Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
There's a picture opposite me of my primitive ancestry
Who stood on rocky shores and kept the beaches shipwreck-free
Though I respect that a lot, I'd be fired if that were my job
After killing Jason off and countless screaming Argonauts


Pending the physical, it appears we can say welcome to Toronto, Corey Koskie.

More news from the decelerating Winter Meetings:


The new third baseman

Jays are close to signing Koskie (Star)

Jays acquire some Canadian content (Globe)

Hinske shifts to first if Koskie signs (Sun)


The new relief prospect

Gaudin joins Blue Jays bullpen (MLB.com)

Rays invest in Cash (St. Pete Times)


The old first baseman's destination

Sexson to Mariners said to be done (MLB.com)


The overall results

Time is running out on Jays' master plan (Take a wild guess)


As usual, the best of the newsprint reports comes from Jeff Blair:

=======
Koskie and pitcher Matt Clement were Ricciardi's two free-agent priorities in what has turned into a difficult, slow-moving market. Clement's agent, Barry Axelrod, left the meetings on Saturday night and said the Blue Jays were still very much in the picture for his client's services.

"They have made an offer that I would describe as being extremely competitive," said Axelrod, who has watched as contracts signed by the likes of Kris Benson, Carl Pavano and Russ Ortiz have pushed his client's expectations into the range of $8-million (U.S.) to $9-million a year.

"Matt seems to be the next one to go," said Axelrod, who told the Blue Jays that he will be getting back to clubs today for their final, best offer.

Several sources indicate that the Blue Jays are willing to go as high as $9-million a year to get Clement.

The Anaheim Angels, St. Louis Cardinals and Los Angeles Dodgers are considered to be among the other prime pursuers of Clement.

Ricciardi has spoken to Clement, and Blue Jays ace Roy Halladay has told the club he will call Clement and help with their pitch to him. He can be expected to do so today or tomorrow. As well, Blue Jays pitching coach Brad Arnsberg, who was Clement's pitching coach with the Florida Marlins, has spoken frequently to Clement.

Ricciardi had meetings scheduled Sunday night with the Chicago White Sox, hoping to further talks centred on White Sox outfielder Carlos Lee. He's offering Miguel Batista.

Ricciardi has told people he was leaning toward not moving Batista unless Clement is signed. But the inflated salaries being thrown around for pitchers with career records of .500 and less have, in Ricciardi's words, "resulted in Miguel starting to get a lot of play when we talk to other teams."

Batista is signed for the next two years at less than $10-million in total, making him a cost-effective alternative for clubs that lose out in the free-agent hunt but are still looking for a pitcher capable of turning in 200 innings.
=======


Jays Roundup: December 13 | 274 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Jimbob - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:17 AM EST (#7749) #
Here's Stats Inc take on Koskie

Looks like he'll be able to swap broken hamate bone stories with Hinske...
_Jim - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:21 AM EST (#7750) #
That Sexson deal is insane if it's really near $15MM per.
_dp - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:30 AM EST (#7751) #
Pleas, not $9 M for Clement. I'm not really thrilled about Koskie unless Hinske can be flipped and a they can bring in a decent hitting 1B. I'm not really sure what the plan is. But what sucks, IMO, is that Hinske + Batista + Koskie= Delgado, and by a pretty wide margin. So instead of being major boneheaded contracts that screw this team up (Ash), it's smaller, less boneheaded ones.
Joe - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:45 AM EST (#7752) #
http://me.woot.net
Isn't the whole point of saying "Delgado's contract is an albatross" is that we could sign multiple good players for what we're paying him? Maybe the runs created or saved will be less than with Delgado, but unless he's going to cover all three positions on the line connecting first and third, we will still need to hire those two other players. It's about affordability.
_Jim Acker - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:02 AM EST (#7753) #
Has anyone of the folks with good numbers skills looked at the offense created in the jays lineup with delgado, and compare it to what the roster might look like (ie. with koskie at 3b, and either Hinske/Lee at 1b)?
Pistol - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:10 AM EST (#7754) #
I'm not sure what to make of the Koskie deal, but it's good to see the team get a player they want.

$9 million for Clement? Too rich for my blood.
_Marc - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:18 AM EST (#7755) #
"THE BLUE JAYS moved catcher Kevin Cash, a former phenom, to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays yesterday." - Bob Elliott

Apparently Elliott has a different definition of "phenom" than I do... An undrafted free agent out of college is a phenom? Sure he had promise, but a phenom? Cash ranks up there with Griffey, Pujols, etc...?

I'm interested to see what the Jays do for catching now... A trade? Maybe a Rule 5 pick? If I'm guessing, I'd say the Jays first pick today will be a lefty reliever (Tyler Johnson, Royce Ring or Blake McGinley) and then a catcher if one is still available, but it maybe be one that is more of a veteran (ie. 25-26 years old with less upside and more stability such as John Castellano).

The Jays pick sixth today (anyone know what time the Rule 5 draft starts?) and before them:

D-Backs - full 40 man roster, but could drop someone off the roster...
Royals - said to be taking Andy Sisco
Mariners - 38 on roster, but don't normally participate
Nationals - full 40... but who knows what Bowden will do?!
Brewers - have said they probably won't be picking
Jays - ???
_Mosely - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:31 AM EST (#7756) #
It'll be nice to see how Koskie fits into the Blue Jays birdhouse. He certainly sounds like he has a lot of soul. He might just be a giant for us.

Also, I came up with this new nickname for him: "Anola Gay".

/shamed
Mike Green - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST (#7757) #
Only in baseball does Michael Moore get to be President.

I wasn't able to find out when the Rule 5 draft starts, but I'll be checking throughout the day. MLB radio comes on at noon, and probably the draft will be in the afternoon.

Describing Cash as a "phenom" is over the top.
Pistol - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST (#7758) #
I'm interested to see what the Jays do for catching now

I'd expect Zaun & Myers until Q is ready (or one gets hurt). Of course if Zaun signs somewhere else that throws a wrench into things.
Coach - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:34 AM EST (#7759) #
Time ran out a long time ago for the slightest bit of credibility from the Toronto Star baseball coverage. It's a shame that "casual" baseball fans consider such bile as information.

Elliott knows exactly what a phenom is. He actually does good work on Canadian amateur baseball, but he never lets truth get in the way of his pitiful anti-Jays agenda.

I wouldn't give Clement $9 million either, though I don't know what else is cooking. If signing Clement is the precursor to something big with the White Sox (say, Hinske, Batista and a prospect for Lee, Crede, some cash and a better prospect) then Delgado's bat will have been "replaced" by Koskie and Lee, while the infield defence and rotation have improved. That would be a highly successful offseason.

There's also a good fit with the Reds, who desperately need pitching, seem uncertain about what to do with their surplus of outfielders and have no idea what position Ryan Freel will play. They could add a 3B and non-tender Jimenez.

At the moment, Hinske is the first baseman. That does not inspire championship dreams (was anyone planning a 2005 parade?) but there's no way J.P. is done. I'm eagerly awaiting the next move.

Marc, the draft starts at noon EST and I agree, a LH reliever is worth the risk. On paper, I'd go with Ring, but I don't have Keith Law, Tony LaCava, Dick Scott and a scouting department at my disposal.
_Marc - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:43 AM EST (#7760) #
Thank you for the FYI, Coach.
_greenfrog - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST (#7761) #
I'm cautiously glad to have a good third baseman (and a Canadian one at that) but if it's 3x17 I think the Jays are paying a premium. My main objections to the deal are:

- Koskie's age/lack of upside
- His injury risk, esp. on turf
- His high strikeouts (I thought that JP was trying to address this problem, not compound it)
- Losing a second-round pick
- The fact that Terry Ryan wouldn't budge on his contract offer makes me nervous, b/c Ryan is a very intelligent GM
- That this may be a sentimental/desperate/overpaid signing b/c the Jays just lost Delgado and they were afraid of coming away from the winter meetings empty-handed

OK, got that out of my system...
_Ryan Day - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:50 AM EST (#7762) #
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MLB/Toronto/2004/12/10/776713.html
So here's a blast from the not-so-distant past. Bob Elliot on the Jays' pursuit of Koskie:

It now appears that Koskie will stay with the Minnesota Twins or land with the Detroit Tigers or Seatttle Mariners. He won't be coming to Toronto.

Sounded pretty definite there, didn't he?
_Dan Julien - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:52 AM EST (#7763) #
I actully did a university paper about the departure of Delgado's effects on fan behaviour this past month..
I did a couple of analysis of Delgado's stats but I think the most simple one would be Value Over Replacemt Player from 2004. This was when the rumour was of Olerud going to Toronto but I've removed this from these stats. I also had Zito coming to Toronto but I've replaced it with Clement.

Delgado's VORP last year was 41.4
Koskie's was 26.7 while Hinske's was -2.2...(28.9 difference)
Cash's was -8.4 while Myers was 0.2 (8.6 difference)
Gaudin was 2.7 while De Los Santos was 0.1 (2.6 difference)
So as of yet..J.P.'s made up 40.1 of Delgado's 2004 production with more moves to come...starting pitching and First baseman come to mind.

If Clement(36.9) is signed, he would be a 26.4 improvement over Towers(10.5).
Relievers: Kline(19.9) and Koch(6.3) are definitely better than Ligtenberg(-1.6) and (Glynn, FIle, Chulk) (all under 5)

So although we can't expect the numbers to be the same, we can see what JP meant when he talked about Delgado's contract being an albatross. He's only spent 6 mill of the 19 and has already made up most of it with his moves..
Mike Green - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:56 AM EST (#7764) #
if it's 3x17 I think the Jays are paying a premium

5.66 million/year for a solid or better third baseman is not overpaying in today's market.
_Smirnoff - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:03 AM EST (#7765) #
I just don't know what to make of the Koskie deal until I see how everything else plays out. At the moment, I'm cautiously optimistic about it being the first domino in a series of transactions. I hope that's the case. I think it's great to add a Canadian to the roster.
Coach - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:04 AM EST (#7766) #
Of course if Zaun signs somewhere else that throws a wrench into things.

The draft picks would be an OK consolation prize, but I'd greatly prefer that they work out a one-year contract. Maybe a million, with PA incentives? Gregg's leverage goes way up if he has other offers, so it may even take a two-year deal, but I can't think of anywhere else he'll be the #1 guy, so I'm optimistic he'll return. There's plenty of time to haggle over the amount if the interest is mutual.

One more veteran backstop, preferably one who can hit lefties a little and will accept a minor-league deal with a spring invite, would be a nice acquisition. Pending what else the Jays accomplish, Myers seems more useful in a DH platoon with Menechino, as a pinch-hitter and third catcher than in a 50-50 job-share with Zaun.

He's only spent 6 mill of the 19 and has already made up most of it with his moves.

Thanks, Dan. It always makes me feel good when smart young guys confirm my unscientific geezer observations. What happens if you average Crash's 2003 career year with his unfortunate 2004? And would you like to post your paper here as a pinch hit? COMN to E-mail me.

Ryan is a very intelligent GM

And he's hamstrung by Toronto-esque budget restrictions, and he has Cuddyer. Maybe if Kubel hadn't got hurt, it would have been Jones cut loose and they would have had room for Koslie. (Sorry, Aaron. I'm not trying to rub it in.)
_Jordan - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST (#7767) #
One million points to Mosely, who correctly identified Birdhouse in Your Soul by They Might Be Giants. Mosely also receives photos of the following giants:

Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST (#7768) #
Worst case, I think, with the Koskie signing is that the Jays stir up some fan interest by signing a high-profile Canuck.
Coach - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST (#7769) #
Someone switched the "l" and the "k" on my leyboard. More coffee...
Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:13 AM EST (#7770) #
As usual, the best of the newsprint reports comes from Jeff Blair:

And as usual, I can't say enough good stuff about the baseball coverage at the Globe and Mail. I had no expectations when we started our subscription (I had heard that their sports section was pretty terrible, actually), and was pleasantly surprised every week. Those who are still stuck to other newspapers, I really encourage you to give the Globe and Mail a shot. Pick it up one day and compare.

I feel slightly dirty and fanboyish writing that, but it's true.
_Jacko - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:14 AM EST (#7771) #

So although we can't expect the numbers to be the same, we can see what JP meant when he talked about Delgado's contract being an albatross. He's only spent 6 mill of the 19 and has already made up most of it with his moves..

Careful.

There's big raises for Halladay (4MM), Wells (2MM) and Hinske (2MM) that eat into that 18.5 MM quite a bit. Batista is also making 1MM more this year as well. Hudson should be getting himself a nice little raise as well. Lilly's salary is increasing by 1.2 MM. Including Koskie's 2005 salary, we've already used up around 16MM of the savings.

Other significant salaries that came off the books were:

Speier: 1.6 MM (though he might be coming back)
Hentgen: 2.2 MM
Terry Adams: 1.7 MM
De Los Santos: 850 K

It looks like there's only around 9 MM left, plus whatever extra they plan to spend over and above 2004's payroll.

Running a baseball team on a tight budget is difficult.
_Daryn - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:31 AM EST (#7772) #
"THE BLUE JAYS moved catcher Kevin Cash, a former phenom, to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays yesterday." - Bob Elliott

Apparently Elliott has a different definition of "phenom" than I do


Maybe its just a more definite interpretation of "FORMER" hehehe...
_Robbie - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:34 AM EST (#7773) #
Worst case, I think, with the Koskie signing is that the Jays stir up some fan interest by signing a high-profile Canuck.

That's a pretty bad worst case in my mind. Obviously they overpaid, but the only way this deal makes any sense is if they can get a guy like Lee from Chicago, and at the same time, ship out Hinske.
_Wildrose - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:42 AM EST (#7774) #
My two cents regarding Koskie. As I stated yesterday Koskie has huge splits, he's outstanding against righties ( 3 year .893 OPS )vs. .711 against lefties. So for 75-80% of the time he's one of the best hitters in the game. His .894 OPS against RH (last year)would have put him 13th. in the entire A.L. in terms of offensive output, ( Yes OPS has its drawbacks but its a readily available split),usually players in the top 15 in league offence in todays market, who play a premium defensive position quite well, make 12-14 million a year. In my eyes the Jays are getting a bargain . Somebody who plays this well 3/4 of the time should be making a pro-rated $8 million and up. The key is to play him with a strong platoon partner.

In terms of injury this is a concern, but the team is doing its due diligence , by doing a comprehensive physical and delaying announcement of this deal until he passes muster , (no Mike Sirotka rush job here). If he passes the physical I give thumbs up.
_Blue in SK - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:45 AM EST (#7775) #
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1945084
Found this quote interesting, from Stark at ESPN.com

"One player the Dodgers still haven't acquired, despite what you may have heard, is Oakland ace Tim Hudson. Despite reports that a deal was imminent to send Hudson to L.A. for Edwin Jackson and infield prospect Antonio Perez, the A's were back out talking to other clubs (Cardinals, Orioles, Yankees, Blue Jays) Sunday. So hang on. This one might still take a while."

A three way deal possibility involving Beane, DePodesta and JP?

Wonder what we would be giving up? Hinske? Eric might be Plan B for the Dodgers if they can't sign Beltre. I expect that JP has his eye on Durazo.
_perlhack - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:49 AM EST (#7776) #
Dan, thanks for the analysis. A few comments:

The VORP numbers you cite for 2004 may or may not be indicative of performance in 2005. While there is typically good correlation between successive years for a player, consideration should also be given to other factors.

I'd be more comfortable with expected VORP for 2005, given the (new) circumstances in which the players currently find themselves (age, park, etc). For example, what should we expect from Matt Clement in Toronto, versus a one-year younger Matt Clement in Wrigley?

While I think the 2005 Jays will improve on 2004 (assuming there will be some astute moves to strengthen SP, the vacant 1B etc), I'm curious just how much the Jays will improve. There are a few ways to measure.

1. As you've done - a stright comparison of this year's numbers.
2. 2005 expected VORP for all players leaving and coming in.
3. 2005 expected VORP for the new roster, versus 2004 actual VORP

I prefer the latter. (This completely ignores salary, though.) Aside: I also think that Delgado's 2004 VORP is in no way indicative of his abilities, and 2005 should see him putting up far better numbers.

So, does anyone want to calculate expected VORP for 2005?
_Prisoner of Ham - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:58 AM EST (#7777) #
And as usual, I can't say enough good stuff about the baseball coverage at the Globe and Mail. I had no expectations when we started our subscription (I had heard that their sports section was pretty terrible, actually), and was pleasantly surprised every week.

The Globe got its bad sports rep during the era of editor William Thorsell, who didn't understand that people who liked to read about business also liked to read about sports, and sliced the section's budget.

Since then, the leadership at the Globe has done a lot of work to turn that around, and Blair is one of the best examples. I'm not a fan of Larry Milson's writing -- I find his work plodding and paint-by-numbers. But Blair is an excellent writer who takes a journalist's approach to sports, rather than a columnist's, which separates his work from that of Griffin and Elliott.

One of the reasons his work seems so much better than the others, you may have noticed, is the quality of the quotes he gets from Ricciardi. I have the sense that Ricciardi trusts Blair, and has actual conversations with him. The rest of the writers merely rehash quotes from the scrum, because that's as close as Ricciardi will let them get.
_The Bone - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:59 AM EST (#7778) #
Durazo makes a whole lot of sense...If we added Lee (for Batista) and Clement to this team we'd be overbudget...and have no bullpen help

But Durazo would allow us to possibly sign Kline to be our closer, which I think is one of the smarter moves J.P. has come up with
_Marc - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:09 AM EST (#7779) #
But Durazo would allow us to possibly sign Kline to be our closer...

I doubt Kline would be installed as the closer... the Jays need a pitcher to face left-handed batters in crucial situations and that's where Kline would come in.
Kline's stuff really does not scream closer, although he could be trusted in the odd occasion. He's also had some arm troubles in the last couple years and I doubt it could stand up to the rigors of closing.
_dp - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:12 AM EST (#7780) #
Is upgrading the 'pen a priority? Chulk, League, Frasor, Lightenberg, this new Tampa Bay castaway- I know this has been the refrain for a couple of years, but with all the talent out there, it seems like 2 of these guys can be dominant enough.
Mike Green - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:13 AM EST (#7781) #
My two cents regarding Koskie. As I stated yesterday Koskie has huge splits, he's outstanding against righties ( 3 year .893 OPS )vs. .711 against lefties... Somebody who plays this well 3/4 of the time should be making a pro-rated $8 million and up. The key is to play him with a strong platoon partner.

Here's a name that has been thrown around in trade discussions that might fit.
_Jordan - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST (#7782) #
Frank Menechino strikes me as a fine 3B platoon partner if Koskie needs to sit against tough lefties. Mostly, though, I'd like to see Koskie take the majority of at-bats against all pitchers -- his glove is worth it.
Thomas - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST (#7783) #
Re: the Rule V draft.

Drafting a lefty does make a lot of sense given our bullpen situation. Assuming Sisco is gone, I'd look to Blake McGinley or Tyler Johnson ahead of Royce Ring myself.

Other names I'd look at, as I mentioned somewhere yesterday, include Jason Cooper, Alex Romero and Brad Knox.
_doctor_payne13 - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST (#7784) #
I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but Marty York said on Sportsnet News yesterday afternoon that the Jays were serious about bringing in Olerud to DH. I'm thinking, shockingly enough, that Marty's going to be wrong about that...
_Jordan - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST (#7785) #
Erubiel Durazo was Billy Beane's Holy Grail -- he went to a lot of trouble to get him, and I really doubt he's going to let him go.

But the idea of a Dodgers-Jays-A's trade -- DePodesta, Beane and Ricciardi -- is absolutely fascinating. I'd love to see it happen, just for the armchair analysis opportunities.
_dp - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST (#7786) #
I mentioned this in another thread, but Olerud/Phelps would've made a decent DH platoon.
_Ducey - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:30 AM EST (#7787) #
Marty York said on Sportsnet News yesterday afternoon that the Jays were serious about bringing in Olerud to DH

He also said last night when asked what kind of hitter Koskie was that he was "a slap hitter" with not "much power".
_Marc - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:36 AM EST (#7788) #
Brad Knox has really impressive looking numbers in the low minors, but from what I have read at BA, he is more of a soft tosser with good command. Those guys tend to have a lot of success in the low minors and then get slammed at higher levels. Just visit The Baseball Cube and look at the single-A numbers for pitchers like the aforementioned Steve Kline (when he was a starter in the Cleveland org), John Stephens or Craig Anderson.
_Wildrose - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:37 AM EST (#7789) #
I'll second the kudos for the Globe, ( I try to read it every day) and Mr. Blair in particular, as noted earlier, he actually gets quotes from Riccardi first-hand.

I found the vested option for 2008 for Koskie , as reported by Blair to be quite surprising , did this swing the balance of the deal in the Jays favor?
Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:49 AM EST (#7790) #
I found the vested option for 2008 for Koskie , as reported by Blair to be quite surprising , did this swing the balance of the deal in the Jays favor?

It's certainly interesting. Were there any reports as to whether or not the Twins ever offered the no-trade clause that Koskie was supposedly seeking? Maybe that option was to up the ante against the no-trade?
Coach - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:49 AM EST (#7791) #
I have the sense that Ricciardi trusts Blair, and has actual conversations with him.

PoH, you are correct. As someone else with whom J.P. has "actual conversations," I can assure you that he respects Blair. Why wouldn't he? However, there are many other reporters he trusts, and you're not giving them enough credit by saying they get no closer than the scrums. A couple of them have been known to post here.

Ricciardi's one of the most approachable and candid men I've ever met. Even after someone (figuratively) sticks knives into his back or spits in his eye, he treats them with far more civility than most of us could ever pretend. Part of the ongoing, crude hatchet job by two local columnists and one beat reporter -- J.P.'s supposed lack of people skills -- is as vindictive as their "analysis" of his baseball savvy.

I'd like to see Koskie take the majority of at-bats against all pitchers -- his glove is worth it.

Because he's not exactly indestructible, I'd rest Corey once in a while vs. the toughest lefties; Menechino can make 15 starts at 3B and Koskie would be an awesome pinch-hitting option in those games. If the Jays do end up with Joe Crede, I think they will flip him or move him across the diamond.

Sure, Wildrose, the 2008 option is a good thing. I want Koskie around as long as possible, for his bat, glove and character. If he does reach his PA thresholds, everyone should be happy with four years at $23.5 million: the team, the player, and the fans.
_The Murph - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:51 AM EST (#7792) #
1st post here on the box but I came across this on CNNSI.com rumors page...

" Beane continued to float the resumes of Hudson and left-handers Mark Mulder and Barry Zito. In one of many schemes, he gave Toronto its pick of the three in exchange for low-cost, high-yield outfielder Vernon Wells and was turned down.
-- Los Angeles Times"

Thoughts?
_sweat - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:54 AM EST (#7793) #
The Murph: I'm glad JP turned it down. Lets face it, guys like vernon wells and orlando hudson make the whole pitching staff better. If that trade is made, everyones ERA goes up at least a bit. The Jays can't afford(at this point) to move their best hitter(and fielder), even if it is for mulder(the guy i would take).
_Prisoner of Ham - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:12 PM EST (#7794) #
there are many other reporters he trusts, and you're not giving them enough credit by saying they get no closer than the scrums.

Fair enough. My intent was only to contrast Blair with the Griffin/Elliott (etc) contingent, not to cast aspersions on others. (By the way, does anyone here, like me, wish the Sun's Mike Ulmer would write on baseball more?)

Coach, I'm glad you're high on Koskie, because I want to feel good about this move. Certainly he's an upgrade on the perplexing Hinske, but as someone who hasn't followed Koskie's career all that closely, I'd be interested to know why your confidence seems so solid. Statistically his offense seems to be fading, except for the boost in HR last year (prior to that, as the ESPN profile suggests, he could go three months without a homer).

So is your faith built on respect for his defense? Or is there something intangible about his performance mere numbers don't show. If you can, allay my worries that we've bought three more years of slide.
_Blue in SK - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:12 PM EST (#7795) #
Something doesn't make sense to me regarding the vesting option, at least as I read it in the Globe article -

"There is a vesting option year for 2008 at $6.5-million that would kick in based on plate appearances in the next two years."

Why would the fourth year be vested based on PAs in the first 2 years (i.e. years 1 & 2)? I could understand the option based PAs in years 2 & 3? Seems odd.
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:13 PM EST (#7796) #
You look at some of the other facets of his game--his on-base percentage has gone down, which is disappointing. But his defense has improved. I don't look at him and see a disappointment.

As long as we're talking about JP being candid...this comment drove me nuts when I saw it in late August. Anyone else see the acquisition of Koskie as a repudiation of this statement, or is it just that Koskie was the best available option to add some offence?
_Ryan B. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:20 PM EST (#7797) #
Just got this off rotoworld. Looks like a great deal for the Jays!

The White Sox and Blue Jays have discussed a trade in which Toronto would receive Carlos Lee and Joe Crede for Miguel Batista and Eric Hinske.
With Corey Koskie around, the Blue Jays shouldn't have much interest in Crede. However, they could move him on to a third team. Lee would play first base in Toronto.
_Caino - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:23 PM EST (#7798) #
Ryan B, did they mention prospects?
_James W - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:25 PM EST (#7799) #
Supposing this Chicago trade happens, in your collective (or individual :) opinions, which LF are the Jays better off moving to first: Carlos Lee or Frank Catalonotto?
Coach - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST (#7800) #
PoH, I use stats like the proverbial drunk uses the lamppost. Support, not illumination. I have observed Koskie by watching; that's how I assess every player. I don't even try to "prove" my theories, though the BBFL standings suggest that I'm not a complete idiot.

I have followed his career very closely. I'm a proud Canadian, and he's one of our greatest ballplayers ever. Corey can pick it, wing it, hit it a mile, is a terrific baserunner, plays hurt with no concern for his numbers and is a leader in the clubhouse. The biggest intangible is that they always hated his patience in Minnesota and wanted him to hack more. Here, his selectivity will be appreciated and his OBP is guaranteed to rise.
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST (#7801) #
Has Lee ever played 1B? If not, I'd probably prefer Cat, he's at least got some experience playing there, IIRC.
_Prisoner of Ham - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:29 PM EST (#7802) #
I use stats like the proverbial drunk uses the lamppost. Support, not illumination.

A tasty metaphor if ever there was one.
Thanks for the insights.
_Matthew E - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:32 PM EST (#7803) #
his OBP is guaranteed to rise

If only that were true.
Coach - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:41 PM EST (#7804) #
You scoff at my personal guarantee, Matt? :)

Perhaps I should have expressed it as a wager, but there's no betting in baseball, except for the government bookies.
_Robbie - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST (#7805) #
Just got this off rotoworld. Looks like a great deal for the Jays!

The rotoworld scoop is based on todays article in the Star, which is altogether pretty vague. I do, however, hope this works out. Looks like a good deal.
_Dr. Zarco - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:55 PM EST (#7806) #
Regarding the prospective deal with the CWS, I'd be tickled pink if it went through. Lee is, in my mind, a consistently undervalued player and really can hit (his defence isn't terrible either). He and Koskie would more than make up for Delgado. Throw in Crede, a "never live up to potential" guy, and who knows, maybe a change of scenery would do him good. And if not, well he's got some pop to chill on the bench and be Berg, only better. There has been a lot of pressure on him for the last few years around here in Chicago, even when he was still in AAA cause of his status as such a good prospect. JP's on the right track here...
Mike D - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST (#7807) #
An outstanding deal, and I frankly don't know why the Sox would make it. Lee is a gamer that doesn't struggle against righthanded pitching, and has a good idea at the plate. He'd be both popular and productive at the Dome.

If this trade goes through, then it makes the Olerud rumours much more sensible. Olerud and Lee would give Toronto outstanding offensive and defensive flexibility, depending on the matchup or even the game situation. I think Crede would be flipped; there's not much room for him over the next 3-5 years here.

Seems too good to be true, though...
Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:01 PM EST (#7808) #
Why would the fourth year be vested based on PAs in the first 2 years (i.e. years 1 & 2)? I could understand the option based PAs in years 2 & 3? Seems odd.

Could be to ease Koskie's mind if he's worried about getting hurt or slowing down in the coming seasons -- "Do good for us now and we'll take care of you later". Or it could just be bad data, a typo, or someone saying '08 when they meant '07.

If that Chicago rumor turns out to be true (especially as written there, without the Jays shedding their promising prospects), this could actually turn out to be a pretty fantastic off-season.

Hey, does the money that other pitchers are getting right now make Batista's signing, in hindsight, actually pretty great?
_sweat - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST (#7809) #
NFH: It probably makes anaheim feel good about the deal they signed escobar to.
Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST (#7810) #
And I'll say again that I'm in favor of giving John Olerud a farewell tour and allowing him to retire as a Jay. Because I'm a sap like that. ;)
Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:04 PM EST (#7811) #
NFH: It probably makes anaheim feel good about the deal they signed escobar to.

Heh, that's true.
_Jordan - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:04 PM EST (#7812) #
I'm not really that excited about Joe Crede. He has some pop, no question, but he walked less than one every 10 at-bats in seven minor-league seasons, a BB/AB rate that's dropped even more as a big-leaguer. His batting average the last three years with Chicago has gone .285-.261-.239, and his career OBP is a sterling .304. He's cheaper than Hinske, and that may be why he'd be involved in the swap, but that's pretty much his only advantage over Eric.

In the event that White Sox trade happens, I'd prefer to see Lee in left field, Cat at DH against RH (against lefties, Lee DHs and Sparky plays left), and a bargain-bin first baseman coming from somewhere else (Tony Clark can pick it over there).
_Robbie - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:06 PM EST (#7813) #
On the topic of Chicago, one of the players Jayson Stark mentioned in his players-that-could-be-traded column was Jon Garland. Garland strikes me as the kind of 25-year-old pitcher that would be prime to break out. Any thoughts on making this an even bigger deal to include Garland?
_Jordan - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:07 PM EST (#7814) #
Oh, and if that trade goes through, I would fully expect a high-profile prospect to go to Chicago.
_Prisoner of Ham - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:08 PM EST (#7815) #
No bargain-bin first basemen please, except as backups. It's supposed to be a premier production position. (There's yer classic PPP aliteration bonanza!)
_dp - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST (#7816) #
That White Sox trade would be great. I'm not usually a fan of trading guys when their value is low (Phelps), but when their salary is eating up valuable resources, sometimes it's necessary.

But if getting rid of Batista means overpaying for Clement because of the market this year, I'm not sure I like the deal. I can say that despite the big loss total last year, the Jays would be in good shape for '05 with that team on the field. Essentially, Lee replaces Delgado, Koskie replaces Hinske, Adams replaces Woodward, healthy Cat replaces injured Cat/Sparky/Berg, and then a collection of leftovers can be pretty sure of improving on Phelps's horrid performance as DH. That rotation looks damn good, which takes pressure off the 'pen.
_dp - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST (#7817) #
Is Olerud still that great with the glove at 1B? I heard that in Seattle he was no better than average this year. Dont remember too much from his time with the Yankees.
_Jordan - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:14 PM EST (#7818) #
PoH, normally I'd agree -- first base is a power position, especially in the AL. But in the absence of better options, I'd rather place players in their best defensive positions. Lee is an average (sometimes better) LF, Clark (or Olerud) is a strong first baseman, and Cat is pretty much a DH only these days (or at least, if the Jays want more than 250 PA out of him, he ought to be).

The other advantage of putting a veteran bargain 1B there is that they won't feel as much pressure to "replace" Delgado. Cat, who has no power to speak of, might struggle under those perceptions; Lee, as the "new big bat" in town, almost certainly would.

Finally, Clark (as a for instance) would complete a pretty darn strong defensive infield. Few grounders would get past a Koskie-Adams-Hudson-Clark defensive ring.
Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:14 PM EST (#7819) #
Just read the Griffin column.

Other than the headline and the silly assumption that the Jays have no further plans for the offseason if they don't get Koskie, it's actually quite a nice little summary of what's going on.

I've noticed something really, really excellent in it: Griffin refers to J.P. Ricciardi as "beleaguered". Now, any of you here who own Macs or owned Macs in the past will recognize that word as the one that always appeared beside "Apple Computer", and we all know how that turned out: small market, big success.
_Robbie - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:17 PM EST (#7820) #
If you want a good defensive first baseman, why not try and nab Doug Mientkiewicz?
_Prisoner of Ham - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:22 PM EST (#7821) #
I respect your beliefs Jordan, but I pray at the altar of the 1B masher. And I have to say, when I watched Olerud play as a younger man, I was always surprised when he snared a sharp grounder. That may have been uncharitable, but he never struck me as a defensive plus.

I agree completely about Cat as DH.
_Jordan - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:23 PM EST (#7822) #
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/wsalpos/#1b
It's hard to measure first basemen's defensive prowess statistically. Olerud's FP has remained strong year over year, but his Range Factor has been declining steadily for some years now. Trouble is, RF for first basemen is skewed wildly by putouts.

Olerud led all AL 1B in Defensive Win Shares in 2003 with 2.6; last year, with the M's and Yanks, it fell to 1.5 -- still pretty good, but not league-leading (Tino Martinez and Rafael Palmeiro are in the 1.5 zone).

Leading all AL first basemen in DWS in 2004? Mark Teixeira. Second place? Darin Erstad and Kevin Millar. Third place? Carlos Delgado. You can decide for yourself if that information says more about Delgado or about Win Shares (COMN).
_6-4-3 - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:23 PM EST (#7823) #
And I'll say again that I'm in favor of giving John Olerud a farewell tour and allowing him to retire as a Jay. Because I'm a sap like that. ;)

I'm of two minds on this. I wouldn't mind seeing Olerud back, because I was too young to properly appreciate him when he was a Jay. I was old enough to enjoy his chase for .400, but not yet old enough to really understand how good that was. But whenever I think this, I remember that I said something similar when Hentgen came back, and I'd rather not see Olerud hit .240 for a season.

Is Olerud still that great with the glove at 1B? I heard that in Seattle he was no better than average this year. Dont remember too much from his time with the Yankees.

I don't have any stats to quote, but I remember readnig that the general perception in Seattle was the Olerud wasn't really an asset with the glove anymore. He's almost certainly a better option than Frank Catalanotto, but that's obviously not saying much. He'd probably rate as average right now.
_Grand Funk Rail - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:27 PM EST (#7824) #
Regarding the prospective deal with the CWS, I'd be tickled pink if it went through. Lee is, in my mind, a consistently undervalued player and really can hit (his defence isn't terrible either).

I've had Lee on my Roto team the past three years. I love the guy. There is one warning, though - the fans/crappy Toronto media will be calling for his head in April/May - he's a consistently atrocious starter. But, once the weather warms, he'll get hot. Perhaps playing inside in the 'dome in those months would help early-season production.

I have a boner just thinking about the possibility of this deal happening.

Grand Funk out.
_Matthew E - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:29 PM EST (#7825) #
Everybody's aware of the nickname he's acquired recently, right? John Olderdude?
_dp - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:31 PM EST (#7826) #
I've never appreciated defense more than when the Mets had Alfonzo/Ventura/St. Rey/Olerud. It was a thing of beauty. Olerud made them all better. I don't know if numbers support it, but that infield turned in amazing plays so often you almost stopped noticing them.
Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:32 PM EST (#7827) #
Is Olerud still that great with the glove at 1B? I heard that in Seattle he was no better than average this year. Dont remember too much from his time with the Yankees.

Well, he's still good enough to save me from being decapitated.
_John Northey - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:34 PM EST (#7828) #
The Lee trade idea is getting more tempting by the day. Lee is in his prime, we'd get another player as well, dump Hinske and his big contract, lose Batista before he implodes (that BB-K ratio scares me). It just seems odd though, as I don't see much reason for Chicago to do it unless they really value Batista highly (perhaps see him as another Loiaza situation or something).

As for Koskie, it was interesting to see the Globe article mention some in the Jays organization were learly of signing him. I know I am as every piece of data I see says signing a thirdbaseman in his early 30's for 3 years is just asking for trouble. If the Jays had an unlimited budget I wouldn't care, but they don't so I'm betting on the Koskie contract being a pain in JP's butt in 2007. I hope I'm wrong, and that Koskie beats the odds.
Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST (#7829) #
Everybody's aware of the nickname he's acquired recently, right?

I was calling him Oldy Olerud in honor of the captain of the team of 88 year-olds who kept showing up on the first season of Conan O'Brien (to compete against a team of 8 year-olds). Oldy Olsen was his name, I think. Of course, I stopped after he saved my head and camera equipment from certain doom.
_Grand Funk Rail - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST (#7830) #
Chicago Tribune : "Whether it's a second-tier team like Toronto, Baltimore or the born-again spenders from Arizona, someone may turn to the Cubs as a last resort in the hope that Sosa still has some marquee value in spite of his battered reputation."

What are they...nuts???
Why would we possibly be interested in old man Sosa?

Grand FUnk out.
_Mylegacy - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:39 PM EST (#7831) #
About the Lee (maybe) deal...I was trolling the White Sox message centre and they are having heart attacks over any trade of Batista/Hinske for Lee. They're real mad!

Nice to know Jays fans arn't the only ones full of angst.
_Matthew E - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:42 PM EST (#7832) #
I know I am as every piece of data I see says signing a thirdbaseman in his early 30's for 3 years is just asking for trouble. If the Jays had an unlimited budget I wouldn't care, but they don't so I'm betting on the Koskie contract being a pain in JP's butt in 2007. I hope I'm wrong, and that Koskie beats the odds.

I agree with every word of this. In fact, I'm a little worried that the contract is going to be a pain in the butt in 2005. Corey, we're all pulling for you, but as the great philosopher Han Solo once said, "I have a bad feeling about this."
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:52 PM EST (#7833) #
I agree with every word of this. In fact, I'm a little worried that the contract is going to be a pain in the butt in 2005. Corey, we're all pulling for you, but as the great philosopher Han Solo once said, "I have a bad feeling about this."

I go back and forth as well. Looking at the downward trend in his numbers, particularly VORP, it's a little ominous. I figure he'll have one big year at some point in the contract, but I'm kind of suspecting that there will be a couple of duds in there somewhere.
_Grimlock - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:56 PM EST (#7834) #
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/12/13/chile.pinochet.ap/index.html

Judge Juan Guzman!
_Magpie - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST (#7835) #
All very interesting. I rather like Joe Crede - I like that he's turning 27 in April, I like that he made $ 340 K last year, I like his glove - but if Koskie's in place, Crede's destiny is to be flipped to someone like the Dodgers if Seattle signs Beltran. And because everybody would know that, it would make him less valuable as a trading chip...

I like Carlos Lee, but I wouldn't want to see him learning how to play Carlos Delgado's position in spring training.

I think Olerud could be a cheap fix as part of a platoon arrangement at 1B, if nothing better turns up - he can still catch everything he can reach, and his range was always a matter of one big step and the long reach. His power is gone, and LH eat him up. Still, some of his late-season recovery last year was for real, and had a lot to do with getting out of Safeco. That park was killing him.

Leading all AL first basemen in DWS in 2004? Mark Teixeira. Second place? Darin Erstad and Kevin Millar. Third place? Carlos Delgado.

Where have you gone, Keith Hernandez? An entire league turns its lonely eyes to you...

For those of you that put stock in such things (and hey, I work for STATS, I'll mention it!) Tino Martinez had the best Zone Rating in the AL. Teixeira was second, just nosing out... Carlos Delgado. They were followed by Erstad, Mientkiewicz, and Olerud.
_The Original Ry - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:02 PM EST (#7836) #
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20041213&content_id=921864&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp
Tom Cheek made the Frick ballot. COMN
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:06 PM EST (#7837) #
Cheek got nearly 7K votes...Niehaus doubled him, but he got pimped on ESPN.com. You guys have any data on how many people clicked through from here to vote for Cheek?
Coach - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:11 PM EST (#7838) #
Thanks, Ryan. Just making the ballot is a well-deserved honour for Tom, and thanks to all the Bauxites who voted for him early and often.

Now, how do we lobby the committee?
_MatO - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST (#7839) #
I can vouch for about 30 clicks.
_The Original Ry - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:17 PM EST (#7840) #
Now, how do we lobby the committee?

How about we use the money saved on Delgado and resort to some good ol' fashioned bribery. :-)
_Daryn - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST (#7841) #
I like Lee, I think he's one of those guys that will never be remembered as being as good as he is, due to his "middling" fantasy numbers...

As for Crede... at 340K, he's a can't miss!
_Jim Acker - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:30 PM EST (#7842) #
Congrats Tom!!

You most definately deserve your nomination, and you most definately deserve to be a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame!! Good luck on the next stage of this process
_Daryn - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:31 PM EST (#7843) #
Just looking at the Free Agent list for 1B....

Slim Pickings... Baerga, Clark, Cordero, Franco, Galarraga, Tino Martinez, McCarty, Mo Vaughn, Snow, Perry, wow..

the guys that look GOOD by comparison include
Colbrunn, Travis Lee, Olerud, Ventura,

No WONDER the market is so hot for Sexson and of course Carlos.
and no wonder everyone is talking about converting someone to First!
_Ryan B. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:31 PM EST (#7844) #
I don't think we should get to excited but I read this over on ESPN.com today.

One player the Dodgers still haven't acquired, despite what you may have heard, is Oakland ace Tim Hudson. Despite reports that a deal was imminent to send Hudson to L.A. for Edwin Jackson and infield prospect Antonio Perez, the A's were back out talking to other clubs (Cardinals, Orioles, Yankees, Blue Jays) Sunday.
_Hamboy - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST (#7845) #
Hmmm...
This just occurred to me... but I like the sound of Mo Vaughn (minor league deal) competing for 1B position next season. If he doesn't work out, no big loss as it's only minor league deal.
Just a thought...
_Moffatt - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:37 PM EST (#7847) #
That might be the first time that "Mo Vaughn" and "work out" were used in the same paragraph. :)
_MatO - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:38 PM EST (#7848) #
I'm not thrilled with the deal for Koskie but TSN is reporting that the Giants will sign 34 year old Mike Matheny for $9M over 3 years, so what is Koskie worth?
_Robbie - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:38 PM EST (#7849) #
http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/7993685
One player the Dodgers still haven't acquired, despite what you may have heard, is Oakland ace Tim Hudson. Despite reports that a deal was imminent to send Hudson to L.A. for Edwin Jackson and infield prospect Antonio Perez, the A's were back out talking to other clubs (Cardinals, Orioles, Yankees, Blue Jays) Sunday.

I don't think that's in regards to the Jays getting Hudson, but rather a three-way deal. Scott Miller nentions the same thing:

"While Baltimore, Los Angeles, Atlanta, St. Louis and Florida -- and possibly others -- are involved in Tim Hudson talks with Oakland, there also are rumblings of some sort of three-way deal involving Toronto." COMN
_Daryn - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST (#7850) #
but I like the sound of Mo Vaughn (minor league deal)

Its the kind of innovative thing that I like too.. but even at 36, I think he's beyond repair, and might just be a distraction... you know he made $17Mil last year?
_Ducey - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:46 PM EST (#7851) #
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits3?statsId=6411&type=batting
Here are Crede's numbers. COMN He is right handed hitter and has hit better vs. lefties. Maybe he could be platooned with Koskie.
_MatO - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:53 PM EST (#7852) #
The way Koskie's contract vests in a 4th year has some precedence. The Jays of the 80's refused to offer pitchers more than 3 years guaranteed. The way they worked around that for Stieb was that if he pitched more than something like 225IP in the first year of the deal then an extra year was added to the deal and that would be repeated the next year so that in effect it was a rolling 3 year year deal.
_Moffatt - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:56 PM EST (#7853) #
For those of you who have some idea what a three way Jays-A's-contender trade might look like, please check out this thread.
_Ryan B. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 02:58 PM EST (#7854) #
Ducey, you don't pay a guy $17M to platoon with someone else. Crede will more then likly be spun to another team for a pitcher. If he stays with Toronto then he'll come off the bench and share DH with Cat.
_Hamboy - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 03:00 PM EST (#7855) #
Its the kind of innovative thing that I like too.. but even at 36, I think he's beyond repair, and might just be a distraction... you know he made $17Mil last year?

Ah... yes, he did make a tonne, but no one will give him major league contract, which means it might not be a bad experiment (considering that his agent has been babbling about Mo's back to his ol' self). A la Ruben Sierra experient with Yanks.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 03:01 PM EST (#7856) #
I like Crede platooning with Koskie, getting the odd game in at first/DH/LF ... and Olerud helping out defensively at 1B and gettin some time at DH sounds like a great idea...
_The Original Ry - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 03:12 PM EST (#7857) #
Ah... yes, he did make a tonne, but no one will give him major league contract, which means it might not be a bad experiment (considering that his agent has been babbling about Mo's back to his ol' self). A la Ruben Sierra experient with Yanks.

In that case it would depend on how much he would ask for in a non-guaranteed contract. Major league veterans signed to minor league contracts seldom make the league minimum if they do make the big club at some point.
_Andrew Smith - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 03:48 PM EST (#7858) #
Welcome to Toronto Corey I am really happy you are coming to Toronto you will have to wave to me when i say hi to you when i call out your name during the top of the first just ask v-dub. i am hoping the jays can sign one of my favourite pitchers billy koch and steve kline. and maybe tony the tiger clark as our first baseman and the getting carlos lee and joe crede that will = wild card birth = clement halladay lilly bush and towers playoffs for sure bring in buddy groom he will be our left hader.
_Mick - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:01 PM EST (#7859) #
A la Ruben Sierra experient with Yanks.

First, give the Rangers, not the Yankees credit for this move. Also, the comparison only holds if Mo is willing to go to the Mexican League and hit .885 for a month or two, like Sierra did.
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:08 PM EST (#7861) #
Wow. That's stupid money. Bets on when his shoulder blows up?
_nate - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:08 PM EST (#7862) #
Jimmy, you really think Clement is gonna get more than 9 mil per? I don't -- perhaps just wishful thinking on my part. We all know the Mets overpay for everything and get nothing -- i know not to draft pedro for my fantasy team this year --
Mike Green - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:15 PM EST (#7863) #
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/home_MLB.asp?sport=MLB
Careful now with the rumours. COMN for Rotoworld's front page for baseball. One source has Pedro at 4 yr/56; another at 4 yr/50.

Unfortunately, Rotoworld also reports that Ismael Ramirez was hammered (7 runs in 1 and 1/3) in his start yesterday for Oriente in Venezuela. I'd bet that the facts are right; the rumours are interesting but I'm not buying until it's confirmed.
Pistol - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:19 PM EST (#7864) #
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/12/13/mets_reportedly_sweeten_offer_to_pedro/
Boston.com is saying similar things about Pedro. COMN.
_Ron - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:34 PM EST (#7866) #
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3242686
Lee might be headed to the Brewers.

The two teams are discussing a deal with Lee headed to the Brew Crew for Podsednik, Vizcaino, and a 3rd player tha hasn't been agreed upon.
_James W - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:38 PM EST (#7867) #
Eek! Italics off.
_Mick - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:38 PM EST (#7868) #
With Texas desparately looking for a run-producing outfielder/DH type,. it should drive John Hart insane that the Rangers had both Vizcaino and Puddy in camp a couple of years ago and now they could get flipped for Lee.

Danny Kolb and Doug Davis were Rangers at that time, too.
_GregH - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST (#7869) #
On the Fan 590 this afternoon, Chuck Swirsky interviewed Bert Blyleven (former pitcher, now a Twins broadcaster)about Corey Koskie.

Blyleven's comments were as follows:

- The Twins will miss Koskie, he is a real leader and if healthy will hit 30 home runs;
- Koskie is a nice guy who plays hard;
- Koskie has had a series of minor injuries, to his wrist, ankle and back. The back injuries were likely due to the turf at the Metrodome and were not as much of a problem this year with the better turf;
- Koskie is a very smart baserunner;
- Koskie is very good defensively, next to Chavez one of the best third basemen in the American League. He is fundamentally very solid;
- The Twins are disappointed that he won't be back, but the Jays have given him what any player wants from baseball, security;
- The Toronto fans will enjoy Koskie very much as he really is a good guy.

Nothing much new there, but it sounds as though Koskie is a good addition.
_Jordan - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST (#7870) #
Those wacky Mets. I'd be very glad to see the last of Pedro in the AL East, however.
_Ryan B. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:51 PM EST (#7871) #
Lee might be headed to the Brewers.

The two teams are discussing a deal with Lee headed to the Brew Crew for Podsednik, Vizcaino, and a 3rd player tha hasn't been agreed upon.


According to MLB Radio that deal has in fact gone down. COMN!
_Mike Forbes - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST (#7872) #
Tampa Bay send Kevin Cash was sent to Arizona for rule 5er Angel Guzman... Doesn't make much sense to me, but hey, makes us look better.
Named For Hank - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:57 PM EST (#7873) #
That's gotta suck for Cash -- tease him with playing in his hometown for a day, then trade him off.

Well, maybe he'll see more action in the NL.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 04:58 PM EST (#7874) #
The Jays should:

To Oak: E. Jackson, A. Hill
To LA: T. Hudson
To TOR: H.Choi

Toronto then signs Greg Colbrunn and are set for 1B next year. Hinske, Batista, and Negron/Rosario are sent to CWS for Lee (to play LF) and Crede (to play against some tough lefties in order to rest Koskie and to get some AB at DH). OF of Lee-Wells-Rios with Sparky no. 4 (how nice does that sound? offensively and defensivaly solid). Choi looks like the stereotypical solid defensive 1B (tall and athletic). A Koskie-Adams-Hudson-Choi/Colbrunn IF is looking solid defensively. I think through these moves the Jays Offense is likely to outperfrom last year's offense. '05 Lee + Koskie should outperform '04 Delgado + Hinske. Hudson, Wells, and Rios should improve. A full year of Zaun with a little help from Myers should improve C, and a full year of Catalanotto at DH (with a little help from Myers and Crede) should be much better than the '04 DHs. The rotation would be off to an excellent start with Halladay-Lilly-Bush. Hopefully Clement or Perez would slot in at number 2 and Towers/Chacin/Cheap Estes-ish pick up can give us 140-150 innings in the 5 slot. The bullpen should be better, with a Ligtenberg improving at least a little, a full season of Frasor, a consitent season from Speier, support from Chacin/Towers and Chulk. If Steve Kline were to be signed they'd be set there as well. I've talked myself into being very optimistic about the Jays next year, if these deals were to go down ;-).
_Mike Forbes - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:00 PM EST (#7875) #
My last post should read "Tampa Bay sent Kevin Cash to Arizona.."
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST (#7876) #
Well, with Carlos Lee gone (if he, indeed, is) replace his name with Brad Wilkerson's... for Hinske (1B and 3B insurance for injury prone Johnson and old Castilla....I can dream) and Batista and a shiny prospect (Negron, Chacin...). See if a guy like Negron or someone we have no real use for (Sequea, Ligtenberg on the big club, another blocked prospect like Robinson Diaz) can land Joe Crede anyway or some other cheap option that can play 3B and hit lefties (I don't want Koskie in a strict platoon, but resting him against the likes of Mulder or The Big Unit sounds like a good idea).
_Dr. Zarco - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST (#7877) #
Ryan, you forgot the actual link. Secondly, reading that deal went down sent a few not very nice words out of my mouth.
_Ryan B. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:09 PM EST (#7878) #
Dr. Zarco, I heard it on MLB radio, you can listen to it over at mlb.com. When I heard it I also swore more then once.
_The Original Ry - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:10 PM EST (#7879) #
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=rule5profiles&prov=st&type=lgns
Tampa Bay send Kevin Cash was sent to Arizona for rule 5er Angel Guzman... Doesn't make much sense to me, but hey, makes us look better.

SportsTicker (COMN) is saying it was cash considerations going to Arizona.
_Darryl - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:19 PM EST (#7880) #
According to ESPN's Jayson Stark, the Brewers have acquired Carlos Lee from the White Sox for Scott Podsednik, Luis Vizcaino and a player to be named. Dec. 13 - 5:16 pm et
_Darryl - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:19 PM EST (#7881) #
That'll teach me to scroll up
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:26 PM EST (#7882) #
From Rotoworld:

According to the Tampa Tribune, the Rays and Nationals are discussing a trade that would send Nick Johnson to Tampa Bay, perhaps for either Jorge Sosa or Lance Carter.
Jim Bowden can't possibly be that... Well, maybe he can, but we still don't see this happening.

If that trade could happen, the Jays should be jumping all over Nick Johnson. Vinny Chulk for Nick Johnson! Ligtenberg (we'll eat a dollar or two of his salary) for Nick Johnson! Sign Dan Eichert and deal him for Nick Johnson! Say what you will about Nick Johnson, but for that price I'd drool if I was J.P....I'd be so excited, Keith law would have to make the call so I could sit behind my desk and giggle...
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:27 PM EST (#7883) #
I, of course, meant Reichert :-P
_Braby21 - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:29 PM EST (#7884) #
That sucks, I was hoping we could get Carlos Lee from the White Sox, too bad.
_Scott Levy - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:32 PM EST (#7885) #
As if losing out on Lee wasn't bad enough, the White Sox now save enough money from the deal to go after a starter. Yep, THAT starter.

Such high hopes, shattered in an instant. Let's hope the White Sox can't find a 3B, and are willing to make a seperate deal for Hinske. I guess we can hold on to Batista given the market for starters.

If Nick Johnson is available for a reliever.....
_Dr. Zarco - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST (#7886) #
Is Podsednik, Vizcaino, and a PTBNL really a better offer than Hinske/Batista? Perhaps Crede was a sticking point. Maybe salary was too. Perhaps talks were never very serious between the Jays/Sox anyway. Bummer though, I was having Carlos Lee dreams last night.
_Nicholas - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 05:46 PM EST (#7887) #
With the cash they're saving, yes its a much better deal. I think Hinske has a negative trade value...
_Zee - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:06 PM EST (#7888) #
http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxMTMmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY2MjU1OTcmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2
The Record's Pete Caldera reports that the Yankees may ship Javier Vazquez, Steve Karsay and cash to the Marlins for A.J. Burnett. The Yankees could then swap Burnett for Arizona's Randy Johnson.
_GeoffAtMac - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:09 PM EST (#7889) #
Did anyone see these juicy tidbits from SI.com? (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/scorecard/12/13/truth.rumors.hotstove/index.html)

(1) "Beane continued to float the resumes of Hudson and left-handers Mark Mulder and Barry Zito. In one of many schemes, he gave Toronto its pick of the three in exchange for low-cost, high-yield outfielder Vernon Wells and was turned down.
-- Los Angeles Times"

(2) "With Koskie arriving in Toronto, the Jays have looked into trading third baseman Eric Hinske and pitcher Miguel Batista to the Chicago White Sox for outfielder Carlos Lee, who would then be moved to first base. But any deal hinges upon the White Sox being satisfied that Hinske could be a capable third baseman for them, since they want to move their backup at the position, Joe Crede, to Toronto as well.
-- Toronto Star"

1 -- Not worth sacrificing Vernon at this time, but a very interesting proposition indeed...it appears that Billy B. loves JP (perhaps carved on a bench in Oakland or something)

2 -- Perhaps this deal could still go down with Konerko? I admire KW's wily ways, if I allow myself to forget when he screwed T.O. with that rotten Sirotka deal.
Craig B - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:09 PM EST (#7890) #
Apparently Elliott has a different definition of "phenom" than I do... An undrafted free agent out of college is a phenom?

You just don't understand the scout's mentality like Bob Elliott does, Marc. :)
_Zee - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST (#7891) #
Listening to a clip on ESPN of Peter Gammons; apparently the Dodgers tried to make a trade with Toronto so they could get players to trade for Hudson, Toronto declined. So the deal would go down like this:
To Toronto: Edwin Jackson & Hee Choi
To Oakland: Ted Lilly & Alexis Rios
To Los Angeles: Hudson

Thank god JP declined!
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:18 PM EST (#7892) #
BTW, Elliott was crowing in the Sun today about how they reported the Koskie deal on Oct. 27 or something. Anyone think he'll start acknowledging all the times he's wrong now?
_Nicholas - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST (#7893) #
The cash the Yanks would have to ship would probably put 2 banks out of business in NY...
Pistol - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST (#7894) #
To Toronto: Edwin Jackson & Hee Choi
To Oakland: Ted Lilly & Alexis Rios
To Los Angeles: Hudson


That's not too far off for me. I'd do Lilly for Jackson.

I'm not on the Choi bandwagon however.
_Scott Levy - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:34 PM EST (#7895) #
Yeah, Lilly for Edwin Jackson is a logical move. We'd have Jackson at a reasonable price for 5 more years, while Lilly will start getting expensive after next season.

Rios for Choi though? Yuck.
_Magpie - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:38 PM EST (#7896) #
Isn't the whole point of saying "Delgado's contract is an albatross" is that we could sign multiple good players for what we're paying him? Maybe the runs created or saved will be less than with Delgado, but unless he's going to cover all three positions on the line connecting first and third, we will still need to hire those two other players.

This brings up a related issue to my mind - I have heard it said, and I believe Ricciardi himself has been quoted as saying, that they won't be able to replace Delgado with one guy. That they'll need two hitters to make up for the lost production.

It doesn't quite work that way, I'm afraid. If you're using two hitters to replace Delgado's production, you're using two hitters - you're replacing Delgado's and somebody else's production. You're using two sets of at bats, two players worth of outs.

Delgado used up about 350 outs last year while hitting his homers and driving in his runs, he came to the plate about 550 times. You have to assume that whoever takes over those plate appearances will give the team less production - which means you need improved production elsewhere in the lineup.
_Zee - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:43 PM EST (#7897) #
Yeah... Choi doesnt interest anyone!
_Scott - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:54 PM EST (#7898) #
did anybody see that Kevin Cash was not traded to Arizona, but it was actually cold hard cash instead. Kind of funny.
_Ron - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 06:56 PM EST (#7899) #
I don't like Choi the player, or Choi the vegetable.
_Ron - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 07:09 PM EST (#7900) #
I have to applaud Hinske for really wanting to stay with the Jays. Blair said when he was told yesterday by JP there was a good chance he would have to switch positions, Hinske said he was really excitied and told JP not to trade him away.

Also the Indians, Jays, and Angels are the final 3 teams in the running for Clement. Blair still feels like the Jays have a very good chance at landing Clement since he might not want to go to the West Coast.
_jsoh - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 07:16 PM EST (#7901) #
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/newsblog_discussion/24979/
WRT Carlos Lee to the Brewers, the ChiSox fans over at BTF are giving this one 4 thumbs down (COMN).

Just remember. We could have K-Dub as GM. Or Bowden. Or Lamar. Or Bavasi. Or Littlefield.
_sweat - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST (#7902) #
I have always liked hinske's attitude. I say a little prayer every once and a while for him to get his confidence back, i personally think that is all he is really missing. He is making bad guesses when he is up at the plate, and the pitches he guesses right on he chases out of the strike zone.
Stop pressing so hard eric. Relax just a little.
_Ryan B. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 07:38 PM EST (#7903) #
I was watching Sportsnet News and Marty York also said that Toronto is in the finals for Matt Clement along with Clevland and Anehime. Essentially his options look like this:

Angles - $9M over 3 years, best shot at a WS

Jays - $8M over 3 years, chance to work with Bred Arnsberg again and a potential shot at a WS before the contract is up

Clevland - $7M over 3 years, possible shot at a WS and closest to home

Tough call although Blair on the score said Clement isn't 100% comfertable with going back to the west coast.

We should have word in the next few days.
_nate - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 07:48 PM EST (#7904) #
well, that Lee deal does not make that much sense, but if it's to free up funds to sign a starter, it's understandable -- just trying to understand Kenny Williams' logic -- I suspect it would be easier for me to bust into Fort Knox undetected --
_Wildrose - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST (#7905) #
Maybe the Jays, like they apparently did with Koskie, may sweeten the offer to Clements with a guaranteed fourth year with a vested innings pitched option. I know granting a fourth year to a hurler is an anathema to most,but if you had an appropriate vesting option it may get the deal done.
_Ryan Lind - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST (#7906) #
Hopefully Moreno ups the ante again.
_Wildrose - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:02 PM EST (#7907) #
I'm not advocating signing Hudson, the numbers being thrown around stun me, for a very conservative guy this pursuit by Riccardi of Clement, seems very radical. Maybe he's been told privately that the payroll will be significantly boosted in up-coming years...I just can't figure it out?
_Nick S - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:12 PM EST (#7908) #
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1944838
If anyone cares, the Koskie signing gets 2 thumbs up from Buster Olney. COMN. One puzzling item - the anonymous MLB executive refers to Koskie as a quality third baseman who's "young." Anyways, good ol' Buster ranks the signing as the 2nd best move of the offseason after Finley's signing with the Angels.
_Mike Forbes - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:16 PM EST (#7909) #
JP seems to want to build an Oakland ripoff rotation starring Roy Halladay as a righthanded Mark Mulder, Matt Clement as Tim Hudson, Ted Lilly as Barry Zito and David Bush as Rich Harden.
Pistol - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:24 PM EST (#7910) #
Over at Primer ZIPS has Koskie at .270/.374/.476.

I'd take it.
_GeoffAtMac - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:28 PM EST (#7911) #
I am intrigued by what Wildrose is saying...I am thinking that maybe Rogers will boost the payroll sooner rather than later. They bought the Dome for a pittance (I have no idea what they had anticipated the cost to be, but it must have been more than $25 MIL), and are planning some small upgrades (new JumboTron, different seating etc.). If the Jays become a winning team, I believe T.O. will support them -- for all of the negatives last year (and it was just a terrible year with the performance, the injuries, the sadness of Tom Cheek's illness, the death of John Cerrutti etc.), there were a couple of positives in increased fan attendance, and some new exciting rookies breaking through (Rios, Adams).

Probably the ripoff Oakland rotation is fairly accurate..but it wouldn't be so bad if it worked, would it? Especially when you consider that the "Big Three" will become the "Big Two" soon enough.
_Kipling - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:33 PM EST (#7912) #
I could be wrong, as I got my Jays fix off narrowband, but how many times did teams pitch around Wells to get to Carlos last spring. That was wierd. I like our chances of going all the way next season. We have lots of good young pitching, and Koske and Hinske will have career years. Never underestimate emotion. I still have my Blue Jays fanatic 4,000,000 shirt from '92.
Craig B - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:33 PM EST (#7913) #
granting a fourth year to a hurler is an anathema to most,but if you had an appropriate vesting option it may get the deal done

Personally, I'd never be scared of an IP option target for a pitcher that has some value, as long as it's at an appropriate level for a starter - say 160 or 180 innings, or 500 over three years, or something.

As for the fourth year, I'd normally be wary of a four-year deal for anyone but an elite-level pitcher (which Clement is not, no matter how much I like him...), but Clement has the distinct advantage of starting with very high strikeout totals, which means he's more likely to keep that value several years out into the future. K totals are the best indicator of future value for younger pitchers, and while I don't know how it stacks up for older guys (I assume they take on less significance for future prediction as a pitcher ages) it's still a good sign.

In the end, free-agent pitching is just crazy, crazy expensive. Prices like this for a guy of Clement's quality just go to show how valuable it is to develop good young pitchers. Developing a guy like David Bush... how much is that worth to the team, when guys with comparable success and reasonably comparable prospects for the next few years, are getting $7 or $8 million a season or more?
_Doug C - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:37 PM EST (#7914) #
Anyways, good ol' Buster ranks the signing as the 2nd best move of the offseason after Finley's signing with the Angels.

And now for the worst signing so far (and that is a feat for this offseason), Matheny signs for 10.5M over 3 years with the Giants according to Rotoworld. What are the qualifications for being a GM again?
_Ryan Lind - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST (#7915) #
Over at Primer ZIPS has Koskie at .270/.374/.476.

That looks like the team-leading OBP right there.

Which reminds me: Just who is going to lead-off next year? Adams?
_Braby21 - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:59 PM EST (#7916) #
Gibbon's says Adam's vs Righty's, & Reed vs Lefty's.

He also said that O Dawg would probably hit 2nd in the lineup b/c he Hudson hits better when he has confidence in himself.
_Mick - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 08:59 PM EST (#7917) #
I dunno, couple that Matheney signing with the Vizquel acquisition and you could have Barry knock in 70 or 80 runs next year, depending on how often he homers.
_Cristian - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:13 PM EST (#7918) #
If anyone cares, the Koskie signing gets 2 thumbs up from Buster Olney. COMN.

I'm still not sold on this deal. Having Buster "Productive Outs" Olney tell me it's a good deal doesn't allay any of my concerns. If we're scoring what the pundits are writing, it should be mentioned that Will Carroll gives the Koskie deal a thumbs down. In his words it's a "mistake signing." I'd link the article but it's a subscriber-only piece at BPro.
_Cristian - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:14 PM EST (#7919) #
Just double checked the article and Koskie is a "mistake signing" according to Joe Sheehan--not Will Carroll.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:23 PM EST (#7920) #
Buster Olney is a tool (not to say that I don't like the Koskie signing because I do, but Olney is still a tool).

"Over at Primer ZIPS has Koskie at .270/.374/.476.

I'd take it." ~ Pistol

If Koskie posts that line (.287 GPA) with his normally stellar defese at 3rd over 500 AB or so this deal will look *golden*.
_SF - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST (#7921) #
I've posted this exact sentiment before, but it seems to need a repeat: If Buster Olney isn't the best in the business, he's on the short list. If you don't know, now you know.
_John Northey - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:45 PM EST (#7922) #
Mike Matheny for $10.5 over 3 years?!?!?!

I think SF's GM is determined to prove that Barry & Crap = winner. This guy's career _highs_ are pathetic. 261/320/362 avg/obp/slg. I would be disappointed with a catcher who did that in a season, let alone as the best they ever did. Heck, I'd consider releasing him, not giving him over $3 million a season! He's entering his age 34 season and has caught just over 1100 games so a decline is all one can expect. I mean, c'mon, this is an old Kevin Cash almost.

SF has a chance to watch one of the best hitters ever (steroids or not) but what an ugly price to pay.
_Moffatt - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:51 PM EST (#7923) #
Fordin gets to watch all the coolest stuff.
_sweat - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:53 PM EST (#7924) #
Moffat, i was thinking the same thing.
_nate - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:57 PM EST (#7925) #
i still think that the best signing will be Clement, if JP is able to pony up at 9 mil per.. A 1-2-3 of Halladay-Clement-Lilly would go a long way to adding in diffusing the big bat Delgado loss (yes, i know that he will be missed) -- I for one, would be pleased as punch, despite the fact I see a lot of you think it's too much of a steep price --
_SF - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 09:57 PM EST (#7926) #
Good show, Moffatt.
_Andrew S - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:01 PM EST (#7927) #
C'mon, let's not be absurd, a .261/.320/.365 line from a catcher is servicable. He'd be a tolerable starter and a good backup ... certainly not someone you'd release. Not someone you'd want to sign at $3 million a season, but better than replacement.
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:29 PM EST (#7928) #
What do you like about Buster so much SF? I'm neutral on him, although I seem to remember reading an excerpt of his book that was pretty good. The Productive Outs thing really seems to have people up in arms though.
_Ryan Lind - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:35 PM EST (#7929) #
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/discussion/24983/
I thought Dan S's comments were hilarious. COMN.

I know you're not supposed to share premium info (or whatever,) but I'd like to know at least the vague reasons as to why BPro thinks Koskie is a mistake signing. Just too long?
_miVulgar - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:40 PM EST (#7930) #
I've posted this exact sentiment before, but it seems to need a repeat: If Buster Olney isn't the best in the business, he's on the short list. If you don't know, now you know.

I have no opinion of him one way or the other, but isn't this purely subjective?

If he sucks for some person, then he sucks for that person...

I'm sure somebody out there feels that The Star's beleaguered columnist, Richard Griffin, is wonderfully insightful.

Anyone?
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:42 PM EST (#7931) #
I feel so inferior calling out SF ;-), but what makes you hold Mr. Olney in such high regard? Truthfully, I probabaly don't know enough about him to call him a "tool" and should take it back, but productive outs?
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:44 PM EST (#7932) #
Wow, all those posts about Olney between SF's and my own all came out while I was typing...
_Matthew E - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:52 PM EST (#7933) #
Over at Primer ZIPS has Koskie at .270/.374/.476.

I'd take it.


I'd be thrilled. Thrilllllled.
Pistol - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:53 PM EST (#7934) #
In the end, free-agent pitching is just crazy, crazy expensive.

Which is why an over-emphasis on drafting pitching isn't a bad thing.
_Ben - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST (#7935) #
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/10409280.htm
In agreement with what Blair has already reported

...strong speculation that the Toronto Blue Jays were the team willing to raise the ante, and probably already had. Media sources had reason to believe the Blue Jays were prepared to lay $9 million a year on Clement in an effort to blow the competition out of the water.

COMN
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST (#7936) #
Ryan ~ Did they remove the comment by Dan S.???
_SF - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST (#7937) #
What makes me hold him in such high regard? Reading his copy for the last decade, interacting with him in the field, watching him interact with sources and reporters alike, talking to other writers about his work -- how's that for starters?

Yes, some things may be subjective, but I dare you to poll as many sportswriters as you can find. You won't find too many negative comments on Buster, because there's little or nothing negative to say.

In fact, I'd say that a professional that disparages his work is either jealous or incompetent -- it's a handy reference point for their skill as a reporter and their knowledge of the industry.

You don't just fall off the turnip truck and start writing for the New York Times. And you don't thrive there if you're "a tool."
_Jim Acker - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:03 PM EST (#7938) #
With Carlos Lee out of the picture, are there any other rumours kicking around for the Jays to acquire a 4/5 hitter?
_Robbie - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:06 PM EST (#7939) #
Stupid question, but how do you have so much interaction with reporters?
_SF - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:08 PM EST (#7940) #
PS: Don't stop with writers. Feel free to add other industry sources to the mix -- even JP Ricciardi, for instance. Everyone who's familiar with his body of work and has interacted with him personally will speak of him in superlatives. Don't take my word for it. Ask as many people as you can find that are in a position to know.
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:08 PM EST (#7941) #
You don't just fall off the turnip truck and start writing for the New York Times. And you don't thrive there if you're "a tool."

If you're a plagiarist who fakes quotes and submits false expense reports though, you can apparently thrive there indefinitely...just ask Jayson Blair.
_SF - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:10 PM EST (#7942) #
That's a fairly asinine comment, Tyler. Way to pick on the exception to the rule.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:11 PM EST (#7943) #
Very stupid question :-P. SF, is Spencer Fordin.

I can't argue with anything you say, SF, you clearly know a lot more about it than I do and I already rescinded the "tool" comment but, frankly, I haven't read much , if anything, by Mr. Olney that I agree with. He could be (and apparently is) very good at what he does but I just don't agree with some of his opinions.

Back to the main topic at hand, on B-ref, Clement's most similar pitcher thru his age last season is Jason Schmidt. Schmidt's next two seasons had ERA + of 183 and 139. Probabaly not much actual meaning there, I know, but interesting nonetheless.
If Clement can have three years with an ERA + = to or a bit better than last year's 123, I think that's probabaly worht 8 million per in htis day and age...
_Robbie - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:12 PM EST (#7944) #
hehe, sorry. That makes a lot more sense :P
_Mick - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:13 PM EST (#7945) #
Completely misses the point, Tyler. Blair did all those things, yes, but he didn't start there. He was in a position to pull those things off because he had, frankly, a hell of a resume already built up and went to the front of the line because the NYT was anxious to promote the "diversity" of its reporters.

The fact that he did it at all is shame on Blair, yes. But the fact that he got away with it for so long is shame on Howell Raines.
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:17 PM EST (#7946) #
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/yet-another-productive-outs-article/
That's a fairly asinine comment, Tyler. Way to pick on the exception to the rule.

It's a fair point if you're going to cite writing for the New York Times as evidence of his competence. It's a great paper, but like anything else, they have their failures.

As far as the Productive Outs thing goes...if anyone wants to read an article courtesy of Hardball Times, COMN. It features this quote "Buster Olney either knows he's wrong, and doesn't have the guts to admit it, or he's a fool."

But then it's not printed in the New York Times, so the credibility you attribute to it may vary.
_Ryan Lind - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:19 PM EST (#7947) #
Yeah, but then again, right after Schmidt is Len Barker and Shawn Estes. :)

And by "Dan S." I meant the guy that wrote the entry. However you spell his name.
_SF - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:20 PM EST (#7948) #
Right. Because The Hardball Times is every bit as established as the New York Times and has cultivated the same exact reputation for excellence. I think I've spoken my piece on this subject -- believe what you want. You're going to, anyway.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:22 PM EST (#7949) #
No need for flaming Tyler. You made your point well without that last line.

Ryan Lind - I don't think the comps have much validity anyway, so I just conveniently ignored those names ;-)
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:23 PM EST (#7950) #
Completely misses the point, Tyler. Blair did all those things, yes, but he didn't start there. He was in a position to pull those things off because he had, frankly, a hell of a resume already built up and went to the front of the line because the NYT was anxious to promote the "diversity" of its reporters.

I don't think it misses the point at all Mick. The fact is, all the stuff he did took place on the pages of the NYT. Whether he had a great resume or not, he was able to last indefinitely doing that stuff. I actually love reading the NYT, it's something I pick up every time I cross the border, but writers at the Times have been able to get away with that sort of stuff in the past.

I have no doubt that he's widely respected in the industry, and believe what SF is telling us. I'm just not so willing to buy into the concept that writing for a certain publication is telling in relation to the quality of the writer.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:27 PM EST (#7951) #
I don't think there's any need to diss The Hardball Times either, SF. If an argument is well stated and an article well written, I think it deserves the credit for being as much no matter where it is printed. Have you read the article mentioned above? It may be slightly unprofessional with a comment like the one quoted above, but it very clearly shows that productive outs mean absolutley nothing (at least not anything positive).
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:27 PM EST (#7952) #
Right. Because The Hardball Times is every bit as established as the New York Times and has cultivated the same exact reputation for excellence. I think I've spoken my piece on this subject -- believe what you want. You're going to, anyway.

If you want to walk away from the dispute, that's fine SF. I just think it's a bit much to jump all over people for expressing their opinion about the guy, and then snark at the source when an example of someone doing objective research showing the guy is wrong is made available.

Hardball Times may not be the New York Times when it comes to explaining a Supreme Court decision and what it means, but when it comes to objective baseball analysis based on evaluating the information available and explaining what happened; I'll give them some leeway-at least Mahnken is presenting data to back up what he's saying.
_miVulgar - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:31 PM EST (#7953) #
No need for flaming Tyler. You made your point well without that last line.

Whatever. If that's flaming, then SF was just as guilty.

Latest rumour at ESPN Rumor Central has the Red Sox coming in on Matt Clement now that the Mets have (rumouredly) offered a 4th guaranteed to Pedro.

Between the "reportedly close to a deal with Anaheim over the weekend..." comment and Crasnick's claim that the Red Sox have "jumped back hard into the Clement sweepstakes", I just can't see the Jays landing him.
_SF - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:33 PM EST (#7954) #
Slightly? That quote cited above is the epitome of amateur hour. You want to take on a writer's theory and thoughtfully evaluate it? Fantastic. You want to resort to ad hominem attacks? You'll have to do it on your own time.

Buster Olney has more professional credibility than every writer on staff at The Hardball Times -- combined. And he got it the hard way: By working his ass off and growing as a reporter, all the way through the New York Times and his present gig. These are the facts and they are undisputed.
_SF - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:36 PM EST (#7955) #
You can express any ill-informed opinion you want, Tyler. Just don't get upset if someone shits on it, much like you're shitting on the guy's entire body of work.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:42 PM EST (#7956) #
Of course he does, SF. There's no denying that he has accomplished far, far more than anyone there (though Bill James has had articles there ;-))and that he deserves the respect. There's also no doubt that was an ad hominem attack that did not need to be there. However, the meat of the article clearly discredits Productive Outs. You still haven't said anything about Productive Outs; they are useless and have become what Olney is known for whether that is the way it should be or not. I'm not trying to draw your ire and really don't want to, I just think you are trying to hard to justify Olney's placing among sportswriters and you haven't even mentiond the topic that has everyone questioning his ability (productive outs). Saying someone is a great writer because he writes at the NYT and has said some good things in the past, is like advocating Fred McGriff as the Blue Jays' 1B next year. Olney, certainly, has accomplished great things - productive outs is *not* one of them.
_Mick - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:43 PM EST (#7957) #
What SF just wrote is exactly the point.

I have no doubt that he's widely respected in the industry, and believe what SF is telling us. I'm just not so willing to buy into the concept that writing for a certain publication is telling in relation to the quality of the writer.

The original line that got flamed was "You don't just fall off the turnip truck and start writing for the New York Times." If you attack that by pointing out Jayson Blair's work, then yes, in fact, Blair's prior resume is exactly on point. He didn't start there, just like Olney didn't fall off the proverbial turnip truck.

Getting the chance to write for a certain publication is absolutely related to the quality of the writer -- thought not necessarily to the quality of the writing done at that particular time.

SF was articulating Olney's position and how it got him somewhere and the ad hominem attack that followed targeted an entirely different writer's work once he'd gotten to roughly the same point. (Though in further fairness to Olney, the comparison to Blair also lacks because columnist outranks bylined reporter in a print publication as far as status goes by a pretty good margin.)
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:43 PM EST (#7958) #
About his entire body of work, I admit I'm unfamiliar with it. I'd just like to see Mr. Olney read the Hardball Times article by Mahnken rejecting Productive Outs and try to save face. He would not be able to...
_Mick - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:45 PM EST (#7959) #
Productive Outs ... are useless and have become what Olney is known for ...

... in the very small portion of his readership universe composed of SABR-fluent baseball fans.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:46 PM EST (#7960) #
I can't doubt Olney's ability as a *writer* but I have no problem quesitoning his opinion ~ especially his opinion on productive outs.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:47 PM EST (#7961) #
Mick, you're right ... it may be only the small portion of his readership, but that doesn't make productive outs any less foolish of a stat.
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:50 PM EST (#7962) #
The original line that got flamed was "You don't just fall off the turnip truck and start writing for the New York Times." If you attack that by pointing out Jayson Blair's work, then yes, in fact, Blair's prior resume is exactly on point. He didn't start there, just like Olney didn't fall off the proverbial turnip truck.

Perhaps I misunderstood the point, but it seems to me that if that's what SF was saying, he wouldn't have responded by saying I had just pointed to the exception. He would have responded with the argument that you're making.

As I've said, I don't judge a guy based on where he writes-there are excellent baseball writers who are published on the internet, and as we know all to well in Toronto, there are crappy ones published in the newspaper.
_Jim Acker - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:50 PM EST (#7963) #
"These mist covered mountains,
Are a home now for me..."

Can't we all just get along once again??
_Ryan Lind - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:50 PM EST (#7964) #
I don't really want to get invloved (especially while SF is loose ;) ,) but to me I don't really see how writing for the NY Times is relevant either. I mean, as a reader, I just don't enjoy reading Olney. What's wrong with that? I mean, it just doesn't matter to me whether he's writing for the NY times or for some crappy website. If I don't enjoying reading his work, then I just don't enjoy reading his work. That's that. *shrug*
_Keith Talent - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:51 PM EST (#7965) #
That's disheartening that the Red Sox have entered the Matt Clement sweepstakes. It seems Ricciardi can't give away the Blue Jays money. I really wonder if there's something personal between Delgado and Ricciardi. Why not give Delgado $12M? You can still have Koskie at whatever, then trade Hinske and some spare parts for a starting pitcher. I haven't done all the math, but I think an arrangement like this could have been possible.
_Nick S - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:51 PM EST (#7966) #
Didn't realize my link to Buster's analysis would cause such a firestorm.

Anyways, there was a posting about this earlier, but I think there is a legitamite chance that the Jays payroll will exceed the assumed $51-53MM this year. With speculation out there that the Jays have offered Clement $9MM/year and Koskie's $17MM contract and the need to still add relief help and JP's previous statements that 2 bats will need to be added to compensate for the loss of Carlos (Koskie makes only 1), it seems like there are still more moves to be made and not a lot of room left in the presumed budget. With all of the scheduled raises due to several players and these other factors, I am beginning to wonder if the Jays payroll will see a bit of an increase. As far as I know, JP or Godfrey never announced anything regarding a specific number for the budget. Announcing that they had more money to spend wouldn't do much good from a leverage standpoint in contract negotiations. Of course, I have no idea, but I think it's at least possible we will see a larger payroll than we may have previously expected.
_Daniel - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:51 PM EST (#7967) #
Geeeeze...for fans of a baseball team that just added toward a goal of filling a big void...you writers seem to be wasting your time attacking wach other-trying to "prove" yourselves as legitimite readers who can criticize. Ad Hominen argument? This isn't philosophy class. Anyways, Jeff Blair was on the television, reporting that the Jays had a very good chance to sign Clement, as he doesn't like the West Coast, and the Jay's offer is in and around 9 million. The interesting thing, however, is that when Ricciardi called Hinske last night to inform him that he may be shifted from third base, Eric said that he had absolutely no problem- he was excited, but, he told Ricciardi immediately that he will move, but he DOES NOT want to be traded whatsover. Apparently, Blair says, Ricciardi was surprised to hear this, as Hinske's agent never expressed this concern.
_Keith Talent - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:56 PM EST (#7968) #
but he DOES NOT want to be traded whatsover

I can see this. I'll say this for the Blue Jays, they're not a bunch of assholes. Halladay, Wells, O-Dog all seem like guys you'd want as co-workers. Imagine having Jeff Kent in the locker next to yours, seeing that ugly mug for 162 days, or worse: Bonds. Or how about a hopped-up Jose Lima? Or Ichiro the poseur. A lot of ego in this game. The Jays seem short on that, thankfully.
_Ryan Lind - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:56 PM EST (#7969) #
Keith, the last I heard, Delgado was asking for 16mil/season and wanted a long term deal.

I don't think there was a chance of the Jays retaining his services.
_Tyler - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:57 PM EST (#7970) #
You can express any ill-informed opinion you want, Tyler. Just don't get upset if someone shits on it, much like you're shitting on the guy's entire body of work.

You might want to go back and take a look at the discussion SF, before you suggest I'm expressing an ill-informed opinion.

Specifically, note my first post on this, where I said "I'm neutral on him, although I seem to remember reading an excerpt of his book that was pretty good." I'm not exactly sure what's ill informed about that-I was pretty open that he hasn't made much an impression on me one way or the other.

I went and took a quick look at the Productive Outs stuff-which this guy, the best as you've told us, is promoting. He attached his name and, so I've learned, substantial professional reputation to it. Incidentally, is his professional reputation as a journalist or as a baseball researcher? It seems to me that those are two different areas.

Once it's placed under some scrutiny, it seems to have fallen apart pretty quickly. I'm not sure why your nose is so out of joint about it though. If you're saying that you'll ignore what Mahnken is saying because of where it's published, that seems a little unfair to me.
_Donkit R.K. - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:57 PM EST (#7971) #
I agree wth everything Ryan Lind said in his last post...

Daniel, good name, but no dissing philosophy class ;-)
_Keith Talent - Monday, December 13 2004 @ 11:59 PM EST (#7972) #
Keith, the last I heard, Delgado was asking for 16mil/season and wanted a long term deal

That high? Well, I guess the Jays never had a chance if that's the case. That $7 mill wasn't even a proper offer, then.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:00 AM EST (#7973) #
Not the Delgado post, the one before it...
_Robbie - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:03 AM EST (#7974) #
I like Clement as a pitcher all and all, but JP spending 17 million on Koskie and now making what is a pretty absurd offer to Clement, I really question whether some of these moves are, as Griffin said in his column, being done just to fill payroll. Or even worse, feeling he has to do something to improve the Jays in the next year for the sake of his job.
_SF - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:03 AM EST (#7975) #
I don't care about productive outs. I don't care what stat-geeks think about them, I don't care what Buster Olney thinks about them. What I don't like is when someone who wants to be a sportswriter -- like you, let's say -- shows no respect for the process of becoming successful.

If you clearly think that there's no difference in quality between the average PROFESSIONAL journalist and the average AMATEUR, then we have nothing more to discuss. If you don't understand that writers methodically work their way up the food chain, then I don't see where to begin. If you don't recognize that the New York Times has a better reputation than the Podunk Shopper -- for a reason -- I don't see the need to keep wasting my breath.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:09 AM EST (#7976) #
Its very simple, how I see this, SF. The NYT deserves much more credit than the Podunk Shopper. At face value , Buster Olney deserves *much* more credit than Mr. Mahnken. However, something should not be discredited because it is in the Podunk Shopper or because it is written by John Doe who only has one year of university (and in a chemistry degree at that) under his belt. It's like picking the Yankees to win every year (let's pretend it's 1987 right now) just because they're the Yankees.

About productive outs - Buster Olney touts this as a wondeful stat and he is wrong. Don't take this as an ad hominem attack on my behalf, he, quite simply, is wrong. No matter how eloquently he writes about them he ends up wrong. I think we should expect a little more from a PROFESSIONAL sportswriter, should we not? I don't understand why you seem to be so defensive about all of this, I agree on the things you insist on most persitently but that doesn't change the fact that ***your name or where you write should not discredit *what* you write.***
_SF - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:17 AM EST (#7977) #
He's wrong in your opinion. Which is fine -- this is North America, you're allowed to do that. But at least you're respecting the writer now. You weren't an hour ago, when this whole thing started. That's the only thing that rubbed me raw and caused me to make pugnacious comments about the source you cited. I've never dismissed a writer's viewpoint because of where they write. I do reserve the right to point myself to the sources that I respect most, though, despite the misdeeds of a few exceptions to the rule.
_dsaljurator - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:20 AM EST (#7978) #
Is this the part where i post a picture of a trainwreck, because that's what's happened to this thread.
_GeoffAtMac - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:21 AM EST (#7979) #
Re: Daniel's comments about Jeff Blair

That sounds pretty awesome to me Daniel. Just out of curiousity -- what channel did you catch Jeff Blair on? I am quite excited by the stuff going down for the Blue Jays right now, as it feels like the changes will make us more competitive than before. It would be really awesome (!) if the payroll goes up though, even if it were just 4/5 MIL (complete and utter speculation here people, I haven't read this anywhere), that could be a big help.

I think, as sevetral other people have noted before this projected rotation:

Halladay/Clement/Lilly/Bush/Towers or Chacin

could be quite effective, with the rest of our team shaping up like it is. I look forward to the rapidly aging Yanks falling out of contention and the Jays moving ever upward, with our major goal to place AHEAD of the Devil Rays :)!
_Tyler - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:24 AM EST (#7980) #
What I don't like is when someone who wants to be a sportswriter -- like you, let's say -- shows no respect for the process of becoming successful.

I have no idea where you got the impression that I wanted to be a professional sportswriter. Absolutely none. I'm sure it's a thrilling field, but I'm happy where I am.

As far as me not having respect for the process of becoming successful, that's nonsense. You're defining success based on being published in traditional places and media. The name Bill James was mentioned above-he didn't go through any of the traditional routes to sportswriting success, and yet, I'd suggest that his contribution to baseball writing blows away that of most succesful writers.

Anyone who can write can punch a clock and put in time on the ladder. It's originality and insight that makes a guy worth reading. As I've said repeatedly, I don't know enough Olney to comment on him generally, but his productive outs stat seems pretty questionable. If he's so good, as you told us above, why has he let his name be attached to it? It seems to me that if I was a writer with that type of reputation, I wouldn't want to taint it.

If you clearly think that there's no difference in quality between the average PROFESSIONAL journalist and the average AMATEUR, then we have nothing more to discuss. If you don't understand that writers methodically work their way up the food chain, then I don't see where to begin. If you don't recognize that the New York Times has a better reputation than the Podunk Shopper -- for a reason -- I don't see the need to keep wasting my breath.

I'd concede that there's probably a difference in the quality of their writing. I won't concede that being a professional journalist gives you any sort of special advantage in terms of developing clarity of thought though. When I'm reading, I'll take the tradeoff for clarity and originality of thought over some professionally piece that does a beautiful job of inserting quotes into the text every time. That may be just me, you might see it differently.

I recognize that the New York Times has a better rep than the Podunk Shopper. I also know that the New York Times, and it's writers, aren't infallible. If you can't recognize that original thought exists outside the world of professional sportswriters, you're missing out on a hell of a lot of interesting stuff. It's a pretty insular way to think.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:24 AM EST (#7981) #
I said that he was a tool, which clearly was disrespectful and I rescinded that once I was called on it and realized how wrong it was but I don't think you can say I wasn't respectful after that. I didn't cite the source either, but I do agree with it. It does make sense for you to point yourself to the sources you respect most, yes, but given an opinion from elsewhere it should be respected I think. I can't say much about him being wrong and it being allowed in North America, I just think that when you are writing for the masses your opinion doesn't have to be right but if you are proven wrong you probabaly should acknowledge it. There's nothing else to be said here, I don't think. Olney deserves respect, and should be commended for doing what he has done but I just disagreed strongly with one of his opinions and that isn't bad; what bothered me was Buster going back to it so many times without acknowledging the proof that disregard the statistic.

I said more in this post than I wanted, I wanted to end the discussion here. I relaize his produvtive outs work isn't his be-all, end-all but he did write it and stand by it...
_Andrew S - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:26 AM EST (#7982) #
Hate to be a pot stirrer, but to say he's wrong in Donkit's opinion is about as foolish as saying that light of 650 nm is red in my opinion . It's red. Olney is wrong about productive outs. Wrong. It's not the end of the world, newspapers are wrong about facts all the time.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:28 AM EST (#7983) #
And, for the record, I don't agree with everything Tyler has said or his approach. I'm not working with him to argue with you, SF, but we both have. Don't group us together, for the benefit of both of us (because he might not agree with everything I've said or my approach). My biggest thing is just that reputation doesn't get you everywhere, John Doe from the Podunk Shopper could have a stronger opinion and argument than Mr. Olney from the NYT regardless of the clarity or quality of the actual *writing*.
_SF - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:29 AM EST (#7984) #
There is no PROOF. These are all theories that can't possibly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm glad you're convinced. Let's leave it at that.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:29 AM EST (#7985) #
Agreed, Andrew S.
_Tyler - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:30 AM EST (#7986) #
Thanks, Andrew, you saved me the post I was about to write.

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts" is how the saying goes. The facts say productive outs are a joke.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:32 AM EST (#7987) #
Ad hominem, SF, how about an appeal to ignorance (another philosophical fallacy - I'm in a first year philosophy course as we speak so these are fresh ;-)). I disagree that there is no proof against productive outs (they've been discredited time and time again) but even if that was the case, something is *not right simply because it hasn't been proven wrong*.
_Tyler - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:36 AM EST (#7988) #
Donkit, drop me an email if you don't mind.
_SF - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:38 AM EST (#7989) #
I never said it was, dude. If you'll look above, I've never espoused an opinion one way or the other. Frankly, I don't care. I'm glad you're convinced and think you can find objective truth. It's fairly amazing to me that you can be so sure, however. Shit, evolution is still considered a THEORY, and that's been debated for more than a century now.
_Andrew S - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:40 AM EST (#7990) #
SF, not a bad coincidence, I was going to say I can sympathise with the reaction when you feel your profession is under attack and overreaction.

I know I can overreact to creationists as a scientist, not because they're so obviously wrong, but because it can seem like an attack on my career, life, value, et al.
_Fawaz K - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:41 AM EST (#7991) #
I really don't want to irritate the good Dr. Fence now, especially if he's now talking to his monitor, thus wasting his breath; he seems much angrier here then he does in those lovely bj.com pieces. If I knew how to post a picture, it'd be a teddy bear :).

We don't need another opinion of Olney, so I won't give mine. It does seem like everybody's getting angry without necessarily disagreeing. His competence (even brilliance, as SF suggests) as a reporter and writer is indisputable. His ability to present a sound analysis is questionable (rating a deal's significance on a scale of 1-4 baseball's. yech - although we don't know if that was his idea), and I don't know that SF has disputed that. Character assassination notwithstanding (there's no reason to suggest he's a tool), where's the argument?

As an aside, I don't know if SF truly has a total lack of regard for non-professional baseball writers, but it has certainly read that way in a couple of recent threads. Having aspired and, at least temporarily, failed to become a writer, I really do respect what goes into becoming one, but hard work and a way with words do not necessarily translate into a deeper understanding of baseball, the game (now baseball, the business is another story). Again, I don't know if SF really feels that way, but if he doesn't it sure doesn't come through.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:41 AM EST (#7992) #
Evolution is a bit tougher than productive outs. We have numbers that show productive outs are wrong.

I believe you said "There is no PROOF". I say there is. This seems to be our only sticking point now. Let's call it a night.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:43 AM EST (#7993) #
I called him a "tool", yes, but I regret that, didn't mean in in malice or as a personal attack (though, I relaize now it was), and apologize. We can move on from that... Besides that, Fawaz, I don't have any problems with your post.
_Andrew S - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:43 AM EST (#7994) #
Easy for me to admit there's no proof, soundest philosophical work I ever read was Hume's "Enquiries Concerning the Principles of Human Understanding". ;)
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:48 AM EST (#7995) #
I'm still only half way through a philosophy 100 course (not even, the Xmas exam is Thursday morning) so the Hume reference still sails *way* over my head :-P ...
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:49 AM EST (#7996) #
I sent the e-mail, Tyler.
_SF - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:49 AM EST (#7997) #
Fawaz: If I had a total lack of respect for non-professional baseball writers, why would I post here or even read what was written, for that matter? I wouldn't passionately disagree if I had no respect -- I'd simply ignore and get back to Madden 2005.
_SF - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:49 AM EST (#7998) #
Fawaz: If I had a total lack of respect for non-professional baseball writers, why would I post here or even read what was written, for that matter? I wouldn't passionately disagree if I had no respect -- I'd simply ignore and get back to Madden 2005.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:57 AM EST (#7999) #
To end it, I just want to say thanks for a good passionate argument ;-). I hope nobody got too angry or lost too much sleep over it.

Madden '05 worth the buy if you have '04? The new defensive controls really worth it? It'd take a lot to take me away from NHL 2005 at this point, especially with no NHL season...

Oh, and go Blue Jays!
_Ron - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:05 AM EST (#8000) #
Anyways................ the Winter Meetings was pretty exciting!

Oh yeah EA today aquireed the NFL and NFLPA liscense which means they basically wiped out the competition (Sega's NFL2K series). IGN is reporting they might be trying to do the same deal with NBA and MLB.

I shudder to think 2 seasons ago Baseball gamers had their selection of High Heat, World Series Baseball, All-Star Baseball, MLB series, Inside Pitch, and MVP. And then if EA aquires the MLB and MLBPA liscense, the consumer's only choice is the MVP series if they want their MLB Video game fix :(
_Fawaz K - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:06 AM EST (#8001) #
That was a poorly thought out comment on my part. I'll chalk it up to an early morning and two exams and go to bed convinced that I'm still infallible (yes, I've done this before...).

Teddy bear.
_The Bone - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:08 AM EST (#8002) #
http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/news_story.asp?id=108050
COMN for the first Koskie quotes on his signing with the Jays and the announcement of a news conference for tomorrow
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:10 AM EST (#8003) #
Ron ~ I prefer EA Sports' games, but a monopoly could get ... interesting.
_6-4-3 - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:10 AM EST (#8004) #
Wow, that's terrible news. With the exception of the franchise mode, I liked Sega's football more than EA's. I love MVP baseball, but I'd be annoyed if the other baseball games were dumped. As it is, it's rare that you see a total revamp of a sports series, now if EA snaps up all the licenses, there'll probably be more sports games that are little more than roster updates.

On the other hand, I've been playing Super Baseball 2020 again lately, and if this leads to a revival of unlicesnsed robotic baseball games, I'm all for it.
_Ron - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:15 AM EST (#8005) #
I get all my EA games for free and I'm still in denial that ESPN NFL 2k6 won't be made. It's like a bad nightmare. IMO the consumer benefits from the competition. EA has little motivation to improve the Madden series now and I'm sure you will need to subscribe to their Premium Pass if you want to play Online starting next year.

Sega cut into the Football pie with their bargain pricing and good reviews so EA fired back by taking the WHOLE PIE.

I've already read a bunch of comments from gamers that compare EA to the Yanks.
_Mick - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:25 AM EST (#8006) #
No teddy bears. Isn't my dog cute, though?



_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:33 AM EST (#8007) #
What kind of dog is that (and it certainly is "cute")?
_Mick - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:40 AM EST (#8008) #
Donkit, no idea, sorry ... she's purebred Heinz. And pretty much scared to death of our cat, show below glaring up at the dog.



_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:42 AM EST (#8009) #
Haha, Mick, you appear to be a big fan of portraits of your pets...
_Mick - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 01:47 AM EST (#8010) #
yeah, we were fortunate. My wife wanted picture of the dog and the photographer was so pleased with them that in exchange for using Maddie's image in her brochures (and on her business card, no less), we got huge deals on everything else. So far I've managed to keep the pet population at two (and the kid population at zero), so all is well.
_Magpie - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 04:19 AM EST (#8012) #
Gosh. A little excitment in the house tonight. Dare I say anything about Buster?

Bob Woodward of the Washington Post is one of the most remarkable reporters of this or any other generation. His ability to uncover that which has been hidden, to get people to speak frankly for the record... truly remarkable.

He is not the most perceptive and incisive analyst of the world he's writing about. One could say the same thing about Sy Hersh, now that I think of it.

There's a distinction between reportage and analysis. And much of what goes on here is of course armchair analysis (there's really no such thing as armchair reporting). With the inevitable tendency to value analysis above reporting.

Most of us would rather be a GM than a scout, I imagine. Less legwork.

I don't think much of the notion of productive outs myself. I don't think its as illuminating as Tom Boswell's Total Average was back in the early 1980s, to think of another reporter who trespassed into analysis of what was going on.

Its certainly true that because the concept of productive outs is being advocated by Buster Olney, it will get a hearing. But that's OK. He's earned the right to be taken seriously. If its not a useful idea, and I don't think it is really, it will eventually go away.
_bird droppings - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 07:08 AM EST (#8013) #
As dawn nears I find it hard to move. Is it the crisp morning cold that has caused my body to come to a near stall or is it the thoughts of my beloved O Dog wearing another teams duds?

I beg that my nightmares do not become the fruit of another man. Namely, any GM whose intials are not JPR.

I've started quoting Braveheart... Replacing any instance of the word, "Freedom" with the words, "O Dog."

"You may take our lives... but you will never take our O Dog!!!"
_James W - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 07:54 AM EST (#8014) #
http://screwball.mostvaluablenetwork.com/index.php?cat=2
And now for the worst signing so far (and that is a feat for this offseason), Matheny signs for 10.5M over 3 years with the Giants according to Rotoworld. What are the qualifications for being a GM again?

COMN for an insightful mockery of internet chatrooms, starring MLB GMs.
_Andrew S - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 08:11 AM EST (#8015) #
My being a scientist may make me partial to Hume, but if you've got any patience, Enquiries Concerning the Principles of Human Understanding is a very readable book that definitely worth the time.

Don't bother with his Enquiries Concerning the Principles of Human Morals or whatever.

Not that I'm criticising. Were that I could write one book that'll be a permenant addition to our knowledge and perhaps the most profound philosophical book ever (but perhaps the most trivial).
_Magpie - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 08:25 AM EST (#8016) #
I like David Hume, but there's nothing like the pithy gloom of Schoepenhauer.

Never a rose without a thorn. But many a thorn without a rose.
_Mick - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 09:43 AM EST (#8017) #
Good ol' Tom "David" Hume made our All-Philosophers Hall of Names team waybackwhen.
_Lee - Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 07:11 PM EST (#8018) #
well, that Lee deal does not make that much sense, but if it's to free up funds to sign a starter, it's understandable -- just trying to understand Kenny Williams' logic -- I suspect it would be easier for me to bust into Fort Knox undetected --

I don't think there's ANY way that deal makes sense for the Sox. Ken Williams may have put one over on ol' Gord with the Sirotka deal, but as an organization, when your GM is getting completely taken by the GM of the freakin' Brewers, I think it's time to consider a change of direction...
_Mick - Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 02:50 PM EST (#8019) #
getting completely taken by the GM of the freakin' Brewers

I realize discussing GM credentials around here is a dangerous game to play, but Doug Melvin is one of the top five in MLB today, IMNSHO.
Thomas - Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 07:14 PM EST (#8020) #
I wouldn't go that far Mick, but I'd put him in the top 10, I think. The Brewers will be quite an interesting team in a couple years with Fielder and Weeks up.
_Fabien Brandy - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 12:12 PM EST (#8021) #
"If you don't recognize that the New York Times has a better reputation than the Podunk Shopper -- for a reason -- I don't see the need to keep wasting my breath."

But does this mean that every article in the New York Times is more compelling than something in, say, the University of Florida’s student-run Independent Florida Alligator or the Daytona Beach News-Journal or NYSports.net?

Olney was fine as a Yankee beat reporter but as a columnist he's more of a poor man's Bob Klapisch.
_Larry Mahnken - Monday, December 20 2004 @ 09:14 PM EST (#8022) #
http://yankeefan.blogspot.com
SF is right -- my comment about Olney was out of line, and a more professional publication would have caught it and taken it out. So I apologize to Olney.

But he is still wrong. POP has no value. It measures nothing of value, and doesn't even measure what it's purported to measure. It's a wholly useless stat, it doesn't correlate even reasonably well with anything.

Yes, the team with more productive outs wins postseason series more often than not, but that's because the team with more productive outs generally has more baserunners than the team that doesn't. A productive out is better than an unproductive out, but it's so much worse than a non-out outcome that there are almost no situations for any batter in which it's worth trying to make a productive out at the expense of making the best effort to get on base, and a batter who makes productive outs instead of non-productive outs hardly increases his offensive value at all.

It's just a very, very bad stat.

But Olney is a skilled writer, he just sometimes writes about things that he's wrong about. Well, we all do that. But he is skilled at putting it in words, which I think is much more important -- you can learn what's right and wrong, learning how to write is much harder.
Jays Roundup: December 13 | 274 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.