to have assigned him the Danny Cox role of relatively few and relatively long outings. But the recent boxscores suggest he may just as likely be on Pluto as he is with the team.

I believe Gibbons has actually identified Hendriks as his long man in the bullpen these days, since Redmond and Estrada aren't in the bullpen any more.  This may help to explain Hendriks' recent absence from game situations.  It's also possible that he has some minor injury, not serious enough for the DL but enough to make him a lower choice in the bullpen.  In that scenario, the Jays normally don't disclose the injury because disclosure would help the other team to prepare differently in late-game hitting situations.  A third point is that the Jays rotation and bullpen have generally been much better lately, with the starters going deeper and the bullpen generally stronger, so there just hasn't been an opportunity to use all seven of the relievers.  That's a good problem to have.

All things being more or less equal, John Gibbons doesn't naturally utilize seven relief pitchers, whether the team is carrying that many or not. If all of his relievers are getting work, it means something has gone very, very wrong.

If Hendriks is the long man, why wouldn't you bring him in with a 7-1 lead?  If he's injured, why wouldn't you put him on the DL retroactive to July 9.  He last pitched on July 8.

It looks to me like he had a bad outing on July 8 (after a month of good outings), and Gibbons simply lost all confidence in him.

"If Hendriks is the long man, why wouldn't you bring him in with a 7-1 lead?"

long man doesn't mean garbage man.

and we do have doubront taking the hill tonight.

If you think all of the relievers, other than Osuna, are fungible, why on earth would you have a reliever warm up in a 7-1 game and then not bring him in? I think it suggests what we have seen lately - Gibbons views Schultz, right now, as one of his high leverage relievers and did not want to use him in that spot. While you may view them as fungible, Gibbons does not. Witness his treatment of Hendriks. I agree that it was the spot for one of the low leverage relievers but Gibbons had Schultz get up before he came to that conclusion. It was totally in line with the way he has worked his pen this year - he's used in high leverage relievers in low leverage situations too often and short sightedly. The next three games might be blowouts and it will all be irrelevant but if the next three games are filled with high leverage situations he's added an extra day of throwing for Schultz that was totally unnecessary.

Sorry, I don't follow.  Tepera was brought in for "garbage" innings last night and in a tie game on Saturday.  If Hendriks is the "long man", what then is Tepera's role? 

I understand the impulse to support the manager, but isn't the better defence to simply acknowledge that he has lost confidence in Hendriks, and that for some reason between him and Anthopoulos, the corresponding move has not been made.  Or perhaps that he has made a mistake and forgotten about Hendriks but that the mistake is a minor one.

schults hadn't thrown in like 5 or 6 days. i don't think it's a big deal to see him throw in the pen.

Total Batters Faced in High Lev

Osuna 41 (2.53fip)
Cecil 26 (3.36fip)
Loup 21 (3.33fip)
Delabar 19 (1.45fip)
Castro 18 (5.81fip)
Hendriks 15 (5.20fip)
Schultz 15 (2.06fip)
Tepera 2 (12.06fip)

Hendriks seems to have had as good a shot at high lev sitchys as the others, really. He’s just been really bad in them.

bad. or unlucky. hard to tell in such small samples.

"....It looks to me like he had a bad outing on July 8 (after a month of good outings), and Gibbons simply lost all confidence in him...."

You really think a manager makes his decisions about a pitcher on the basis of a single outing?  You think he ignores a season of evidence and makes his decision purely on the basis of a single outing of 21 pitches?  You must think he's incredibly stupid.  It's just not plausible to make this argument that a manager would ignore all the season's evidence and dump a pitcher for one bad outing of 21 pitches.

Defending a manager is not some reflex "impulse" as you imply.  But when I defend a manager, I usually do begin with the assumption that he's not an idiot.

Maybe we can put together a list of the best available controllable arms (ranging from players like Gray, Hamels, Kluber to more realistic options like Cashner, Fiers, Chavez) as well as rentals (Price, Cueto, Shark, Kazmir, Leake). It would be interesting to have a full list of crowdsourced names, perhaps including some names that no one has thought of.

Gray is probably the controllable arm that most appeals to me (assuming that there is a very small chance he could be made available, as opposed to, say, Kluber).

As for rentals, I think Samardzija could be a good pickup, depending on the cost. He might be the most realistic quality option for the Jays. I think Anthopoulos will probably be skittish about the health of Kazmir and Cueto.

For some reason, Gray keeps coming to mind as someone Alex might be trying to acquire, exorbitant cost notwithstanding. AA likes to zig when others are zagging.

"schults hadn't thrown in like 5 or 6 days. i don't think it's a big deal to see him throw in the pen."

Try 3 days.

Who knows what Gibbons was thinking, trying to make sure Schultz doesn't get rusty or over reacting in a 7-1 game. The pitchers he finally did decide to use made sense in the end. Had he brought Schultz and/or Osuna in last nights game would've left many scratching their heads.

Saw Matt Harvey floated the other day as Mets look for a bat.

"But when I defend a manager, I usually do begin with the assumption that he's not an idiot."

And this assumption is the root if the problem, I kid

I guess the challenge for many, is sometimes the inconsistency we see from Gibbons. He seems to want bullpen arms to prove themselves before he trusts them. Will go with the hot hand at times and will equally put someone in the dog house after a blowup, but seemingly trusts Loup even though one would expect Loup to have lost some trust.

Too often we've seen the arms we trust in the pen in a game where we seemingly have a comfortable lead, yet he will put in the arms we don't trust as much is a very close game, either we're tied or behind by a run or so.

Now there could be a match.  Jays have bats, Mets have pitching.  No idea which bats they'd want.
With d'Arnaud on the DL (as always) their catchers have been pathetic.  Navarro would be an offensive upgrade.  2 of 3 regular OF have OPS+ sub 90 as do their bench OF.  I wouldn't be shocked if they asked for Bautista but more realistically Colabello and some prospects they could flip to someone else for another hitter.  It'd be a heck of a risk for a team in contention to do but desperate times (on both ends).

my defense of gibby's bullpen management really just comes from this:

1.9war (6th)
90era- (7th)
91fip- (6th)
89xfip- (3rd)
3.03siera (3rd)

which is especially impressive considering their preseason expectations, and the fact that his 2 most reliable relievers and entire rotation imploded to start the season.

and if we look at guys just on current 40man rosters:

2.2war (6th)
81era- (6th)
86fip- (3rd)
85xfip- (2nd)
2.91siera (2nd)

I have a really hard time criticizing gibber just because every reliever other than one 20yr old rookie has blown up in high lev situations.

"....Too often we've seen the arms we trust in the pen in a game where we seemingly have a comfortable lead, yet he will put in the arms we don't trust as much is a very close game, either we're tied or behind by a run or so....."

This is the heart of the issue:  the rapidly fluctuating "trust" that we feel in various pitchers as their performance oscillates from good to bad and good again. We began the season by trusting Cecil and Castro and not trusting Osuna or Hendriks.  Later it was the reverse.  The simple explanation is that the relievers who began the season (except Osuna) have been highly inconsistent, so their roles have constantly shifted.  There's very little clarity on "high-leverage pitcher" versus "low-leverage pitcher" (except for Osuna and perhaps now Schultz).  So of course Gibbons seems inconsistent, since he's constantly juggling the roles and situations of the pitchers.  Should he ignore several weeks of mediocre performance from Cecil or Castro and just keep going with them in high-leverage situations in order to be consistent?  Should he ignore the fact that Schultz is suddenly one of his most reliable pitchers?  He's got to shift roles as performance shifts.  And our level of "trust" keeps shifting with them.

what happens to teams that trade for Aces?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/whats-happened-to-teams-that-traded-for-aces/

Matt Harvey likely costs us Donaldson. If we are lucky we can move Encarnacion and prospects but I doubt it.

He's got to shift roles as performance shifts.  And our level of "trust" keeps shifting with them.

Every manager has a different level of reactivity to changes in results.  Some are highly reactive and some are more contemplative.  In the particular case of Hendriks, he had an excellent month of June (and did not allow a run), had a 3 inning decent outing on July 2 (one run) and then had one bad outing on July 8 (5 batters faced, 0 walks, 0 home runs, 1 strike out, 2 line drives, 3 ground balls and 1 fly ball, which translated to 3 singles, 2 runs and 2 outs).  He hasn't pitched since.  According to BBRef, Hendriks' performance in high-leverage situations has been pretty good (28 batters faced, 0 walks, 10 strikeouts, 1 home run but a poor slash line due to a BABIP of .647). 

A manager need not change roles for a pitcher on this kind of evidence.  It's a matter of the manager's particular perspective.  Gibbons is certainly not alone in doing something like this.  That doesn't mean that everyone can be expected to think that it's a good idea.

the only problem i have dismissing that small sample as babip is that at least a couple huge hits that i remember came on absolute meatballs. if gibber asks martin what happened and russ tells him that pitches usually breaking on the corners are suddenly turning into deadred meatballs in high lev si5uations then the skipper has every reason to be nervous, especially if the pitcher is looking or sounding rattled.

the truth is 40ip of sheltered relief work is not near big enough sample to say that hendriks is a clear choice for high lev work, especially given the other options have interesting numbers and arms too.

"what happens to teams that trade for Aces?"

Therefore, in summary we shouldn't sell the farm as trading for that ACE since it isn't going to get us the WS that some seem to think it will?

"....He hasn't pitched since...."

But for multiple reasons.  Not purely because of the manager's reactivity.

Things to remember - in 1992 when the Jays traded for David Cone the frustration level for coming close but no cigar was extremely high - the jays were in or close to playoffs for 6+ years.  At that point there was no question the horses were there to get the Jays into the playoffs it was just fine tuning (and that was a major addition).

In 1994 to present we haven't seen an 89 win season let alone a consistent contender.  Thus while we all want to see something happen the question has to be will this piece be able to get the Jays to the promised playoff land or just enhance another frustrating year?  Generally anything added now will add no more than 1 or 2 wins to the total - only useful if the team is super close to the playoffs.  So if AA feels that will be the difference then go for it but that hasn't been the case since the glory years of 83-93.

Gibbons may have legitimate reasons for preferring Schultz to Hendriks, at this particular moment, but the complete absence of work for Hendriks for 2 weeks is strange and counterproductive. 

"what happens to teams that trade for Aces?"

Therefore, in summary we shouldn't sell the farm as trading for that ACE since it isn't going to get us the WS that some seem to think it will?

Interesting article that uglyone posted. thx. As the author admits, it is a bit simplistic but still quite interesting, and I suppose the conclusions you draw depend on your perspective. To me, the MLB playoffs are a crap shoot...which pitcher gets hot on what day, balls bouncing fair vs foul, etc. I think the more critical opportunity is making the playoffs. And in his simple analysis, 17 of 21 teams did. Who knows the number that would have regardless, but I'd take those odds. (...of course, as long as the price is reasonable..)

....particularly for a team that has never really played a meaningful game in Sept. in the last 23 years

Schultz has been excellent of late.

and why did we claim Ty Kelly?

"....why did we claim Ty Kelly?...."

It's not clear, but we do know that he hates Nickelback. (Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you.)  See his Twitter bio:
 https://twitter.com/tykelly11

Obviously Ty Kelly will take over third base in Buffalo after the impending Matt Hague-for-Matt Harvey trade.

"Obviously Ty Kelly will take over third base in Buffalo after the impending Matt Hague-for-Matt Harvey trade"

Nice one Johnny! Although unless there's some Canadian born players included I say nay nay nay.

Hague is a player that we should find a way to use or deal. I feel his chances of major league success are good.

We claimed Ty Kelly, because as a team rule, everyone is claimed who is on the waiver wire. Didn't you get the memo?

Colabello at first and Valencia in left-field with Gray pitching.  Gray has negligible splits either way, so I guess this is about giving both of them back-to-back starts with Kazmir going tomorrow.  I wouldn't do it, but I think that is the explanation.

Shi Davidi reports that Hutchison is questionable for tomorrow's start with flu-like symptoms.  If he can't go, Dickey will get the start. 

Any word why Smoak is sitting and Colabello and Valencia are both playing against Gray?

anyone have a read on doubront yet?

Just read Mike's suggested explanation. If that's correct, I wouldn't do it either.

Gray ain't fooling nobody tonight.

I miss Smoak.

I am not one for doom, but not getting to Gray doesn't bode well.

Joe Siddall just stated that members of the media were also asking Gibbons why he was sitting Justin Smoak against Gray today, but didn't cite Gibbons' answer. I didn't see the Donaldson to Colabello throw, but he is implying that the unearned tun may have been avoided if Gibbons' had the better first baseman on the field.

he might have blocked it, but that was an awful throw that kinda skidded instead of bounced.

though smoak woulda been on his forehand at least.

but man does felix live up in the zone.

and cola just saved reyes an error with a sweet stretch down the line.

Just read Mike's suggested explanation. If that's correct, I wouldn't do it either.

He has no good choices in LF (vs. a RHP). If it's true that he's trying to give Valencia a chance in consecutive games, then sure, why not. It's as good a plan as any.

Doubront has had some bad luck on ground balls tonight.  But he's also had some good luck on hard-hit flies to the outfield that could have been a lot worse.  Overall he hasn't looked good tonight.  He's definitely not the reason for the decision to put Sanchez in the bullpen.

I hear what you're saying about playing Valencia in left TUIB, but it doesn't explain at all why Smoak is not playing first base, which is what others are wondering.

Doubront was kinda ok but man i really didn't enjoy watching him pitch. seemed like a struggle from the start.

Everyone remembers Smoak's two-homer game on Canada Day.  But if you set aside that one game, his hitting has been quite poor over the past 25 games.  Over that same period, Colabello has a .900 OPS.   I can understand why Gibbons would prefer to have Colabello in the lineup -- perhaps not every day, but many of the days anyway. Tonight he very nearly had another extra-base hit.  It took an incredible catch by Smolinski to prevent it.

On the other hand, I agree that Smoak would probably have scooped the throw that Colabello failed to scoop.  It looked eminently scoopable.

There's always a tradeoff between hitting and defence.  You can't always play the best defender.  I think the decision to play Colabello over Smoak tonight was perfectly okay.  These kinds of decisions don't always work out perfectly, but they're understandable.

and now danny V gives us a bigtime HR from the bottom of the order to go along with a nice catch in left.

every game is big now but with the twins losing we could be within 2 of a playoff spot if we can come back in this one.

alright jose. he's up over 100.

here's the high lev at bat.

That's now 5 home runs against RHP by Valencia this year, and an OPS far above .900 against RHP.

I do admit it's still a small sample size.

Smoak's lifetime hitting record against Sonny Gray: 1-for-12 with two walks and six strikeouts

his hitting has been quite poor over the past 25 games.

Smoak's OPS in his last 15 games is .925. He is a much better first baseman than Colabello in a game where you are probably not going to score a lot of runs. I think playing Smoak was a no-brainer. Hopefully it's a mistake that won't cost another one-run game.

"....He is a much better first baseman than Colabello in a game where you are probably not going to score a lot of runs..."

If you're not going to score a lot of runs, there's all the more reason to have the best offensive lineup.  Smoak looks good over the past 15 games purely because of that one good game.  Colabello has been outhitting Smoak for most of the season, and Smoak has hit terribly against Sonny Gray over his career. If you want to play the small-sample game, Smoak looks good over the past 15 games but terrible over the past 14 games.  Smoak is adequate defensively, but he's not a defensive wizard, according to all the assessments tat I've been reading since his arrival in the off-season.  You're entitled to your opinion, but it's insulting to call it a "no-brainer."

no excuse not to score at least one against this bullpen.

put on your big boy pants guys.

Smoak has hit terribly against Sonny Gray over his career

CF, if Gibbons made his decision based upon 12 at bats, then it was indeed a very poor decision. It is easy to see why he has the career record that he does if that was the basis of his decision.

russ might finally be coming out of his slump.

Funny you should mention an almost extra base hit. Since July 2 - Smoak has 3 and Colabello has 3. Colabello's OPS of 900 is pretty empty - Smoak should be at 1B everyday. This, along with his pen uagae, seems like typical Gibby. Oh well.

Who said Gibbons made the decision about Smoak on the basis of one single factor?  I cited a bunch of likely reasons.  Every manager considers a lot of factors together.   Obviously you hate Gibbons and his entire career -- fine, hate on.

come on pillar just a bloop now.

oh man how hard must it have been not to send him there?

Obviously you hate Gibbons

I don't 'hate' Gibbons. I don't even know him. I don't think he's a good manager. I don't think I'm alone in that view. Those who hold that view are not likely motivated by 'hate', but by not seeing enough in his managing to warrant approval. You raised the 12 at bats that Smoak had as (a) sound reason to not play Smoak. I don't think that is a sound reason at all.

well guys valencia's had a helluva game at least.

Bats is finally locking in. He wouldn't have taken that walk a month or two ago.

let's go EE.

"...It is easy to see why he has the career record that he does if that was the basis of his decision..."

What is this if not a sneering comment on the entire managing career of John Gibbons?  Especially since nobody here (except you) had suggested that the decision to play Colabello ahead of Smoak was motivated purely by one single factor:  Smoak's lifetime record against Gray.   (I had cited it as one of several factors, so it's odd that you would interpret it as the only factor for the decision.)

 

that's gotta be the most frustrating successful 9th inning comeback ever.

What is this if not a sneering comment on the entire managing career of John Gibbons?

Rather than a 'sneering' comment on Gibbons' career, it's an objective comment on an objectively below average career. His under-performance of Pythagwins this year is nothing new at all. As i posted once before, this has been the case every year since he returned, notwithstanding that no other major league team has under-performed Pythagorus every year over that period. Only Toronto under his stewardship. That is nothing new, as without looking it up I believe that he under-performed Pythagorus virtually every year, if not every year, in his previous stint. His one-run game record, which is extraordinary over his career in the negative, has been discussed elsewhere. I think that rather than suggesting that others' views are based upon irrational emotion, it is necessary to show why the fierce loyalty of some fans to this particular manager, who apparently cannot be criticized without accusations of 'hatred', is not the irrational view.

holy crap what a throw. best throw of navarro's career.

Of course Gibbons can be freely criticized.  People do it all the time.  But if you begin by using phrases like "no-brainer,"  you will always seem to be motivated by irrational emotion.

In the particular game under discussion tonight, the Jays were facing one of the best pitchers in baseball.  Their own starting pitcher was one of the worst in baseball.  Yet despite that massive handicap, they are tied in extra innings.  Rationally one might give a little credit to the manager.

OUT

ball touched glove first.

****

Really nice play by Reyes with a strong throw. I can't help but think if the ump called him out originally we'd still be playing.

I second the comment on the most frustrating 9th inning comeback ever. I bet JD and EE agree.

I agree, the ball arrived in the glove before the runner reached the bag.  But it was so close that the difference was micro-micro-seconds.  And calls are not overturned unless the evidence is very clear and conclusive. 

Bases loaded in the 9th inning, nobody out, the Jays with the heart of their lineup hitting, and Clippard pitching terribly.  Donaldson struck out on what should have been ball 4, but otherwise he had a good battling effort.  Encarnacion and Navarro had decent efforts as well.  They should have scored 2 or 3 runs and won the game, but that's the luck of baseball.  It was a good game.

"Hague is a player that we should find a way to use or deal. I feel his chances of major league success are good."

Unless he brings back an Ace, his main value is the negligible drop in production if an injury to Donaldson occurs.

"it is necessary to show why the fierce loyalty of some fans to this particular manager, who apparently cannot be criticized without accusations of 'hatred', is not the irrational view"

Or, perhaps the third option where some fans are simply tired of the incessant nitpicking of every move Gibbons makes and the willingness of that faction to lay blame for every failing at the man's feet. There is nothing objective about choosing to believe that the team's Pythagorean record or history in one-run games are proof Gibbons is a poor manager when the smartest people in baseball have yet to establish causation beyond dumb luck despite having looked for an alternative explanation for a couple of decades.

Mike Matheny and John Farrell might possibly be two of the worst managers I have ever seen tactically, are panned by analysts constantly, and yet one has a World Series ring and the other 3 appearances in the NLCS. Its baseball, games are won and lost by the players. It wasn't Gibbons who went 2-10 with RISP, left 11 men on base, committed 2 throwing errors and lost a game with his best reliever on the mound on an infield single by speedster Ike Davis.

I can't think of another time when a guy was fired for poor performance and re-hired by the same employer a few years later. And its not like he was successful somewhere else in the interval.

This team is stuck in some kind of Groundhog Day scenario. I went to sleep with them down 3-1 in the sixth and I just knew they would come back and lose 3-2, or tie it at three and lose 4-3 later. It's like being stuck in a horror movie where you know what's going to happen and you can't prevent it.

.500 with a +94 run differential. Shoot me now and end the nightmare.

Emotionally, I've conceded the division to the Yankess - that BP of theirs makes it a 6 inning game for the opposition - they've learnt well from the Royals - Is it really worth selling the farm for a shot at a 1 game playoff? I say, a small move or stand pat.

IT seems AA and his deputy were in Buffalo to watch Norris struggle last night - reminds me of all the trips AA took to Lansing in 2012 to watch the Lansing trio - I bet Norris gets shipped out before July 31st, the site loves the move - and it's Syndergaard all over again.

Should be "this site loves the move"

Career record in one-run games and career record vs. Pythagoras does not tell you a whole lot about a manager.  Almost all managers are in the -15 to +15 range vs. Pythagoras over their careers and the ones who excel in one-run games usually have very good clubs to work with.  The notable exceptions include Bruce Bochy who was +32 vs. Pythagoras and who has a terrific record in one-run games despite managing teams that were at the .500 level over his career. Tommy Lasorda was -33 over his career vs. Pythagoras and -15 in one-run games despite having good clubs.  All of which is to say that Gibbons is more like Lasorda than like Bochy.  You can win with a manager like that, but it means that you need a little luck and a little Kirk Gibson magic.

Some of us are frustrated when a player makes a boneheaded play on the basepaths or in the field.  Others (and I count myself as one) are more frustrated by poor managerial design.  It's not just baseball.  I have a lot more patience with a mistake made in the moment than poor institutional design (the new rapid transit line to Pearson Airport, for instance, crosses the Eglinton line but does not have a connection to it; this drives me crazy).  It isn't personal to Gibbons who is probably a perfectly nice guy but just isn't the greatest manager around. 

The ending of last night's game got me wondering. Are hitters starting to adapt to the widespread shifting?  Ike Davis' ground ball would have been a routine 6-3 putout with normal positioning and Reyes made a fine play to make it a bang-bang call at first base.  It reminded me of Lucas Duda's flare to left off Cecil with Carrera pulled way over late in the game.  Jose Bautista has been doing this kind of thing for at least a year and a half (going the other way with two strikes and occasionally late in the game against a tough pitcher). 

"If you're not going to score a lot of runs, there's all the more reason to have the best offensive lineup."

It's interesting how we all think differently. My reaction is that in a low scoring game, I'm going with my best defense rather than my best offense.

"....the new rapid transit line to Pearson Airport, for instance, crosses the Eglinton line but does not have a connection to it; this drives me crazy...."

Well, in fact this might be an example of the kind of nitpicking and second-guessing that most baseball managers must routinely suffer.  I'm not an engineer or an urban planner, but it's clear from global experience that airport trains are normally designed as express services -- they are not a "milk run" that stops at several places along the way, because otherwise they would be too slow and they wouldn't attract people away from their cars. If you look at the Heathrow Express in London, for example, it could have been engineered with various stations at the tube lines that it crosses, but that would turn it into a "milk run" service.  Instead it has zero stops between Heathrow and its terminus at Paddington, and that's the main reason why it attracts passengers (and their bulky baggage) who would otherwise take a car.  In other cities, when there's an airport train, there are sometimes one or two stops between the airport and the final downtown terminus, but they don't stop at every potential junction. 

I see that the new Toronto airport express does have two intermediate stops:  Bloor and Weston.  Plus of course the Union Station terminus.  If they kept adding more stations at every potential crossing, the speed would be reduced and fewer people would leave their cars.

In other words, it's not a blatant case of "poor design" as you allege.  There is a rationale behind it, even if you disagree with it.  Similarly with most managerial decisions in baseball, there is usually a rationale that the critics don't acknowledge. Critics prefer to see it as "poor design" or stupidity or a blatant mistake, but they often don't acknowledge that there's been some thinking behind it and multiple reasons for the decision, even if the decision doesn't work.

The Weston stop does not intersect with a subway/RT.  It's a dumb, dumb decision to put a station there and not at Eglinton.  The Bloor line is already overcrowded and you're putting in a spanking new line on Eglinton which has the potential to relieve stress from the Bloor line; by putting a connection from the airport line to the Bloor line and not the Eglinton line you are adding to the stress instead.

London has a completely different rapid transit picture from Toronto.  The city is extremely well-served by a very mature system and a direct line from Heathrow to downtown may make some sense in this context.  In other modern cities, with enviable rapid transit systems, the train from the airport does have a number of stops on the way to downtown.  Copenhagen has a wonderful system like this.  Paris' system is functional and at least meets the needs of the city. 

Anyways, back to baseball. 

"....by putting a connection from the airport line to the Bloor line and not the Eglinton line you are adding to the stress instead...."

It makes perfect sense for the airport express to connect to the busy subway line, rather than the less busy line. It's supposed to serve people.  You don't use the airport express as a way of funneling people to the less convenient and less popular line.  The goal of the airport express is not to reduce pressure on the Bloor line -- the goal is to encourage people to take the train to the airport, which means serving them where they are, not where you want them to be.

How about it being $20-25? Here, in Van, it's $9, and you can go anywhere that the Skytrain goes. Going to the airport? Depending where you are it will cost anywhere from $2.75 to $5.50.

This isn't the place to debate urban rapid transit.  I used it as an example.

To return to baseball, the statistics suggest that Tommy Lasorda was a below-average manager gifted with good talent over a 20 year managing career.  His teams won two World Series, and he is in the Hall of Fame.  The problem is that the Blue Jays of 2015 (or 2005 or 2010) are not the Dodgers of 1976-1996.  Their competition is tougher and their resources are more limited. 

I think a key thing to think about with managers is what really matters - who you put on the field each game, not how you shuffle things during it or very minor items like batting order.

Playing a guy like Colabello in the field is ensuring you have a replacement level player on the field but if he is DH then you have a well above replacement level guy there.  I think Gibbons is hitting a blind eye to a players issues while enjoying that players pluses.  Much like with Adam Lind who he kept letting hit LHP because he hit RHP so well that it didn't make sense to him that Lind couldn't hit a LHP any better than Goins could.  For maximum success you need to give players the chance to succeed and minimize their opportunities to fail.  Cola in the field is asking for failure.  Same in the pen - figure out who can and cannot handle pressure and try to keep the guys who cannot handle it away from close games.

In fairness to Gibbons, I don't think Colabello at first base is a replacement level player (as he is in left-field).  I do think that Smoak is a considerably better player against a RHP though.  Valencia in left-field against a RHP is a replacement level player.  It should be noted though that how good or bad Carrera is in left-field can be reasonably debated, and so Gibbons does not have great options (with the best option being in Buffalo for the time being). 

Whatever Gibbons does, they add up to a game, or maybe two, over a season. 

There's no right/wrong in this discussion. The team would be better off with a better manager, yes, because there are better managers, but Gibbons is a good enough manager for this team to win and better than most others in the league. The real issue with this team not taking the next step lies with AA/Beeston/Rogers. We don't know and maybe never will know if AA's hands have been tied, but the bottom line is, it's his job to put a winner on the field, it's his job to have a proper LF for his manager to start. It's his job to have a better bullpen COMPARED to his rivals like the Yankees. SP, injuries, etc etc...that's all on him even though it's unlucky etc etc - he needs to forecast these things. I'm shocked that Mark B is pitching this good at this age, imagine if he declined faster like Dickey...

I think AA gets off too easily because when he does good on trades and pick-ups, he does outstandingly good. The thing is, even though he's made some amazing trades, he hasn't put a team on the field that adds up to a contender, whether it should on paper or not, and that ultimately falls more on him than Gibbons. Compare AA to Duquette (not the best GM, just a regular GM)...most would prefer AA because he's made those splashy moves and "ninja-hypnotized" other GMs. The reality, however, is that in real life, not on paper, Duquette has made less splashy/steal moves but has delivered the goods in multiple years, and on a tighter budget.

It's like Tyson vs Hollyfield, Tyson's raw, electric, a better athlete and has more potential, but Hollyfield was the better boxer who won the championship and kept it. Now I definitely prefer AA over Duquette, for the same reasons as everyone else, but I'm just conceeding that it's not good enough to have a smarter GM who makes the better moves on paper at the end of the day - I'm at the point where I'd rather have the 'dumber" and less flashy GM that actually puts a winner together.

Seriously, how did AA not properly address the pitching on this team? If you can't sign a FA then figure it out, trade from a strength to trade for a quality SP. St. Louis traded Heyward for Miller, that's the type of trade AA should have made, dangling some of his prized power hitters for a SP upgrade. But he didn't because he wants to ninja his way through the trades....I won't pretend like I know the solution, but I do know that I would put more of the blame on AA than Gibbons, much much more of it.

Last thing, I don't want championships as a fan, I want sustained winners with a chance at a championship. I would much rather prefer 10-15 years of winning with multiple playoff appearances vs 2 playoff appearances with or without a championship, and losing or being mediocre for the next 10 years...no thanks. So what...don't trade our prospects and hope the pitching rights itself...oh man what a season of headaches. Then again, I'm not watching Menechinio/Berg/Howie Clark manning the infield so...it could be worse...it could be a lot worse...

AA put together a team with a run differential of +94.

Again, he put together a team that should win with that run differential, on paper. His team should be in first place by a ton, but they're not. Tigers should be doing much better, but they're not. KC Royals should be nowhere near as good as they are, but they are. Results matter more than predictors...that's the point, and unless you feel comfortable seeing AA do zilch, and expect the Jays to leap frog EVERYBODY in baseball since they have the best run differential...unless you really believe that, then you really shouldn't be stating that "AA put together a team with a run differential of +94" as if it means anything significant.

Baseball is a game of statistics and wizardry. In the end, you are putting players in the field that give you statistically best chance to win, but no guarantees what the baseball gods want each day. It is unlike any other sport that way.

"Baseball is a game of statistics and wizardry. In the end, you are putting players in the field that give you statistically best chance to win, but no guarantees what the baseball gods want each day. It is unlike any other sport that way."

You're saying that baseball is game where you use stats that predict you will win, but none of those predictors matter in the end because there is a random element affecting the outcome anyway. If that were true, and I'm not denying that it isn't, then baseball is NOT a game of statistics which means you need more than statistics, run differentials, projections to win more games. For instance, having a starting LF on your team, having a pitcher who can be consistent on the road and at home, etc. I guess I agree with your statement entirely, but wish the Blue Jays management would put more weight on the wizardry element instead of the stats...addressing basic needs that would help the luck into their favor.

Kazmir was just traded to the Astros.

Nottingham is a 20yr old apparently legit C having a monstrous year comparable to Alford (minus maybe the speed and plate discipline). nice pickup by billy imo. similar level as barreto i think.

Comparable Jays players to those dealt, would be Pentecost (maybe) and Tom Robson. Would you trade those 2 for Kasmir? I would.

might be closer to Alford & Labourt.

Not having to face Kazmir is a nice little surprise to end the series... ESPN is saying that Drew Pomeranz will start and he hasn't started or pitched more than 2 innings since mid-May... need to take advantage of this and win the series.

IMO the untouchables are Alford, Pompay and Hoffman. I was opposed in giving up Norris, since he's our only legit LHP prospect, but if it nets us a nice 1/2 SP, go for it! I've learned that I feel too attached to our prospects lol.

The score suggest a trade w/ SD:

To SD: Reyes, Norris, Pompay and Tepera
To TOR: Shields, Justin Upton, Clint Barmes and Joquin Benoit.

Who says no?

Not even close imo - Nottingham is a future 1B & I don't see much plate discipline - Mengden is a likely reliever - BTW, I won't trade Pentecost straight up for Kazmir & I wasn't a fan of the selection.-

Olney tweets the jays tried on Kazmir.

all reports i read on nottingham is that he has a very good chance to stick at C defensively. maybe even plus.

Dave Cameron at Fangraphs suggests that Iwakuma would make an interesting trade acquisition at a lower level than Samardzija/Kazmir et al.  I agree.

Dalton Pompey has doubled and walked in his first two plate appearances for Buffalo.  I hope that he catches a plane to Seattle after the game in time to face Felix tomorrow night.  He has faced him before...

It's tough to gauge what Nottingham is without knowing what his defense is like.

Which ones did you read, Ugly? I'm getting a different impression on the two I've read so far (Fangraphs and mlb.com), which go from "... with the elements to be able to stick behind the plate as an offensive-oriented catcher" and "Whether Nottingham can stay behind the plate remains to be seen, but he has gotten better as a catcher."

I suspect that Beane plans to move Nottingham out from behind the plate, a la Donaldson.  He was considered to be a very fine hitting prospect at the time of the 2013 draft, perhaps in the vein of Rowdy Tellez, and it may indeed be the case that working on his defence didn't help his offensive development.

If it was even an option then the Jays should have matched that. I like Nottingham (have him in one of my ottoneu leagues) but he's not Brett Phillips, Appel, or AJ Reed etc... He's clearly a tier 2 prospect and one that's pretty far from the majors at that. Mengden could have been any tier 3 prospect IMO.

Brilliant move for the 'stros because it gets the player in a week ahead of the deadline, sends a message of confidence to their players and doesn't really hurt their internal growth going forward. Exactly the kind of move the Jays should make.

from draft day:

http://m.astros.mlb.com/news/article/49930238/

""Defensively, he has the tools necessary to become a steady receiver, and he has a good arm.

"He's not a polished catcher, but there's a big arm and we hope [Astros] Player Development can take care of the rest with those tools," Elias said.

For a catcher, he has excellent speed, having stolen 16 bases in 18 attempts during his senior season. That kind of variety makes him an intriguing prospect, especially at a position as demanding as catcher.

"Any time you can get a power-hitting catcher who is really athletic with a strong frame, you're happy," Elias said."

and:

http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2013-mlb-draft/2013/6/7/4407250/2013-draft-sixth-round-pick-jacob-nottingham-c-redlands-hs-ca

""If you want some upside and some projection, this kid has it. He's definitely a project, but the upside definitely there. At first look, he looks like a right fielder as he stands 6-3 and is very lean, yet strong at 200 pounds. He then steps into the batters box and has a tall stance and you see a guy with power. Then, you see him put on catcher's gear and his defensive value shoots up!

He's an athlete. He's a pure athlete. He was offered a scholarship to play tight end at Arizona but chose a baseball scholarship to Oklahoma. Now he's faced with the decision to play for the Astros. I've already described his frame, but now you can understand the level of athleticism people see with him. He moves very well and will only improve now that he's focused on baseball.

At the plate, the swing is long. He's going to have to shorten up his swing and get his hands lower. But, his strength and height create very good leverage to create some loft in his swing and project for power. It's actually quite easy to see a scenario where he provides plus power. The batting average won't be great, but it can be good enough. He also has a pretty good eye and discipline. So, even though there are holes in his swing, he could have a pretty good OBP down the road.

Defensively is where the major project aspect comes in. No matter how good of a receiver, blocker, any catching aspect you are out of high school, it's a long way to being a good one at the major league level. There's a lot to learn. He has the athleticism, he has the understanding and is smart enough to take it all on though. He currently shows some good receiving skills and has a strong arm. He currently is posting pop times in the 1.9 range and could get better as he cleans up his throwing motion.

If it doesn't work out, he runs well enough and has the arm for right field."


then there was this article last month:


http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2015/06/11/6th-round-pick-nottingham-could-be-answer-to-take-over-for-castro-in-2017/

"When you take a high school catcher in the draft, there’s a lot of things have to go right for that player to get to the big leagues,” general manager Jeff Luhnow said. “I remember hearing the video and watching the scouts talk about him and seeing him that first year in Florida, and I was thinking, ‘This is a guy that has a chance, but we’ll have to wait and see how it develops.’

“He has taken advantage of the opportunity this year and has turned into a top prospect based on both what he’s doing behind the dish as well as at the plate.”

Nottingham by phone said he would consider himself an offensive catcher, but that isn’t a label he wants stuck on him. He’s thrown out 14 of 26 would-be base stealers, an excellent 54 percent caught rate. The big league average caught-stealing rate this season is 33 percent."

and this one:http://climbingtalshill.com/2015/06/22/quad-cities-report-astros-future-catcher-jacob-nottingham/

"Nottingham is a 20-year-old catcher out of Redlands High School in California, who was drafted in the sixth round of the 2013 draft. He is a 6’3”and 227-pound backstop who has good defensive skills and is showing strong offensive potential. If he keeps playing at his current level, he should be moving up to Lancaster and the prospect lists."

It is tough to call Nottingham's future, but he's having a legit monster breakout offensively as a young 20 year old in high A ball.   Pentacost's stock has dropped while Nottingham's got helium, so that might be a decent comp.  include boyd for mengden and we could have made that deal happen?  I would have done that deal in a second - great move for Houston.  Oakland woudlve gotten a comp pick for Kazmir's QO, so it doesn't seem like this was a huge package.  Perhaps not such a sellers market after all.  Hopefully this calms all the crazy talk about Stroman or Hoffman for a rental. 

I'm worried AA gets a bit too cute when the league knows he's trying to deal - like the Ervin Santana fiasco last year.  He's better as the 'ninja GM' when a move is least expected - Donaldson, Wells, etc. 

but at least we don't have to face Kazmir - bring on Arnold Leon!

MLB.com ranks the prospects going to A's as #'s 19 and 22....not even remotely close to Alford who could be arguably #1.....obviously AA was only willing to offer less for a rental. I do concede that the catcher involved has improved from that prior 19 ranking but still not even remotely comparable to Alford.

mlb.com ranked Alford our #18 prospect this year.

Yeah, Nottingham is a lot higher than 18th right now, he's had the same kind of breakout season as Alford.

so I wonder what AA offering for rental....something like Labourt and Ney...or less? Probably Ney and Robson. Throw in Smoral.

Bowden reports Jays and Royals all in on Cueto but I think he is full of ****. I would be shocked if Jays would give up anything for Cueto as he is damaged goods imo....and if his next start is not a good one, not team will be interested.

If a rental, I think AA targets Haren. For controllable pitching, he is likely talking to Padres and Brewers.

I'd be interested to see what rival evaluators thought of Nottingham currently, since there could be some rose-coloured vision coming from the Astros' Scouting Director, their GM, and a fan site. Not to say that their opinions are useless (they could conversely be leading indicators of things that haven't caught on in the industry at large), but they could be more optimistic than should be warranted.

well we might want to include Beane's opinion too. i'd guess he sees nottingham as a similar asset to barreto.

Carlos Carrasco is being discussed by Jays/Indians (according to Jeff Passan)?  There's a name I haven't heard mentioned before.

Be still, my beating heart.  May it be so, and quickly. 

If we had Beane's opinion, sure. Right now, we only know he valued him, but we don't know for what and how much, specifically. Since I doubt Barretto projects to be a plus defensive catcher, I'm not really sure of his relevance as a point of comparison.

And don't worry, Ugly. That last line was just me poking a little fun.

Carrasco scares me.

a tantalizing package but has never quite put it all together.

reminds me more of a morrow or Buchholz than the kind if dependable arm imo we need most.

don't worry spiffy i'm never quite as serious as i come across.

i still feel bad that a poster here took my "old cranks" post seriously.

I didn't think so. I just didn't want it to be confused with me being obtuse when in fact I was smirking while typing. In an IM world a smiley would have been in order, but I always feel weird putting one of those on here. Given that I'm nearly perpetually glib, my posts would otherwise be littered with colons and closing brackets.

Carlos Carrasco has struck out 10 batters and walked 2 batters per 9IP since he moved to the rotation about a year ago.  He has not thrown more than 135 innings in any of the previous 4 years, and I wonder if he will remain effective for 180-200 innings. I'd be interested.

Oh, and you can put me in the Carlos Carrasco yes please group. Things really seemed to click for him in the middle of last year, and it's held to this point this year. I wouldn't quite give as much for him as I would for some others given the lack of history, but I definitely would talk to see if the conversation turned into something I was only mildly uncomfortable with. Of course, if Kluber and his over 7 dominant innings per start were available, well, that would make for a very interesting conversation.

No Hutch today.  Is it really flu or does this mean he's about to be traded?

Carrasco would certainly be a very interesting acquisition and very much like the Donaldson deal (premium asset under a cost controlled salary arrangement). But the talent cost of Carrasco would have to be incredibly high - Cleveland locked him up to a very team friendly deal with two team friendly options. He made 39th on Dave Cameron's top 50 most valuable players list at Fangraphs. I shudder to think about what it would take to acquire him.

yeah spiffy i have a hard enough time using smilies when texting females, let alone here.

though it would probably save us plenty of tension if we did.

I think the pricetag on Carrasco would be quite high....and yet here he is at age 28 without ever showing he can start for a full season, and with a below average ERA in only 6.0i0/gs.

might he finally turn into a legit top drawer SP? sure. but i have a much harder time dreaming on FIPs when the pitcher is in his late 20s than when he's in his earky 20s.

It's important to note on the IP/G number that he left his April 14th start 2 batters (and no outs) in when he got hit in the face. Remove that start, and he's at 6 1/3.

Also, no matter his age, he just recently transformed into the pitcher he is now - under 9% swinging strikes before, and ~13.4% in the last year and a half. Throw in a significant bump in his velocity, three swing and miss pitches (in addition to solid rates on his crisper fastballs), and some bad Indians defense, and I'm less worried about the fip differential than I'd normally be.

Of course, like anything, it always depends on the price...

twitter tells me we may have a deal done.

The sample size of excellence is starting to get fairly large - its over 250 innings in the last year and a half. Personally, I like the idea of backing up the Brinks truck for position players not pitchers - they are, after all, one thrown pitch away from oblivion. I would understand the interest though - if the Jays are actually talking to Cleveland.

So, it looks like the A's decided on a Charlie Wholestaff game in light of the trade.  It'd be a good time for Justin Smoak to be brought on. 

Death of a Thousand Dribbles.

Carrasco is exactly the kind of asset that is still undervalued in MLB - his advanced stats look good, but his sustained success is lacking.  great contract through 2018 - this is a deal similar to donaldson, and if it happens, i expect a donaldson style package.

also in keeping with my earlier post, this would be a ninja GM style move.  go, ninja GM.

really nice to see martin bust his slump like this. i was starting to worry.

How can dickey be 0 and 7 on the road? We have been seriously unlucky this year

Wouldn't surprise me if a deal is announced after the game, given that aa thathas stated that he will deal off the 25 man roster

IMO, that is a steep price for Kazmir. No wonder the Jays haven't made a trade.

Wonderful outing from Dickey today.

The key was not getting into a one or two run game. Same as it ever was.

how is that not just luck? 

Does Dickey really need 4 days between starts? Can he find his groove and throw in every series until the end?

I think he actually does. He's not throwing a Candiotti/Wakefield knuckler out there.

Also congrats to Bo Schultz for his 1st MLB save.

Extra bonus congrats for doing it quickly and easily.

Where was Carrasco in 2012? Injured?

My recollection is that Carrasco is a TJ surgery survivor.

My recollection is that Carrasco is a TJ surgery survivor.

What colour ribbon do you wear for that? I'm guessing green.

97 games in with a +97 run differential. We outscore the other guys by a run a game.

A breakdown of the team's record:

All games: 49-48 (W-L), +97 (run diff)

Games decided by 5+ runs: 21-6, +106
Games decided by 4+ runs: 30-10, +126
Games decided by 1-3 runs: 19-38, -29
Games decided by 1 run: 10-20, -10

If we look at their run scoring and take away add-on runs (by both teams), to either reduce the maximum margin of victory to 4 runs or to 3 runs:

All runs: 513-416, +97
Excluding 5+ add-ons: 455-404, +51
Excluding 4+ add-ons: 425-394, +31

It's no secret that the team's run scoring has not been efficiently distributed, that they are excellent at piling on runs with little incremental value, or they'd be challenging St. Louis for the best record in baseball. What the cause of this inefficiency is -- bad luck, sun spots, Gibbons, Anthapolous, Bobby Mattick -- I'll leave for others to speculate. It's just bizarre to see such an incredible per game run differential (+1.0) attached to a .500 team.

97 run differential kind of describes our pitching and our hitting. It seems like we score big or not at all. And our pitching seems to be feast or famine as well. The stars are aligning to a 500 record... sigh...

I will always take the team with the +97 RD and a .500 record over the +20 RD and a .550 record going forward.  The only issue as I see it is that they've put themselves in a bit of a hole due to bad luck, and need to keep up the RD pace and hope that the record catches up.  A starter (or two) would really help.  Figuring out a way to upgrade both the Doubrount and Hutchison spots in the rotation would be nice. 

Number of games by runs scored, not run differential (Jays and opponents):

0-2 runs: 24 (25%), 29 (30%)
3-4 runs: 21 (22%), 30 (31%)
5+ runs: 52 (54%), 38 (39%)

This says that the Jays have scored 0-2 runs in 25% of their games. They held their opponents to 0-2 runs in 30% of their games.

Lumping those games into two buckets, games you don't expect to win (i.e., score less than league average) and games you do expect to win (i.e., score more than league average), we get this:

0-4 runs: 45 (46%), 59 (61%)
5+ runs: 52 (54%), 38 (39%)

The Jays' pitching/defense has been more effective than their opponents at holding the opposition to 0-4 runs, i.e., creating situations for winnable games.

Games won categorized by runs scored (Jays and opponents):

0-2 runs: 2 (of 24), 3 (of 29)
3-4 runs: 5 (of 21), 12 (of 30)
5+ runs: 42 (of 52), 33 (of 38)

0-4 runs: 7 (of 45), 15 (of 59)
5+ runs: 42 (of 52), 33 (of 38)

This is telling. In games they "should not win", the Jays have won just 7 times but their opponents have won 15 times.

It might be helpful to look at the win distribution with different production from the offence.  The team has averaged five runs a game, but has scored precisely 5 runs only 7 times.  It has scored 6 runs 10 times and scored more than 6 runs a very large number of times.  On the other side, the club has been shut out 3 times.  When scoring 1-3 runs, the team's record is 4-32.  When scoring 4 runs, the team's record is 2-4.   The really painful number is their record when scoring 3 runs (2-13).  I break down the 13 losses with 3 runs scored as 5 bullpen losses, 2 blowouts, and 6 starting pitcher near losses (opponents scoring 4-6 runs).   The 2 wins resulted from good performances by Hutchison and Dickey. 

Most of the 3 run games were started by good RH starting pitchers (Archer, Gray, Pineda, Buchholz, Felix, Weaver).  The club has a significant platoon tilt and against a good RHSP, the effect is magnified.  The presence of Pompey or Saunders would help.  More usage of Smoak would probably help.  And, of course, some better high leverage bullpen performance would help.  Personally, I think that the key thing is to have Pompey and Smoak in there against RHP at all times now.

I was thinking about how badly this team is underperforming it's Pythagorean W-L record. And I remember someone posted on another thread that during Gibbons tenure that while his overall record lagged the Pythagorean W-L, it wasn't out of the realm of luck.

That got me thinking, was it overall lagging with some kind of interesting distribution from a year to year basis or has a Gibbons led team always underperformed. I wound up with the following breakdown, please note for 2004 and 2008 I simply used a proration for Pythagorean W-L since Gibbons didn't manage the full year.

Year.....Actual....Pytha.....Difference
2004.....20-30.....22-28.....-2
2005.....80-82.....88-74.....-8
2006.....87-75.....86-76.....+1
2007.....83-79.....87-75.....-4
2008.....35-39.....42-32.....-7
2013.....74-88.....77-85.....-3
2014.....83-79.....85-77.....-2
2015.....49-48.....58-39.....-9

Only one year has Gibbons outperformed Pythagoras in his 8 years of managing and in that one year he barely made it. Does this mean anything? I don't know, but if luck plays a role in all this I would say that Gibbons is inherently unlucky.

"It's no secret that the team's run scoring has not been efficiently distributed, that they are excellent at piling on runs with little incremental value."

Have there been any pieces done that prove this with actual data? I think back to Martin's HR in the first game of the OAK series, in what was ultimately a 6 run game. Were those "pile-on runs"? They certainly didn't feel that way when he hit the bomb to put the game away and take a ton of pressure off the bullpen. I'm sure this happens plenty of times over the course of the season, where the score looks lopsided, but when the runs are scored they are a result of important ABs that are clearly being taken very seriously. This team loses so many close games that it feels like they have to be piling on at useless times, but I wonder if the data supports it.

There's a grain of truth in that scoring distribution, Lylemcr, but there's a lot more to it than that.

The Jays have scored 3 or fewer runs 39 times in 97 games, for 40.2%. The AL average is 47.6%, so they're significantly bettering the average there. The truly strange number is in the 4-5 range. They've only done that 14 times (14.4%), whereas the average AL team has done it 23.2% of the time. That leaves us with 6+ at 45.4% of the time (44 times) vs the AL average of 29.1% of the time.

So, they 7 fewer low-scoring games than average, 9 fewer medium scoring games, and 16 more high scoring games. So, it's distributed a bit more towards low than medium than I'd expect, but nothing crazy. And slight shift is more than made up for with the sheer volume of high scoring games.

The biggest issue is what they do in those low-scoring games. The AL Winning percentages for 2 and 3 runs scored games are .270 and .431 respectively. The Jays are at .077 and .133 in 28 games (13 with 2 runs, 15 for 3 runs). The problem isn't really a distribution issue. It's that they aren't able to hold down the opposition basically ever. 4 and 35 in games where the offense scores less than 4 runs.

I don't think anyone thinks the 'pile-on' runs are intentional. Like they're trying to pile on. It's just that's the way the cookie has crumbled this year...they score a shit-tonne more runs than they need to win a lot of times, and then end up juuuuuuust short in their losses. They're surely not trying to be inefficient in their runs scored/allowed but it's sure turned out that way.

"Pile-on runs" isn't the best description.  When the Jays take a lead of 5 runs or more early on, they don't on average add to the lead in the 6th inning or later.  If the club has a 6-4 lead in the 8th inning and scores 4 runs to make it 10-4, i wouldn't exactly describe those runs as pile-on, even if it would be "better" from an efficiency perspective to "save" a couple of those add-on runs for a 4-3 game later on. 

They do score in bunches.  It does lead to many more games with 3 runs scored than with 5 runs scored.  That is not ideal.

Best quick-and-dirty proxy I can figure at the moment for "piling on vs important runs" is to look at their performance in low/med/high leverage situations on fangraphs. They perform well in all three, with wRC+ of 109/115/119 respectively. Now, they only rank 25th in high leverage plate appearances (316), but part of that could be because they're so good at scoring. If it's a high leverage situation, it seems to not stay that way for very long, relatively speaking. They're 18th in medium leverage plate appearances (1431), and first in low leverage ones (1931), by the way.

So, looking at that, of course, they're going to feel like they do nothing but add on... because most of the time, that's what they do given the opportunity distributions. When presented with medium and high leverage chances, though, they actually perform even better.

Have there been any pieces done that prove this with actual data?

I concede that my analysis is based on a macro-level post hoc review of the games, and that this doesn't always align with a more contextualized, at-bat by at-bat within-game analysis. I agree that games like the one you cited, where Martin's HR took the game from 3-0 to 6-0, only looks like piling on in retrospect, given that we now know that the pitching held the opponents to just one run.

I suppose one way to investigate all this would be to look at the WPAs of each of the team's runs in games that they won. That would identify the frequency of minimally valuable runs.

cruzin, it's not fair to prorate for Gibbons' partial year in 2008.  The club had a much better run differential, as well as record, under Gaston that year.  I had Gibbons at -2 that year. 

the jays have the most consistent and evenly distributed offense in baseball, imo.

I believe the Jays have scored 5 runs in an inning 19 times this season, compared to the 7 times they have scored exactly 5 runs in a game.

"cruzin, it's not fair to prorate for Gibbons' partial year in 2008. The club had a much better run differential, as well as record, under Gaston that year. I had Gibbons at -2 that year."

True, hence my disclaimer that I did simple calculation for those 2 years as opposed to anything in depth. However, my point still stands, if there is such thing as luck in baseball then Gibbons seems to have only the bad version.

Conversely, it seems more often than not the evil empire that is the Yankees seem to over perform vs their Pythagorean W-L consistently. Maybe the baseball gods do conspire and favour some teams over others. It just sucks to get the short straw as often has been the case, especially in light of what's happened this year.

The Jays haven't had a winning record in one-run games since 2011, when they were a triumphant 29-28. Then you have to go back to 2007 to find the next one.

Not only have they been regularly under .500, they haven't even been close to .500.

I don't know exactly what that means, but it does add up to a lot of very frustrating baseball.

Yeah, there was an article at bluebirdbanter earlier this year how the Jays have been consistently terrible in one run games since about 2000 or so.

How were the Jays in one run games with Henke & Ward?

Could they protect a 1 run lead after 6 innings. Ward 7 & 8 then Henke 9th?

How were the Jays in one run games with Henke & Ward?

This information is available at baseball-reference.com. Just go to the Blue Jays team pages and click on Schedule and Results. This is the 1992 page, a good year for the Henke/Ward combo (150 IP of ERA around 2.00). You can see they were 28-20 that year.