Part II, focusing on the fielders.
Outfield:
Magpie
- The outfield - I think Rios is for real. Absolutely. As for Sparky... I don't
think he's as good as 2006, but I don't think he's going to turn into a pumpkin
either. Catalanotto's situation is a little complicated. He's coming off a
couple of very good and very healthy seasons, and he's hardly going to be
looking for a one year contract. If Wells is locked up long-term, that would
leave Cat, Johnson and Adam Lind to fill LF and DH. But I wouldn't want to be
counting on Adam Lind to be ready to start tearing up AL pitching next April,
and I don't think the team will be either - they're not about to anoint him as
the everyday DH. So another bat will be brought in, probably right-handed.
Once Lind arrives to stay, though, things will begin to get pretty crowded.
Cat, in that situation, could always be traded. He pretty well would have to be
- in terms of roster composition, Catalanotto and Lind are the same player.
They can play left field and DH. They can't play centre and they can't play
right, and the team will need an outfielder
who can fill in there when Sparky needs a rest or Rios pulls a hammy or
whatever.
So... you either trust that Adam Lind will be ready to go in April – or you
need to sign Catalanotto for at least two more years, all the while knowing
that you may very well be trading him for 75 cents on the dollar this July.
Mike
G: Reed Johnson made noticeable improvements in a number of areas of his
game. I don't think that one can expect him to hit .315 again, but a .285
hitter with medium range pop, fair plate discipline and excellent defence is a
valuable package. That said, there is no reason given his age to sign him to a
long-term contract.
Alex Rios is another story altogether. The new-found power was no fluke. He was
hitting the ball in the air much more, and with authority. His approach at the
plate was different. He had a more mature attitude, typified by his reaction to
the staph infection. Officially, I'll predict that he hits about the same in
2007 than in 2006. Subjectively, I expect him to take another step forward and
be the most valuable position player on the club next year.
It would be desirable from the club's perspective, in my opinion, if Rios could
be signed to a long-term contract, of about 6 years, along the lines of a
smaller version of the Pujols contract. It's a risk, but one well worth taking.
Gerry: Reed Johnson made significant improvements this year in handling breaking pitches. His numbers might be a career year but he should be able to come close to his 2006 numbers in 2007. I don't believe he is entering his free agent year so I would wait and see how 2007 goes before getting into a longer term contract.
Jonny:
Johnson now has 3 years, 146 days of service time. He won't be a free agent
until after the 2009 season
Named for Hank: I love Reed Johnson, in a manly knuckle-bumping kind of
way, but I can't really see him as the number one priority. Maybe I've just
been brainwashed by the "he's not really that good" group. I like
him; he plays hard and gives his all; he has a dog named Shooter. Doesn't every
team need a guy like Reed Johnson?
Gerry: I think we saw Alex Rios show signs of potential stardom in 2006.
I think Rios is still under the Jays control for three more years so I could
see a five year deal, or waiting another year to do it. In these cases it comes
down to reaching salary numbers that both sides can live with.
Mike
M: I'd agree with the consensus that giving Reed Johnson a long-term contract
right now might not be the best of ideas.
There's a good chance that 2006 was a career year for him, so offering him a
contract now would be like buying high. It makes no sense.
What makes even less sense is people that argue that "let's wait and see if
this guy has an outstanding season before we sign him to a deal". That
line of thinking seems insane to me - it's like saying "Let's wait and see
if Microsoft stock triples in price before buying it." Why on earth would
you want to buy *after* the gains have been made? A good GM, like a good
portfolio manager, should anticipate performance burst *before* it happens and
invest accordingly.
Matthew
E: I don't think Johnson's year was a 'fluke career year', but I do think
it was a career year. I expect him to continue to be able to do the kinds of
things he did this year, but not necessarily as well.
Rios... those who don't follow the team (I'm thinking of Joe Sheehan of
Baseball Prospectus) closely seem to be writing Rios's improvement off as a hot
streak followed by more of what we had in 2004 and 2005. Most of us here
disagree, and I do too. I think the kid can play. But, let's face it: there's
no point in paying him the big money any sooner than necessary.
Pistol: Rios' OPS by month:
April:
1.093
May: 1.009
June: .816
Injury----
July: .429
Aug: .527
Sept: .977
Oct: 1.600! (albeit 4 ABs....)
If you believe that Rios was adversely impact by his leg infection and took
time to get back to normal (September) he put up a .980 OPS in the non-July and
August ABs. I think Rios is at least a .360/.540 player for the next few years.
Rios will be 26 when the season begins next year. I'd be in favor of signing
him to a 4-5 year deal now. I think he's going to start building on his
counting numbers and now's the only time you're going to get a discount with
him.
Additionally, it sounds like every team has money to spend this offseason, and given the ease of the labor agreement I think salaries are going to really shoot up. If you’re signing Rios to a long term contract you’re largely basing that off of historical salaries. If salaries are 20% higher in three years than they are today you’d save a lot.
Thomas: I'm a bit torn on Rios. I thought his improvement was for real and there's no doubt he looked like a completely different hitter in the first half of 2006. However, when he first came back from the staph infection it looked like he fell back into many of his old habits, particuarly flailing at pitches down and away. I'm willing to write it off to the staph infection, just as I attributed Koskie's 2005 to his broken hand. I agree with the consensus and would support signing Rios to a long-term deal, as I think the potential benefits outweight the likelihood that it will turn into an albatross contract.
Contrary to about everyone else in the thread, I'd explore a several-year contract with Johnson. I'll admit that this could be my fanboyism clouding my judgement, but I think there could be some benefit to locking him up for 2-3 years. I think Johnson made legitimate steps forward this year and will be, as Mike said, a .285ish hitter going forward. However, he does all the little things right, plays good defence with a strong arm, has speed and has a great attitude.
I think there's something to be said about a 17th-round pick continually busting his balls every year, first to make the team as a non-roster spring training invitee and then playing a platoon role for several years and finally developing into an everyday (or nearly everyday) player. At the right price, I can see an argument for giving him several years of security, a guaranteed contract and the ability to demonstrate to other players on the current roster and in the minor league system that if you work hard for the franchise and have sucess that the team will reward you. If Reed and his agent try to sell this year as his new established level of play I'd not persue it very long, but if they're willing to meet the team in the middle, I'd sign him for 2 or 3 years.
Infield:
Matthew
E: I say Adams can be a regular major
league player, but the Jays would be foolish to count on it happening a) for
them b) next year. Get somebody else, and if Adams
forces his way into the lineup then so much the better.
The Jays are only slightly better off with McDonald as an everyday shortstop
than they would be with my butt as an everyday shortstop.
Overbay should be good for more of the same. Basically he had the same year he
always has, but with more SkyDome.
I suspect that at some point Glaus is going to become a full-time DH for this
team. Which of course means they'll have to find a third baseman. Which is no
problem; they can just put Koskie back in--I mean they can use
Hillenbrand--they can move Hinske--uh, maybe they could find a second baseman
and put Hill at third.
More power will come for Hill. It did for Rios, and Hill doesn't even need that
much of it to be a good player.
I think Zaun gives you more different things than Molina, but he's also
significantly older. It's time to start thinking about the next generation, no
matter which one they keep.
Magpie: I have no good ideas here. I like Adams, I think he can play. But obviously, it would be insane to depend on him doing so in 2007. Julio Lugo does not make me weak in the knees.
Mike G: Watching Aaron Hill's adaptation to playing second base was one of the joys of 2006. What took most fine defensive second basemen two or three seasons to learn, Hill had mastered in about three months. His intelligence, athleticism and dedication shone through.
His power will come, but I think that it's going to be slow developing. I've marked him down for .310, 12 homers and 60 walks in 2007, and his first All-Star berth of many.
Lyle Overbay's improvement at age 29 was very interesting. He reduced his walks and strikeouts, and increased his power as Paul O'Neill did when he came to New York. Those changes are suggestive of a change in approach, with increased aggressiveness under the tutelage of Mickey Brantley. I think that he's going to be fine.
Glaus may have been tired at the end of last season. This should provide the organization with some clues about what changes need to be made. Glaus should never, ever, be asked to play shortstop again. He needs to get a little more rest- once a week he should DH. With the departures of Hinske and Hillenbrand, that means the organization needs a capable 1B/3B backup. I doubt that John Hattig is ready to assume that role capably.
John McDonald has no business being in the starting lineup of a contending team. He is a 25th man, able to play both middle infield positions capably but a hazard to a club's offence if he is forced to hit.
Russ Adams' future is hard to gauge. There is reason to believe that he can hit well enough for a middle infielder, maybe .260/.330/.390. The problem is that he is a poor defensive shortstop and, at this point, a below average defensive second baseman.
One way or another, the club needs another middle infielder. The backup plan of John McDonald as a starter in the event of injury or ineffectiveness is a bad idea.
Gregg Zaun will be fine, I think, for the next couple of years at least, giving the club 250-300 at-bats if they are able to re-sign him (I think that they will). A better defensive right-handed complement to him would be ideal.
Gerry:
Aaron Hill settled in as a very good second baseman in 2006. However he might
have to play shortstop in 2007. Ideally the Jays would sign a shortstop to play
beside Hill but there are several other teams looking for shortstop help. If
the Jays are unable to sign a SS they might have to sign a secondbaseman and
have Hill play short. those numbers will have to be crunched carefully in Blue
Jay HQ.
I don't see Russ Adams making this team in 2007. A player like John McDonald
could be considered equal to Adams unless Russ
finds an ability to hit much better than the .220's he put up in 2006. I
believe the Jays will look to have him play regularly in AAA unless they get a
trade proposal.
Overbay looks to be a fixture at first for several years to come. Glaus on the
other hand looks fragile at third. Gibbons ability to manage Glaus will be one
of his biggest challenges in 2007. Glaus wants to play everyday, even when he
is hurt. This is normally admirable but when it hurts a players ability to heal
it also hurts the team. Gibbons needs to handle Glaus more carefully next year
and the Jays need a capable third base backup.
I would choose Zaun over Glaus for 2007 but I wouldn't be surprised to see the
Jays trying to find a better option or a younger player who could develop into
a full time catcher in a year or two.
Mike
G: Did you know that opponents have attempted to steal three times off Scott Downs over the last 3 seasons and been caught twice?
The individual pitching statistics for 2006 are quite interesting. Checking out Schoeneweis'
2004-06 splits, it sure looks like the catchers are really contributing to
the problem. Downs, however, has been able to control the running game without much support from the catchers.
https://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20061030142220408