Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

Well, here we are. At the All-Star Break, the Blue Jays are 49-46, 3 games above .500, 9 games out of first place in the AL East, and 7 games out of the Wild Card spot (behind Boston, Anaheim and Oakland). The consensus is that they’re out of contention for a playoff spot, and that the selling of free-agency-eligible veterans is about to begin. The most important thing to keep in mind at this juncture, I submit, is that the Jays are pretty much right where they ought to be. If they stay at this current pace, they’ll finish with 83.5 wins, which seems to be par for the expected course.

Their “current pace,” of course, is a tad misleading, since this has been a remarkably streaky team thus far this year.

First 25 games: 9-16
Next 25 games: 17-8
Next 25 games: 17-8
Next 20 games: 6-14

I’m pretty sure that the Jays aren’t the .680 club they played like in the middle there, and they’re not the .333 club they played like at either end. What they are is a young team with the raw talent to reel off tremendous runs of success, and with the weaknesses and gaping holes that get them into funks they can’t break out of. Now, for my money, that’s a lot better than a team that loses one, wins one, loses two, wins one, loses one, wins three. When they say this is an exciting team, they’re right: you never know when the next roller-coaster ride is about to start.

It’s been a roller-coaster for us fans, too. The team emerged from a productive off-season and spring training with a lot of optimism, which was quickly dashed with a gruesome Opening Day loss and the ugly 7-13 trip through the Terrible Twenty. Soon afterwards came The Comeback against Kansas City, the sweeps of the Yankees and Red Sox, and the remarkable 20-8 May. Eventually, the next big downturn arrived, presaged maybe by Kelvim Escobar’s drilling of Jeff Conine that turned around a somnolent Baltimore team.

A few stats: the Blue Jays are second in the league in runs scored (behind Boston), second-last in the league in runs allowed (ahead of Texas), and third from the bottom in both errors and fielding percentage (ahead of Cleveland and Detroit). The hitting can be expected to cool off – already, guys like Orlando Hudson, Vernon Wells and Tom Wilson are in deep July funks, and the Greg Myers show will soon grind to a halt – but there’s hope the pitching can turn around, especially if the bullpen stabilizes itself and good young arms like Corey Thurman can take a few turns in the rotation. The defence – well, we saw this past week that the defence still needs some work.

But that’s fine. Nobody said this was going to be a great team or a playoff contender; they said this was a learning and developing year, and that’s what it’s turned out to be, with the spice of fleeting playoff aspirations thrown in. Add the blossoming of Vernon Wells into a more dangerous hitter than many of us would’ve imagined, the defensive excellence of Orlando Hudson, and the confirmation that Roy Halladay is one of the five best starting pitchers in baseball, and you really can’t complain.

So now what? JP Ricciardi is not known for being an indecisive man, so I daresay the decision on whether to fish or cut bait has been made, and that the bait is currently being cut. It’s become clear that although the Jays are ahead of schedule developmentally, they’re not far enough ahead to warrant deviation from the reconstruction plan. We’re unlikely to see any Steve Trachsel- or Esteban Loaizia-like short-term-fix acquisitions (or, if we’re lucky, any more John Wasdin-like acquisitions); rather, the players JP will be adding in the next several months will be longer-term parts to the puzzle, while subtracting guys who don’t fit in to the long-range plan.

Here’s what we can reasonably expect:

- Cory Lidle will be dealt. Despite his struggles, he’s still a workhorse with a sterling second-half record and one of the few pitchers with any sort of pedigree available on the market. He’ll be too expensive to bring back next season and won’t be offered arbitration, so there’s no value in keeping him around for the full year. He’s history.

- Greg Myers will be dealt. He has zero value to a rebuilding club, but a left-handed-hitting catcher having the best season of his life is going to be useful to a number of teams down the stretch. Don’t expect much in return – heck, cash or a PTBNL would be nice for a guy who many (but not Coach) expected to be backing up Ken Huckaby this year – but wish him the best wherever he goes.

- Shannon Stewart will probably be dealt, depending on the market. His name is worth more than his skills now: he’s essentially become a .360-OBP singles hitter who rarely steals and has no defensive value. Essentially, that’s Frank Catalanotto, and Frankie was non-tendered this past off-season. Keep your expectations low for what Shannon can bring back. If there’s no market for him, the Jays may keep him around till the end of the season; depending on the state of the market, they may offer him arbitration if they’re confident someone else will sign him. If he goes during the season, Reed Johnson can handle right field until Gabe Gross is ready.

- Kelvim Escobar might be dealt, if the return is sufficient. Interest in Kelvim around baseball has never waned, even at his lowest ebb earlier this year. His recent run of success as a starter – particularly against National League opponents – has not gone unnoticed, and there will be inquiries. The decision for JP & Co. will be twofold: whether Kelvim will bring more in a trade during the season or as a compensatory draft choice in the off-season, and whether Kelvim has in fact turned the corner and should be locked up for a few years as a Blue Jay. These decisions will be in influenced by factors beyond our knowledge – there’s still the little matter of a pending lawsuit, for one – so we’ll just have to sit back and watch this one unfold.

Generally, in the second half, we should look for some Blue Jays prospects to make their full-time major-league debuts, including Kevin Cash and Corey Thurman; for Josh Phelps to get regular at-bats and start hammering the ball again; and for JP to continue to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the minors, expect Jason Arnold and Gabe Gross to end September in Toronto; Alexis Rios and Guillermo Quiroz to end it in Syracuse, and many of the young prospects to take one step closer to the big leagues.

The Blue Jay world is still unfolding more or less as it should, and everything seems to be coming along at the expected pace. The key difference is that the players – and their fans – have gotten a taste of success, a flash of what it means to be in a pennant race. And that’s going to pay off big dividends, I think, in the next couple of years. Steady as she goes, folks.

Posted by Jordan on Sunday, July 13 2003 @ 09:15 AM EDT.

At The Break | 40 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Gitz - Sunday, July 13 2003 @ 10:52 PM EDT (#97682) #

Excellent summary and analysis, Jordan, especially your cautionary words regarding Lidle and Stewart's trade value, which you also mentioned on a separate thread.

This virtually goes without saying, but the Jays absolutely must come up with two good starting pitchers to flank Halladay if they are to contend in 2004 and beyond. And not just good: they must be solidly above league average. Bullpens may indeed be cobbled together on the cheap, and, this year's rough 'pen notwithstanding, I have faith that J.P. Ricciardi and Keith Law will figure out how to improve the bullpen. But starting pitching is another matter. Simply hoping John Wasdin or Mark Hendrickson will emerge is not enough; they must get someone who already has emerged, because no matter how dominant all the kids look right now, young pithcers will beat you down on a regular basis.

Jason Arnold may be ready for the majors in 2004, but that is a long way from saying he'll be effective; realistically, 2005 can be expected to be Arnold's first "good" year, though he will undoubtedly show signs of brilliance his rookie season. There are only so many Mark Prior/Roy Oswalt success stories to go around. The odds are firmly against Arnold pitching at a high level next year, and there is certainly no shame in that, nor would it be a reflection on the glow of his career; check out the rookie seasons of Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine or Mark Mulder or Javier Vazquez -- or, perhaps especially so, Halladay -- and myriad other stars of today. Prior and Oswalt are outliers, pitchers who probably didn't even need the very brief minor-league experience they got.

So who fills out the rest of the rotation? Escobar may or may not be around, but one thing is certain: he'll be inconsistent wherever he is, and would-be contending teams with inconsistent/young starting pitching matched with dominant offences are known as the 2003 Texas Rangers. But let's assume Kelvim stays -- a vague proposition, at best. We're then looking at Halladay, Escobar, and Arnold, with the other two spots completely wide open. Crudely, that's an ace, an enigma wrapped in a conundrum shrouded in a mystery bathed in a puzzle, and essentially a replacement-level starter.

They need help. So where can they get it? It will have to come via free agency -- and not, as Jordan correctly notes, the Steve Trachsel or Esteban Loaiza variety -- or they will have to acquire an arbitration-eligible, mid-to-upper-tier starter this year and sign him over the off-season. (I won't speculate as to actual pitchers; that is a pointless exercise, because we never really know who is and who isn't available.) Carlos Delgado's salary really will work against the team next year. There may not be enough money to sign even a Trachsel-type fix -- and they certainly won't do that if they wanted to, nor should they.

So, to summarize and augment my non-Toronto-fan-status arguments, much of which isn't new, but seems relevant here. In the next two years the Jays will still have budget problems; their young arms, even if they all eventually develop to their utmost potential, will in all probability take their lumps at least in 2004 and 2005, the years the Blue Jays can least afford to have budget problems, because they need money to acquire a solid number-two pitcher at the very least; Toronto has the unfortunate distinction of not playing in the AL Central; the Yankees and Red Sox and A's will not be going away. Add it all up and, realistically, we're looking at 2006 as being the year Toronto can be considered a legitimate contender. They may flirt in 2004 and 2005, but it most likely will be like the coquettish affair one has on a train ride from Paris to Prague: you know, at the end of the day, nothing will come of it, even though it will be exhilirating all the while.

Of course I may be severly off-base. Jason Arnold may well be Roy Oswalt, Esobar may control his considerable talent, and Mark Hendrickson may turn into Jamie-Moyer lite, and thus the Jays will sneak into the playoff as early as next year. We know the offence won't be a problem.

Whatever the case, all this is rather easy for me to say. Like I'd have a clue what to do if I ran the team. Fortunately for the Blue Jays and their fans, the organisation is in better hands than mine. While I am always pessimistic regarding young pitchers -- "There is no such thing as a pitching prospect" -- I am far more sanguine about the ability of J.P and Co. to adjust and to keep improving the team.

_jason - Sunday, July 13 2003 @ 11:26 PM EDT (#97683) #

Has any one else noticed Vernon Wells is the only true CF for the AL at the All-Star game? It might make sense to play him most of the game in CF, especially now that Ramirez is down. I am guessing they will start Garret Anderson in LF though and have Matsui in CF.

_Jurgen - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 01:01 AM EDT (#97684) #

With Gross, Rios, and Griffin all expected to be MLB regulars by mid-2004 (or the start of 2005 at the latest), who will be traded, and when?

Unless Vernon Wells, I don't know, knocks up J.P.'s sister, he'll be roaming CF in Skydome for many years to come, and I'd hate to see the club suffer from the same logjam in some areas (while others go unattended) that's currently afflicting the Twins.

Like Gitz says, the Jays clearly need two more second tier (at least) starters, and they'll need them soon. (Coach and I recently discussed the moral conundrum around possibly cloning Halladay to have our own version of the Oakland Three, but personally I'm not sure if J.P. is willing to deal with the Raelians.)

If you toss in Stewart, could/should you get a Kris Benson or Brad Penny or Adam Eaton or Odalis Perez for any of them? Or despite the SABR apprehension about young pitchers, is it worth swapping, say, Rios for Grienke?

(I totally absolutely agree that Stewart alone won't net much, although I would like to tease Moffatt about the Urbina deal. He knows why.)

_Jurgen - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 03:07 AM EDT (#97685) #

...the SABR apprehension about young pitchers...

Maybe I should have written the Prospectus apprehension about young pitchers... or even better, the Abstract apprehension.

Coach - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 09:57 AM EDT (#97686) #

the Greg Myers show will soon grind to a halt

It will be interesting to see how Myers responds if he is traded. More than any other Blue Jay, he has improved his approach under Mike Barnett. Until this year, he rolled his wrists and pulled fastballs on the outer half, frequently into 4-3 putouts. Barney convinced him to take the singles to left that have added 100 points to his average. Yes, I was his biggest booster all spring, and predicted the career high in HR, but even I was surprised that a 37-year old could reinvent himself as a hitter. I don't think Crash will completely forget what he's learned if he changes uniforms, but the first-half "show" won't run forever, and it may not travel well.

Kevin Cash will dazzle immediately with his feet, hands and arm, but he's going to struggle against big-league pitching. The more AB he gets this year, the better for his development. At AA and again in AAA, he's looked hopelessly overmatched for quite a while before finally figuring things out at the plate. Whether he ever catches up to the high-and-tight heat in the Show remains to be seen, but try to be patient until 2005. Cash is not Huckaby, though their batting averages may prompt that comparison. He's got a cannon, for one thing, and some power. Whether you think he'll fail completely, or end up as #2 behind Quiroz, he deserves a long look, and it should begin soon.

The Blue Jay world is still unfolding more or less as it should, and everything seems to be coming along at the expected pace.

The Ricciardi renovations are ahead of any reasonable schedule, even the most optimistic projections -- usually mine. That surprising success "teased" a lot of people for a while, which made a return to reality disappointing for some, but this remains the best season to be a Toronto fan in 10 years. It's only going to get better.

Gerry - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 09:58 AM EDT (#97687) #

JP was on the Fan in Toronto this morning. When Marsden asked him if Myers would be traded JP replied that he was not getting any calls about Myers.

It does seem like Myers would be a great addition for a contender. We will see as July 31st approaches.

Dave Till - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 10:11 AM EDT (#97688) #

If the Jays aren't getting any calls about Myers, I see no reason to trade him, unless it looks like he's about to break down due to age. Unless Quiroz and Cash both make it, Myers will be useful for at least a couple of years as a #2 catcher and left-handed bat off the bench. And his salary expectations are quite reasonable.

I expect Stewart to be gone, and soon. Ditto Escobar; he's just not reliable enough to be of much use. I can't see Lidle fetching much in a trade right now, but he'll go, too, if somebody wants him.

For the longer term: I have come around to the idea that the Jays need to re-sign Halladay and Delgado, even if it costs them. You can't win without players who are among the very best in the league, and I don't think any of the Jays' current prospects are going to be superstars. I agree that the Jays aren't likely to truly contend until 2005 at the earliest; if Doc and Carlos are gone by then, the Jays are likely to be a good team that will win about 90 games. That won't be enough.

(And, for the record: the media types who state that a team can't win if two or three players are making most of the money don't know what they're talking about. Players with Delgado's level of ability are rare, and therefore in great demand; you'd have to expect that such players will command big salaries. It's better to spend $15 million on a superstar and small amounts on the supporting cast than to buy a bunch of mid-level guys for $3 million each; eventually, the Baltimore Orioles will figure this out.)

Mike D - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 10:22 AM EDT (#97689) #

I wish I shared Gitz's faith in the ability of Ricciardi and Law to cobble together a bullpen on the cheap. I'd consider it more of a hope than an expectation at this point.

Beyond all of the growing pains and streaks that we at Batter's Box had expected to be part of the long-term plan, the bullpen has been wretched. This isn't a case of holdovers from the Ash regime killing time until the kids are ready, or of savvy pickups performing stunningly below their expected level. (Politte excepted.) The bullpen, from the outset, was flawed in its construction. It seemed to be a low-upside, high-downside staff: Sturtze, Creek, Tam.

My question is this. John Smoltz is obviously a superstar and compensated as such. But if you traded Acevedo, Sturtze, Miller, Service, Kershner and Lopez for King, Holmes, Gryboski, Hernandez, Hodges and Bong -- the remainder of the Braves bullpen -- who would win the deal? (The Braves' bullpen isn't as lights-out as it was last year, but to be #7 in the majors in bullpen ERA after the exodus of veterans is more than respectable.)

Put differently, does John Schuerholz have a combination of luck and ability that J.P. didn't have this year in finding cheap bullpen talent, both from within and without the organization? Or is Leo Mazzone such a magician of a pitching coach that he'd turn around the Jays' personnel that aren't getting the message of how to approach hitters from Gil Patterson? My intuition is that it's probably a little bit of both, but I hold Ricciardi slightly more accountable than Patterson. What does everybody else think?

Maybe this warrants a separate thread, either today or over the next few days.

Mike D - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 10:24 AM EDT (#97690) #

I completely agree with Dave Till's parenthetical.

_Spicol - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 10:39 AM EDT (#97691) #

Perhaps we've been judging this Phelps-Stewart-Johnson situation all wrong. Is it possible that it isn't Stewart who is getting max playing time as a showcase for trade but Reed Johnson?

I'd hate to see it happen...Reed quickly became Top 5 on my fave Jays list...but this has shades of Jeff Kent 1992 to it. If you think about it, Reed has much more trade value than Stewart thanks to his age and contract status, he might not quite fit into the 2005 plan due to the glut of OF prospects (with only two spots to play them in the 2005 outfield) and he's a relic from the Ash regime...all reasons why he may not fit. Sure his OBP is 365, but he has more HBP (9) than BB (7) and the latter is easier to repeat than the former so I can't be certain he'll duplicate that success in the future. He hasn't really walked a lot since 2000.

True, Toronto needs someone to man the outfield until Gross, Rios et al are ready and it isn't at all certain that they will all pan out. But, the rule of thumb is trade from your excess to improve your weaknesses. Reed Johnson is excess. Pitching is a glaring, snow-blinding kind of weakness.

_Ken - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 10:52 AM EDT (#97692) #

Dave Till, it depends on how you define superstar. Rios and Gross are, in my view, going to be all-stars. I'm not really going out on limb with this one either, they are highly regarded throughout baseball. I'm a little wary with Quiroz, not sold on him yet. Adams will be a dependable major leaguermaybe better, so most probably will Hill and Griffin.
What I'm saying is that the jays will not NEED delgado in 2005-6, they may want him and he is a great player, no doubt about it. Halladay comes first though. He is the man that needs to be locked up.
The jays lineup in 2005/6 should in theory be just as potent as the one now, perhaps even better. The jays system has position players that have huge upsides. If half of them fill their potential, this team will be scary in 2006, even without carlos.
However i do get where you're coming from, especially concering Doc. McGowan, Bush and League though are putting up cases that the jays may not even need Roy but as we always say pitching is so hard to predict.

Joe - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 11:14 AM EDT (#97693) #

I didn't think that there was ever any question that Halladay is going to be sticking around. When the Jays signed Hinske and Wells to long-term contracts, the word was that Halladay was next. Why it hasn't happened yet probably has more to do with a lack of time than a lack of money or willingness.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 11:18 AM EDT (#97694) #

http://economics.about.com
(I totally absolutely agree that Stewart alone won't net much, although I would like to tease Moffatt about the Urbina deal. He knows why.)

Shuddup. :)

As an Expos fan, I fully admit that Loria is the exception to all rules. If baseball teams were run at all sanely, deals like the Urbina one would have *never* been made. This bodes well for JP, seeing as there are still owners/GMs out there who are more than willing to do stupid things.

I still wouldn't call it a deadline deal, tho =P

Mike

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 11:28 AM EDT (#97695) #

http://economics.about.com
Just in case it wasn't really obvious, I do, in fact, consider this to be a "deadline deal".

At Ease

Mike

Pistol - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#97696) #

If Stewart can't bring much in a trade I'd hold onto him, offer arbitration, and offer him nothing more than a 1 year contract. I'm fairly certain there are teams out there that'll sign him for 3-4 years and I'd think he'd jump at that, even if it's less annually than a 1 year arbitration deal with the Jays. Worst case you have a LF with a .370 OBP at $5 million (and an angry Coach), and best case you have 2 more first round picks.

Pistol - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#97697) #

And for what it's worth, yesterday during the Futures Game Gammons said that the 2004 draft was going to be one of the best drafts for college pitchers (he might have said best in a long time, but possibly he said best ever heading into a draft).

_Spicol - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 01:33 PM EDT (#97698) #

Worst case you have a LF with a .370 OBP at $5 million (and an angry Coach), and best case you have 2 more first round picks.

I'm equally confident some team will sign him to a long term deal and I agree that it's worth the risk but I don't think your worst case scenario is truly as bad as it can get. The Maximum Salary Clause in the CBA says that the minimum Stewart can be resigned for in arbitration is $5.2M (his $6.5M 2003 salary minus 20%). But the only guys that get their salary reduced are those coming off major injury or entirely disappointing seasons. Stewart had neither this year and would likely be getting a raise over his current $6.5M.

Pistol - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#97699) #

I did forget about the 20% clause, but if you don't improve over previous seasons and overall salaries are decreasing I don't see how Stewart's salary is going to increase (not saying it won't, just that arbitration seems to be all over the place on what 'market' is).

_Jurgen - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#97700) #

All in good fun, Moffatt.

Jason Stark has Delgado as mid-season MVP, but I still think it's Boone. Boone's away splits are better than Delgado's (and accordinly leads him in VORP), plus he plays a wicked 2B. (I also think Bonds have overtaken Pujols, and reclaimed his title as Best Hitter in Baseball.)

AL MVP
B. Boone (SEA)
C. Delgado (TOR)
M. Mora (BAL)

AL Cy Young
E. Loaiza (CWS)
M. Mulder (OAK)
T. Hudson (OAK)

AL ROY
A. Berroa (KC)
H. Matsui (NYY)
M. Teixeira (TEX)

NL MVP
B. Bonds (SF)
A. Pujols (STL)
J. Edmonds (STL)

NL Cy Young
J. Schmidt (SF)
K. Brown (LA)
H. Nomo (LA)

NL ROY
B. Webb (ARI)
D. Willis (FLA)
S. Podsednik (MIL)

_Wildrose - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#97701) #

Darn, I love this time of year. A few thoughts I'd add.

I think some substance to teams shying away from dealing with Billy Beane will manifest itself. Look however for, his best buddy J.P. to be the third man conduit to a few deals.

As much as I love the guy, a trade off the "Cat" would not surprise me. Given that the aqquiring team would control his contract for the next 1.5 years he may be attractive to wealthier teams. Arbitration eligible after this year, Frank is on pace to match Stewart's 2002 season which garnered him 6.5 million dollars.(-Stewart 2002-38 dbls.,6 tr.,10 hrs,.303 B.A and a .813 0ps.-Cat-40-45 dbls,10-15 hrs. .307 avg. and a .826 ops.) With Gross on the fast track and Werth in the mix the Jays might decide to spend this salary slot on pitching.(I'd sign Escobar even with his inconsistencies)

_Chuck Van Den C - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#97702) #

but this has shades of Jeff Kent 1992 to it.

Except that Kent was 24 years old, an infielder and had nice peripherals (192/20 AB/BB, 22 of 46 hits were for extra bases).

Reed Johnson is 26 years old, a corner outfielder, 176/7 AB/BB and just 16 of 56 hits for extra bases.

If Johnson magically lost 30 batting average points of singles, lowering his AVG to a respectable .288, his OBP/SLG would drop to 341/445. And that's with his OBP propped up by 9 HBP's.

I don't pretend for a minute to have foreseen what the future held for Jeff Kent, but I'd say the odds of Johnson going that route are as close to nil as imaginable.

Reed has much more trade value than Stewart thanks to his age and contract status.

That's if people buy his 176 AB. If it's my money, I'd rather pay Johnson $140K for the rest of the season than Stewart $3M, but a team in the hunt might be more comfortable with the performance "certainty" that Stewart, a man with a track record, might offer over Johnson.

_Chuck Van Den C - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 03:05 PM EDT (#97703) #

Arbitration eligible after this year, Frank is on pace to match Stewart's 2002 season which garnered him 6.5 million dollars.

I'm sure that many Boxers, Bauxites, Residents of Box Manor, whatever, follow arbitration closer than I. But I do know that performance history plays a big role in arb amounts, and that includes years of service and playing time logged.

I agree that Cat's season looks very Stewart-like. However, coming into 2003, Stewart had amassed 3147 AB in 5 FT and 3 PT seasons. Catalanotto, OTOH, had amassed only 1482 AB and only more than 300 once.

How much 2003 gets weighed against the years prior, I can't say. But I am sure that the arbitrator will not look at 2003 in isolation.

_Chuck Van Den C - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 03:08 PM EDT (#97704) #

Shoot, pressed Post too soon.

I am just guessing here, but I would predict that Ricciardi keeps Catalanotto, pays him $3-4M in arbitration and starts him in LF in 2004. I don't anticipate a long-term deal and would imagine that we'll be talking about trading Catalanotto this time next year the same way we're talking about Stewart now.

_Spicol - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 03:18 PM EDT (#97705) #

I don't pretend for a minute to have foreseen what the future held for Jeff Kent, but I'd say the odds of Johnson going that route are as close to nil as imaginable.

I'm not suggesting he'll end up in Kent territory and I'm not even comparing the players, just the circumstances; a relative unknown gets promoted due to injury, becomes a fan favorite, makes good on his 150 AB and gets traded off the strength of them.

That's if people buy his 176 AB. If it's my money, I'd rather pay Johnson $140K for the rest of the season than Stewart $3M

So would most other teams. The dollar differences, and the fact that the receiving team gets 5 more years of Reed's contract control, are more likely to yield real pitching prospects than Stewart would. I wouldn't see him going to a contender...Johnson wouldn't help a contender much...but would help a rebuilding club.

_John Neary - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 03:59 PM EDT (#97706) #

Spicol: The dollar differences, and the fact that the receiving team gets 5 more years of Reed's contract control, are more likely to yield real pitching prospects than Stewart would. I wouldn't see him going to a contender...Johnson wouldn't help a contender much...but would help a rebuilding club.

Aren't contenders going to be more likely than rebuilding teams to be willing to trade prospects for major-league ready players? A rebuilding team isn't going to want to trade top-shelf prospects for a 26 year old rookie.

Chuck: Reed Johnson is 26 years old, a corner outfielder, 176/7 AB/BB and just 16 of 56 hits for extra bases. If Johnson magically lost 30 batting average points of singles, lowering his AVG to a respectable .288, his OBP/SLG would drop to 341/445. And that's with his OBP propped up by 9 HBP's.

As far as I can tell, Chuck, you're implying either that HBPs are less valuable than walks (which I doubt) or that Johnson is unlikely to keep getting hit by pitches at such a high rate.

I can't find minor league HBP stats from before 2002. Here are RJ's HBP numbers for 2002-2003:

Team              PA  HBP  HBP/PA
---------------  ---  --    ----
Dunedin, 2002     38   2    .053
Syracuse, 2002   183   8    .044
Estrellas, 2003   23   0    .000
Syracuse, 2003   109   5    .046
Toronto, 2003    198   9    .045
---------------  ---  --    ----
Total            551  24    .044

I see no reason to expect Johnson's HBP rate to decline. From what I've seen, he's often perfectly happy to let a pitch hit him, and I don't expect that to change.

_Jurgen - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 04:07 PM EDT (#97707) #

Reed Johnson--the Ernie Pantusso of the Toronto Blue Jays!

_Spicol - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 04:21 PM EDT (#97708) #

A rebuilding team isn't going to want to trade top-shelf prospects for a 26 year old rookie.

I'm not talking Zach Grienke here...

_John Neary - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 04:54 PM EDT (#97709) #

Spicol: Fair enough, and I probably should have left out the "top-shelf." Say "mid-to-high-shelf." My point is that contenders are more likely to be willing to trade prospects in the first place. If you call up Mark Shapiro and ask him if he wants Reed Johnson, he might very well reply "um, no."

And I doubt that Reed Johnson is overvalued on the trade market right now. I'd imagine that most GMs would look at him and say "fluke," which I think he is not.

Which of these seasons is not like the others?

Team               AB   BA  OBP  SLG
----------------  --- ---- ---- ----
Hagerstown, 2000  324 .290 .404 .469
Dunedin, 2000     133 .316 .381 .504
Tennessee, 2001   554 .314 .366 .451
Syracuse, 2002    159 .233 .317 .358
Syracuse, 2003    101 .327 .369 .446
Toronto, 2003     179 .313 .365 .475

It ain't Toronto, 2003. Johnson had a wrist injury in 2002; not by coincidence, he had by far his worst year since 2000.

I would not be surprised if Johnson could consistently hit .300 with decent on-base (thanks to HBPs) and power numbers. If you can find me a GM who believes that and will give the Jays younger prospects of equal value for him, I'll take it; failing that, I'll keep him. But I doubt there's a team out there that (a) doesn't undervalue Johnson as a hitter, (b) needs a corner outfielder, (c) isn't confident in its ability to find one on the scrap heap, and (d) understands the value of being able to pay a guy league minimum for three years.

Chuck, I agree that Johnson can't really be compared with Kent (I'd trade John Gizzi for prospects, but I want to keep Kent), and I don't dispute that he might be playing somewhat over his head. Nevertheless, if he does magically lose 30 points of singles, .288/.335/.445 is still respectable, and he's making league minimum and will continue to do so for two more years.

_Jurgen - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 05:16 PM EDT (#97710) #

How do you format tables in HTML?

_John Neary - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 05:40 PM EDT (#97711) #

Jurgen,

I'm not sure what the best way is, but I type my tables out manually between <pre> and </pre> tags. Everything between those tags comes out in fixed-width font, so you can line the text up however you want.

I'm sure there's a better (i.e. automatic) way but I don't know what it is.

_Chuck Van Den C - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 06:00 PM EDT (#97712) #

John,

With respect to Johnson's HBP's, I certainly agree that they are as valuable as walks, I just didn't figure they were as predictable, from year to year, as walks.

Craig Biggio started taking HBP's in 1995 (presumably when he started wearing the armour) and since then, has seen a low of 11 and a high of 34. Since 1996, Jason Kendall has ranged from 9 to 31. Don Baylor ranged from 7 to 35.

And if Reed Johnson ever gets the sense that he has a FT job, he may decide to get out of the way of a pitch or two.

If Johnson's "real" level is 335/445, and he's paid peanuts (as he will be for the length of his useful career), he's definitely earned a spot as the team's 4th outfielder. I have no problems with him starting in Stewart's place for the balance of 2003 (should Stewart be traded), I just wouldn't want Johnson as a starting OF in 2004. I don't believe that what we are currently seeing is his true level.

_Mick - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 06:03 PM EDT (#97713) #

Tables suck in this environment.

I've built them out several times and they just format weird.

Here's

Example

_Shane - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 08:03 PM EDT (#97714) #

A lot of good, reasonable opinions on the trade value markets and the "real" reality of how Toronto has to make a bigger push to improve it's starting pitching for '04 for the team to actually start to contend. Nice work Gitz et al.

There are some great prospects coming and a lot of 'em pitchers, but it's unreasonable to expect them (Arnold, McGowan, Bush, Perkins, etc.) to be all clickin' by '04 & '05. You'll ideally, need the Sheet's, Armas's, Lilly's or whom ever's to fill some gaps. The cheaper up-and-comers with actual upside. Sorry Hendrickson.

_John Neary - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 08:56 PM EDT (#97715) #

Chuck,

It's a statistical fact that HBPs will vary more (relative to the mean) than walks from year to year. For the binomial distribution, the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean is the square root of (1-p)/np where n is the number of trials and p is the probability of an event (walk, HBP, or whatever) in each trial. Since p is lower for HBPs than for walks, there's more variability in the year-to-year HBP totals.

However, the real question is whether the differences between players' true HBP rates are lower than the differences between their true walk rates, or whether a player with a history of high HBP rates (like RJ) has a greater probability of regressing towards the mean than a player with a history of high walk rates. This very well may be the case, but I don't know it to be true.

Craig Biggio started taking HBP's in 1995 (presumably when he started wearing the armour) and since then, has seen a low of 11 and a high of 34. Since 1996, Jason Kendall has ranged from 9 to 31. Don Baylor ranged from 7 to 35.

And Barry Bonds has ranged from 120 to 198 walks since 1995.

Anyway, this is a silly argument. I too would rather not have Reed Johnson starting in the outfield next year. However, if Stewart goes and Rios and Gross aren't judged ready next spring, I'd let Johnson plug the gap and spend the savings on pitching. I seem to recall that we may be short a pitcher or two.

Speaking of which, the Mets apparently traded Jeromy Burnitz to the Dodgers for three minor-leaguers. (I won't say "three prospects"; the media always say "three prospects" no matter who the players are.)

The most significant of the three is Victor Diaz, a 21-year old second baseman (and 2000 37th-rounder) who was hitting .291/.353/.462 in 316 AB for AA Jacksonville. Last year he hit .350/.407/.521 in 349 AB in the Sally League and flamed out in a 152 AB trial in Jacksonville (.211/.258/.336). Compares to Russ Adams with the bat, if you ask me, plus he's one-and-a-half years younger.

The other two players were Joselo Diaz (15 G, 11 GS, 61.2 IP, 39 H, 48 BB, 69 K, 2 HR for Vero Beach in the FSL) and Kole Strayhorn (30 G, 0 GS, 46.0 IP, 42 H, 13 BB, 44 K, 2 HR for Vero Beach). Strayhorn was a 4th roudner in 2001. Neither one of these guys seems like a hot property.

I imagine that Stewart would have more trade value than Burnitz. Would you guys have taken these three players for Stewart?

John

_Jurgen - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 09:19 PM EDT (#97716) #

I imagine that Stewart would have more trade value than Burnitz

Don't be so sure. Burnitz has good on base skills with above average power, and plays decent defense. (His 2002 drop-off is looking more like temporary Alomaritis, not the the chronic kind.) He's an improvement on Brian Jordan, even if Jordan were healthy.

If Stewart were still stealing 30+ bases, I think the Jays would have tons of bidders. As is, I don't think most non-"Moneyball" clubs would know what to do with him.

_John Neary - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 09:52 PM EDT (#97717) #

Jurgen,

You may be right. Certainly I would rather have Stewart that Burnitz, but I may not speak for the thirty people who count.

John

_Dr B - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 10:34 PM EDT (#97718) #

I think there isn't that much in trade value between Stewart and Burnitz. Burnitz is hitting the ball a lot harder than Stewart this year Slg581 to Slg449 and there is no real difference in their respective OBPs. Burnitz is playing well over his career average numbers so he may also be playing a little over his head, but he is mashing right now (particularly right handers).

On the other hand Burnitz gets paid twice as much as Stewart (if ESPN is to be believed) and that is no small number.

_Rickey Henderso - Monday, July 14 2003 @ 11:20 PM EDT (#97719) #

The Dodgers also signed Rickey!

_R Billie - Tuesday, July 15 2003 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#97720) #

Reed Johnson isn't really a corner outfielder though...most teams would probably use him in centerfield. Taking that into account, he gives you quite a bit of good from that position and I don't think his .340 obp with decent average is a fluke. He'll slowly add to his power totals as well as he gets more comfortable in the majors. He's had 13 homer seasons in the minors with a fair number of doubles.

I would agree that he's not going to grow much beyond what's already there, but what's already there isn't half bad. I think it's certainly enough for a team in need in the outfield to consider dealing something for him.

_Jabonoso - Tuesday, July 15 2003 @ 01:30 PM EDT (#97721) #

Good for you Ricky! but your story is in another trhead...
Regarding Don Baylor's HBPs just may explain how stubborn he is.

At The Break | 40 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.