Michael Imperioli would play JP Ricciardi (he's Christopher Moltisanti on 'The Sopranos').
Flava Flav should get a role somehow, some way.

I know, I know... you said 05, but could you imagine... (dream sequence)

2004... A Year in Review... The Bad News Blue Jays

Starring:
Carlos Tosca AS! Coach Morris Buttermaker
Carlos Delgado AS! Amanda Whurlitzer
Roy "Doc" Halladay AS! Kelly Leak

And so on and so forth... I GOT NOTHING!

Anyone else wanna help me out with characters?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0654104/
starring Christopher Merloni as Frank Menechino, a rough and tumble ballplayer who plays hard on the field, and off of it. dum dum dum.....

And I like Cheadle as the O-Dog, he may be the one man in Hollywood able to pull off a character like that.

And of course, there's SF, played by... the Sherminator COMN.
*Sorry, I had to.

The two old muppets who sat up in the balcony and heckled Fozzie would play two sabermetricians shouting from the SkyDeck about WinShares etc. They may or may not be from battersbox.ca, but they would provide both comic relief and good baseball dialogue.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094517/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD0xfHBuPTB8c291cmNlaWQ9bW96aWxsYS1zZWFyY2h8cT1teXN0ZXJ5IHNjaWVuY2V8aHRtbD0xfG5tPTE_;fc=1;ft=20;fm=1
'Not H-Rod', to follow up your idea, the film would be an instant mega-hit, but only if there were two aliens from Mystery Science Theater 3000, one of the best shows ever, acting as typical fans and arguing with the muppets (COMN).

On second thought, that would be really, really, really stupid. Hollywood, here we come!

And I like Cheadle as the O-Dog, he may be the one man in Hollywood able to pull off a character like that.

To nail Hudson's accent you'd need Meryl Streep.

From Rotoworld:
"The Rangers still figure to show interest in Ordonez as an outfielder if he proves he's healthy. They've joined the Orioles, Tigers and Mets in requesting his medical records. The Cubs and Blue Jays also have some level of interest."

What kind of contract would *you* be willing to give Magglio and what moves would you make to acommodate his arrival?

What kind of contract would *you* be willing to give Magglio

Me personally? Maybe $500. I'm rather tapped out at the moment. :)

Jeremy Shockey as Eric Hinske.

http://pride4life.tripod.com/
Starring Snoop Dog as O-Dog! Foshizzle!

Kevin Costner as Greg Myers.

And COMN for a hilarious website I found while searching the web for pictures of the team:

"Greg Myers(Toronto Blue Jays) is 68365865863593259650932 years old, and he's FINE!"

and my favorite quote from this site:

"I can totally see why chicks dig Derek (Jeter). If I were a lesbian into Ellen Degeneres look a-likes, then I'd be nuts over Derek too! His boyfriend, Jorge, is SUPER FOXY though!"

Wow, Statler and Waldorf brought up again, these guys needs to go on a reunion tour.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/274959p-235420c.html
According to the New York Daily News Mientkiewicz to the Mets is done. Going to the Red Sox is Single-A first-base prospect Ian Bladergroen. Also mentions that the Mets still might be interested in Ordonez or Sosa. COMN

I didn't realize Bobby Estalella had such huge arms... we hardly knew ya, Bobby.

From Rotoworld:
"The Rangers still figure to show interest in Ordonez as an outfielder if he proves he's healthy. They've joined the Orioles, Tigers and Mets in requesting his medical records. The Cubs and Blue Jays also have some level of interest."

It's a dream. Boras wants a contract for Ordonez worth MORE than Delgado got from the Marlins. He probably won't get that, but he won't be cheap... no way the Jays can afford him, even in Bizarro World.

Alyssa Milano as the girl who sleeps with all the starting pitchers.

Didn't Tim Robbins play Brandon League at one point? :) Maybe Nick Nolte as Eric Hinske.

Incidentally, Forest Whitaker would make a helluva Cecil Fielder if they ever make the movie.

I was thinking that if this were a Hollywood picture, the Jays would have to meet up with the Marlins in the World Series, and Delgado would have to have some character flaw, like being too serious, that he realizes is his team's downfall as they lose to his former team.

Anyone see Mr. 3000? Yeah, it was terrible, but the baseball scenes are actually quite good. I enjoyed everything that was on the field and in the clubhouse in that movie, but away from the field? Blecch. And they spent too much time away from the field.

But Chris Noth as the cynical owner was fun, and I really enjoyed the scene where he and his underlings decide to give Bernie Mac another shot at his record for all the wrong reasons.

This is my roundabout way of saying that if Blue Jays 2005 is a lousy Hollywood baseball B-movie with life lessons and so on, then the part of the villainous Carlos Delgado (and rest assured, I do not feel this way about him -- I'm fitting him into a Hollywood baseball B-movie) should be played by Wesley Snipes in full-on Method Acting Vampire mode.

I'll second the vote for Cheadle as the O-Dog. Cheadle can pull off anything.

Question: If the Mets do acquire Ordonez, does that mean Cliff Floyd becomes available? And if so, should the Jays be interested and what might it take?

Based on his picture in the Star, I'd say Alan Rickman as Richard Griffin.

And you guys are all missing the boat on Orlando Hudson. It's gotta be Chris Tucker.

For Tom Cheek... is McLean Stevenson still alive?

How about Richard Dean Anderson as John Gibbons,And if Paul Gross grew a beard I'm sure he could pull off Roy Halladay.

Frost, I'm in for both of those, especially MacGyver as Gibbons.

Alan Rickman as Griffin? Now I'm going to hear Griffin's quotes in my head in the Hans Gruber accent.

"Now... I have... a machine gun. Ho... ho... ho."

The Rangers still figure to show interest in Ordonez as an outfielder if he proves he's healthy. They've joined the Orioles, Tigers and Mets in requesting his medical records. The Cubs and Blue Jays also have some level of interest."

Typical Scott Boras. Where there isn't a marketplace, he creates one through the media. The Jays are not remotely a player for Ordonez, and a good thing, too: his OPS totals the last three years have gone 978-926-837, and he's had to go to Austria to find a doctor who'll clear him to play. Pass.

is McLean Stevenson still alive?

His chopper went down over the Sea of Japan. There were no survivors.

For anyone keeping an eye on the Blue Jays, "Spare Parts Drawer", Aquilino Lopez has signed a Minor League Deal with the Dodgers..

Does everyone that plays in Canada head straight for the beach when they are free agents?? (or Baltimore)

D

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1106693414776&call_pageid=970599119419
COMN: Richard Griffin harshes on everyone in sight.

What Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi must learn before it's too late is that there is no right and wrong when it comes to free agency, only reality. If 15 teams agree with the Jays that the market is crazy and the other 15 are bidding like maniacs, the Jays aren't right in sticking to their guns.

I don't know about that. I have the idea that this off-season's party is going to lead to some hangovers, and those teams who didn't overindulge could benefit from it long-term.

What Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi must learn before it's too late is that there is no right and wrong when it comes to free agency, only reality. If 15 teams agree with the Jays that the market is crazy and the other 15 are bidding like maniacs, the Jays aren't right in sticking to their guns.

Did he just contradict himself? He says there is no right and wrong at the beginning, then says the Jays aren't right at the end?

Yeah, well, he also seems to say there are 31 teams in the majors, but let's not nitpick.

I'm all for Nathan Fillion of "Firefly" and "Two Guys, a Girl, and a Pizza Place" as John Gibbons.

Tom Morello as Vernon Wells.
Robert Downey Jr. as Frank Menechino.
Sean Penn as Josh Towers.

(Magglio) had to go to Austria to find a doctor who'll clear him to play.

Interesting stuff from WC at BP: "Ordonez had a second knee surgery in Austria, but only secondary to sound-wave treatments on his damaged knee. While the surgery was routine, the sound-wave therapy is controversial. The treatment, similar to those used on kidney stones and plantar fasciitis, is not approved for use in the U.S."

If 15 teams agree with the Jays that the market is crazy and the other 15 are bidding like maniacs, the Jays aren't right in sticking to their guns.

And if the Jays did sign someone to a 'market crazy' contract Griff would be complaining about allocating too much money to a single player and that the Jays didn't learn anything from Delgado's contract.

If 15 teams agree with the Jays that the market is crazy and the other 15 are bidding like maniacs, the Jays aren't right in sticking to their guns.

I really dont understand this hypothetical scenario. 15 teams are not bidding, 15 are bidding, there is no right and wrong. If the Jays aren't right in sticking to their guns then doesnt that also imply that they "aren't right" if they signed him? And doesnt it further imply that they are "not wrong" for sticking to their guns? Couldnt Griffin's statement be boiled down to: "There is no right, therefore the Jays are not right". Wow deep stuff.

Part of the problem with the Jays and Delgado is the way the Free agency is structured. The fact that Carlos couldn't have signed with the Jays before may 1st hurt them immensely. They had to try and guess what the market was going to be like, and Carlos' value along with it. They had to wait and see if they could get clement, koskie and whomever else, before committing to Carlos. Anyone care to explain the benefit to the rule if you dont offer arby, then you can't resign till may 1st?

What Griffin is saying is that the market is what it is, and it's useless to say that the market is sensible or not sensible, because you have to get the players you need from it regardless. It doesn't matter if the market is right or wrong. A team that recognizes the market and bids for free agents accordingly is right, and a team that disputes the market and bids for players according to their own evaluations is wrong. I don't think he's right, but I don't think he's contradicting himself either.

I just hope that the offer to Delgado was in no way indicative of what they thought he'd get on the open market, because if it was, it makes them look pretty stupid. I think the offer was "this is what we can pay you", have a nice career.

I think it's pretty obvious that the Jays were counting on the market to be a lot more restrained than it really was. I think that was sensible; that's what had been happening the last couple of years and there was every reason to think it'd continue. Who predicted all the ridiculous contracts we've seen? Nobody I know. Whether that means the Jays really thought Delgado would bite on their offer, I wouldn't care to speculate.

I'm with Matthew E on his take on that paragraph. If everyone is spending more money on players than we think they are worth, then maybe it is our projection that needs adjusting rather than acting passively in accordance with our belief that what everyone else is doing wrong. Not saying anyone is wrong or right, just that you have to react to the market prices set by other teams if you want to be actively involved in the process.

Matthew E., if that's the case, then the organization really, really guessed wrong. That concerns me.

Call me crazy but I agree with Griffin and Matthew E took the words right out of my mouth.

LOL at me spelling my own name wrong. Time to hit the coffee.

Bruce Willis as Chacin and Mykelti Williamson "Bubba" of Forrest Gump as Cecil Fielder

If everyone is spending more money on players than we think they are worth, then maybe it is our projection that needs adjusting rather than acting passively in accordance with our belief that what everyone else is doing wrong.

Let's not call it a 'projection' like it was a number that came out of a formula. The most gifted sabremetricians of the future will never be able to predict how teams will choose to hose their money around.

And it's easy to say that the Jays should adjust their bidding to the market, but they only have so much money in the budget. Even if they had more money in the budget, it would still be only so much.

For a team like the Jays, who aren't making money hand over fist, their best hope is a rational market in which the slightly-above-average players are priced where just about any team can afford them. They can't control whether they actually get this market, of course, but they make it less likely if they give in to it and get into a bidding war over Matt Clement or pay Delgado what he made last year or something.

I think the Jays were right to act with some restraint this winter. I don't know if it'll work out, but I think it's more likely to work out than any other thing they could have tried.

Carlos Delgado's agent, David Sloane, was just on ESPN 1050 here in NY with Wally and the Kieg. I swear, Sloane is the most stuck up jerk that I've ever heard in my life, if him and the Kieg were face to face they would have started brawling.

Sloane was speaking about why Delgado didn't accept a trade to Boston or New York or Los Angeles last season, and the Kieg cut him off a few times asking why Sloane didn't tell Toronto that the only way they'd waive the no-trade clause is if they sent him to Boston. Sloane got a little upset that he got cut off and in a rather harsh tone he said "Can you let me finish what I was about to say?" There was an odd silence and then Kieg shot back with "Why of course I can." You could sense the hostility between the two and then Sloane said that the Jays in fact said that they wouldn't tell Delgado where he was going, just to waive the no-trade.

Sloane went on to say that Carlos picked the Marlins because they have a better lineup and a better chance of winning a world series. Wally then asked if Carlos picked Florida because he wants to be "The Man" in Florida and with Beltran in Flushing that wouldn't happen with the Mets. Sloane answered with an emphatic no to both that and a question about Carlos not being a New York kind of guy. Carlos' sister in fact lives here and he visits her all the time.

Sloane also said that over the last 8 years Carlos has made 80 million and could "buy anything he wanted on this planet" but he can't buy a ring, so that's why he picked Florida.

It's sad that Delgado has Sloane for an agent, because instead of just disliking Sloane... you start disliking Delgado as well and he's a great guy.

Oh well, we'll miss you Carlos

For a team like the Jays, who aren't making money hand over fist, their best hope is a rational market in which the slightly-above-average players are priced where just about any team can afford them. They can't control whether they actually get this market, of course, but they make it less likely if they give in to it and get into a bidding war over Matt Clement or pay Delgado what he made last year or something.

I still think they are making money hand over fist. We'll never know though. If not, they soon will be. I think it was a perfect time to bump up the payroll. I'm not saying to spend money for the sake of spending it. But if there were guys out there that would improve the ballclub a few years down the line, it would have been nice for them to have spent a little more to get them. Especially after losing a huge bit of their offense.

the concept of a rational market that concerns me. How can you use the term rational market, but take issue with the term projection? There is no such thing as one without the other, in my mind.

Anyway, my complaint is with the ownership, not the Jays front office. I should be more clear about that. If JP wants a guy and we lose him over a few million, I have a hard time with it when the trend is increasing salaries.

I still think they are making money hand over fist. We'll never know though. If not, they soon will be.

Just curious, what makes you think this?

If anyone wants a good laugh check out the PECOTA prediction for Dustin Pedroia.

I still think they are making money hand over fist.

Here's what I think.

I think the Jays are not making money, and that the Jays will not make money so long as they are owned by Rogers.

However, I do think that Rogers is making money off the total combination of the Jays + Sportsnet + the FAN + SkyDome + other stuff I don't know about. I don't know how much they're making, but I think it's enough to make it worth their while. If I knew more about the specifics, I might go so far as to say I thought the Jays should increase the player personnel budget, but I don't.

How can you use the term rational market, but take issue with the term projection?

What I meant was, a rational market would value players according to how valuable they were on the field, which is fairly quantifiable, and according to how many players there were of about that value, which is also fairly quantifiable. The 'projection' I objected to was a prediction of how much money teams had decided to spend on players, and the things that go into those decisions are not quantifiable or predictable or sometimes even understandable.

I agree with Matthew E's interpretation of Griffin's remarks. As usual, his column is hardly a model of clarity, and to the extent that he's been misunderstood by Bauxites and other readers, he has only himself to blame.

But like Matthew E, I disagree with his conclusion. If the market has gone haywire, there will by necessity be a correction in off-seasons to come. The last time the market went haywire, the Jays signed Delgado to a deal that quickly became an albatross. Though it's their peculiar misfortune that it expired just as the market underwent another frenzy, it does not stand to reason that they should partake in the off-season follies. It may mean that the team they field next year suffers in comparison, but not saddling themselves with these sorts of big-money, long-term deals provides them with precisely the flexibility they require at the trade deadline and next off-season when sanity is restored and payroll agility yields real benefits.

Now, if Griffin were to argue that the market has not gone haywire, but has in fact undergone a permanent adjustment, he may have a point. If he believes that expanding revenues are going to be the norm over the next several seasons, then there may not be a correction, and staying one's hand may not yield any tangible benefits. But I don't think that's what Griffin is implying, though I'm sure he'll no doubt make that claim retroactively should that prove to be the case.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/paying-for-the-best/
I must admit I have mixed emotions about Delgado leaving. Part of me feels that the team should have pulled out all the stops to sign such a solid guy, who liked the city, and was such a productive hitter.

On the other hand there is reality. A low revenue team like Toronto, perhaps rightly, found it very hard to justify spending this type of money on one aging player (especially since they have another player, Roy Halladay on a big ticket). Recently Studes (Comm), did a study on the relative cost per win share produced, regarding signing free agents. Basically you get better bang for your buck by signing players for under $8 million, rather than to pay a huge premium for star players.

I will make this criticism however, the team in hind sight should have offered Delgado arbitration. I've always held that the chances Delgado would forgo free agency and take arbitration were between slim and none. In light of the value of his current contract this was obviously correct. I'd like to think that Ricciardi, a guy who values building through the draft, approached the Rogers paymasters with a request for a contingency plan, should the very unlikely chance of Delgado taking a one year arbitrated contract had occurred, and was turned down. I think the team did a very poor job of managing risk in this regard.

I'd also like to say, I'm tired of those who dredge up the teams, 2 year ,$12 million dollar contract offer to Carlos. I think from the outset this was just a token polite offer by the Jays to a long term employee. Ricciardi knew he wasn't coming back and wasn't about to play the dupe, so that Sloane could use a strong Jay offer as bargaining leverage with other teams . God knows ,Sloane did a great job of using both the Ranger's and Oriole's as dupes, to jack up his clients eventual value.

Anyway, my complaint is with the ownership, not the Jays front office. I should be more clear about that. If JP wants a guy and we lose him over a few million, I have a hard time with it when the trend is increasing salaries.

But did they lose anyone over a few million? My impression was that the guys they wanted all went for wayyyy more than the Jays had to offer, which really moots all these "rational/irrational market" conversations.

Didn't read the Griffin article. Who did he say that the Jays should have picked up to help them out?

The 'projection' I objected to was a prediction of how much money teams had decided to spend on players, and the things that go into those decisions are not quantifiable or predictable or sometimes even understandable.

In addition to those comments (with which I agree)...

This FA off-season harkened back to yesteryear, before some measure of rational decision-making entered the shopping equation (as it seems to have the past couple of years). Teams with FA money to spend decided they were spending it, regardless of the quality of FA's available. Thus players like Benson, Pavano, and Wright all got treated as if they were much higher caliber, simply because the money was there and they were the available warm bodies.

How can anyone blame a GM who would choose not to enter such a bizarre marketplace, where a player is treated as inherently valuable simply because he is a free agent?

Godfrey on OTR on TSN discussing the Delgado situation in a few minutes.

Damn that Lansberger, he goes to break saying he'll talk about Delgado when he comes back, then goes off on some long super bowl and NHL strike tangent. Sometimes it's tough to be a baseball fan in this country.

What'd he say? No TV here at work.

I don't think there is any doubt that Billy Bob Thorton would be playing Woody if he was still with us.

Here's what I think.

I think the Jays are not making money, and that the Jays will not make money so long as they are owned by Rogers.

I made the same mistake twice in terms of Jays vs. Rogers. I completely agree with you.

What I meant was, a rational market would value players according to how valuable they were on the field, which is fairly quantifiable, and according to how many players there were of about that value, which is also fairly quantifiable. The 'projection' I objected to was a prediction of how much money teams had decided to spend on players, and the things that go into those decisions are not quantifiable or predictable or sometimes even understandable.

The problem is that the market is only somewhat based on how valuable players were on the field. It is also based on how valuable players will be on the field. And it is based on how many fans will attend games based on signing this player and merchandise, etc. I think that general managers do have to try to predict how much money teams have decided to spend on players in making all of their decisions, although that process is unfortunately unpredictable. I think Beane dealt his pitchers when he saw what the free agent market for starting pitching looked like. He recognized that Hudson and Mulder were going to be out of his price range and that it was best to get something for them now. That is the kind of reacting that I'd like to see.

If JP really thought Delgado was gonna get anywhere near the offer he made, then he made a terrible miscalculation that in part embarrassed the organization and somewhat disrespected Delgado, in my opinion. And that concerns me. If he offered what he could offer based on his salary situation, then he did all that he could do. I still think it looks bad, but that blame goes to the owner.

Hope that makes sense.

But did they lose anyone over a few million? My impression was that the guys they wanted all went for wayyyy more than the Jays had to offer, which really moots all these "rational/irrational market" conversations.

Didn't read the Griffin article. Who did he say that the Jays should have picked up to help them out?

Tough for me to know. But this would refer to guys that we could acquire in trades as well. Griffen didn't name anyone. I'm just saying that I hope it didn't happen and that JP had a bit of flexibility to go after guys that he wanted.

I think it is interesting that J.P. acquired Corey Koskie and Shea Hillenbrand this offseason. With Joe Randa, Tony Batista, Vinny Castilla and Adrian Beltre (not sure if I am forgetting anyone) around, the 3rd baseman market seemed to be one area where supply outstripped demand. This played out with 3rd basemen all signing for very fair deals, especially in this marketplace. I believe J.P. recognized this and took advantage of it as best he could, by moving Hinske to first

not trying to start anything but 3B Troy Glaus' contract was anything but fair...

To add to my above point though, J.P.'s positive work is recognizing how to take advantage of this years marketplace is tempered when one considers how much of Hinske, Koskie and Shea's value comes from being able to play 3rd base, and how much is based on their value as a hitter

I have a question, that probably can't be answered due to lack of information and insight into the inner workings of Rogers - but I pose it anyways.

With the investment from RCI (Rogers parent company) into the Jays and various off shoots that support the Jays (such as Sportsnet, the FAN network, Skydome, Rogers cable, etc...) how or why does a corporation let an asset sag in value (I guess I'm assuming the Jays intrinsic value is sagging over time, though I can not confirm that)?

With significant capital investment into these various properties, you would assume the corporation should be looking for a return on it's investment.

One of the suppositions made in Moneyball (which if I recall properly was supported by a marketing survey) was that fans support winning teams rather than individual players (one the reasons they let Giambi walk). Additional fan support should therefore translate into revenue, in many different ways - such as increased licensing rights, leveraged advertising opportunities, additional gate revenue, etc...). And generally, increased revenue translates to profit, i.e. the return on investment.

Therefore, to increase fan support means you need to win/contend on a consistent basis. To win consistently, requires giving your GM the financial werewithal to succeed. (you know the whole accountability / reponsibility arguement).

I remember reading a news article quoting something to the effect that if JP had a $65M budget, that the Jays could be a player in the AL East. I'm paraphrasing from memory, but that was the gist of the quote. So, if this is true why does Rogers not provide JP with the appropriate financial support?

There are some potential answers, some which scare me - one being that RCI simply uses the Jays as (relatively) cheap Canadian content for their various media properties. If that is the case, then we (Jays fans) are probably doomed to similar off-seasons and low budgets in perpetuity.

The other is that RCI wants to see year over year operations break even or close to even before they commit additional dollars to the Jays. If that's true, next off season could be interesting given the Jays came close to breaking even this year and will have some new revenue streams coming into play including the satellite radio agreement, full control over Skydome and the increased Canadian dollar. However, to me that reeks of a chicken and egg scenario, and I would like to think the financial folks and bigwigs at RCI understand that sometimes you have to take risk (calculated or otherwise).

Yes (before everyone jumps down my throat), I realize an increased budget does not necessarily translate into additional wins (see Mets, and various other poorly managed sports teams). But, if you believe that your manager can deliver cost efficient wins, do you not have an obligation to provide that opportunity to him? Otherwise, why hire a "baseball" man to lead your team, instead of an accountant to simply manage expenses.

I would like to believe that RCI intends to properly support it's investment, but I have yet to see any actions support that contention during their tenure - other than the hiring of a GM.

Let's say that the Jays did have a $65M budget - an additonal $13M this year. That would have been enough to continue bidding on Matt Clement (even if it means overpaying), and still have an additional $10M for a premium type FA. Would the additions of Koskie (or Clement), a premium FA (Delgado?) plus some second tier FAs (Koch, Scott S, Zaun, Frankie M, Frankie C) make the Jays into a wild card contender? I can't answer that, but I think it's fair to say it would have pushed them closer to being a consistent winner.

There I got my frustrations out! Let the target practise begin.

I would like to believe that RCI intends to properly support it's investment, but I have yet to see any actions support that contention during their tenure - other than the hiring of a GM.

Blue, I share your concerns. I have exactly zero faith in Mr. Rogers' commitment to ever giving the Jays the resources they need to be a consistent winner. Certainly, I'm not hoping to see him go out and spend like Steinbrenner, because that wouldn't make any sort of financial sense whatever, but the Jays' chance of finishing any higher than third in this division with a below-average payroll are essentially zero, no matter how well they do at developing young players.

I share the concern as well, but am a little more optimistic than Lee. It really involves a lot of faith though as I've seen very little that would indicate to me that it's gonna happen. People just seem to assume that it'll happen eventually when we're more competitive. But then you may have the same chicken and egg problem.

. . . but the Jays' chance of finishing any higher than third in this division with a below-average payroll are essentially zero, no matter how well they do at developing young players.

Try telling that to the A's, who compete with Seattle and Anaheim, or the Twins, who have been highly successful despite a moderate budget. It is possible. This is beyond obvious, but the Jays need players, not just a philosophy. Unless they get their own cadre of home-grown stars, not merely regulars, to emerge from J.P.'s minors, you're right: they can't compete.

Smirnoff,

It really involves a lot of faith though as I've seen very little that would indicate to me that it's gonna happen.

That's what worries me. When Rogers took over, they promised increased payroll flexibility. However, they have failed miserably to deliver on that at any point after the first season of Rogers' ownership. Until I see some sort of evidence of change, I will not be optimistic.

Try telling that to the A's, who compete with Seattle and Anaheim,

There is a world of difference between Seattle and Anaheim, and the Yankees and Sox.

or the Twins, who have been highly successful despite a moderate budget.

...in by far the weakest division in baseball, where their payroll is comparatively speaking not terribly low.

Unless they get their own cadre of home-grown stars, not merely regulars, to emerge from J.P.'s minors, you're right: they can't compete.

I believe that the probabiliy of building a consistent winner, in this division, in any reasonable timeframe, purely from homegrown talent, is not very bloody good. Of course if you're going to compete on a reasonable payroll you need to get the majority of your players from the farm system. But, chances are that if you want to contend, you're still going to have to plug several very significant holes with quality veteran players, and you're also going to have to retain at least some of your own players even as they get more expensive. I don't think that you can do that to a level sufficient to routinely compete with the Sox and Yankees on $50 million or so a year.

Gitz - I love the A's and their philosophy, but I think you need to consider the context of their environment. And what I mean by that is they have been very forunate (regardless of whether that is based in skill or luck) to have had some extremely good players developed in their system - a couple, three MVP candidates and three or so very good Cy Young worthy pitchers.

Even after 3 JP drafts, I have yet to see a player the calibre of a Giambi/Tejeda/Chavez or a Mulder/Hudson/Zito. Why is that, perhaps it's a slightly different drafting philosophy, perhaps Beane is a substantially better GM than JP, or perhaps it is because the A's were first in and plucked the best propspects.

And I have to agree about the Twins, the AL Central is a relatively weak division.

But that still leaves the success of the Marlins, Angels (pre Arte Moreno) and others unexplained.

"This is beyond obvious, but the Jays need players, not just a philosophy. Unless they get their own cadre of home-grown stars, not merely regulars, to emerge from J.P.'s minors, you're right: they can't compete."

Agree'd, this draft is as important to us as any I can remember, having the 6th pick we must atleast consider a high schooler with some big time upside if he's available (Cameron Maybin!). If the best player available happens to be a college player, then so be it. We need stars, not borderline regulars.

I believe that the probabiliy of building a consistent winner, in this division, in any reasonable timeframe, purely from homegrown talent, is not very bloody good.

Oh, gosh, I disagree with that. It grates me to identify Boston as the maruee team in the AL East, but they are -- and in fact, are a couple of not-unlikely injuries away from 84-78. And the Yankees? love the Yankees, but if you combine wacky offseason moves (Jaret Wright? Tony Womack?) with the creaking bones coming from the clubhouse, as I have said on Da Box many, many times, you can feel the impending dool of a 1991-like collapse coming. Maybe not in 2005, but in mid-'03 I projected it could come "as early as 2006," and I'm talking about a 66-96 team with US$120M on the freaking disabled list and Bubba Trammell hitting fifth ...

Mick, notice I said a consistent winner. Sure, the Jays could take advantage of a not-unlikely off-year from the Yanks or Sox, but that is hardly a sustainable strategy for competitiveness.

Once the Jays have re-stock their farm system, which should be fairly well stocked now, I would imagine that the Jays will take some more risks in the draft. From what I can tell, the Jays have about 22-24 pitchers who could start the year in Syracuse (and a 10-11 man staff) with a number more who could deserve mid-season promotions.

Majors
Halladay, Lilly, Batista, Bush, Towers, Speier, Ligtenberg, League, Frasor, Koch, Schoeneweis, Chulk

Triple-A
J. Matos, C. Gaudin, C. Reimers, M. Nannini, J. Arnold, J. Vermilyea, S. Andrade, J. DeJong, P. Walker, J. Ogiltree, R. Houston, L. Gronkiewicz, S. Lundberg, M. Duff, M. Whiteside, C. Baker, M. Smith, S. Downs, B. League, R. Glynn, K. Frederick, S. Song, J. Miller, G. Chacin,

As well, there is similar depth with a the low-A and short season teams with these guys the most likely to start in low-A:
D. Tate, M. MacDonald, J. Timm, C. Janssens, C. Leonard, B. Grant, J. McLaughlin, C. McKenzie, D. Hill, S. Roy, K. Yates, A. Tressler, B. Mumma...

...with these guys likely to start in short season ball:

Auburn: A.Martin, CH Cheng, E. Cannon, J. Charron, B. Gale, D. Harang, B. Harrison, R. Sanchez, J. Rodriguez, R. Savickas, C. Mulholland(DL)

Pulaski: Po-Hsuan Keng, S. Benson, B. Bell, C.Hahn, M. Rider, E. Rodriguez, K. Bell, R. Dicken

There is a lot of outfield depth in low-A ball too:
L. Hetherington, J. Ashford, N. Thomas, Y. Rodriguez, E. Nielsen, C. Anderson, A. Mathews, J. Mangioni, C. Patton

Mick,
But won't the Sox and Yanks just trade for new stud players before the deadline to get them where they need to be and then re-tool in the offseason?

But won't the Sox and Yanks just trade for new stud players before the deadline to get them where they need to be and then re-tool in the offseason?

Lots of people say so. Personally, I don't think it's that easy.

No, it's probably not that easy. But both teams did trade for and/or buy entirely new pitching staffs in the last few years. We'd have to really rely on a very small window of time where some great things happen for us and some bad things to happen to them. I guess that's where we're at though.

Even after 3 JP drafts, I have yet to see a player the calibre of a Giambi/Tejeda/Chavez or a Mulder/Hudson/Zito. Why is that,

Perhaps it's because it has only been three years since JP took over? Giambi, Tejada, and Chavez were all signed about 10 years ago, even before Beane took over. Hudson had been no more impressive than David Bush or Josh Banks are at the same point in their respective careers and Zito and Mulder were top 10 draft picks. JP hasn't had any picks in the top 10 yet.

The fact that JP already has two draft picks holding their own in the majors is impressive. That's not to say that JP is just as good as Beane, but it's far too early to write off all of JP's drafts because they've yet to yield a superstar.

Put on the rose-coloured glasses ...

It's 2006, the Red Sox lose Manny Ramirez and Matt Clement to injury, and stumble to 82-80. The Yankees are decimated by age and injuries and fumble to 68-94. Neither team has enough prospects to continue making deals to stay competitive, and the Yankees are so far out of it, they don't even try.

Though a valiant run by the young Devil Rays makes for an exciting September stretch run, the Blue Jays take their first flag in more than a decade, as 3.1 million paying customers crank the SkyDome turnstiles; even more money comes into the franchise as they Jays battle through three rounds of playoffs, and though they lose a heart-braking World Series Game 7 to the Florida Marlins, Jays merchandise flies off the shelves all over Canada and becomes the "cool" logo and colours in U.S. teenagers. The extra attendance and merchandise dough is used to sign two prominent free agents and the word is back out -- Toronto is a good city to come play in. One of the free agent spurns Yankee money because the Jays appear to have a better chance to win, while the other spurns Boston because Toronto is renowned for its multicultural lifestyle while Boston is ... not.

All it takes is one year like that to set up a "consistent" franchise for a decade, or even a generation.

Hudson had been no more impressive than David Bush or Josh Banks are at the same point in their respective careers

Further to that: the minor-league careers of Hudson and Bush:

Tim Hudson
24-10, 3.25, 50 G, 43 GS, 271 IP, 216 H, 130 BB, 271 K, 1.28 WHIP
A: 67 IP, Age 22-23
AA: 153 IP, Age 23
AAA 49 IP, Age 24

David Bush
21-14, 3.19, 69 G, 44 GS, 293 IP, 268 H, 57 BB, 284 K, 1.11 WHIP
A: 112 IP, Age 22-23
AA: 81 IP, Age 23
AAA: 100 IP, Age 24

Obviously, there are distinctions -- Hudson pitched in the hitter-friendly Texas and California Leagues, for example -- but there it is all the same. Just sayin’, is all.

"This is beyond obvious, but the Jays need players, not just a philosophy. Unless they get their own cadre of home-grown stars, not merely regulars, to emerge from J.P.'s minors, you're right: they can't compete."

Agree'd, this draft is as important to us as any I can remember, having the 6th pick we must atleast consider a high schooler with some big time upside if he's available (Cameron Maybin!). If the best player available happens to be a college player, then so be it. We need stars, not borderline regulars.

I am not saying that the Jays need to take high-school players. That debate has been hashed and re-hashed. I'm merely saying that by luck, by design, by the heavenly combo of the two, the Jays need to strike it rich from their minors, then start adding the complementary players like Hillenbrand, Catalanatto, Lilly, et al. A nucleus of Halladay, Wells, and Delgado is an impressive start, but, alas, that no longer applies.

Additionally, regardless of context -- i.e. the A's having a wealth of talent come through their system, reminiscient of the Expos in the 90s, as we've talked about here -- the overall point is that the "small-market" excuse simply doesn't hold up anymore. It can be done.

As to who is the better G.M., Beane or Ricciardi, that can't really be answered yet. Of course, Ricciardi had some stake in creating the half-dynasty (without the winning part, of course!) in Oakland, so he's not clueless.

Jordan, Hudson really took a huge step his final year at AAA, then carried that right over to the majors when he arrived in June. In fact, his best K/9 came in 1999, his first year.

It's funny, but people seem to forget that he was a sixth-round pick and was never regarded as a top prospect. It was when he learned the split-fingered fastball that his career took off.

To illustrate Ryan's point, in JP's first draft, Khalil Greene was drafted by San Diego just before the Jays' turn came up. The Jays drafted Russ Adams, who is turning out very nicely himself.

Greene was considered the better prospect by the scouts, and while his numbers last year don't scream "superstar", he is well on the way, bearing in mind that Petco depresses offence significantly and Greene's superior defence at short. But, you can't hold the draft order against JP.

Here is a fairer test. Here are the first round picks for 2002, JP's first draft. Look at all the choices after #14, Russ Adams. How many are well on the way to being superstars? None, zero. Joe Blanton, Dan Meyer and Matt Cain may turn out to be great pitchers, or not. Jeff Francouer might turn into a perennial All-Star outfielder, or not.

Or if you like, try Round 2 of the 2002 draft. David Bush was drafted in the second round. There are some interesting names there, Jesse Crain, Brian Dopirak, Jeremy Reed and Brian McCann. but nobody for whom "superstar" is the first word to come to mind.

The thing is that you just don't know for a long time. Giambi, for instance, was drafted in the second round in 1992. He arrived in the majors in late 1995, had a good season in 1995, and became a superstar in 1999/2000 (no snide comments please). Chavez' ascent was a little quicker, but you really couldn't tell how good he was going to be until 4 years after he was drafted. Eric was the 10th overall pick in 1996.

But won't the Sox and Yanks just trade for new stud players before the deadline to get them where they need to be

With what will the Yanks (and to a far lesser extent, the BoSox) entice teams to trade their stud players?

We've seen the Yankees being rebuffed at the trade deadline in the last couple years as their farm system is completely and utterly devoid of any desirable talent.

Baseball is cyclical. It wasnt all that long ago that NY and BOS were the bottom feeders in the AL East. That time can and will come again.

Gitz, that's true: after his AA season (10-9, 4.54, 71/104 BB/K in 134 IP), Hudson would have excited few people: his breakout PCL tour (4-0, 2.20, 21/61 BB/K in 49 IP) catapulted him to the majors. Again, it just goes to show that even Tim Hudson wasn't Tim Hudson till '99.

Speaking of which, his '99 campaign was his best strikeout year ever, and was followed thereafter by a steady and rapid K/9 decline:

1999: 8.7
2000: 7.5
2001: 6.9
2002: 5.7
2003: 6.1

That said, his command has also improved every year, and in 3 of the last 4 seasons he's allowed far fewer hits than IP. Mariano Rivera is additional proof that a declining strikeout rate does not equal declining effectiveness.

My $.02:

- Had the Jays re-signed Delgado, Griffin would have bashed them for spending too much money on an aging slugger.
- To be successful, you need to grow your own stars from the minors. To grow your own stars from the minors, you need (a) high draft picks, (b) smart selections, and (c) luck.
- The Jays, as we all know, are short on luck.
- The Yankees and Red Sox are not invulnerable. The Yankees, in particular, could crash and burn bigtime (or could win 100 again).
- Rogers are trying to be rational players in an irrational market. I wish that they would spend more on the team, but it's not my money, is it? Also: they're really the only game in town, as the team went unsold for years before Rogers stepped in. If Rogers bails out, the team could very well become the Las Vegas Blue Jays.
- I would have re-signed Delgado, but the Jays were behind the 8-ball on this one - they didn't have enough information to guess which way the market would go.
- Right now, I think that the Jays will finish at about .500 and in third place. The Orioles haven't gotten any better, and the Devil Rays are signing Blue Jay castoffs; if the Jays get any kind of health at all, they will finish ahead of both these teams.

Jordan, Mariano Rivera is a very special case. He's been able to achieve high groundball and high pop-up rates with low home run and line-drive rates, and excellent control (the Hardball Times Annual has wonderful PA result distributions for each major league pitcher in its reference section). No other current pitcher that I am aware of has a comparable profile.

That said, I wouldn't bet against Hudson getting that K rate higher this coming year. As for Bush, all we can say honestly is that he has a fine minor league record, which he followed up with a nice debut in the bigs. Just about anything, good, bad or indifferent, is possible for him from here on out.

Of course Hudson's K rate will go up this year, but I wouldn't ascribe any magic to it: he'll be facing one less hitter per start. Off the top of my noggin', you figure pitchers will get about 75 at-bats in Hudson's appearances, and my guess is that half of them will strike out. That'll help.

The Jays, as we all know, are short on luck

Or, at least, they have been recently.

If Rogers bails out, the team could very well become the Las Vegas Blue Jays.

And I think there's every reason to believe that Rogers is in this thing for the long haul. They've invested in the team's infrastructure and integrated the Jays with their core business; owning the Jays now makes too much sense for Rogers to stop doing it.(And even if they do decide to sell, the payroll reduction and purchase of SkyDome make the enterprise more attractive to local ownership.)

OK. What I meant is that is his K rate against non-pitchers/non-DHs will go up. Mazzone magic? I believe.

Mike, Rivera's K/9 rate is actually really interesting. When he first came up, he was a strikeout machine, much beloved by Rotoheads. Then the K rate plummeted, and many people warned of a hidden arm problem. He was fine, of course, as you point out -- but the wacky thing is that then his K rate rose again to its previous heights, before settling down to a new level. Here's the full K/9 story:

1996: 10.9, 108 IP
1997: 8.5, 72 IP
1998: 5.3, 61 IP
1999: 6.8, 69 IP
2000: 6.9, 71 IP
2001: 9.3, 81 IP
2002: 8.0, 46 IP
2003: 8.0, 71 IP
2004: 7.6, 79 IP

His career rate is now 8.01, but it's been a wild ride.

"Mazzone Magic" applies to his reputed ability to turn around has-beens and almost-weres, not aces like Hudson. I'll gag if Hudson wins the Cy Young and people invoke "Mazzone Magic." He's a good pitching coach, but then, Hudson's done OK without him, hasn't he?

I'd include in "Mazzone Magic" the fact that a couple of fine, fine pitchers under his watch have managed to have HoF careers without great K rates. Not that this is an amazing feat, but it does stand on the positive side of his ledger.

I think the Jays have a lot stacked against them. With baseball's playoff structure you cannot get by with luck. The Jays cannot hope for a hot hitter or a september call up to get to the World Series.

With the Yanks, Sox, A's and Angels all sniffing around for 2 playoff spots, the Jays would need to be consistantly good over 162 games to even be in that position.

With the Yanks, Sox, A's and Angels all sniffing around for 2 playoff spots

Well, Tampa Bay isn't that good...

alsiem: Which is as it should be.

And I think there's every reason to believe that Rogers is in this thing for the long haul.

I think so too - they've bought the Dome, they're buying new turf, they're installing a new Jumbotron, and so on.

I'm not saying that they're about to bail - I'm just saying that, if they bail, there's no one else likely to step in.

I agree that Roger's is in this for the long haul and it is pretty obvious from their moves this winter (spending nearly $100 million on the Jays directly via the Dome & improvements and indirectly with the purchase of Fox's remaining stake in Sportsnet). However, as for there being no other buyer if Roger's does bail is incorrect. MLSE would be a perfect for the Blue Jays. But, in my opinion, the reverse is likely to happen with Rogers eventually buying MLSE. However, one company can only make so many billion dollar purchases in a year and Ted has already done his fair share. Ted didn't become a multi-billionaire by accident, he knows exactly what he is doing.

Mick, can I borrow your glasses? I like that view!

The extra attendance and merchandise dough is used to sign two prominent free agents and the word is back out -- Toronto is a good city to come play in. One of the free agent spurns Yankee money because the Jays appear to have a better chance to win, while the other spurns Boston because Toronto is renowned for its multicultural lifestyle while Boston is ... not.

All it takes is one year like that to set up a "consistent" franchise for a decade, or even a generation.

Sure, sounds great. But again, it becomes a chicken and egg sort of thing. From the above quote, we both seem to agree that the Jays need to put extra money into payroll in order to win. The difference is that you're content to let Rogers wait for circumstance to boost the Jays' revenue and then reinvest it in payroll (which I'm not convinced he would do, BTW), while I am looking for an extra bit of investment on his part to get us to that initial point where the franchise becomes a contender again. So in both cases, the boost in payroll eventually becomes sustainable due to the increased fan interest, I'm just a little more impatient to get the whole process rolling. :)

won't the Sox and Yanks just trade for new stud players before the deadline to get them where they need to be

No. They have nothing to trade.

the "small-market" excuse simply doesn't hold up anymore. It can be done.

It has been done in the NL West, NL Central, NL East, AL West, AL Central. But we don't know for sure yet that it can be done in the AL East. If the big spenders were also stupid... that would help a lot. It's helped elsewhere.

Correction - the Red Sox do have prospects to trade. The Yankees... not so much.

Christopher Penn as Eric Hinske?

Chris Penn as Eric Hinske?

I was thinking the exact same thing this morning but after Hinske dropped the 20lbs last year I didnt want to insult him. If only Chris and Sean had a more "medium sized" brother, he'd be perfect.

I think Hinske...



...looks like Clancy Brown:

Clancy is looking pretty old these days as the loveable(if not truly evil) minister on HBO's Carnivale.

Nowadays Clancy can't even sing!

Ok for you younger fella's scratching your heads, the above is a song title from the late sixties.

It has a Toronto conection.

Can you old folks name the name of the group who first recorded it, the lead singer and the song writer.

Sure, the Jays could take advantage of a not-unlikely off-year from the Yanks or Sox, but that is hardly a sustainable strategy for competitiveness.

Question: Why do many of us think the Red Sox are so insurmountable?

They haven't won the division in a decade! They haven't even the majority of Wild Cards since then, taking 4 of 9.

They've had some pretty good records over the last while, but this was the first year since 1978 that they've won more than 95 games. They haven't won 100 games in a season since 1946! Plus their records over the last 10 years have been pretty inflated as they've had the opportunity to beat the tar out of some mediocre-to-awful Oriole, Devil Ray, and Blue Jay teams.

The reason the Orioles, Devil Rays, and Blue Jays can't make the playoffs isn't because they're in the wrong division. It's because they're simply not playoff caliber teams.

That might be a tad overstated, but there is truth there. In the AL central, 91-92 wins would suffice most years and the competition has definitely been weaker than in the AL east, whereas a few more wins would have been necessary to secure the wild card spot. However, the Jays, Orioles and Devil Rays have been a ways short of 92 wins, even in seasons where the Red Sox have been short of 90 themselves. It has been tough competition, but as Moffatt says, not insurmountable by a playoff caliber team.

I admit I was playing Devil's advocate a little.

But as an Expos fan, I don't think the Orioles, Devil Rays, and Jays have it that bad off.

Look at the other divisions in baseball:

AL Central - Okay, this is a pretty weak division. But I don't think the Jays have been any better than the Twins over the last few years. So they're settling for the Wild Card. But the White Sox aren't slouches, plus you still have to contend with the Red Sox for the spot.

AL West - Until last year the Angels, A's, and Mariners were 3 of the 10 best teams in baseball. The Rangers usually played about .500 ball against non AL-West teams. Easily the hardest division in baseball, as no divisional games are gimmes. If the Jays were in this division, they'd finish no better than 4th next year. In the AL East, they at least have a shot at 3rd.

NL East - You've got the Braves, who are a dynasty. The Phillies are a big market team that usually are competitive. The Mets have a ton of money, and occasionally figure out how to spend it. The Marlins have won 2 World Series this decade. Okay, the Expos suck.

NL Central - Cubs, Astros, and Cardinals are all quality teams, and would easily finish ahead of the 3rd-5th AL East clubs. The Pirates, Brewers, and Reds have been pretty lousy lately. But there's the obvious point that it's harder to win a division when there's 5 teams in it than when there's 6.

NL West - The Dodgers are a pretty good big market club. The Giants only have the best hitter ever. The Padres have a lot of talent, particularly pitching-wise. Prior to last season, the Snakes were one of the best teams in baseball. The Rockies stink.

I just can't shed a tear for the also-rans in the AL East. It's quite tough to make the playoffs in almost *any* division. This isn't Lake Wobegone where every team can be above average. Or the NHL.

But there's the obvious point that it's harder to win a division when there's 5 teams in it than when there's 6.

That's so obvious that it's wrong.

I meant "it's harder to win a division when there's 6 teams in it than when there's 5". But you probably figured that out. :)

http://angels.angels.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp?c_id=ana
Slightly off-topic...

MLB.com, presumably due to the Angels' name change business, is now listing all the teams in the index by the team name (Angels, Astros, Athletics) instead of city/place name.

I still don't know how to abbreviate the Angels' new name. Did we agree on LAAA? MLB.com can't decide, as it still has "ana" in the URL for the Angels' site and ANA on all the team's schedules. And, if you COMN, you'll see that URL starts off "angels.angels," whereas the Jays' site has "toronto.bluejays."

Is this important or in any way meaningful? No, probably not.

I hope one day MLB expands the playoff format beyond the addition of the WC. Having more playoffs spots equals more teams in the hunt, which equals more fan interest in those cities.

Let's face it, short of divine intervention, I don't see the Jays, O's, or D-Rays making the playoffs anytime soon and this has been going on for years now.

But of course instead of expanding the playoff format, they could be a new CBA that doesn't allow the disparity between the payrolls of a club like the Yanks and D-Rays. I know people will point out how just because you spend money doesn't mean you will win (ie. Mets, M's, etc...)but if I was a GM, and you offered me 200 mil to build a club or 30 mil, I'll take the 200 mil and feel pretty confident my chances of competing are pretty strong.

Can you old folks name the name of the group who first recorded it, the lead singer and the song writer.

I'm not an old folk, but I know the song very well; it's by Buffalo Springfield. I'm not sure who their lead singer was - Richie Furay? Stephen Stills? I think they took turns - but the song was written by Neil Young.

I hope one day MLB expands the playoff format beyond the addition of the WC.

I disagree for a long list of reasons.

1. When you were watching the postseason the last couple of years, did it strike you as too short or too long?
2. Did you notice all the trouble they had getting all the games on TV? Did you know that not all the games were sold out?
3. What do you think of hockey's playoff system? Do you think it's about right, or is it too long?
4. If you expand the playoffs, aren't you conceding a playoff spot to the Yankees, almost? I don't want to concede them anything.
5. I'd rather see my team get into the playoffs because they beat the other good teams, and not because they were almost as good as them.
6. Expanding the playoffs won't help bad teams. It certainly won't help good teams. It'll help middle-of-the-pack teams. How much help do middle-of-the-pack teams need?
7. Expanding the playoffs will take all the excitement away from the regular season of a very good team. That's no way to reward them for being very good.
8. No matter what, only one team can win the World Series every year. It doesn't matter what the playoff system is like. Playoff-expansion advocates make it sound like MLB is too blind to provide a system in which everybody can win the Series once every couple of years or so, but it doesn't work like that.
9. I don't want one of these deals like the NHL has where everybody says that the regular season doesn't matter; it's just a tuneup for the playoffs. 162 games would be a long tuneup.

Matthew E, me Grimlock agree with you 1000%. Me Grimlock is Old School and loved the old two-division format. September used to be a de facto month-long first round of the playoffs.

4. If you expand the playoffs, aren't you conceding a playoff spot to the Yankees, almost? I don't want to concede them anything.

Me Grimlock would argue that the expanded wild-card has ALREADY conceded playoff spots to the Yankees. It certainly made possible the latest Yankee dynasty (they might have lost the division to some powerhouse Indians teams), which may have accelerated their crazy ass spending the last 10 years.

The only problem is that with the existing playoff format, too many teams have a .01% change of making the playoffs, which results into more meaningless games in the regular season. I don't think that 16 teams should make the playoffs, but maybe a couple more, some way, some how.

It just doesn't make that much sense that Basketball and Hockey they play 82 game's, which is about 3 or 4 game's a week and they find time to have a million rounds. Where as in Baseball you might get a day or two off in a month but the playoffs are so short. I know that Baseball is so traditional and there will be plenty of "old folks" who would hate this, but I'd rather have a chance for an okay team to make a late (exciting) playoff run that may result in their city rallying behind them. Even if that team doesn't make the playoffs, they would have created some energy for the next season.

Just my opinion, that's all.

Answering the long list of reasons:

1. When you were watching the postseason the last couple of years, did it strike you as too short or too long?

Just right. Most of that probably comes from having great series: St. Louis / Houston, Cubs / Marlins (last year), and Yankees / Red Sox, of course. Heck, I even got to see Jose Lima pretending to be Jack Morris.

2. Did you notice all the trouble they had getting all the games on TV? Did you know that not all the games were sold out?

Looking at attendance figures, the main problem seems to be Atlanta. I don't know capacity off the top of my head, but New York always got 55K, Boston sold out, Houston had more than the capacity of Minute Maid Park (that I found, could be wrong), and St. Louis had 52 K per game, which looks like capacity, too. So either you're quibbling over a few hundred seats, or you're saying "not all the games were sold out" and meaning "not all the games in Atlanta were sold out" (again, I could be wrong with attendance, but I'm honestly too lazy to look up the capacity in Yankee Stadium right now) TV is a problem, though. Games went far too late, and nearly deep-sixed my exam chances. Another round (and more teams) would mean that some games would either be at weird times, or not be on TV at all.

3. What do you think of hockey's playoff system? Do you think it's about right, or is it too long?

Honestly, it's probably too long. But it's always best of 7.

4. If you expand the playoffs, aren't you conceding a playoff spot to the Yankees, almost? I don't want to concede them anything.

Given what the Yankees spend, and assuming that they continue spending (proportionally) the same amount of money, MLB is already conceding a playoff spot to them. Heck, MLB even prints out "American League Champions" T-Shirts embarrassingly early.

5. I'd rather see my team get into the playoffs because they beat the other good teams, and not because they were almost as good as them.

That I agree with, but if the Jays got to the playoffs, by any means, I'd be happy. Sure, I'd rather beat the Yankees and Red Sox and win the pennant, but I wouldn't be moping if we snuck in with a new playoff system. Instead, I'd be trying to get into Skydome as much as possible.

6. Expanding the playoffs won't help bad teams. It certainly won't help good teams. It'll help middle-of-the-pack teams. How much help do middle-of-the-pack teams need?

Were the 91-71 A's a good team? What about the 91-71 Giants? The 89-73 Cubs? The 2003 Astros? The 2003 Mariners? I guess it depends on how many more teams were let into the playoffs. I can see the White Sox sneaking in one year, and that wouldn’t' be fun. Again, depends on how many more teams were added.

8. No matter what, only one team can win the World Series every year. It doesn't matter what the playoff system is like. Playoff-expansion advocates make it sound like MLB is too blind to provide a system in which everybody can win the Series once every couple of years or so, but it doesn't work like that.

Yeah, but if more teams get to the playoffs, it'll help interest. There are lots of different teams that win the World Series, but you can pretty much always pencil in New York, Atlanta, Boston, Minnesota, etc, year after year.

7. Expanding the playoffs will take all the excitement away from the regular season of a very good team. That's no way to reward them for being very good.

and

9. I don't want one of these deals like the NHL has where everybody says that the regular season doesn't matter; it's just a tuneup for the playoffs. 162 games would be a long tuneup.

These are probably the best reasons. The season's long enough as it is, and adding more playoff teams would take away a lot of the tension in it.

So, there are problems (reduced meaning of regular season, putting games on TV, reduced chances of great matchups, such as Yankees / Red Sox, increased length of playoffs, reduced meaning of playoff series), and there are benefits (more hope for mid-level teams, possibly more interest in those cities, etc) In the end, it might be good, but I'm obviously biased by the idea that more playoff spots = better chance for the Jays.

7. Expanding the playoffs will take all the excitement away from the regular season of a very good team.

But the setup the way it is now takes all the excitement away from the regular season of the not-as-good teams.

8. No matter what, only one team can win the World Series every year. It doesn't matter what the playoff system is like.

But it does matter. Fans want to feel like their team has a shot. If they cannot make the playoffs they have no shot. No matter how bad they are, if they have a chance at the playoffs, then they feel like they have a shot. So it seems to make sense to me to let as many teams feel like they have that shot for as long as possible. And wasn't Boston a wild card team? That suggests to me that changing the playoff format does make a difference.

Looking at attendance figures, the main problem seems to be Atlanta

As I recall, in 2003, the A's also had attendance problems with or without that monstrous wall of seats in the outfield.

and I'm talking about a 66-96 team with US$120M on the freaking disabled list and Bubba Trammell hitting fifth ...

Mick just described the Mets. Urg.

This was posted by Smiley on Primer in the Hillenbrand thread. It made me laugh:

My girlfriend points out a possibility we've all overlooked: maybe JP is exploiting a new-found a market inefficiency--guys who suck.

That's pretty much what I see this winter. Koskie, I want to like the guy, but it isn't hard to see him not being worth the contract, especially since they basically signed him as a 1B with Hinske already here. Hillenbrand I've slagged enough, but JP not wanting to give Gabe Gross a shot sucks- and it pushes Cat to the field, where he's more likely to get hurt and not be worth his contract.

I'm just a little baffled. One smart move before the season starts would go a long way. Even a smart quote, simple as "Gabe Gross, who has a minor league track record than Alex Rios, will be a valuable member of this team". If Gross turns out to be a league-average corner OF plqaying for the minimum, that frees up salary to go after an elite player at another spot.

Perhaps JP, after coming off the worst season of injuries since his arrival, thought it wouldnt be a bad idea to have some decent injury insurance around this time. I mean some of the lineups that made it onto the field due to injuries last year were just plain embarassing.

Sure Gross starts in the minors, but as soon as one of Hinske, Hillenbrand, Cat, Wells, Rios or Koskie get hurt (or traded) everyone can shift positions and Gross makes it into the lineup. I dont know if this is the plan but it makes some sense to me.

The only problem is that with the existing playoff format, too many teams have a .01% change of making the playoffs, which results into more meaningless games in the regular season.

Not true. Me Grimlock would estimate that at least half the teams are playing meaningful games at the All-Star Break. Going into spring training, there are what 8 or so teams with no hope? That sounds about right. The other 2/3 of teams could realistically say that if they get "the breaks" they can win, like the 2003 Marlins. Or the 2002 Angels.

Look at the NFL, which is seen as the paragon of competitive balance and parity to which all leagues should aspire. This year, something like 10 teams were sub .400.

Making the playoffs doesn't necessarily mean that you have a shot, and the more teams that are in the tournament, the more this is true. If you're the 8 seed in the Eastern Conference in this year's NBA, do you REALLY have a shot to win the whole shebang?

Me Grimlock know this sounds elitist, but once you get further than the 8th or 9th best team in the league, you probably don't deserve to be champion, anyway. Baseball probably has the right amount of teams, whereby the worst playoff entrant is on the low scale of championship teams.

Me Grimlock think a lot of this is trying to fix a problem that isn't there. Which is about par for the course for baseball.

As I recall, in 2003, the A's also had attendance problems with or without that monstrous wall of seats in the outfield.

Looking back at the A's attendance in the 2003 divisional series:

Game 1: 50,606 (official capacity is "more than 50,000")
Game 2: 36,305
Game 5: 49,397

Yeah, I have no idea what happened game 2. Sure, the weather was bad, but that shouldn't have done anything. Maybe the Three Tenors Concert hurt attendance.

There's one method of expanding the playoffs that I could, maybe, support. Right now there's one wild card spot per league. This could be expanded to two or four per league. Let's say it's four.

Those four teams have a two-day single-elimination playoff to see who goes on to the LDS against the three division winners. No days off for the four wild-card teams, but the division winners get a pleasant but not unwieldy two-day break before they start playing postseason games.

Advantages: obviously, the wild-card teams are run ragged. There's a big difference between a wild-card team and a division winner in this setup; it's so obviously advantageous to be one of the division winners that it'd keep pennant races meaningful. Plus it'd mean that, for a wild-card team to win the Series, it'd have to really earn its way there in a way that would make up for the fact that this is a second- or third-place team we've got here.

Also, it wouldn't lengthen the postseason by any significant amount. Maybe an extra day; big deal.

I didn't invent this, and I don't remember who did. Steven Goldman, perhaps.

What would the American League playoffs have looked like last year under this system? The three division winners would have still been the Yankees, Twins and Angels; the four wild card teams would have been the Red Sox, A's, Rangers and White Sox. If we do a best-plays-worst thing, that gives us this:

Day 0: last games of regular season
Day 1: Bos vs Chi, Oak vs Tex
Day 2: winner of (Bos vs Chi) vs (winner of Oak vs Tex)
Day 3: Ana vs Min (Game 1), NY vs wild card winner (Game 1)

And so on. I could handle that.

Can you old folks name the name of the group who first recorded it, the lead singer and the song writer.

Neil Young wrote it, Richie Furay did the lead vocal. Buffalo Sprngfield's first album (the one with "For What It's Worth").

Old folks out.

I agree with him Grimlock. A guy who posted a lot - maybe still does - on the Jays Official Site fan forum used to argue with me that the perfect model for a sports league is one in which every team starts off every year with the same chance of being able to win the championship as every other team. Absolute parity, in other words. I think it sounds terrible.

http://www.ibiblio.org/craig/draft/1999_draft/Picks/15_New_York.html
If you're the 8 seed in the Eastern Conference in this year's NBA, do you REALLY have a shot to win the whole shebang?

You Grimlock, are you talking about the 99 Knicks? Didn't that create quite a buzz around that team? The 8th team that doesn't have a shot, continues to upset teams and make it to the NBA Finals.

People want to see the guys who aren't supposed to win, WIN. That's the kind of stuff that's entertaining, isn't that the point of sports?

I'm not in favour of letting 16 teams go into the post season, but I am in favour of shortening the (VERY VERY VERY) long MLB season, and letting a couple more teams make the playoffs. Which also means that a couple MORE teams had a chance to make the playoffs, that is what gets fans behind their team....Hope.

When Godfrey was on OTR today he mentioned that the Jays were eagerly anticipating the current CBA expiring with the players after the 2006 season. I imagine the Jays will want some sort of compensation for playing an unbalanced schedule in what may be the highest spending division in all of baseball. I know Godfrey has discussed changes to the playoff structure happening "down the road", I think the impetus will be after 2006.

Getting back to the top of this thread for a second...

I guess Jamie Campbell will play himself...Or maybe Dougie Howzer...

Fred Flinstone as Rob Faulds...

Anyone else think Grimlock and Matthew Elmslie is the same person?

(And, no, I will NOT do an emoticon to indicated I'm kidding.)

I will NOT do an emoticon to indicated I'm kidding.

So, you're serious, then.

You shall be hearing from my second.

ME Grimlock LOVE the Knicks, and remember that team fondly. Remember also, that the 99 Knicks were from a lockout-shortened season, and the view at the time is that they weren't a "true" #8 seed, and if it were a full 82-game season, then they would have finished higher. That said, they were HUMONGOUS underdogs in the Finals, and were lucky to push the Spurs even to Game 5. They didn't have a chance.


People want to see the guys who aren't supposed to win, WIN. That's the kind of stuff that's entertaining, isn't that the point of sports?


To some, yeah. Other people want to see the great teams have great performances. Seriously, who wasn't in awe of the then not-so-evil 1998 Yankees? Or the Bulls of the 90s? Or the Oilers of the 80s? Or the Blue Jays of the early 90s. :D

Two-thirds or more of teams are going to go into spring training with hope. As the season progresses, some will fall and fall out of the race, but that's what makes the games important throughout the year. It sucks when your team falters in mid-August, but it makes each game that much more important. Really, how important is a game if everyone's in, and the only thing you're determining is seeding vs. if it's a nightly race to keep pace?

Ah, good catch, Matthew. Naturally I was kidding. You know that, right? Oh, for the love of Ford, PLEASE don't make me do an emoticon! Very well. :( Oh, hell! I'm so bitter I smile upside down!

There's a new item on the menu... a Huxley reference with an unnecessary emoticon on the side.

Just for fun, I looked up what would've happened if there was 4 Wild Cards the past couple of years.

In the 2004 National League: Houston, San Francisco, Chicago, and San Diego win the Wild Cards. Philly misses out by one game, Florida misses out by three games. Next closest team is the Reds, who are 10 games out of the hunt.

In the 2004 AL: Boston, Oakland, Texas, and Chicago make it. Cleveland misses out by three games, Baltimore by 5 games, followed by Detroit at 11 games back.

In the 2003 NL, you get a wildly entertaining race. Florida, Houston, and Philly all qualify. LA and St. Louis tie for the last spot (could you have a one-game playoff in this format?) Arizona misses out by only one game, Montreal misses by 2 games.

In the 2003 AL, Boston, Seattle, Chicago, and Toronto all make the playoffs. KC is 3 back of Toronto, Anaheim is 9 back.

In 2002 NL, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, and Montreal all make the playoffs. Philly is 3 back, Florida is 4 back, the Reds are 5 back.

In the 2002 AL, Anaheim, Boston, Seattle, and Chicago all make it. Toronto is 3 back, Cleveland 7 back, Texas 9 back.

So, to summarize, in the past 3 years with this format, you get all kinds of wacky results. AL West teams like Seattle and Oakland benefit, as do the White Sox (three straight playoff appearances!), and even the Jays and Montreal. There's 2 really tight races, and the rest of the time, the last WC is divided by around 3 games. Races for seeding would be a huge thing: having home field advantage for the one-game playoff, or a bye, would be really important.

Ignoring the better chance that it gives the Jays, I'm not sure if it's worth it. Sure, you get some really tight races, but you also get the White Sox, Phillies, Expos, and Padres in the playoffs. A 2003 Jays / Red Sox playoff match would be great, but if the Jays had fluked into winning that game (which could've happened if Halladay was given the start), then Yankees / Red Sox 2K3 never happens. In 2004, the White Sox have an opportunity to knock off Boston, which seems absurd. The "one game, anything can happen" idea sounds good, until you realize that the Phillies could've lucked into a decent playoff run.

AL West teams like Seattle and Oakland benefit, as do the White Sox (three straight playoff appearances!), and even the Jays and Montreal.

Hey Mick, can I borrow those rose coloured glasses?...

Montreal makes the playoffs and crowds in the 40,000s come back. Their money into the team is used to lure other free agents. Local ownership sees investment opportunity and purchases them...

I know it took more than losing for Montreal to lose the Expos, but a 4 team wildcard could have saved a franchise.

This isn't Lake Wobegone ...

Moffat, you're my hero! referencing garrison on this site, WOW!!!

As for the play offs, if they were a series longer they'd be too long... Basketball's system blows 'cause they took out the 5 game 1 st round...

Actor for Richard Griffin: Christopher McDonald, the guy who plays shooter McGavin in "Happy Gilmour"

Casting call! Casting call!

Starring as Frank Catalanotto...



Mr Fred Savage