The column dances all around the question -- was this a good deal for the Jays, or a bad deal? Neyer isn't sure, but seems to think it was OK. No clear point of view, no quotes from rival GMs or agents, kind of empty. Comparing J.P. to the man who traded for Carl Everett and John Rocker is a backhanded compliment.

I agree with Rob on the Lofton and Sanders deals in Pittsburgh; that's a much-improved team, though Adam Hyzdu's fantasy owners must be crushed, and what happens to Matt Stairs now? Player-manager in the CBL in a year or two, I think.

The interesting thing to me is that Neyer wrote a column about the Jays at all. If he's ever done that before, I missed it.

One of the reasons I posted this column was to see if I was alone in responding to this piece as I did. Like Coach, I found it to be too much like Miller Lite: easily forgotten, and a poor aftertaste. No real position was taken, and the subject merited a longer treatment in more depth.

The quality of Neyer's columns really appears to have gone downhill. I was once a big fan of his--between my initial exposure to Bill James and then his early columns, I got my start in sabermetrics--but he appears to have become a victim of his own success: he set a reasonably high bar, and he can no longer match or exceed it. In my opinion he really needs to beef up the sabermetric content of his work, or abandon his daily gig at ESPN for full-time writing of book-length projects.

Sean, thanks for the link. Rob Neyer really is the Tom Watson of baseball writers: started out looking like a world-beater, then went into a prolonged slump from which he really hasn't extricated himself. I can understand a columnist getting lazy at times, but I have trouble when he starts proclaiming his laziness in the column itself; that just comes across as contempt for his readers. Asking two questions, then saying that there's no way to answer either one, and then hauling a fantasy baseball player projection system down from the shelf to finish things off, is not what I call good journalism.

That said, he's essentially right when he said the Jays acquired peace of mind with the H&W signings. But there's more to it than that; there really is very little practical downside to the contracts. Here are the cons to the signing:

* he may have paid them more than he needed to (though show me the wisdom of renewing the cornerstones of your team at the league minimum for three years)
* they might both go in the tank (though is there any evidence to indicate that either player will regress from 2002, or at least that the likelihood outweighs the possibility they will improve?)
* they might get injured (well, yeah, so might we all, but not even the most risk-averse GM would admit to being that afraid of the sky falling on his head.

Now the pros:

* cost containment: the team knows exactly what they're going to pay these guys through 2007, which allows JP to make both short- and long-range financial plans for the franchise.
* probable cost savings: as mentioned before, W&H are already performing at $3M/yr levels, which is the average yearly amount of the contract. Does anyone really want to gamble that either one of these guys wouldn't be able to pull down $9M a year after a breakout age-27 season?
* team stability: the signings send a clear message that the reconstruction is underway, encouraging young players to follow H&W's lead to receive their own payday and making Toronto attractive once again to free agents
* marketing gains: H&W are both presentable, articulate young men of solid character who'll be used as point men in marketing campaigns from here on out. Who'll be on the covers of the 2004-5-6 media guides? The team now has both choice and certainty in answering that question.
* player investment: the signings show H&W that they're now the present and future leaders of the franchise, and that their on-field performance and off-field behaviour is expected to match that recognition and commitment. Both should respond accordingly.

Sure there's risk -- there's risk in everything -- but JP minimized his risk by choosing good young players with excellent all-around abilities to receive the team's long-term commitment. The pros outweight the cons, just as they did back when John Hart was the best young GM in the game. It's an excellent model for more teams to follow, as Rob says --- I just wish he would've put a little more effort into reaching the conclusion.

Like Coach, I found it to be too much like Miller Lite: easily forgotten, and a poor aftertaste. No real position was taken, and the subject merited a longer treatment in more depth.

In other words, it was a Rob Neyer piece.

I like Rob Neyer, he just oozes likeability. I am sure he does a good job of popularizing baseball analysis to the sports-fan public, which is really what his job at ESPN is.

When he has strong opinions about something, he is a remarkably pleasant read... as Rob & Rany on the Royals is/was. But he doesn't seem to feel that way that often, and his actual statistical work is pretty barren. I thought Baseball Dynasties was an OK book, but thought the methodology was totally screwy and actually marred what would have been an otherwise pleasant experience.

I don't bother reading the ESPN column anymore; if it's a current events piece, like this one, it usually seems like a warmed-over rehash of the previous two days' discussion on Primer.

I don't think his comparison of JP to the early John Hart was a backhanded compliment at all. Remember how highly praised Hart was in those early days for tying up Cleveland's young talent with long term contracts?

Another plus of the Hinske and Wells signings, which could be called the Vince Carter Effect: Jays fans know that both men will be here for a while. After watching Clemens, Green, and Wells jump ship, it's good to know that the current team's best players are actually going to be around a while.

Think of it: George Bell, one of the best-known players in Jays history, actually only played seven full seasons with the club (plus part of another, and time as a Rule V'er). Ditto for Joe Carter. Barring unforeseen calamities, Hinske and Wells are guaranteed to spend at least six years each in a Toronto uniform.

Matthew Elmslie wrote "The interesting thing to me is that Neyer wrote a column about the Jays at all. If he's ever done that before, I missed it."

Neyer wrote an awful article on the Jays May 8 last year, in which he concluded the Jays would probably finish "in the 90-loss range". (The Jays actually finished with 84 losses, less than Cleveland, Texas and 4 other teams.)

Randy Winn vs. Vernon Wells?

Neyer really shows his analysis skills on that one. To say that Wells stagnated the last 3 seasons shows that he really doesn't know what he's talking about, and he doesn't even care to cover it up by doing some research.

Perhaps so, but re-reading that piece reminds me of just how unappealing the Blue Jays' roster was at the time. Just because the team ended up losing 84 games doesn't detract from the main thrust of Neyer's argument. Sure, his take on Vernon Wells was flawed, but that's a minor flaw.

DS: To say that Wells stagnated the last 3 seasons shows that he really doesn't know what he's talking about, and he doesn't even care to cover it up by doing some research.

Not be a Neyer apologist, but Wells really did stagnate for 2 seasons (not 3, as Neyer mistakenly claimed). After an impressive 1999 minor league season, it is fairly self-evident, and hardly worthy of detailed analysis, to see that Wells did nothing in AAA in both 2000 and 2001. That he failed to improve in his second go round at the same level was especially disconcerting and it made it reasonable to at least be a little nervous about his fate in the majors in 2002.

And as much as I believe that Randy Winn will turn back into a pumpkin this year - much to the chagrin of the Mariners - he had a much better 2002 season than Wells (298/360/461 vs. 275/305/457).