Toronto's bullpen just got considerably stronger with the reported signing of reliever Kerry Ligtenberg , recently non-tendered by Baltimore. More details to come as they arrive, but assuming the price is right, it's a terrific move. Now that compensation issues are settled, we can probably expect more quick strikes by JP and Co. in the next little while.
I think the addition of Kerry Ligtenberg would solidify the pen a great deal. As well, presuming J.P. spent his money wisely (didn't overpay)we still may be able to go out and get another real solid right handed reliever (Benitez, Sullivan, or Worrell). Didn't Ligtenberg save over 30 games a few years back with Atlanta?
As long as he can get over the fear of lefties he showed last year, he'll be an awesome middle reliever. If not, he can platoon with Miller and let Lopez close, with Kershner providing long relief. I kind of like the looks of this bullpen compared to early last year.
Great signing by the Jays! This really helps to shore up the pen though I would still like to see them get another solid arm for the pen. Maybe Arthur Rhodes will drop his price though he is probably isnt a likely candidate.
Depends entirely on money.
But I'd be pretty surprised if JP overspent on shiny relievers, so I'm gonna go ahead and agree. This is a good signing. Not too many holes left - how close are we to the Yankees now? Anyone wanna guess?
But I'd be pretty surprised if JP overspent on shiny relievers, so I'm gonna go ahead and agree. This is a good signing. Not too many holes left - how close are we to the Yankees now? Anyone wanna guess?
More on those splits .. Kerry got murdered by lefties last year (953 OPS, versus a 591 OPS against RH), but that was out of character. Although he's always fared better against righties, the difference has never been as marked as it was last year. By way of compariosn, Ligtenberg's splits with Baltimore in '03 are comparable to those of Paul Quantrill in his last season as a Blue Jay; since then, Q has been murder on both lefties and righties. I'm not saying Kerry is Q2, only that a huge split differential one year isn't necessarily indicative of the same results going forward.
Ligtenberg made $1M in Baltimore, and the Lights are right: he won't have gotten any cheaper. If I had to guess, I'd say one year, $1.3M. Right now, assuming the splits restabilize, he's as good an option to be the closer as anyone in that pen. Note also: he's a decided flyball pitcher. Might want to think about moving them fences back a little....
Ligtenberg made $1M in Baltimore, and the Lights are right: he won't have gotten any cheaper. If I had to guess, I'd say one year, $1.3M. Right now, assuming the splits restabilize, he's as good an option to be the closer as anyone in that pen. Note also: he's a decided flyball pitcher. Might want to think about moving them fences back a little....
For reference, Ligtenberg's career H/9, hr/9, bb/9, k/9: are 7.5 1.0 3.3 7.1.
Last year's DERA was 3.33, which is pretty much right on for his career. He had 3.3 ARP, about the same as Miller (3.9), Thurman (4.3), or Walker (3.8) [Lopez was 11.9]. In other words, the Jays now have a bullpen composed entirely of players who you would reasonably expect to be above-average next year.
Woo-hoo!
Last year's DERA was 3.33, which is pretty much right on for his career. He had 3.3 ARP, about the same as Miller (3.9), Thurman (4.3), or Walker (3.8) [Lopez was 11.9]. In other words, the Jays now have a bullpen composed entirely of players who you would reasonably expect to be above-average next year.
Woo-hoo!
It's a lovely fantasy, and I wouldn't put it toally past JP. But let's not get carried away. There is no evidence, at all, that the Jays are interested in Maddux. All speculation here has been based on the also-pretty-circumstantial suggestion that Maddux would take 2 years at $10 million.
Really, I'd be very happy with extending Halladay and signing, say, Batista.
Honestly I'd be OK with just re-signing Halladay, and puttering through this year while we wait for the kids.
Prove me wrong, JP! Go get Maddux!
Really, I'd be very happy with extending Halladay and signing, say, Batista.
Honestly I'd be OK with just re-signing Halladay, and puttering through this year while we wait for the kids.
Prove me wrong, JP! Go get Maddux!
I think Maddux would take the rumoured contract offer from the Jays with the added perk of a season long free-play pass to all golf courses in the GTA.
I love "quick strikes by JP and Co" ! Of course, Maddux it would seem has right around no chance of signing with the Jays, but we can dream ;-) Either way does it look like we have the room for a no.2, a good reliever, an IF backup, and a Halladay extension financially now? Like Maddux/Batista, Rhodes/Benitez, and Graffanino/Gomez?
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bluejays-ligtenberg&prov=ap&type=lgns
As of 3:55, the AP is saying a deal isn't done yet. COMN to see.
As of 3:55, the AP is saying a deal isn't done yet. COMN to see.
The best thing about that AP article is that our bullpen is now qualified as 'inexperienced' rather than 'ineffective'.
The Jays PR people probably need a pat on the back for that one.
The Jays PR people probably need a pat on the back for that one.
The past three years Lightenberg's splits are:
R - .211/.248/.333
L - .268/.391/.419
Despite the splits, he looks like he's averaged about an inning an appearance over his career. Hopefully Tosca doesn't employ the quick hook again next season.
His ERA's are remarkably consistent for a reliever - 2.71-3.61 over 5 seasons.
His K rate dropped since he was injured for all of 1999, and have dipped just a bit the past 2 years.
He signed pretty quick. Just a guess on my part, but I bet the Jays offered him 2 years, $2.8 million (total).
R - .211/.248/.333
L - .268/.391/.419
Despite the splits, he looks like he's averaged about an inning an appearance over his career. Hopefully Tosca doesn't employ the quick hook again next season.
His ERA's are remarkably consistent for a reliever - 2.71-3.61 over 5 seasons.
His K rate dropped since he was injured for all of 1999, and have dipped just a bit the past 2 years.
He signed pretty quick. Just a guess on my part, but I bet the Jays offered him 2 years, $2.8 million (total).
Hopefully the confirmation will come soon. I'd hate to have posted a rumour as fact. :-)
Forget Greg Maddux. He'll stay in the National League, go to the west coast and get no less than $8-9M a year. If I had to wager, I'd say San Diego.
Forget Greg Maddux. He'll stay in the National League, go to the west coast and get no less than $8-9M a year. If I had to wager, I'd say San Diego.
[Ligtenberg's DERA last year] was 3.33, which is pretty much right on for his career. He had 3.3 ARP, about the same as Miller (3.9), Thurman (4.3), or Walker (3.8) [Lopez was 11.9]. In other words, the Jays now have a bullpen composed entirely of players who you would reasonably expect to be above-average next year.
There are at least four problems with this assertion, as far as I can tell:
1. There's a serious selection bias in your sample. The Jays used 19 relievers in 2003, and five of them (Kershner plus the four you list) posted positive ARPs. There's a strong possibility that some of those guys posted positive ARPs through chance alone -- even if none of Acevedo, Bowles, Chulk, Creek, Davis, Kershner, Linton, Miller, Reichert, Service, Sturtze, Tam, Thurman, Walker, and Wasdin is an above-average or even average major-league pitcher, a couple of them are usually going to post positive ARPs in a given year. But it won't necessarily be the same ones next year.
2. Thurman is gone, as far as we know. I think you meant Kershner.
3. Walker and Thurman both pitched poorly out of the rotation, which you neglected to mention.
4. Miller, Kershner, Walker, Lopez, and Ligtenberg don't make up a full bullpen, at least not for Carlos Tosca. You can throw Politte and a few others into the mix, but the only guys who I'd say are fairly sure bets to post positive ARPs are Lopez and Ligtenberg. We could always sign John Franco or Jesse Orosco to represent the AARP ;)
I don't disagree with your main point -- the bullpen should be better than it was last year. But we shouldn't pretend that it's going to be particularly good, at least not yet.
I should also say that I am much happier about this signing than I was about Tam or Creek. Not knowing the dollar figure, we can't really say whether or not it was a good move, but Ligtenberg is certainly a pitcher who can contribute something to a baseball team.
There are at least four problems with this assertion, as far as I can tell:
1. There's a serious selection bias in your sample. The Jays used 19 relievers in 2003, and five of them (Kershner plus the four you list) posted positive ARPs. There's a strong possibility that some of those guys posted positive ARPs through chance alone -- even if none of Acevedo, Bowles, Chulk, Creek, Davis, Kershner, Linton, Miller, Reichert, Service, Sturtze, Tam, Thurman, Walker, and Wasdin is an above-average or even average major-league pitcher, a couple of them are usually going to post positive ARPs in a given year. But it won't necessarily be the same ones next year.
2. Thurman is gone, as far as we know. I think you meant Kershner.
3. Walker and Thurman both pitched poorly out of the rotation, which you neglected to mention.
4. Miller, Kershner, Walker, Lopez, and Ligtenberg don't make up a full bullpen, at least not for Carlos Tosca. You can throw Politte and a few others into the mix, but the only guys who I'd say are fairly sure bets to post positive ARPs are Lopez and Ligtenberg. We could always sign John Franco or Jesse Orosco to represent the AARP ;)
I don't disagree with your main point -- the bullpen should be better than it was last year. But we shouldn't pretend that it's going to be particularly good, at least not yet.
I should also say that I am much happier about this signing than I was about Tam or Creek. Not knowing the dollar figure, we can't really say whether or not it was a good move, but Ligtenberg is certainly a pitcher who can contribute something to a baseball team.
I think Maddux would take the rumoured contract offer from the Jays with the added perk of a season long free-play pass to all golf courses in the GTA.
Perhaps if the Jays were to relocate to Las Vegas...
With respect to Ligtenberg, I don't dispute that he'd be a useful addition. I just find it funny how over-the-top excited people are getting over a 60-inning reliever, albeit one who is pretty good.
Perhaps if the Jays were to relocate to Las Vegas...
With respect to Ligtenberg, I don't dispute that he'd be a useful addition. I just find it funny how over-the-top excited people are getting over a 60-inning reliever, albeit one who is pretty good.
It's December, Chuck. A Bob File sighting might get me excited these days. :-)
If Red Sox fans were able to convince Shilling to sign in Boston, why can't (Blue)Jays convince Maddux to sign in Toronto??
(If anyone knows Maddux's email, feel free to forward him a link to this page)
(If anyone knows Maddux's email, feel free to forward him a link to this page)
There goes Jordan being realistic about Maddux *sighs*. I agree wholeheartedly with him, It's just more fun to dream a little ;-) . I agree with Pistol, that if the Ligtenberg deal is done already, the Jays almost certainly offered more than one year. Another thought that popped into my head, was that they may have guaranteed him the closer role to start the year. I like that if they plan to really, truly, use the Ace reliever (Aquilino of course) and make the closer the second most important man in the 'pen.If both assumptions wrong, I can't see why he signed so quick.
PS: I realize I am blindly assuming JP didn't, simply, overpay. Let's hope I'm not wrong in my assumption.
PS: I realize I am blindly assuming JP didn't, simply, overpay. Let's hope I'm not wrong in my assumption.
John:
1) You call it selection bias, I called it sifting for quality. Without additional knowledge, a player's previous year's performance is the best predictor we have of future performance, so without further info, it's best to assume that those guys are, in fact, above-average.
2) *shrug* :-)
3) There is some reason to believe that there is such a thing as a pitcher who performs well as a reliever, but less well as a starter. In assessing next year's bullpen, I'm happy to look at totals just as relievers. That said, you're right that a complete description of the picture includes the note that Thurman and Walker may, in fact, suck.
4) Fair point. Any point including a criticism of Tosca's bullpen usage is fine by me. BTW, Lurch might show up there in long relief, and he could help assuage Tosca's lefty-fetish.
We agree in general, I think. Much, much better than last year. And I stand by my argument that this bullpen could reasonably be above-average. We won't be great, of course, but we don't need them to be great, if the other pieces snap in.
1) You call it selection bias, I called it sifting for quality. Without additional knowledge, a player's previous year's performance is the best predictor we have of future performance, so without further info, it's best to assume that those guys are, in fact, above-average.
2) *shrug* :-)
3) There is some reason to believe that there is such a thing as a pitcher who performs well as a reliever, but less well as a starter. In assessing next year's bullpen, I'm happy to look at totals just as relievers. That said, you're right that a complete description of the picture includes the note that Thurman and Walker may, in fact, suck.
4) Fair point. Any point including a criticism of Tosca's bullpen usage is fine by me. BTW, Lurch might show up there in long relief, and he could help assuage Tosca's lefty-fetish.
We agree in general, I think. Much, much better than last year. And I stand by my argument that this bullpen could reasonably be above-average. We won't be great, of course, but we don't need them to be great, if the other pieces snap in.
http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlbpa/players/5879/splits?year=career&type=Pitching
Assuming the rumour is fact, I think this is a good, solid decision. Still, I present you with:
Kerry Ligtenberg Caveats
1) Kerry usually starts off slow. Do not lose faith in the sideburns if he happens to end April with a 5-something ERA. He will likely finish stronger.
2) Kerry gets slightly wild when pitching to LH batters. He has a career 5.64 BB/9 vs. LHB and a 2.22 BB/9 vs. RHB.
3) Kerry comes out throwing but probably shouldn't pitch much longer than 1 inning per outing. His Career ERA from Pitch 1-15 is 1.64. From Pitch 16-30, it jumps up to 4.40.
Assuming the rumour is fact, I think this is a good, solid decision. Still, I present you with:
Kerry Ligtenberg Caveats
1) Kerry usually starts off slow. Do not lose faith in the sideburns if he happens to end April with a 5-something ERA. He will likely finish stronger.
2) Kerry gets slightly wild when pitching to LH batters. He has a career 5.64 BB/9 vs. LHB and a 2.22 BB/9 vs. RHB.
3) Kerry comes out throwing but probably shouldn't pitch much longer than 1 inning per outing. His Career ERA from Pitch 1-15 is 1.64. From Pitch 16-30, it jumps up to 4.40.
Ok, I'll be Mr. Negative.
Last year JP jumped into the FA mix pretty quickly, signing Tam and Creek. Last year there were lots of free agents available to sign, and the teams that waited found bargains at the end of FA.
Last year Lightenberg was a pitcher that signed late in free agency for something below perceived market value (about $1.2 million).
If the Jays had waited they could have had Lightenberg for the money they gave to Tam and Creek, neither of who worked out.
This year the Jays were one of the first teams to strike signing Hentgen to a deal in November.
Now the first day of FA comes, where compensation is known (if any), and JP apparently again strikes a deal quickly.
The contract amount isn't known, but for Lightenberg to sign this quick it's not going to be a bargain deal (which you really need these days when you have to at least beat the Yankees or Red Sox to make the playoffs).
So my concern is that the Jays are not properly assessing the supply and demand of the free agents and potential non-tenders (which JP thinks will be over 100) and are overpaying for players that they can get a month or two from now at a reduced price.
I'd rather see them sit back and wait things out and scoop up the players that get ignored (like ARMANDO!).
Last year JP jumped into the FA mix pretty quickly, signing Tam and Creek. Last year there were lots of free agents available to sign, and the teams that waited found bargains at the end of FA.
Last year Lightenberg was a pitcher that signed late in free agency for something below perceived market value (about $1.2 million).
If the Jays had waited they could have had Lightenberg for the money they gave to Tam and Creek, neither of who worked out.
This year the Jays were one of the first teams to strike signing Hentgen to a deal in November.
Now the first day of FA comes, where compensation is known (if any), and JP apparently again strikes a deal quickly.
The contract amount isn't known, but for Lightenberg to sign this quick it's not going to be a bargain deal (which you really need these days when you have to at least beat the Yankees or Red Sox to make the playoffs).
So my concern is that the Jays are not properly assessing the supply and demand of the free agents and potential non-tenders (which JP thinks will be over 100) and are overpaying for players that they can get a month or two from now at a reduced price.
I'd rather see them sit back and wait things out and scoop up the players that get ignored (like ARMANDO!).
TSN is reporting these numbers - 1st year: $2m, 2nd year: $2.5m.
TSN is reporting these numbers - 1st year: $2m, 2nd year: $2.5m.
If true, too high.
I'm disappointed.
If true, too high.
I'm disappointed.
Pistol, I understand your concern but don't share it.
If JP made a short-fuse offer to Ligtenberg, I imagine it would have at least given the Jays equilibrium in terms of leverage.
As far as learning from the past...Ligtenberg is a quality arm with upside (cue the Hubie Brown impression), in a way that Creek was not. Tam was less of a mistake at the time; he just didn't work out.
If Ligtenberg was coveted by virtually any other team that (a) aspires to contend, (b) has money to spend or (c) plays in a market with some ties to Kerry, the Jays would be at a significant recruiting disadvantage. An aggressive, flattering hard sell is likely required to bring a guy like Ligtenberg on board -- happy and feeling wanted. Plus, it avoids the decision coming down to dollars, while J.P. sticks within his pre-conceived budget.
The non-tender market is so obviously important this year that even bungling GMs are thinking hard about who's out there. It won't necessarily be realistic for the Jays to hope for above-replacement talent to be ignored by 29 other clubs, thereby falling into Toronto's lap. Assuming the market will be somewhat efficient -- especially for relief pitching, which virtually everyone except Seattle (and now the Yankees) need -- the last kids in the schoolyard waiting to be picked will likely be there with good reason.
Signing players early and aggressively gives Ricciardi a better understanding of his roster composition heading into the winter meetings...and may possibly put him ahead of the curve for the cream (talent-wise) of the non-tender crop, assuming that teams are taking the wait-for-bargains approach.
If JP made a short-fuse offer to Ligtenberg, I imagine it would have at least given the Jays equilibrium in terms of leverage.
As far as learning from the past...Ligtenberg is a quality arm with upside (cue the Hubie Brown impression), in a way that Creek was not. Tam was less of a mistake at the time; he just didn't work out.
If Ligtenberg was coveted by virtually any other team that (a) aspires to contend, (b) has money to spend or (c) plays in a market with some ties to Kerry, the Jays would be at a significant recruiting disadvantage. An aggressive, flattering hard sell is likely required to bring a guy like Ligtenberg on board -- happy and feeling wanted. Plus, it avoids the decision coming down to dollars, while J.P. sticks within his pre-conceived budget.
The non-tender market is so obviously important this year that even bungling GMs are thinking hard about who's out there. It won't necessarily be realistic for the Jays to hope for above-replacement talent to be ignored by 29 other clubs, thereby falling into Toronto's lap. Assuming the market will be somewhat efficient -- especially for relief pitching, which virtually everyone except Seattle (and now the Yankees) need -- the last kids in the schoolyard waiting to be picked will likely be there with good reason.
Signing players early and aggressively gives Ricciardi a better understanding of his roster composition heading into the winter meetings...and may possibly put him ahead of the curve for the cream (talent-wise) of the non-tender crop, assuming that teams are taking the wait-for-bargains approach.
3) Kerry comes out throwing but probably shouldn't pitch much longer than 1 inning per outing. His Career ERA from Pitch 1-15 is 1.64. From Pitch 16-30, it jumps up to 4.40.
Pardon? How can a pitcher have an ERA associated with a number of pitches? The ESPN splits don't give one, and the Bigleaguers.com splits don't even include pitch count breakdowns. I assume it's some sort of typo, please enlighten.
Pardon? How can a pitcher have an ERA associated with a number of pitches? The ESPN splits don't give one, and the Bigleaguers.com splits don't even include pitch count breakdowns. I assume it's some sort of typo, please enlighten.
We'll wait and see for the salary details.
I agree with John Neary's appraisal of Ligtenberg's ability. One thing I noticed was that Lilgtenberg's home run rate increased noticeably, admittedly in a very small sample, when he went from Turner Field to Camden Yards last year. The Skydome is not a friendly place for pitchers vulnerable to the longball.
I agree with John Neary's appraisal of Ligtenberg's ability. One thing I noticed was that Lilgtenberg's home run rate increased noticeably, admittedly in a very small sample, when he went from Turner Field to Camden Yards last year. The Skydome is not a friendly place for pitchers vulnerable to the longball.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=bluejaysligtenberg&prov=st&type=lgns
Salary details are out. Two years, 4.5 mil.
Salary details are out. Two years, 4.5 mil.
If the salary is indeed $4.5 million for 2 years, I agree with Andrew Edwards. Way too high.
If the salary is indeed $4.5 million for 2 years, I agree with Andrew Edwards. Way too high.
Pitchers with a career 140 ERA+ don't just fall out of the sky:
Foulke: 146
Guardado: 105
Julio: 135
Urbina: 132
Gagne: 116
Smoltz: 124
Mesa: 101
Pitchers with a career 140 ERA+ don't just fall out of the sky:
Foulke: 146
Guardado: 105
Julio: 135
Urbina: 132
Gagne: 116
Smoltz: 124
Mesa: 101
Slightly more than Heredia, way less than Quantrill. I know those are Yankee signings, but it's not outrageous for an arm of legitimate quality. It's not, for instance, Philly money for a short reliever.
It's only too high if it handcuffs J.P. from making the additions he still wants to make. Remember, if our payroll nudges above $50M, it's not a bad thing (unless you're a pessimist who owns Rogers stock).
It's only too high if it handcuffs J.P. from making the additions he still wants to make. Remember, if our payroll nudges above $50M, it's not a bad thing (unless you're a pessimist who owns Rogers stock).
I hope JP knows something experts in this room don't. You'd think might have learned his lesson last year with this type of venture into the early FA market...I could handle 1 year @ 2 or even 2.5 but tying us up for a second, more expensive year seems a bit suspect, especially considering the vast selection out there is off-season.
The best thing about that AP article is that our bullpen is now qualified as 'inexperienced' rather than 'ineffective'.
That's a nice spin job but having guys acknowledge Toronto for being a club and a city that they want to play for seems far more valuable to me...Advertising agencies do a great job but it never compares to a friend's endorsement.
The best thing about that AP article is that our bullpen is now qualified as 'inexperienced' rather than 'ineffective'.
That's a nice spin job but having guys acknowledge Toronto for being a club and a city that they want to play for seems far more valuable to me...Advertising agencies do a great job but it never compares to a friend's endorsement.
Ligtenberg is a quality arm with upside
What upside does he have? He's mildly declined the past 2 years.
What upside does he have? He's mildly declined the past 2 years.
Hmm. I too was surprised by the 2.0 first year, 2.5 second year deal JP reached with Ligtenberg. It's hard to believe baltimore would 'decline' to exercise his option BY THE TEAM and it was only 1.2 mil?!? What are the O's thinking? Is there bullpen that stacked?
" Ligtenberg has a mark of 16-14 with 45 saves and a 3.09 ERA in 322 relief appearances"
That's a nice ERA, is he expected to be our closer then? I think I would try Ligtenberg instead of Lopez, I don't want to crush Aquileno's confidence by giving him the outright closer's spot. Ligtenberg is getting 'good' money for a reliever now, and should be expected to perform as a closer, especially when we overpaid him (I was not expecting the deal to be close to 2 mil per season). As well, he's experienced.
For this money, I want to see this guy pitch in every game we are in (later in innings). Save for Halladay, who always closes out what he finishes, every other starter is going to not go the distance the majority of the time. As long as this guy earns his coin, I'll overlook this slightly overpaid acquisition.
Hmm, maybe we are a little too picky with money now that JP has taken over as GM.
-Danny
" Ligtenberg has a mark of 16-14 with 45 saves and a 3.09 ERA in 322 relief appearances"
That's a nice ERA, is he expected to be our closer then? I think I would try Ligtenberg instead of Lopez, I don't want to crush Aquileno's confidence by giving him the outright closer's spot. Ligtenberg is getting 'good' money for a reliever now, and should be expected to perform as a closer, especially when we overpaid him (I was not expecting the deal to be close to 2 mil per season). As well, he's experienced.
For this money, I want to see this guy pitch in every game we are in (later in innings). Save for Halladay, who always closes out what he finishes, every other starter is going to not go the distance the majority of the time. As long as this guy earns his coin, I'll overlook this slightly overpaid acquisition.
Hmm, maybe we are a little too picky with money now that JP has taken over as GM.
-Danny
Shandler's BPVs (which adds (k/bb)*21 and (k/9)*6, then subtracts (hr/9)*30... it also includes a h/9 which I omitted for ease of calculation, and which usually has a negligable effect anyway) for the top 10 in saves in each league last year:
Smoltz - 245
Gagne - 227
Rivera - 169
Wagner - 137
Mantei - 117
Foulke - 116
Guardado - 111
Borowski - 105
Kim - 83
Urbina - 79
Worrell - 76
Baez - 75
Ligtenberg - 72
MacDougal - 68
Looper - 65
Percival - 58
Carter - 43
Hasegawa - 43
Mesa - 40
Julio - 34
Williams - 32
Biddle - 31
Ligtenberg fits nicely into the middle of those twenty top save-getters. I think that he is a decent buy - would anybody be scoffing at 4.5M/2Years to Percival or Hasegawa? Nah.
Smoltz - 245
Gagne - 227
Rivera - 169
Wagner - 137
Mantei - 117
Foulke - 116
Guardado - 111
Borowski - 105
Kim - 83
Urbina - 79
Worrell - 76
Baez - 75
Ligtenberg - 72
MacDougal - 68
Looper - 65
Percival - 58
Carter - 43
Hasegawa - 43
Mesa - 40
Julio - 34
Williams - 32
Biddle - 31
Ligtenberg fits nicely into the middle of those twenty top save-getters. I think that he is a decent buy - would anybody be scoffing at 4.5M/2Years to Percival or Hasegawa? Nah.
Clearly, I don't know the current market value of relievers very well.
Right now, I'm inclined to look at it this way: despite the earlier predictions that the flood of talent onto the market would keep prices down and signings few and far between until January, the market seems as busy as ever, and salaries are not in free fall. Guys like Tom Gordon and Latroy Hawkins, whom many of us hoped would slip through the cracks, were gobbled up at premium prices (in terms of both cash and years). The only conclusion I can draw is that waiting for the bargains may be a fruitless effort this time around -- the coveted players are not going begging. Maybe the NRI pool will be larger in February than it was last year, as more players find themselves squeezed out of demand; but the players in demand today are still able to name their price. I think we all need to adjust our payroll expectations.
The money was more than I anticipated, but that's fine. Put it this way: had another team signed Ligtenberg for two years at $4.5M, more than a few fans would have wondered why JP didn't make a similar or slightly better offer. We've already watched a lot of premium arms go by, and Tim Worrell (my own personal dark horse preference) is reportedly close to going to Atlanta. The bullpen needs a dependable arm, and that's what Ligtenberg is. I'd still like to add someone else down there, and perhaps the Jays will, through trade or other acquisition (Benitez would indeed be a catch). But there's nothing wrong with this signing. And folks, if Ligtenberg is installed as the "closer" and saves 30 games, he's a bargain for this year and next.
Right now, I'm inclined to look at it this way: despite the earlier predictions that the flood of talent onto the market would keep prices down and signings few and far between until January, the market seems as busy as ever, and salaries are not in free fall. Guys like Tom Gordon and Latroy Hawkins, whom many of us hoped would slip through the cracks, were gobbled up at premium prices (in terms of both cash and years). The only conclusion I can draw is that waiting for the bargains may be a fruitless effort this time around -- the coveted players are not going begging. Maybe the NRI pool will be larger in February than it was last year, as more players find themselves squeezed out of demand; but the players in demand today are still able to name their price. I think we all need to adjust our payroll expectations.
The money was more than I anticipated, but that's fine. Put it this way: had another team signed Ligtenberg for two years at $4.5M, more than a few fans would have wondered why JP didn't make a similar or slightly better offer. We've already watched a lot of premium arms go by, and Tim Worrell (my own personal dark horse preference) is reportedly close to going to Atlanta. The bullpen needs a dependable arm, and that's what Ligtenberg is. I'd still like to add someone else down there, and perhaps the Jays will, through trade or other acquisition (Benitez would indeed be a catch). But there's nothing wrong with this signing. And folks, if Ligtenberg is installed as the "closer" and saves 30 games, he's a bargain for this year and next.
Pistol,
First, my minor point: K/9 is the only stat in which Ligtenberg "mildly declined" from 2001 to 2002. His other numbers were all better in '02, and he pitched more often. 2003 was certainly a "mild decline."
My "upside" comment was intended to be a comparison to Creek, Sturtze and Tam. Next to those three amigos, Ligtenberg indeed has enormous upside -- not just because he's slightly younger at the time of signing, either. Creek's only attribute was his handedness; his performance ranged from passable to horrific in his career. Sturtze, similarly, was considered a "good arm" but had never mounted any meaningful performance at the major league level. Tam had such a poor 2002 that his decline was light years beyond Ligtenberg's.
Ligtenberg is a proven reliever in a way that those three weren't. Therefore, if used properly, he could add considerable value. Hence, happy "upside" for the Jays.
First, my minor point: K/9 is the only stat in which Ligtenberg "mildly declined" from 2001 to 2002. His other numbers were all better in '02, and he pitched more often. 2003 was certainly a "mild decline."
My "upside" comment was intended to be a comparison to Creek, Sturtze and Tam. Next to those three amigos, Ligtenberg indeed has enormous upside -- not just because he's slightly younger at the time of signing, either. Creek's only attribute was his handedness; his performance ranged from passable to horrific in his career. Sturtze, similarly, was considered a "good arm" but had never mounted any meaningful performance at the major league level. Tam had such a poor 2002 that his decline was light years beyond Ligtenberg's.
Ligtenberg is a proven reliever in a way that those three weren't. Therefore, if used properly, he could add considerable value. Hence, happy "upside" for the Jays.
Good signing. Certainly not like the dreck JP pulled out last year (ie. Tam, Sturtze, Creek).
The bullpen as of right now:
Lightenberg
Miller
Kershner
Politte
Lopez
Walker/Rule 5/another FA
I don't know if the Jays will sign anyone else for the bullpen at this point unless someone comes in at way below market value. Maybe a couple of NRI, but I don't forsee any Benitez in the near future. I would think his priority now would have to be a number two pitcher. Perhaps he tried to get Lightenberg early so he could have his budget pretty much set when he tried to sign a #2 (ie. we only have this much left in the budget). Personally, I think he'll go after Kenny Rogers.
The bullpen as of right now:
Lightenberg
Miller
Kershner
Politte
Lopez
Walker/Rule 5/another FA
I don't know if the Jays will sign anyone else for the bullpen at this point unless someone comes in at way below market value. Maybe a couple of NRI, but I don't forsee any Benitez in the near future. I would think his priority now would have to be a number two pitcher. Perhaps he tried to get Lightenberg early so he could have his budget pretty much set when he tried to sign a #2 (ie. we only have this much left in the budget). Personally, I think he'll go after Kenny Rogers.
I did misinterpret what you meant by upside. I think everyone can agree he's an improvement over the last bullpen member.
First, my minor point: K/9 is the only stat in which Ligtenberg "mildly declined" from 2001 to 2002. His other numbers were all better in '02, and he pitched more often. 2003 was certainly a "mild decline."
Year K/9 BB/9 HR/9
1998 9.7 3.0 0.7
2000 8.8 4.1 1.2
2001 8.4 4.5 0.6
2002 6.9 4.5 0.8
2003 7.1 2.1 1.4
The HR rate has been rising, and the Ks are down, but the walks were also down last year as well. Maybe he's gaining control over time.
First, my minor point: K/9 is the only stat in which Ligtenberg "mildly declined" from 2001 to 2002. His other numbers were all better in '02, and he pitched more often. 2003 was certainly a "mild decline."
Year K/9 BB/9 HR/9
1998 9.7 3.0 0.7
2000 8.8 4.1 1.2
2001 8.4 4.5 0.6
2002 6.9 4.5 0.8
2003 7.1 2.1 1.4
The HR rate has been rising, and the Ks are down, but the walks were also down last year as well. Maybe he's gaining control over time.
I think what this clearly signals is that JP has decided that a bullpen cannot be gleaned solely from the scrapheap/AAAA ranks. For this money he is clearly paying for some level of established performance. I don't think paying for established performance is a bad strategy when it comes to pitching but I would have focused on getting another starter.
According to JP he had around $8 million to spend going into today. He now has $6 million and by all indications he has around $1 million of that earmarked for a veteran SS. That leaves around $5 million left. If he wants more bullpen help then the amount left for a starter will be in the $3-4 million range which certainly will not get you a number 2 starter unless it comes via the trade route. If it were me I would had rolled the dice with most of the $8 million looking for a number two starter and filled in with Sequea/Alvarez as SS insurance and Chulk, etc. for the bullpen. We'll see how it works out but this looks to me as if JP clearly wants to focus on the bullpen this year.
According to JP he had around $8 million to spend going into today. He now has $6 million and by all indications he has around $1 million of that earmarked for a veteran SS. That leaves around $5 million left. If he wants more bullpen help then the amount left for a starter will be in the $3-4 million range which certainly will not get you a number 2 starter unless it comes via the trade route. If it were me I would had rolled the dice with most of the $8 million looking for a number two starter and filled in with Sequea/Alvarez as SS insurance and Chulk, etc. for the bullpen. We'll see how it works out but this looks to me as if JP clearly wants to focus on the bullpen this year.
Mike Green: I agree with John Neary's appraisal of Ligtenberg's ability.
Mike, I'm flattered that you agree with my appraisal of Ligtenberg, but I don't actually remember making one ;) I thought I was talking about the pen as a whole.
Andrew Edwards: 1) You call it selection bias, I called it sifting for quality. Without additional knowledge, a player's previous year's performance is the best predictor we have of future performance, so without further info, it's best to assume that those guys are, in fact, above-average.
I don't deny that there's a lot of sifting going on here. But I think there's some selection bias as well. Anyway, I don't want to belabour the point; you're quite right that we're not really very far apart.
I'm actually ambivalent about 2 years, $4.5 million. Ligtenberg's never had an ERA+ below 129. The last two years should tell us that it isn't as easy to put together a bullpen on the cheap as we sometimes like to believe. If the Jays can stretch Ligtenberg out to 70 innings of good pitching each year, I won't begrudge him the money.
Mike, I'm flattered that you agree with my appraisal of Ligtenberg, but I don't actually remember making one ;) I thought I was talking about the pen as a whole.
Andrew Edwards: 1) You call it selection bias, I called it sifting for quality. Without additional knowledge, a player's previous year's performance is the best predictor we have of future performance, so without further info, it's best to assume that those guys are, in fact, above-average.
I don't deny that there's a lot of sifting going on here. But I think there's some selection bias as well. Anyway, I don't want to belabour the point; you're quite right that we're not really very far apart.
I'm actually ambivalent about 2 years, $4.5 million. Ligtenberg's never had an ERA+ below 129. The last two years should tell us that it isn't as easy to put together a bullpen on the cheap as we sometimes like to believe. If the Jays can stretch Ligtenberg out to 70 innings of good pitching each year, I won't begrudge him the money.
I agree that in terms of FA budget, JP may be finished the bullpen for now, but I still think another arm down there is important. While this pen definitely appears to be an improvement on last year's version, there's still the problem that outside of Halladay, few of the starters can be expected to get very far into the 7th inning even on good nights. Ligtenberg threw about 60 IP last year, and Lopez gave the team about 75; no one else in the pen cracked 60 innings. Granted, we can hope to see healthy seasons from Pete Walker and Cliff Politte, but hope is dicey stuff. I'd love to see a resilient arm that could go 1-2 innings every 2 or 3 nights. Scott Sullivan was posited as a possibility, but he made $2.8M in a bounce-back 2003, and that salary's not going south. Eh bien.
That money is a little higher than I would have liked, considering the Jays monetary restrictions. I dopn't think it is actually overpaying for Kerry though. I think he should start the season as the Jays "closer". Aquilino should be working the one and two run leads (and ties) in the seventh and eigth, as well as the ties in the ninth. Carlos can throw him in for the odd cheap save when Ligetenberg needs rest as a little confidence boost, and I think the deal looks good (though I'm not as optimistic now as I was before I saw these terms reported).
I think it's obvious by now that Ricciardi doesn't mind paying a little extra for a guy he's decided he wants. And why not? It's not our money.
Pardon? How can a pitcher have an ERA associated with a number of pitches? The ESPN splits don't give one, and the Bigleaguers.com splits don't even include pitch count breakdowns. I assume it's some sort of typo, please enlighten.
It's certainly not a typo, unless it's wrong for every pitcher on the Bigleaguers.com site. Their source is STATS so you'll have to go there for a detailed explanation but my assumption always was that it was the result of AB that began between the pitches specified.
It's certainly not a typo, unless it's wrong for every pitcher on the Bigleaguers.com site. Their source is STATS so you'll have to go there for a detailed explanation but my assumption always was that it was the result of AB that began between the pitches specified.
http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlbpa/players/5879/situational?year=career&type=Pitching
Okay, I've found it now, under Situational Stats (COMN). But I don't get it... Suppose my first 15 pitches result in a groundout, a single and a strikeout. Pitch #16 goes for a 2 run homer. What's my ERA on pitches 1-15? 0.00, 13.50, or undetermined until I get the 3rd out? I don't think there's a sensible answer.
The rate stats say his first 15 piches are better than the next 15, but he doesn't drop off a cliff.
Okay, I've found it now, under Situational Stats (COMN). But I don't get it... Suppose my first 15 pitches result in a groundout, a single and a strikeout. Pitch #16 goes for a 2 run homer. What's my ERA on pitches 1-15? 0.00, 13.50, or undetermined until I get the 3rd out? I don't think there's a sensible answer.
The rate stats say his first 15 piches are better than the next 15, but he doesn't drop off a cliff.
Pitch G IP WHIP BAA K/9 BB/9 K/BB HR/9
1-15 322 225.1 1.15 .217 7.96 3.16 2.52 0.96
16-30 177 88 1.34 .229 9.82 4.40 2.23 1.02
31-45 30 11.2 1.71 .283 5.63 5.63 1.00 1.61
http://economics.about.com
Suppose my first 15 pitches result in a groundout, a single and a strikeout. Pitch #16 goes for a 2 run homer. What's my ERA on pitches 1-15? 0.00, 13.50, or undetermined until I get the 3rd out? I don't think there's a sensible answer.
There's a straightforward way of doing it: You treat the matter as if it's a pitching change.
The first 15 pitches belong to Kerry1 and he records at a groundout, a single, and a strikeout. So he leaves with 2 out and 1 guy on base.
Kerry2 comes in and on the first pitch to the new batter gives up a two run homer. The first run is Kerry1's responsibility and the second run is Kerry2's.
If the change between Kerry1 and Kerry2 is during the same player's at bat, Rule 10.18(h) holds:
(h) A relief pitcher shall not be held accountable when the first batter to whom he pitches reaches first base on four called balls if such batter has a decided advantage in the ball and strike count when pitchers are changed. (1) If, when pitchers are changed, the count is 2 balls, no strike, 2 balls, 1 strike, 3 balls, no strike, 3 balls, 1 strike, 3 balls, 2 strikes, and the batter gets a base on balls, charge that batter and the base on balls to the preceding pitcher, not to the relief pitcher.
So the batter may be the responsibility of Kerry1 or Kerry2, depending on the count.
Cheers,
Mike
Suppose my first 15 pitches result in a groundout, a single and a strikeout. Pitch #16 goes for a 2 run homer. What's my ERA on pitches 1-15? 0.00, 13.50, or undetermined until I get the 3rd out? I don't think there's a sensible answer.
There's a straightforward way of doing it: You treat the matter as if it's a pitching change.
The first 15 pitches belong to Kerry1 and he records at a groundout, a single, and a strikeout. So he leaves with 2 out and 1 guy on base.
Kerry2 comes in and on the first pitch to the new batter gives up a two run homer. The first run is Kerry1's responsibility and the second run is Kerry2's.
If the change between Kerry1 and Kerry2 is during the same player's at bat, Rule 10.18(h) holds:
(h) A relief pitcher shall not be held accountable when the first batter to whom he pitches reaches first base on four called balls if such batter has a decided advantage in the ball and strike count when pitchers are changed. (1) If, when pitchers are changed, the count is 2 balls, no strike, 2 balls, 1 strike, 3 balls, no strike, 3 balls, 1 strike, 3 balls, 2 strikes, and the batter gets a base on balls, charge that batter and the base on balls to the preceding pitcher, not to the relief pitcher.
So the batter may be the responsibility of Kerry1 or Kerry2, depending on the count.
Cheers,
Mike
First of all, one or two experienced relievers was a must this year ... even if we don't get a #2 starter. Last year, a decent bullpen might have given us an extra 10 - 15 wins ... remember the montreal disaster, baltimore, tampa bay ... and the list goes on. A #2 starter might give you only an extra 8 wins and for a greater cost. This is a matter of statistics, extra quality starter IP not always results in a proportional # of wins.
Plus, the up and coming AAA relievers need to learn from competent veterans and not be put in precarious situations where they can get injured or emberassed.
I think the #2 starter spot will be filled with a guy like batista ... a #3 starter. In midseason we will bolster the rotation with arnold, bush, and maybe mcgowan. And, one of lily/hentgen/FA will be traded to make room... or maybe one of them will get injured given their history.
Lastly, since the schedule is relatively easy at the beginning, it will be easy to remain in contention while we wait half a year for the minor league talent to mature.
Plus, the up and coming AAA relievers need to learn from competent veterans and not be put in precarious situations where they can get injured or emberassed.
I think the #2 starter spot will be filled with a guy like batista ... a #3 starter. In midseason we will bolster the rotation with arnold, bush, and maybe mcgowan. And, one of lily/hentgen/FA will be traded to make room... or maybe one of them will get injured given their history.
Lastly, since the schedule is relatively easy at the beginning, it will be easy to remain in contention while we wait half a year for the minor league talent to mature.
http://economics.about.com
Oops.. I accidentally cut out the second portion of 10.18(h):
(2) Any other action by such batter, such as reaching base on a hit, an error, a fielder's choice, a force out, or being touched by a pitched ball, shall cause such a batter to be charged to the relief pitcher.
Oops.. I accidentally cut out the second portion of 10.18(h):
(2) Any other action by such batter, such as reaching base on a hit, an error, a fielder's choice, a force out, or being touched by a pitched ball, shall cause such a batter to be charged to the relief pitcher.
With Ligtenberg in the fold, I think we'll know for sure within the next two weeks if they're will be any more bullpen help coming...if Politte is tendered arbitration and we sign a Rule V pitcher then I think our bullpen is set (Kershner, T-Mil, A-Lo, C-Po, Walker/Hendrickson, Ligtenberg, Rule V)
If Ligtenberg works out, then 2.0 million is a fine % of our 8 million total to spend - but to work out he needs to be our ace reliver...or I guess bullpen as a whole jest needs to be much improved...so he'll be held to higher standard that Tam/Creek were even before Tam and Creek failed so miserably
but I do believe this is it for bullpen help
If Ligtenberg works out, then 2.0 million is a fine % of our 8 million total to spend - but to work out he needs to be our ace reliver...or I guess bullpen as a whole jest needs to be much improved...so he'll be held to higher standard that Tam/Creek were even before Tam and Creek failed so miserably
but I do believe this is it for bullpen help
Mike, that's all fine and dandy, but does it tell us anything about whether Ligtenberg should be limited 15 pitches and under?
http://economics.about.com
Mike, that's all fine and dandy, but does it tell us anything about whether Ligtenberg should be limited 15 pitches and under?
I suppose it tells you as much as any standard relief pitching stat does, since that's what it's based on.
I'd be more worried about sample size problems than anything else. It's hard enough to get good sample size for relief pitchers without breaking that sample into various subgroups.
Mike
Mike, that's all fine and dandy, but does it tell us anything about whether Ligtenberg should be limited 15 pitches and under?
I suppose it tells you as much as any standard relief pitching stat does, since that's what it's based on.
I'd be more worried about sample size problems than anything else. It's hard enough to get good sample size for relief pitchers without breaking that sample into various subgroups.
Mike
Is it just me, or is using ERA by pitch count (for a relief pitcher) bordering on insanity?
In my view Ligtenberg is a nice start. I'd say JP is halfway there,now he needs one more quality reliever. Something I have been thinking about since the Foulke to Boston discussions started is that if the Red Sox do sign him they will have too many quality relievers or at least to much payroll overall particularly if they trade for A-Rod, therefore I gotta hunch they will be listening to offers for Scott Williamson.
USA Todays salary database has Williamsons 2003 salary at $1.6 million. So 1) he should be affordable and 2) Williamson has let Theo Epstien know he would like to compete for a role in the rotation.
Boston might take a grade B propect for him if Foulke is signed and having Williamson on the roster entering the season as the favorite for a closers job lets A-Lo and Kerry assume a role more suited to their talent levels or experience. If A-Lo or Kerry really step it up in pre-season or early season and JP was not able to land the proverbial #2 man then the Jays would have the option to start Williamson. This senario doesn't purport to kill to birds with one stone but give the team roster flexibility at a modest price.
And by the way, I really like the Ligtenberg signing, even at these dollars. If you want to be competitive thats the cost and if JP has to increase the budget by five percent to compete, well I think he'll do that.
Last thought, I don't like the idea of the Jays grabbing Artie Lee Rhodes, don't get me wrong he has been one of the best over the past five yrs. but he's done. We get a lot, about 60 Mariners games a yr. in Vancouver and from what I seen last season, he's toast. Sure maybe that assessment is wrong but I wouldn't gamble a million on him let alone what he'll be looking for.
USA Todays salary database has Williamsons 2003 salary at $1.6 million. So 1) he should be affordable and 2) Williamson has let Theo Epstien know he would like to compete for a role in the rotation.
Boston might take a grade B propect for him if Foulke is signed and having Williamson on the roster entering the season as the favorite for a closers job lets A-Lo and Kerry assume a role more suited to their talent levels or experience. If A-Lo or Kerry really step it up in pre-season or early season and JP was not able to land the proverbial #2 man then the Jays would have the option to start Williamson. This senario doesn't purport to kill to birds with one stone but give the team roster flexibility at a modest price.
And by the way, I really like the Ligtenberg signing, even at these dollars. If you want to be competitive thats the cost and if JP has to increase the budget by five percent to compete, well I think he'll do that.
Last thought, I don't like the idea of the Jays grabbing Artie Lee Rhodes, don't get me wrong he has been one of the best over the past five yrs. but he's done. We get a lot, about 60 Mariners games a yr. in Vancouver and from what I seen last season, he's toast. Sure maybe that assessment is wrong but I wouldn't gamble a million on him let alone what he'll be looking for.
Good news for Jays starters to have another capable arm in the 'pen. I'm more surprised by the second year than by the salary, but as Jordan points out, the guys on our collective wish list (Gordon, Hawkins) are getting at least two years for considerably more money, and supposedly, so will Worrell. This market correction has made 1B/OF/DH types into commodities, but you still have to pay for pitching.
Whether Ligtenberg is setting up Lopez, or vice versa, the late innings don't figure to be quite as nerve-wracking next year. I'm wondering how this affects Cliff Politte, whose shoulder remains a question mark. If they don't offer him a contract, that's another million to spend on additional bullpen help. Not that Trever Miller wasn't a pleasant surprise, but if there's a LOOGY upgrade available, I'd be interested.
The talk about a #2 starter, as if that was a position, amuses me. Let's face it, there's no way the Jays are going to match up with Boston or Oakland in that regard. With Doc and four league-average guys -- plus a more reliable relief corps -- this team will score enough runs to make things interesting. I really don't care about the labels; Ted Lilly can pitch the second game of the year, Pat Hentgen the third. I'd be quite content if J.P. signs one more decent starter and continues to improve the bullpen.
Whether Ligtenberg is setting up Lopez, or vice versa, the late innings don't figure to be quite as nerve-wracking next year. I'm wondering how this affects Cliff Politte, whose shoulder remains a question mark. If they don't offer him a contract, that's another million to spend on additional bullpen help. Not that Trever Miller wasn't a pleasant surprise, but if there's a LOOGY upgrade available, I'd be interested.
The talk about a #2 starter, as if that was a position, amuses me. Let's face it, there's no way the Jays are going to match up with Boston or Oakland in that regard. With Doc and four league-average guys -- plus a more reliable relief corps -- this team will score enough runs to make things interesting. I really don't care about the labels; Ted Lilly can pitch the second game of the year, Pat Hentgen the third. I'd be quite content if J.P. signs one more decent starter and continues to improve the bullpen.
Last year, a decent bullpen might have given us an extra 10 - 15 wins
Woh there cowboy!
The Jays bullpen gave up 260 runs last year. Converting that to decent (let's say that decent means the 5th ranked bullpen in terms of runs allowed - the White Sox) would mean that it gave up 209 runs.
Those 51 runs (not) prevented would have changed the Jays Pythagorean W-L from 87-75 to 92-70. That's 5 games. 10-15 is an aweful lot.
Woh there cowboy!
The Jays bullpen gave up 260 runs last year. Converting that to decent (let's say that decent means the 5th ranked bullpen in terms of runs allowed - the White Sox) would mean that it gave up 209 runs.
Those 51 runs (not) prevented would have changed the Jays Pythagorean W-L from 87-75 to 92-70. That's 5 games. 10-15 is an aweful lot.
The whole idea of using ERA to evaluate relievers is more than a bit silly because of the accounting for inherited runners according to the rules. To then break it down by pitch count for each reliever does indeed border on insanity.
There are simple statistics to measure a reliever's effectiveness for different periods in each outing: opposition OBP and opposition slugging percentage.
There are simple statistics to measure a reliever's effectiveness for different periods in each outing: opposition OBP and opposition slugging percentage.
I think you could do a perfectly decent RRA based on pitch count. But you'd need run expectation tables based not only on bases occupied and outs but also on balls and strikes on the batter.
In the meantime, why not just use opponents' batting lines?
In the meantime, why not just use opponents' batting lines?
Those 51 runs (not) prevented would have changed the Jays Pythagorean W-L from 87-75 to 92-70. That's 5 games. 10-15 is an aweful lot.
I don't believe for a moment that a bullpen would have given us as many as 10 or 15 more W's but where the idea gets interesting is when you consider that our 5 extra wins had to come at the cost of another team. So if those 5 games we ended up winning because of a new bullpen just *happened* to all be against Boston, we would end up with 91 wins and the Red Sox only 90. It's taking the idea to an extreme but I'm just making the point.
I don't believe for a moment that a bullpen would have given us as many as 10 or 15 more W's but where the idea gets interesting is when you consider that our 5 extra wins had to come at the cost of another team. So if those 5 games we ended up winning because of a new bullpen just *happened* to all be against Boston, we would end up with 91 wins and the Red Sox only 90. It's taking the idea to an extreme but I'm just making the point.
I think to get a full pictuer of how many wins the bullpen cost us we need to see the Jays save conversion rate in '03 as compared to a decent save right - I suspect that number is higher than a 5 win differential
Is it just me, or is using ERA by pitch count (for a relief pitcher) bordering on insanity?
AVG/OBP/SLG is probably more telling but it tells the same story.
Last 3 years...
Pitches 1-15: 219/289/320
Pitches 16-30: 250/332/431
Not that it matters much. No metric can say with accuracy whether a guy is going to fall apart at pitch 16. It's simply a piece of intriguing information.
AVG/OBP/SLG is probably more telling but it tells the same story.
Last 3 years...
Pitches 1-15: 219/289/320
Pitches 16-30: 250/332/431
Not that it matters much. No metric can say with accuracy whether a guy is going to fall apart at pitch 16. It's simply a piece of intriguing information.
What I can't understand is why the Orioles turned down Lichtenberg's option @ 1.2 mil. In the current market, this would seem to be a bargain. Any views?
Leigh, A
You did not watch the jays last year. That's the only conclusion I can get to.
I can think of games against baltimore, montreal, cinci, tampa bay, tigers, and many more that escaped my mind blown by politte, acevedoh, bad service, some other idiot they threw out there (tanyon, creek, tam), and the occasional one by lopez.
You expect your bullpen to convert a 4 run lead into a win after the 6th, every time. They jays didn't do that.
As for the rotation, replacing hendrickson, wasdin, davis, thurman, and sturtze (at least 15 games we were out of by the 3rd or 4th inning) with a guy that keeps us in these ballgames amounts to about 6 - 8 wins.
Do the math and see where we are with a solid bullpen, and starting pitching that keeps you in ballgames.
I am not predicting the playoffs though ... lily and hentgen are injury risks,we are facing improved competition, and a dropoff in the offence is very likely.
You did not watch the jays last year. That's the only conclusion I can get to.
I can think of games against baltimore, montreal, cinci, tampa bay, tigers, and many more that escaped my mind blown by politte, acevedoh, bad service, some other idiot they threw out there (tanyon, creek, tam), and the occasional one by lopez.
You expect your bullpen to convert a 4 run lead into a win after the 6th, every time. They jays didn't do that.
As for the rotation, replacing hendrickson, wasdin, davis, thurman, and sturtze (at least 15 games we were out of by the 3rd or 4th inning) with a guy that keeps us in these ballgames amounts to about 6 - 8 wins.
Do the math and see where we are with a solid bullpen, and starting pitching that keeps you in ballgames.
I am not predicting the playoffs though ... lily and hentgen are injury risks,we are facing improved competition, and a dropoff in the offence is very likely.
There might be more games than that but lets face it, we don't have a team of Eric Gange's. So lets not assume that all those games, or even half of them, that we can bring up, would be safe with Blue Jay bullpen v.2004. It's a considerable upgrade and I approve of the players they've acquired (maybe not the price they're paying) but the improvement won't be THAT signification.
JayFan0912,
I watched (on tv, damned geography) virtually every Jays game this season. And yes, I remember those bullpen meltdowns.
As a team, the Jays converted 36 saves in 53 opportunities, meaning that they blew 16. I am saying that a decent bullpen (say, the White Sox') would have prevented an extra 50 runs. If those 50 runs prevented could have been distributed exactly during those 16 blown saves (all of which were not losses anyway), that would make Tosca not only the greatest manager of all time, but probably clairvoyant (sp?).
The point, I guess, is that you can't allow anecdotal reasoning to cloud your judgment.
I watched (on tv, damned geography) virtually every Jays game this season. And yes, I remember those bullpen meltdowns.
As a team, the Jays converted 36 saves in 53 opportunities, meaning that they blew 16. I am saying that a decent bullpen (say, the White Sox') would have prevented an extra 50 runs. If those 50 runs prevented could have been distributed exactly during those 16 blown saves (all of which were not losses anyway), that would make Tosca not only the greatest manager of all time, but probably clairvoyant (sp?).
The point, I guess, is that you can't allow anecdotal reasoning to cloud your judgment.
Hehe, I pulled a George W. and made up a word. **Significant.
http://www.bluejayway.ca/features/me/melist.php
Leigh:
You are anticipating my next column on Blue Jay Way. I'll try to come up with enough interesting stuff that I'm not just parroting what you said.
Leigh:
You are anticipating my next column on Blue Jay Way. I'll try to come up with enough interesting stuff that I'm not just parroting what you said.
Do the math and see where we are with a solid bullpen
Uh, yeah, Leigh did some math. You on the other hand went on a talk radio style rant, making the fatal assumption that you can bring in a good reliever in place of various bad relievers and he will provide all those good innings exactly where you need them, and if he has a bad inning it'll happen when the game is out of hand anyway. The best teams will blow some leads they shouldn't, and the worst teams will hold some tight leads. Leigh's approach of looking at the overall effect in terms of run prevention is realistic. Theoretically replacing specific innings with a different pitcher is not realistic.
Uh, yeah, Leigh did some math. You on the other hand went on a talk radio style rant, making the fatal assumption that you can bring in a good reliever in place of various bad relievers and he will provide all those good innings exactly where you need them, and if he has a bad inning it'll happen when the game is out of hand anyway. The best teams will blow some leads they shouldn't, and the worst teams will hold some tight leads. Leigh's approach of looking at the overall effect in terms of run prevention is realistic. Theoretically replacing specific innings with a different pitcher is not realistic.
http://economics.about.com
On the topic of saves,
The Jays saves conversion rate last year was 68%, which puts them 7th out of 14 teams in the AL. Not too shabby.
The average AL team had 58 save opportunities in 2003. Using that figure, here are the save percentage rates for the 14 AL teams and what that save percentage translates to out of 58:
TEAM PCTG OUT OF 58
Athletics 80% 46.4
Angels 75% 43.5
Yankees 73% 42.4
Mariners 73% 42.4
Twins 70% 40.8
Rangers 68% 39.6
Blue Jays 68% 39.4
White Sox 68% 39.4
Orioles 66% 38.4
Red Sox 63% 36.6
Tigers 59% 34.0
Indians 58% 33.4
Royals 56% 32.6
Devil Rays 55% 31.6
So out of 58 opportunities, the A's save percentage rate would lead to an additional 7 saves for the Jays.
Given that some games where you blow saves you'll still turn around and win the game, I don't see how having the best bullpen in the AL next year leads to more than an additional 5 or 6 games.
Can someone point out when Acevedo had a blown save? If he did, I must have missed that game.
Cheers,
Mike
On the topic of saves,
The Jays saves conversion rate last year was 68%, which puts them 7th out of 14 teams in the AL. Not too shabby.
The average AL team had 58 save opportunities in 2003. Using that figure, here are the save percentage rates for the 14 AL teams and what that save percentage translates to out of 58:
TEAM PCTG OUT OF 58
Athletics 80% 46.4
Angels 75% 43.5
Yankees 73% 42.4
Mariners 73% 42.4
Twins 70% 40.8
Rangers 68% 39.6
Blue Jays 68% 39.4
White Sox 68% 39.4
Orioles 66% 38.4
Red Sox 63% 36.6
Tigers 59% 34.0
Indians 58% 33.4
Royals 56% 32.6
Devil Rays 55% 31.6
So out of 58 opportunities, the A's save percentage rate would lead to an additional 7 saves for the Jays.
Given that some games where you blow saves you'll still turn around and win the game, I don't see how having the best bullpen in the AL next year leads to more than an additional 5 or 6 games.
Can someone point out when Acevedo had a blown save? If he did, I must have missed that game.
Cheers,
Mike
Can someone point out when Acevedo had a blown save? If he did, I must have missed that game.
Here ya go. It isn't listed on the box score for some reason but it is listed on Acevedo's Game Log.
Here ya go. It isn't listed on the box score for some reason but it is listed on Acevedo's Game Log.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=230723114
Mike M.:
You, also, are stealing my upcoming material. I forgive you for this, because we are obviously both on the side of truth and beauty.
The Acevedo game was a particularly egregious one. Be glad you missed it. If you're curious about the gory details, though, click on my name.
Mike M.:
You, also, are stealing my upcoming material. I forgive you for this, because we are obviously both on the side of truth and beauty.
The Acevedo game was a particularly egregious one. Be glad you missed it. If you're curious about the gory details, though, click on my name.
Ligtenterg was just 3 runs prevented better than average last season after taking base-out situations into account, according to Prospectus.
The Jays' had 5 "scrapheap" relievers do better last year: ALopez (+12), Kershner (+9), Thurman (+4 as a reliever), TMiller (+4), and PWalker (+4 as a reliever). Sure, lots of others didn't do so well, but the expensive options are not sure things either (e.g. Creek (-4) and Tam (-6), not to mention Escobar's -7 as a reliever).
Looking at the component stats, I don't see much reason to think Ligtenberg will be much different than average over the next two years. Right now, I'd probably project him at just 5% better than average next year (.255 opponents EqA) over 60 innings. (And it's only that optimistic because of his pre-2003 performance.)
I'm hoping the early salary reports are just wrong and, at the very least, the second year is at the Jays' option.
The Jays' had 5 "scrapheap" relievers do better last year: ALopez (+12), Kershner (+9), Thurman (+4 as a reliever), TMiller (+4), and PWalker (+4 as a reliever). Sure, lots of others didn't do so well, but the expensive options are not sure things either (e.g. Creek (-4) and Tam (-6), not to mention Escobar's -7 as a reliever).
Looking at the component stats, I don't see much reason to think Ligtenberg will be much different than average over the next two years. Right now, I'd probably project him at just 5% better than average next year (.255 opponents EqA) over 60 innings. (And it's only that optimistic because of his pre-2003 performance.)
I'm hoping the early salary reports are just wrong and, at the very least, the second year is at the Jays' option.
http://economics.about.com
Here ya go. It isn't listed on the box score for some reason but it is listed on Acevedo's Game Log.
Weird. I didn't think Acevedo was ever in position to save (or blow a save) for the Jays.
Thanks Spicol!
Mike
Here ya go. It isn't listed on the box score for some reason but it is listed on Acevedo's Game Log.
Weird. I didn't think Acevedo was ever in position to save (or blow a save) for the Jays.
Thanks Spicol!
Mike
Spicol: which of us is wrong about what game Acevedo had a blown save in? They both look like blown saves to me, but I recall seeing that he just had one for the Jays.
Jonny German,
I didn't mean only 1 guy ... I compared an improved bullpen. This is why so much money is spent on good relievers.
However, 1 guy does make a difference. when you consider that kershner and lopez were burnt out by the end of the season, and that bullpens need rest to be effective, 60 IP can improve the performance of the bullpen as a whole ... I guess there is a formula for this, you just haven't thought of it. This is also why its risky business to go out there and get tam,creek,sturtze, etc -- money well spent.
I didn't mean only 1 guy ... I compared an improved bullpen. This is why so much money is spent on good relievers.
However, 1 guy does make a difference. when you consider that kershner and lopez were burnt out by the end of the season, and that bullpens need rest to be effective, 60 IP can improve the performance of the bullpen as a whole ... I guess there is a formula for this, you just haven't thought of it. This is also why its risky business to go out there and get tam,creek,sturtze, etc -- money well spent.
As always I love the statistical analysis you people bring to the table!
It's good to see that a guy I pegged on my wishlist just today ended up getting signed :) I think that he'll do well in Toronto and will provide a quality arm to shore up the bullpen. I think he will be used strictly against righties but if things get hairy he could be suitable as a setup guy.
It's good to see that a guy I pegged on my wishlist just today ended up getting signed :) I think that he'll do well in Toronto and will provide a quality arm to shore up the bullpen. I think he will be used strictly against righties but if things get hairy he could be suitable as a setup guy.
All speculation here has been based on the also-pretty-circumstantial suggestion that Maddux would take 2 years at $10 million.
Yup, leaving the West Coast and working for a third of his old salary is unlikely...thats for software engineers not pitchers.
Yup, leaving the West Coast and working for a third of his old salary is unlikely...thats for software engineers not pitchers.
Spicol: which of us is wrong about what game Acevedo had a blown save in? They both look like blown saves to me, but I recall seeing that he just had one for the Jays.
Matthew, the July 23rd game you pointed out was a loss for Acevedo (and strangely, a hold) but not a blown save. Juan left with the bases loaded and a save situation still intact, which is why he couldn't get credited with blowing a save. Reichert came in and immediately gave up the double that drove in 2 to tie the game. Acevedo was still responsible for the baserunner on third, who scored after an intentional walk and a HBP, and so was saddled with the loss despite not actually blowing the save.
What can I say? Save rules are dumb.
Matthew, the July 23rd game you pointed out was a loss for Acevedo (and strangely, a hold) but not a blown save. Juan left with the bases loaded and a save situation still intact, which is why he couldn't get credited with blowing a save. Reichert came in and immediately gave up the double that drove in 2 to tie the game. Acevedo was still responsible for the baserunner on third, who scored after an intentional walk and a HBP, and so was saddled with the loss despite not actually blowing the save.
What can I say? Save rules are dumb.
Matthew E -
In the game you linked, Acevedo was relieved by Reichert before the Jays surrendered the lead. So Reichert was credited with the blown save and Acevedo took the loss after loading the bases with one out. And yes, I remember watching that game and seeing Hawk Harrelson go crazy. So Acevedo's only BS was for the Red Sox game linked by Spicol.
In the game you linked, Acevedo was relieved by Reichert before the Jays surrendered the lead. So Reichert was credited with the blown save and Acevedo took the loss after loading the bases with one out. And yes, I remember watching that game and seeing Hawk Harrelson go crazy. So Acevedo's only BS was for the Red Sox game linked by Spicol.
That's significantly higher than I was expecting. That's almost as much as Hentgen got to be a starter. Let's hope those problems against lefties this year were just a blip.
I am hesitant to throw my two cents into the mix...
I think it's an awful lot of money.
I think it's hard to justify spending $4.5 million for 140 innings unless it's high-leverage stuff.
I therefore think Ligtenberg may be the closer.
It's still an awful lot of money in a market that just got flooded.
I'm glad the Jays waited for the non-tender deadline, at least.
I am worried I may be missing something.
It's an awful lot of money.
When J.P. said they think the bullpen is as important as the rotation, he wasn't kidding.
There's no #2 starting pitcher behind the curtain... there's not a lot left to sign a good arm for the rotation.
It's an awful lot of money.
I think it's an awful lot of money.
I think it's hard to justify spending $4.5 million for 140 innings unless it's high-leverage stuff.
I therefore think Ligtenberg may be the closer.
It's still an awful lot of money in a market that just got flooded.
I'm glad the Jays waited for the non-tender deadline, at least.
I am worried I may be missing something.
It's an awful lot of money.
When J.P. said they think the bullpen is as important as the rotation, he wasn't kidding.
There's no #2 starting pitcher behind the curtain... there's not a lot left to sign a good arm for the rotation.
It's an awful lot of money.
I know...no one has answered my question, which is: if Kerry is an effective setup man or closer, why weren't the O's prepared to give him a paltry 1.2 million? I don't get it.
Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
I'm satisfied with this signing;
1.)$4.5 million over 2 years is well within the current financial spectrum for a pitcher of this calibre.
2.)Unlike Hawkins, Gordon and Quantrill he won't cost us a draft choice.
3.)Its all well and good to covet Rhodes and Benitez, but you have to get their names on the dotted line. Signability of free agents is always a concern in Toronto. Who knows maybe J.P. has had discussions with their agents and found he wasn't in the hunt.
I'm a little concerned we've got another guy who's strong against righties(see Lopez and Politte) but struggles (lately) against lefties.I could very easily see Politte being non-tendered by this move.
1.)$4.5 million over 2 years is well within the current financial spectrum for a pitcher of this calibre.
2.)Unlike Hawkins, Gordon and Quantrill he won't cost us a draft choice.
3.)Its all well and good to covet Rhodes and Benitez, but you have to get their names on the dotted line. Signability of free agents is always a concern in Toronto. Who knows maybe J.P. has had discussions with their agents and found he wasn't in the hunt.
I'm a little concerned we've got another guy who's strong against righties(see Lopez and Politte) but struggles (lately) against lefties.I could very easily see Politte being non-tendered by this move.
salamander: I believe Orioles fans are asking the same thing.
Looking at the component stats, I don't see much reason to think Ligtenberg will be much different than average over the next two years.
If the Jays are getting the guy who pitched for Rockin' Leo (12.3 ARP in '02, 9.7 ARP in '01, 14.4 ARP in '00), then $4.5 over 2 yrs is going to look like a bargain.
Hey, if Tosca can help Livan and Patterson help Loaiza, I'm willing to bet they can restore Ligtenberg.
That's almost as much as Hentgen got to be a starter.
I think this is smarter money then what the club spent on Hentgen (aside from what Rogers might make back on his salary through promotions and advertising).
If the Jays are getting the guy who pitched for Rockin' Leo (12.3 ARP in '02, 9.7 ARP in '01, 14.4 ARP in '00), then $4.5 over 2 yrs is going to look like a bargain.
Hey, if Tosca can help Livan and Patterson help Loaiza, I'm willing to bet they can restore Ligtenberg.
That's almost as much as Hentgen got to be a starter.
I think this is smarter money then what the club spent on Hentgen (aside from what Rogers might make back on his salary through promotions and advertising).
"I know...no one has answered my question, which is: if Kerry is an effective setup man or closer, why weren't the O's prepared to give him a paltry 1.2 million? I don't get it."
It's the O's, have they ever done anything smart in the recent past?
As Craig B. said it looks like Ligtenberg could very well be the Jays setup man or closer. I hope he starts as the setup man as I want to see how Lopez fares as a closer.
It's the O's, have they ever done anything smart in the recent past?
As Craig B. said it looks like Ligtenberg could very well be the Jays setup man or closer. I hope he starts as the setup man as I want to see how Lopez fares as a closer.
"It's the O's, have they ever done anything smart in the recent past?"
Jay Gibbons comes to mind :)
Jay Gibbons comes to mind :)
Craig B: Was that some kind of a poem? Sort of a Canadian Haiku?
Geoff Baker says Jays are still looking for a closer, a starter and a backup shortstop.
I see that Michele Landsberg lookalike Richard Griffin calls Kerry Ligtenberg a 'minnow'. The Star's headline, a typical Star cheapshot at JP, says JP is fishing for 'minnows' while 'sharks' abound.
Griffin must know well how it feels to be a 'minnow'. Having received international attention on ESPN for his incompetence as a sportswriter, it must be difficult for him to know that baseball fans fully recognize that he has nothing to contribute but cheapshots. When it comes to creatures that swim, Griffin and his editor Graham Parley, are strictly of the septic tank variety.
Which brings me back to a question I asked earlier. Why is this guy archived on a site for Blue Jay fans?
Griffin must know well how it feels to be a 'minnow'. Having received international attention on ESPN for his incompetence as a sportswriter, it must be difficult for him to know that baseball fans fully recognize that he has nothing to contribute but cheapshots. When it comes to creatures that swim, Griffin and his editor Graham Parley, are strictly of the septic tank variety.
Which brings me back to a question I asked earlier. Why is this guy archived on a site for Blue Jay fans?
Ligtenberg? Yes, I like the move. It will be interesting to see how he pitches regularly in SkyDome.
Are the Maddux rumors legitimate? He is not quite the pitcher he once was but 12-15 wins from him would really fill a gap in the pitching staff.
Now, time to find a shortstop...
Are the Maddux rumors legitimate? He is not quite the pitcher he once was but 12-15 wins from him would really fill a gap in the pitching staff.
Now, time to find a shortstop...
Geoff Baker says Jays are still looking for a closer, a starter and a backup shortstop.
And apparently Tim Worrell and Miguel Batista are players the Jays are talking with (although the impression that I got from the Star article was that things fell through with Worrell).
Either way it's good that the Jays want another quality arm in the pen. Wanting another reliever sounds like the Jays will non-tender Politte.
And apparently Tim Worrell and Miguel Batista are players the Jays are talking with (although the impression that I got from the Star article was that things fell through with Worrell).
Either way it's good that the Jays want another quality arm in the pen. Wanting another reliever sounds like the Jays will non-tender Politte.
Why is this guy archived on a site for Blue Jay fans?
Because we did an interview with him, because he was nice enough to give us his time, because we're not blank-eyed slaves of groupthink that condemn everyone who disagrees with us to some Outer Darkness.
I think Griffin is wrong about so many things it would be pointless to even count. But what he said in that series was often extremely interesting (again, I think much of it was wrong) and worth reading for anyone who wants to maintain a critical attitude toward team management... as I do.
apparently Tim Worrell and Miguel Batista are players the Jays are talking with (although the impression that I got from the Star article was that things fell through with Worrell)
That sort of explains the eagerness to hop in bed with Ligtenberg. If Worrell is being more ardently pursued by the Braves than the Jays, it makes some sense to cut bait instead of continuing to fish.
Batista may still work into the mix, and that would be an encouraging sign. However, that would put the Jays fairly tight against their budget ceiling, without having worked out a long-term deal with Halladay. If management adopt a "Safety First" motto, they may not make another mid-size signing until Big Roy is signed, sealed and delivered.
Because we did an interview with him, because he was nice enough to give us his time, because we're not blank-eyed slaves of groupthink that condemn everyone who disagrees with us to some Outer Darkness.
I think Griffin is wrong about so many things it would be pointless to even count. But what he said in that series was often extremely interesting (again, I think much of it was wrong) and worth reading for anyone who wants to maintain a critical attitude toward team management... as I do.
apparently Tim Worrell and Miguel Batista are players the Jays are talking with (although the impression that I got from the Star article was that things fell through with Worrell)
That sort of explains the eagerness to hop in bed with Ligtenberg. If Worrell is being more ardently pursued by the Braves than the Jays, it makes some sense to cut bait instead of continuing to fish.
Batista may still work into the mix, and that would be an encouraging sign. However, that would put the Jays fairly tight against their budget ceiling, without having worked out a long-term deal with Halladay. If management adopt a "Safety First" motto, they may not make another mid-size signing until Big Roy is signed, sealed and delivered.
Re: Bullpens saving wins.
You can't just plug bullpen runs allowed into the Pythagorean formula and get a win conversion. Remember that bullpen IP, and especially the IP by your 3 or 4 best relievers, are going to be much higher-leverage than an average IP.
In other words, if every game I'm in it's close and late, the runs I give up translate to a higher number of wins per run than the runs that someone gives up who enters in the fourth inning in a blowout, or even who starts.
tangotiger's done some work on this topic: http://www.geocities.com/tmasc/#Crucial
Re: Overpaying.
The one thought I've had since I complained about overpaying goes to my experience playing OOTP5. If you put in, at the beginning of free agency, a competitive bid for a player, he'll wait for a few days. Over the course of those few days, someone else will make another competitive bid, and you'll start a bidding war. If, OTOH, you blow the player out of the water early, then often he'll accept your offer before anyone else bids. This can, in OOTP anyways, mean that you actually pay lower salaries if you dramatically exceed someone's expectations early than if you get into a competitive bidding war.
Just a thought. I still think we overpaid, and the proof of that overpayment is the use of the phrase 'proven reliever' on these boards. :-)
You can't just plug bullpen runs allowed into the Pythagorean formula and get a win conversion. Remember that bullpen IP, and especially the IP by your 3 or 4 best relievers, are going to be much higher-leverage than an average IP.
In other words, if every game I'm in it's close and late, the runs I give up translate to a higher number of wins per run than the runs that someone gives up who enters in the fourth inning in a blowout, or even who starts.
tangotiger's done some work on this topic: http://www.geocities.com/tmasc/#Crucial
Re: Overpaying.
The one thought I've had since I complained about overpaying goes to my experience playing OOTP5. If you put in, at the beginning of free agency, a competitive bid for a player, he'll wait for a few days. Over the course of those few days, someone else will make another competitive bid, and you'll start a bidding war. If, OTOH, you blow the player out of the water early, then often he'll accept your offer before anyone else bids. This can, in OOTP anyways, mean that you actually pay lower salaries if you dramatically exceed someone's expectations early than if you get into a competitive bidding war.
Just a thought. I still think we overpaid, and the proof of that overpayment is the use of the phrase 'proven reliever' on these boards. :-)
John Neary re posts 61 and 62: see, we do agree.
My major concern with this deal is the 2nd year of the contract. I have trouble believing that one could not acquire a capable 60 inning reliever for $2 million or less on a 1 year contract. I'd much rather see the remainder allocated to a long-term contract for Halladay and then for Delgado.
I have a question for the economists. If a capable 60-80 inning pitcher is worth $2-$3.5 million, how much is a better than capable 240-260 inning pitcher worth? It seems to me that Roy Halladay's bargaining position is stronger than anyone might have imagined at the start of this off-season.
My major concern with this deal is the 2nd year of the contract. I have trouble believing that one could not acquire a capable 60 inning reliever for $2 million or less on a 1 year contract. I'd much rather see the remainder allocated to a long-term contract for Halladay and then for Delgado.
I have a question for the economists. If a capable 60-80 inning pitcher is worth $2-$3.5 million, how much is a better than capable 240-260 inning pitcher worth? It seems to me that Roy Halladay's bargaining position is stronger than anyone might have imagined at the start of this off-season.
http://economics.about.com
I have a question for the economists. If a capable 60-80 inning pitcher is worth $2-$3.5 million, how much is a better than capable 240-260 inning pitcher worth?
It depends on what the Fed is planning to do with interest rates.
Mike
I have a question for the economists. If a capable 60-80 inning pitcher is worth $2-$3.5 million, how much is a better than capable 240-260 inning pitcher worth?
It depends on what the Fed is planning to do with interest rates.
Mike
It depends on what the Fed is planning to do with interest rates.
LOL
LOL
No one ever suggested J.P. was perfect...he has a remarkable eye for talent and he knows how to manage a payroll/organization better than just about any other G.M., but I think its safe to say that patience isn't his strongest virtue (and I think he may even be the first to admit it)
BagofBalls wrote: I see that Michele Landsberg lookalike Richard Griffin calls Kerry Ligtenberg a 'minnow'. The Star's headline, a typical Star cheapshot at JP, says JP is fishing for 'minnows' while 'sharks' abound.
Griffin must know well how it feels to be a 'minnow'. Having received international attention on ESPN for his incompetence as a sportswriter, it must be difficult for him to know that baseball fans fully recognize that he has nothing to contribute but cheapshots. When it comes to creatures that swim, Griffin and his editor Graham Parley, are strictly of the septic tank variety.
To be fair to Griffin, he doesn't write the headlines. (Whoever does write the Star sports headlines has much to answer for, though.) And if you look at the contents of the column, you'll see it's mostly informational. I don't remember anything objectionable in it.
Griffin must know well how it feels to be a 'minnow'. Having received international attention on ESPN for his incompetence as a sportswriter, it must be difficult for him to know that baseball fans fully recognize that he has nothing to contribute but cheapshots. When it comes to creatures that swim, Griffin and his editor Graham Parley, are strictly of the septic tank variety.
To be fair to Griffin, he doesn't write the headlines. (Whoever does write the Star sports headlines has much to answer for, though.) And if you look at the contents of the column, you'll see it's mostly informational. I don't remember anything objectionable in it.
J.P. may have overpayed a bit for Ligtenberg, but it makes sense for two reasons.
1) Filling his need for a reliever early lets him concentrate on other needs such as a starter. He also knows what he has left to spend.
2) Paying a little more for the right guy may make more sense than getting a bargain on a reliever he feels so-so about. If there are only a couple of relievers out there he likes, then overpaying lets him be sure he gets one of them, rather than settling later.
1) Filling his need for a reliever early lets him concentrate on other needs such as a starter. He also knows what he has left to spend.
2) Paying a little more for the right guy may make more sense than getting a bargain on a reliever he feels so-so about. If there are only a couple of relievers out there he likes, then overpaying lets him be sure he gets one of them, rather than settling later.
To be fair to Griffin, he doesn't write the headlines. (Whoever does write the Star sports headlines has much to answer for, though.) And if you look at the contents of the column, you'll see it's mostly informational. I don't remember anything objectionable in it.
He managed to squeeze one unnecessary and untrue shot at J.P.
While talk of an Alex Rodriguez for Manny Ramirez trade continues to hog the baseball spotlight, Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi quietly looks for additional free-agent bargains to solidify his team's slippery hold on third place in the AL East.
He managed to squeeze one unnecessary and untrue shot at J.P.
While talk of an Alex Rodriguez for Manny Ramirez trade continues to hog the baseball spotlight, Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi quietly looks for additional free-agent bargains to solidify his team's slippery hold on third place in the AL East.
The thing to keep in mind about the second year of the deal is that virtually no relief pitcher worth his salt is going anywhere for less than two years right now (Rod Beck and Trevor Hoffman have one-year deals in San Diego, but considering their respective precariousness, that's understandable).
Tom Gordon: 2 years
Shiggy Hasegawa: 2 years
Latroy Hawkins: 2 years + option
Felix Heredia: 2 years
Tom Martin: 2 years
Paul Quantrill: 2 years
The high-end guys like Foulke, Urbina and Guardado are looking at 3 years minimum. Any reliever in demand is going to get something multi-year.
Tom Gordon: 2 years
Shiggy Hasegawa: 2 years
Latroy Hawkins: 2 years + option
Felix Heredia: 2 years
Tom Martin: 2 years
Paul Quantrill: 2 years
The high-end guys like Foulke, Urbina and Guardado are looking at 3 years minimum. Any reliever in demand is going to get something multi-year.
Further to that, Guardado apparently just signed with Seattle, three years, $14M.
Fiscal responsibility? What fiscal responsibility?
I can't believe Everyday Eddie landed $14 million worth of contract.
ERA+, 2001 2002 2003 Career
129 151 160 105
146 139 130 140
KL's signing (do we call him KL, or is that too confusing? How about KDL? How about the Rapid City Fireball?) looks a lot better now.
I can't believe Everyday Eddie landed $14 million worth of contract.
ERA+, 2001 2002 2003 Career
129 151 160 105
146 139 130 140
KL's signing (do we call him KL, or is that too confusing? How about KDL? How about the Rapid City Fireball?) looks a lot better now.
Ricciardi quietly looks for additional free-agent bargains to solidify his team's slippery hold on third place
I can't understand why so many people are scared of the Orioles. The Jays a) are good, b) are improving, c) have a good farm system and d) have smart people in charge. The Orioles a) aren't good, b) are improving much more slowly, c) have a mediocre farm system and d) have somewhat smart people in charge. Toronto's ahead and widening their lead. I'll check back in three years to see if Baltimore's doing anything interesting yet.
I can't understand why so many people are scared of the Orioles. The Jays a) are good, b) are improving, c) have a good farm system and d) have smart people in charge. The Orioles a) aren't good, b) are improving much more slowly, c) have a mediocre farm system and d) have somewhat smart people in charge. Toronto's ahead and widening their lead. I'll check back in three years to see if Baltimore's doing anything interesting yet.
the use of the phrase 'proven reliever' on these boards
Andrew, this isn't "proof" that Ligtenberg isn't worth $2M. The pejorative use of the phrase "proven reliever" stems from fat contracts given to pitchers with mediocre production -- Roberto Hernandez, Mike Williams, etc. -- simply because management is more comfortable with a veteran devil they know on their roster than they are with an "unproven" rookie.
Empirically, Kerry Ligtenberg is a proven reliever. He's a consistently above-average relief pitcher, and the '04 Jays would benefit from an above-average relief pitcher, so it's worth looking into.
It wasn't so long ago that Gord Ash's payroll was $78M. It's amazing that people are apoplectic about $2M for a solid pitcher -- in 2004 dollars. As I said earlier, if Heredia gets $1.8 and Quantrill gets $3.4, how low can Kerry's agent reasonably be expected to go?
Andrew, this isn't "proof" that Ligtenberg isn't worth $2M. The pejorative use of the phrase "proven reliever" stems from fat contracts given to pitchers with mediocre production -- Roberto Hernandez, Mike Williams, etc. -- simply because management is more comfortable with a veteran devil they know on their roster than they are with an "unproven" rookie.
Empirically, Kerry Ligtenberg is a proven reliever. He's a consistently above-average relief pitcher, and the '04 Jays would benefit from an above-average relief pitcher, so it's worth looking into.
It wasn't so long ago that Gord Ash's payroll was $78M. It's amazing that people are apoplectic about $2M for a solid pitcher -- in 2004 dollars. As I said earlier, if Heredia gets $1.8 and Quantrill gets $3.4, how low can Kerry's agent reasonably be expected to go?
The internet doesn't convey emotional volume very well.
I meant the 'proven reliever' line as a throw-away crack, nothing more. And nobody's apoplectic. This would be one of Ash's best FA signings. Ol' Gordo woulda given KL twice as much.
It's just that it's a little high, the way $25 for a CD would be a litle high, not the was $95000 for a Ford Taurus would be 'high'.
Anyways. KL's good to have on the team. JP's an outstanding GM. This signing isn't perfect, the way most of JP's moves have been, it's just good.
I meant the 'proven reliever' line as a throw-away crack, nothing more. And nobody's apoplectic. This would be one of Ash's best FA signings. Ol' Gordo woulda given KL twice as much.
It's just that it's a little high, the way $25 for a CD would be a litle high, not the was $95000 for a Ford Taurus would be 'high'.
Anyways. KL's good to have on the team. JP's an outstanding GM. This signing isn't perfect, the way most of JP's moves have been, it's just good.
No worries, Andrew. I should have heeded the emoticon!
Jordan, Felix Heredia and Tom Martin are worth their salt? Hmmm. It definitely is a strange, strange off-season when mediocre to capable relievers are declining rich options and signing 2 year contracts, while two of the best players in baseball (Sheffield and Guerrero) are not being offered arbitration.
But, for a whole decade (the 1960s), almost all major league teams believed that the sine qua non of a leadoff hitter was base-stealing ability, rather than the ability to get on base.
Anyways, I'd like to point out that others have suggested that Ligtenberg is a better bet over the next 2 years than anyone in the current pen other than Lopez. Jason Kershner is not "proven", but I like him quite a bit. His 2002 performance in the PCL, followed up by his 2003 performance in Syracuse and in Toronto, suggests that he will be a capable reliever against both righties and lefties for years to come. If the price of a "proven" capable reliever is $4.5 million over 2 years, I'd take my chances on the "unproven" at $1 million over 2 years.
But, for a whole decade (the 1960s), almost all major league teams believed that the sine qua non of a leadoff hitter was base-stealing ability, rather than the ability to get on base.
Anyways, I'd like to point out that others have suggested that Ligtenberg is a better bet over the next 2 years than anyone in the current pen other than Lopez. Jason Kershner is not "proven", but I like him quite a bit. His 2002 performance in the PCL, followed up by his 2003 performance in Syracuse and in Toronto, suggests that he will be a capable reliever against both righties and lefties for years to come. If the price of a "proven" capable reliever is $4.5 million over 2 years, I'd take my chances on the "unproven" at $1 million over 2 years.
Anyone else realize that KL is 33 in May? I probably would have guessed 30, tops.
Heredia and Martin are head-scratchers, no question -- they're good examples of signings by teams with lots of money and not nearly enough good judgment (I hope for Brian Cashman's sake that he didn't think Heredia was a good idea.) BTW, has there ever been a Felix in baseball history (first or last name) who wasn't (a) a head case and/or (b) wildly overblown?
I still think this pen isn't finished, though I have nothing to base that on except a sense that JP really hated last year's relief corps. According to the Star, the Jays are putting off looking for a backup shortstop and are piling most if not all of their remaining cash into pitching. Don't forget, the Winter Meetings in New Orleans are just around the corner, and trades usually happen there. It's going to be a tumultuous couple of weeks before Christmas.
Ligtenberg was a 26-year-old rookie when he debuted with the Braves back in '97. He didn't start his pro career till he was 23.
I still think this pen isn't finished, though I have nothing to base that on except a sense that JP really hated last year's relief corps. According to the Star, the Jays are putting off looking for a backup shortstop and are piling most if not all of their remaining cash into pitching. Don't forget, the Winter Meetings in New Orleans are just around the corner, and trades usually happen there. It's going to be a tumultuous couple of weeks before Christmas.
Ligtenberg was a 26-year-old rookie when he debuted with the Braves back in '97. He didn't start his pro career till he was 23.
http://economics.about.com
One thing about KL is that he's been very consistent over the last few years. If you look at Wins Above Replacement (WARP3) his last four years have been pretty consistent:
WARP3 FOR KL
1998 3.7
1999 (didn't play)
2000 2.6
2001 2.1
2002 2.5
2003 2.3
I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect KL to bring 2 wins above a replacement level pitcher for each of 2004 and 2005.
Given that a replacement level pitcher would cost 300K, KL will provide 2 extra wins for 1.7 million in 2004 and 2.2 million in 2005.
At first I thought JP overpaid, but now I'm not so sure. I don't think he underpaid, though. I guess we're so used to him getting bargains on hitting that we expect him to do the same for pitching.
Personally, I'd rather have seen the money go to locking up Phelps and Hudson, but it's not a bad move.
Is it any surprise that relievers are so expensive? 15 years ago a team generally had 5 relievers at any one time. Multiply that by 26 teams, and you get 130 relievers.
Now teams generally use 7 relievers and there's 30 teams, making a total of 210 relievers demanded.
Cheers,
Mike
One thing about KL is that he's been very consistent over the last few years. If you look at Wins Above Replacement (WARP3) his last four years have been pretty consistent:
WARP3 FOR KL
1998 3.7
1999 (didn't play)
2000 2.6
2001 2.1
2002 2.5
2003 2.3
I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect KL to bring 2 wins above a replacement level pitcher for each of 2004 and 2005.
Given that a replacement level pitcher would cost 300K, KL will provide 2 extra wins for 1.7 million in 2004 and 2.2 million in 2005.
At first I thought JP overpaid, but now I'm not so sure. I don't think he underpaid, though. I guess we're so used to him getting bargains on hitting that we expect him to do the same for pitching.
Personally, I'd rather have seen the money go to locking up Phelps and Hudson, but it's not a bad move.
Is it any surprise that relievers are so expensive? 15 years ago a team generally had 5 relievers at any one time. Multiply that by 26 teams, and you get 130 relievers.
Now teams generally use 7 relievers and there's 30 teams, making a total of 210 relievers demanded.
Cheers,
Mike
I still think this pen isn't finished, though I have nothing to base that on except a sense that JP really hated last year's relief corps. According to the Star, the Jays are putting off looking for a backup shortstop and are piling most if not all of their remaining cash into pitching.
I'd rather see another starter come in than another reliever. In fact, if they can get another starter, they may not need another reliever.
I'd rather see another starter come in than another reliever. In fact, if they can get another starter, they may not need another reliever.
Personally, I'd rather have seen the money go to locking up Phelps and Hudson, but it's not a bad move.
Aren't these moves independent from one another?
Even if Phelps and Hudson are locked up, is it going to make their salaries the next 2 years that different from what they are now?
Aren't these moves independent from one another?
Even if Phelps and Hudson are locked up, is it going to make their salaries the next 2 years that different from what they are now?
http://economics.about.com
Even if Phelps and Hudson are locked up, is it going to make their salaries the next 2 years that different from what they are now?
If you count the additional salary they'd get in 2004 along with signing bonuses, it'd probably come to around 1.5-2 million. So they're not at all independent.
Mike
Even if Phelps and Hudson are locked up, is it going to make their salaries the next 2 years that different from what they are now?
If you count the additional salary they'd get in 2004 along with signing bonuses, it'd probably come to around 1.5-2 million. So they're not at all independent.
Mike
Take Tim Worrell off the list of prospects: two years, $6 million, with the Phillies of all people. I didn't even think they were in the hunt. Nice expensive pen they're putting together there.
At $2.25M a year, it's looking more like Toronto did pretty well for themselves.
At $2.25M a year, it's looking more like Toronto did pretty well for themselves.
You can't just plug bullpen runs allowed into the Pythagorean formula and get a win conversion. Remember that bullpen IP, and especially the IP by your 3 or 4 best relievers, are going to be much higher-leverage than an average IP.
I know. I am just lazy and wanted a quick and dirty answer to the "a decent bullpen would have netted us an extra 15 wins" stuff.
I know. I am just lazy and wanted a quick and dirty answer to the "a decent bullpen would have netted us an extra 15 wins" stuff.
He managed to squeeze one unnecessary and untrue shot at J.P.
"While talk of an Alex Rodriguez for Manny Ramirez trade continues to hog the baseball spotlight, Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi quietly looks for additional free-agent bargains to solidify his team's slippery hold on third place in the AL East."
What in heaven's name is either unnecessary or untrue about that? And how is it a "shot" at Ricciardi. Sometimes, I think Griffin-bashers just look for ways to parse his words in a search for additional things to be upset about.
The A-Rod/Manny deal (much more likely, oddly, if Anaheim signs Colon because then Washburn and Eckstein make a good starter package for Nomar) IS hogging the headlines.
Ricciardi IS looking for additional bargains. You all know that. Sheffield, Guerrero and Maddux ain't coming to Skydome. Ricciardi is looking for best value for low dollar.
Ricciardi IS looking to solidify the Jays' place in the standings, and yes, third place is probably pretty much the limit in 2004. Yes, the Jays were closer to second than to fourth in 2003, but the likelihood of that happening again next season seems ... remote.
"While talk of an Alex Rodriguez for Manny Ramirez trade continues to hog the baseball spotlight, Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi quietly looks for additional free-agent bargains to solidify his team's slippery hold on third place in the AL East."
What in heaven's name is either unnecessary or untrue about that? And how is it a "shot" at Ricciardi. Sometimes, I think Griffin-bashers just look for ways to parse his words in a search for additional things to be upset about.
The A-Rod/Manny deal (much more likely, oddly, if Anaheim signs Colon because then Washburn and Eckstein make a good starter package for Nomar) IS hogging the headlines.
Ricciardi IS looking for additional bargains. You all know that. Sheffield, Guerrero and Maddux ain't coming to Skydome. Ricciardi is looking for best value for low dollar.
Ricciardi IS looking to solidify the Jays' place in the standings, and yes, third place is probably pretty much the limit in 2004. Yes, the Jays were closer to second than to fourth in 2003, but the likelihood of that happening again next season seems ... remote.
Take Tim Worrell off the list of prospects: two years, $6 million, with the Phillies of all people.
Jordan, you're missing a smiley to denote sarcasm.
Ed Wade just loooooooooves relievers. Can't get enough of them. No matter what they cost. He may not even be done yet.
Jordan, you're missing a smiley to denote sarcasm.
Ed Wade just loooooooooves relievers. Can't get enough of them. No matter what they cost. He may not even be done yet.
Mick...to me I interpreted Griffin's comments was that a)Ricciardi's goal is simply to maintain 3rd place and b)its Ricciardi's fault that we are likely not going to be any better than a 3rd place team...why do you feel its necessary for the "slippery-hold on 3rd place" comment to be made?
Jordan, I don't think Felix Millan was either a head case or overblown, but if I have to go back that far, your point is made. Actually, I think the origin of the name "Felix" comes from a word meaning "happy", which may explain the problem.
If you count the additional salary they'd get in 2004 along with signing bonuses, it'd probably come to around 1.5-2 million. So they're not at all independent.
I didn't consider a signing bonus, but aren't the salaries in the early years going to be relatively the same? I thought that's how Hinske and Wells' contracts worked out.
At $2.25M a year, it's looking more like Toronto did pretty well for themselves.
I initially thought that Worrell at $3 million would be a better deal than KL. But just eyeballing their numbers their K and BB rates look similar, and Worrell's advantage in HRs is somewhat due to pitching in Pac Bell.
They're comparable deals to me. Worrell is a little better, and he's getting paid a little better.
I didn't consider a signing bonus, but aren't the salaries in the early years going to be relatively the same? I thought that's how Hinske and Wells' contracts worked out.
At $2.25M a year, it's looking more like Toronto did pretty well for themselves.
I initially thought that Worrell at $3 million would be a better deal than KL. But just eyeballing their numbers their K and BB rates look similar, and Worrell's advantage in HRs is somewhat due to pitching in Pac Bell.
They're comparable deals to me. Worrell is a little better, and he's getting paid a little better.
It's hard to believe baltimore would 'decline' to exercise his option BY THE TEAM and it was only 1.2 mil?!? What are the O's thinking?
One year of anybody isn't valuable to the Orioles. If he wouldn't be around for 2005 (when they have a prayer of contending) he's just in the way!
Besides, he's old.
One year of anybody isn't valuable to the Orioles. If he wouldn't be around for 2005 (when they have a prayer of contending) he's just in the way!
Besides, he's old.
Here's what I don't understand. The Jays jumped on Ligtenberg quickly. That leads me to believe that they had a pretty good idea that Baltimore would decline his option and not offer him arbitration. Why not call Baltimore and ask if they'll pick up the option and trade him to the Jays for a minor prospect. That way the Jays get Ligtenberg for 1 year at 1.2M and the O's get a prospect. Everybody wins...except Ligtenberg.
BTW, has there ever been a Felix in baseball history (first or last name) who wasn't (a) a head case and/or (b) wildly overblown?
Jordan, as far as I know Gus Felixwas a fine gentleman who was not at all overhyped. The Baseball Library even described him as "likable".
Jordan, as far as I know Gus Felixwas a fine gentleman who was not at all overhyped. The Baseball Library even described him as "likable".
From Rotoworld.com:
"The Jays still plan to sign a closer with the remaining dollars they have to spend. It appears that the Jays were the American League team interested in Tim Worrell. They could pursue Armando Benitez next, with Jose Jimenez and Mike DeJean a couple of the cheaper alternatives."
"The Jays still plan to sign a closer with the remaining dollars they have to spend. It appears that the Jays were the American League team interested in Tim Worrell. They could pursue Armando Benitez next, with Jose Jimenez and Mike DeJean a couple of the cheaper alternatives."
The source for that Rotoworld note is Geoff Baker's column:
Ricciardi will focus on getting a closer at next weekend's winter meetings in New Orleans and after the Dec. 20 deadline for teams to tender contracts to their unsigned players.
The Jays now have about $6 million to spend on that closer, another starter and a veteran shortstop. Ricciardi has spoken to the agent for former Arizona starter Miguel Batista, who has received multiple offers.
Ricciardi will focus on getting a closer at next weekend's winter meetings in New Orleans and after the Dec. 20 deadline for teams to tender contracts to their unsigned players.
The Jays now have about $6 million to spend on that closer, another starter and a veteran shortstop. Ricciardi has spoken to the agent for former Arizona starter Miguel Batista, who has received multiple offers.
I just can't see the Jays spending that kind of money on a closer - not in year three anyway. Spencer Fordin doesn't think so either.
Pool it up and buy us a decent starter.
Pool it up and buy us a decent starter.
One advantage of signing KL: KL is 33, Worrell is 36.
I strongly doubt that we will be signing a "closer" - not if we want a starter even equal to Lilly and Hentgen, let alone superior to me.
If Ligtenberg cost 2 million this year, a "proven closer" HAS to cost at least 4 or so, perhaps more given the current market. That leaves very little for a good SP.
I think the Jays should look to spend all 5-6 million on the starter they want, then go waiver-wire hunting for another reliever and the backup SS. Like I've said before, I don't think we need another veteran reliever, just another cheap option in case someone implodes.
If Ligtenberg cost 2 million this year, a "proven closer" HAS to cost at least 4 or so, perhaps more given the current market. That leaves very little for a good SP.
I think the Jays should look to spend all 5-6 million on the starter they want, then go waiver-wire hunting for another reliever and the backup SS. Like I've said before, I don't think we need another veteran reliever, just another cheap option in case someone implodes.
Oops, my comment inadvertantly paraphrased Eddie Zosky's comment I didn't notice for some reason.
I just used a lot more words =P
I just used a lot more words =P
Does that mean [Lopez will] close out games? That part is still murky at best. There is no other late-inning option on hand, and the Jays are determined not to overpay for a relief ace. Ricciardi thinks that the closer is one of the last pieces any team should add, and he doesn't think the Jays are in position to need one yet.
There are some other interesting notes and quotes in Fordin's Winter Meetings preview.
There are some other interesting notes and quotes in Fordin's Winter Meetings preview.
JP was on the Fan this morning. He said that they had targeted three players at the end of the season. They got Lightenberg. They lost out on Worrell. Per JP they were shocked they did not get Worrell. JP said that Worrell's agent was surprised he did not pick Toronto. Worrell has had success in the NL and wanted to stay there.
The Jays believe they are very close on their third target, a starting pitcher who was not offered arbitration (Batista?). JP described him as not a classic #2 but the best #2 the Jays can get for the money. They have had a lot of late nights trying to get this deal done. It could happen any day.
If they don't get their target they will try for another stronger bullpen arm and sign a cheaper starter in the new year. He did say that his starting lineup today was Halliday, Lilly, Hentgen and Towers. So Towers is in and no mention of Hendrickson.
The Jays believe they are very close on their third target, a starting pitcher who was not offered arbitration (Batista?). JP described him as not a classic #2 but the best #2 the Jays can get for the money. They have had a lot of late nights trying to get this deal done. It could happen any day.
If they don't get their target they will try for another stronger bullpen arm and sign a cheaper starter in the new year. He did say that his starting lineup today was Halliday, Lilly, Hentgen and Towers. So Towers is in and no mention of Hendrickson.
So, I guess that puts Lurch in the driver's seat for the empty spot in the 'pen, then?
So, I guess that puts Lurch in the driver's seat for the empty spot in the 'pen, then?
It should leave him in Syracuse, where both his talent and reality should soon make it quite clear that he doesn't belong on this 40man roster, and that Mr. Hendrickson would feel more comfortable around his own kind, them being the Tigers.
It should leave him in Syracuse, where both his talent and reality should soon make it quite clear that he doesn't belong on this 40man roster, and that Mr. Hendrickson would feel more comfortable around his own kind, them being the Tigers.
Why not call Baltimore and ask if they'll pick up the option and trade him to the Jays for a minor prospect.
Baltimore has no reason to help the Jays for what would have been a non-impact prospect. If they cut him loose then at least there's a chance the Jays don't get him, and judging by the bidding there was a pretty good chance. Tim Worrell would probably have been preferable at that price but oh well. The Jays pay $800K more but they get a guy who is about the equal of Aquilino Lopez.
It sounds a lot like they're closing in on Miguel Batista but it could be someone else. I think Batista and Ligtenberg would be nice adds though I was hoping either for a higher end pen arm or two guys like Ligtenberg to improve the depth. That may still happen if an experienced reliever is left without a contract come the non-tender date.
Baltimore has no reason to help the Jays for what would have been a non-impact prospect. If they cut him loose then at least there's a chance the Jays don't get him, and judging by the bidding there was a pretty good chance. Tim Worrell would probably have been preferable at that price but oh well. The Jays pay $800K more but they get a guy who is about the equal of Aquilino Lopez.
It sounds a lot like they're closing in on Miguel Batista but it could be someone else. I think Batista and Ligtenberg would be nice adds though I was hoping either for a higher end pen arm or two guys like Ligtenberg to improve the depth. That may still happen if an experienced reliever is left without a contract come the non-tender date.
I still have a tent in my pants hoping that JP can somehow smooth-talk Maddux into 2 years at $5.0M per.
It sounds a lot like they're closing in on Miguel Batista but it could be someone else.
I don't think it could be anyone else. Once again, I'll put on my Detective Cape.
JP said it the player wasn't offered arbitration. Here's the list of starting pitchers not offered arbitration:
Ashby, Moehler, Oliver, Rusch, Maddux, Valdes, Suppan, Burkett, Batista, Astacio, Helling, Villone, Erickson, Reynolds, Estes, Ponson, Sparks, Adams, Alvarez.
JP also said that the pitcher wasn't a classic #2 but the best #2 the Jays could buy, inferring this mystery player is better than Hentgen and Lilly. We can eliminate a lot of possibilities then, leaving us with:
Maddux, Batista, Ponson. Maybe Alvarez.
Ponson is going to be far too expensive. Maddux is likely headed for the West Coast, despite what some people's pants say, and he IS probably a classic #2 at this point. So, as far as I can see, it's very likely Batista. Alvarez would no doubt be a good pickup if the price is right but he's an injury risk and probably not who JP is talking about here.
I don't think it could be anyone else. Once again, I'll put on my Detective Cape.
JP said it the player wasn't offered arbitration. Here's the list of starting pitchers not offered arbitration:
Ashby, Moehler, Oliver, Rusch, Maddux, Valdes, Suppan, Burkett, Batista, Astacio, Helling, Villone, Erickson, Reynolds, Estes, Ponson, Sparks, Adams, Alvarez.
JP also said that the pitcher wasn't a classic #2 but the best #2 the Jays could buy, inferring this mystery player is better than Hentgen and Lilly. We can eliminate a lot of possibilities then, leaving us with:
Maddux, Batista, Ponson. Maybe Alvarez.
Ponson is going to be far too expensive. Maddux is likely headed for the West Coast, despite what some people's pants say, and he IS probably a classic #2 at this point. So, as far as I can see, it's very likely Batista. Alvarez would no doubt be a good pickup if the price is right but he's an injury risk and probably not who JP is talking about here.
What's the status of Kenny Rogers? Was he offered arbitration or not?
I would prefer Batista, but Rogers wouldn't be too much of a step backwards.
I would prefer Batista, but Rogers wouldn't be too much of a step backwards.
Glendon Rusch would be a good no. 5 option if this no. 2 guys falls through the cracks I think. It should still allow JP to pick up that IF and RP.
I'm from New Brunswick, grew up in Toronto and I'm a huge Jays fan. Good to see there are true Jay nuts like you guys out there. It's pretty hard to get the good scoops out here, this site is gold!!!
I think the only way to evaluate the KL signing is through a market comparison. If anyone has easy access, it would be awesome to see the contracts for comparable relievers not just this off season but maybe the last couple as well. I'm thinking of Hawkins, Gordon, Quantrill, Carsay, Hasegawa, Rhodes, Benitez, Worrell, Heredia, Embree, Timlin, Remlinger, Alfonseca etc. Seeing all these together would give a solid idea of whether JP made a sound deal.
As a fan, I'm just thrilled to see another legitimate big league arm in the Jay pen. I watched most of the games last year. Saw many collapses. I saw the aforementioned Acevedo blown save live at Fenway Park. For the price of Sturtze, Creek and Tam, they have a guy who should actually contribute!
I think the only way to evaluate the KL signing is through a market comparison. If anyone has easy access, it would be awesome to see the contracts for comparable relievers not just this off season but maybe the last couple as well. I'm thinking of Hawkins, Gordon, Quantrill, Carsay, Hasegawa, Rhodes, Benitez, Worrell, Heredia, Embree, Timlin, Remlinger, Alfonseca etc. Seeing all these together would give a solid idea of whether JP made a sound deal.
As a fan, I'm just thrilled to see another legitimate big league arm in the Jay pen. I watched most of the games last year. Saw many collapses. I saw the aforementioned Acevedo blown save live at Fenway Park. For the price of Sturtze, Creek and Tam, they have a guy who should actually contribute!
Welcome aboard, Ted! Great to have you with us. This is as close as I can find to all the free-agent relievers in one place, but it'll take a little digging to do the comps.
I'm from New Brunswick, grew up in Toronto and I'm a huge Jays fan.
I'm from Toronto, grew up in New Brunswick and I'm a huge Jays fan. :-)
I'm from Toronto, grew up in New Brunswick and I'm a huge Jays fan. :-)
The mariners have entered the 'race' for Vlad.
If I had Vlad in a keeper fantasy league and he ended up in Safeco, I would be a sad man.
Ted,
I am in NB as well. So, there is more than me. Excellent. I also notice a "Will from Fredericton" who always poses good, Jays related questions in Baseball Prospectus chats. The NB Chapter of Bauxites is starting to take shape.
I am in NB as well. So, there is more than me. Excellent. I also notice a "Will from Fredericton" who always poses good, Jays related questions in Baseball Prospectus chats. The NB Chapter of Bauxites is starting to take shape.
Interesting that we have so many New Brunswick ties within our community!
My fellow authors and I, to my knowledge, live in Ontario, New York, Texas and Washington State.
Do our regulars encompass every province in Canada?
* Shrike is in BC.
* Cristian (and presumably Wildrose) are from Alberta.
* BlueinSK is obviously from Saskatchewan.
* A is in Quebec.
* BenNS is likely from Nova Scotia.
* Leigh (and formerly Ted and Andrew Edwards) are from New Brunswick.
Batter's Box roll call is still missing Manitoba, Newfoundland and PEI. Is anyone out there?
My fellow authors and I, to my knowledge, live in Ontario, New York, Texas and Washington State.
Do our regulars encompass every province in Canada?
* Shrike is in BC.
* Cristian (and presumably Wildrose) are from Alberta.
* BlueinSK is obviously from Saskatchewan.
* A is in Quebec.
* BenNS is likely from Nova Scotia.
* Leigh (and formerly Ted and Andrew Edwards) are from New Brunswick.
Batter's Box roll call is still missing Manitoba, Newfoundland and PEI. Is anyone out there?
I'm a displaced Hamiltonian who has lived in New Brunswick since 1998.
Who would have thought that Kerry Lightenberg, Blue Jay, would have 155 posts? What is the record anyway, he asks, too lazy to research it himself?
This must be the BattersBox version of Identity. I too, am from NewBrunswick. Ryan and I have been kicking around here near since the sites inception. Ryan's lives in the capital, i'm in the south.
I live in Nova Scotia (just in case BenNS doesn't). On Cape Breton Island, actually, way up North in a little spot I like to call God's Country...
Batter's Box roll call is still missing Manitoba, Newfoundland and PEI. Is anyone out there?
I think Johnny Mack is from PEI.
I think Johnny Mack is from PEI.
Jordan is a transplanted Newfoundlander, I believe, and I sometimes self-identify as one on very dubious grounds (father's family is from near St. John's.)