Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Star's Stars Step into Da Box

This article was originally published Sept. 5, 2003 -- in advance of publication of the series recapping the interview(s) with Griffin and Baker. It was revised and republished as an archive for the series after all 10 parts had been published. Contact the author.

Richard Griffin. Geoff Baker. These are names nearly as familiar to Toronto baseball fans as those of Tony Fernandez and Joe Carter -- the specific comparisons will become evident later.

The work of these erstwhile Toronto Star regulars has been the subject of debate -- and let's be honest, sometimes derision -- here on Da Box. In reality, these are just a couple of Concordia guys who made it to the Star by way of Montreal. They both would pay to see Barry Bonds and Ichiro -- and if you think they’re just "paid to watch baseball," you need to think again.

In the Fall of 2003, we visited in-depth with Griffin and Baker, as they stepped resolutely into Da Box to face Coach and the ZLC. Who played the role of Carter, and who was Mitch Williams? Or does the fact that we all share an understanding of just what that question means prove that it doesn't matter?

Here's what we learned in the course of a spirited 10-part series:

Da Box Welcomes ... Rich Griffin
So, how does a Jamaican youth get his name permanently etched into display in the Baseball Hall of Fame? Obviously, he goes to college to play basketball and major in accounting. Meet Rich Griffin. (Sept. 8)

Da Box Welcomes ... Geoff Baker
Don't assume Geoff Baker's job is just to hang out in clubhouses. The competitive world of sports journalism led him through a complex world of dues-paying only hinted at by two National Newspaper Awards. (Sept. 9)

So, You Want to be a Sports Writer
Getting paid to watch baseball and then telling thousands of people what you saw or what you think (or both) -- how did Geoff Baker and Richard Griffin luck into such great gigs? Hang on -- there's a little more to it than that. (Sept. 10)

Hey ... Are These Guys Stat Geeks?
Not too long ago, Baker and Griffin each wrote what were perceived as anti-sabermetric screeds -- on the same day, no less. These guys just hate stats and stat-heads, right? Actually ... you'd be surprised. (Sept. 11)

White Jays Revisited
The most controversial topic in the history of Da Box isn't about how many Latinos share Geoff Baker's cube space or Richard Griffin's @thestar.ca e-mail domain. And it's not about headlines or front page placement. It's about diversity and it's about facts. (Sept. 12)

Rating Ricciardi
Both Geoff Baker and Richard Griffin have had plenty to say about "the Ricciardi Regime" since former G.M. Gord Ash left town -- some quite good, and some extremely critical. Good thing Ricciardi says he has "thick skin." (Sept. 15)

More on Media
If it's true that you can judge a writer by what he reads, then Geoff Baker and Richard Griffin keep some pretty select company. Find out who they read, where they like to be, who they like to talk to and how they see their own places in the Blue Jay Universe. (Sept. 16)

Cy Halladay? Baker, Griffin Offer Thoughts
Looking back, the Blue Jays' entire 2003 campaign could be summarized by the single phrase, "Roy Halladay, Cy Young Award winner." In late September, both Baker and Griffin hoped that might be true but thought the award was headed to an ex-Jay. (Sept. 23)

Richard Griffin: "The Best Thing I've Ever Written"
Geoff Baker: "The Best Thing I've Ever Written"
Most Boxers only know Griffin and Baker as readers of their writing -- though perhaps this series has started to expand on that a little. But it only seems fair to ask the writers in question, then ... what's the best thing you've ever written. Find out their answers and actually read the stories -- hint: you'll learn a lot about Jackie Robinson and Eric Hinske -- that made these two Star writers most proud. (Sept. 26)

Star Struck: Leftovers & Open Mike
After a little time had passed, after the season ended, after more than 300 comments had been directed to Baker and Griffin in response to the series, it was time to review, take a look at a few of the out-takes and offer up a final word -- and an invitation. (Oct. 12)

Thanks to Rich and Geoff ... and welcome to Da Box.

The comments below were posted in response to the original announcement and unless dates indicate otherwise, appeared before the series was posted.

Posted by Mick Doherty on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:41 AM EDT.

Star's Stars Step into Da Box | 56 comments | Create New Account

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

Coach - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 11:54 AM EDT (#33093) #

Griffin and Baker as Fernandez and Carter? This I gotta see. I hope I'm not Mitch Williams, or even Jimy Williams.

In today's Star, Baker looks at a couple of real losers, while Griffin talks to Cat about his future:

Catalanotto wants two more years, and it's not a sure thing the Jays will make him a solid offer through 2005. Remember, outfield is the organization's deepest position. Nevertheless, what's amazing is that any quality player would want to stay in Toronto. It's progress.

"I want to be comfortable where I'm at," Catalanotto said. "I want to be able to fit in and I think I fit in here. I'm very comfortable here. I love the organization. I love the city of Toronto. I don't see why it wouldn't be a good fit for me to stick around."

Sounds like it will be hard for Frank to leave. I can't see the Jays giving him two years; maybe one, at a slight raise, but he's a relatively expensive luxury for a team that needs so much pitching next year. As much as I enjoy watching him play, I'm pretty happy with Wells, Kielty, Gross and Johnson in the 2004 outfield.

No matter where Cat ends up, this suggests a positive trend -- the more players on other teams who hear about how great it is to play here, the better for recruiting free agents.

robertdudek - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:07 PM EDT (#33094) #

Is the role of Molitor still open? Where can I apply? ;-)

_Cristian - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:30 PM EDT (#33095) #

---"People think I'm a little nuts, or some publicity seeker, but I'm not," Kingman said yesterday from his home in Phoenix before boarding a flight to Detroit, where he planned to rent a car today and drive to Toronto for the game.---

Someone who chooses to avoid the Pearson airport is not 'a little nuts' but perfectly sane if you ask me.

_Nigel - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:33 PM EDT (#33096) #

I agree that next year is a challenge for F-Cat and the budget. The interesting thing is that in '05 he may be a DH/1B alternative in the event/certainty that Delgado leaves. The question is do you want to lock yourself into this at this time or try and figure it out then. I think I lean towards the latter due to the history of back problems but its something to think about.

Pistol - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#33097) #

The new ones (uniforms), in gang colours

I guess Griffin is a gang expert? I hope that's covered in the interviews.

We've discussed this before, but I don't see Cat fitting into the picture next year. Between Kielty, who IMO should be a lock for 1 corner OF, and Wells in CF, you still have Gross, Johnson and Werth for the other corner OF.

Said another way, Cat is going to cost about $2.5 million next year. The difference between he and the 3 headed monster of Gross, Johnson and Werth isn't as great as the difference between a current ineffective Jays pitcher and a $2.5 million free agent pitcher.

_Andrew Edwards - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:36 PM EDT (#33098) #

Cat could probably get 400 ABs as a LF-RF-2B-DH-LHPH, rotating through and giving everyone days off.

Good signing, if he's at a reasonable price and the pitching is fairly settled.

Pistol - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:36 PM EDT (#33099) #

And as Nigel pointed out Cat's back problems are another reason not to bring him back.

_R Billie - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:58 PM EDT (#33100) #

Someone who chooses to avoid the Pearson airport is not 'a little nuts' but perfectly sane if you ask me.

Or he's nuts but still wants to avoid the cost of a crossborder flight.

_shill - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:26 PM EDT (#33101) #

Not sure if someone else mentioned this already, but IMO, when Cat leaned way in to take that pitch on the shoulder during Wednesday's game... (when the team desperately needed a runner and a rally...) he immediately earned himself a contract with a raise for next year. I agree that next year the kids have to play, but any guy (especially in this day and age) who will so obviously put the team first like that is a guy that I want around. Plus, when he's seeing the ball properly, he can flat out hit. My advice - sign him now JP.

_A - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:31 PM EDT (#33102) #

Picked this up at ESPN.com. A Montreal Radio station apparently called Bud Selig and had a conversation with him while pretending to be our beloved PM. They had a very, very small recap of what was said during it, has anyone come across more details?

According to various Canadian newspapers, Selig described saving the Expos for Montreal as "mission impossible." He also blamed the Expos' problems on former minority partners, calling their actions "appalling."

Page 2 ran with the story and came up with an amusing version of what may have happened.

_A - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#33103) #

The interesting thing is that in '05 he may be a DH/1B alternative in the event/certainty that Delgado leaves

No team would put Cat at first on anything but a trial basis...and we did that, it failed. Working on/grooming Phelps from now until opening day in 2005 to be our next firstbaseman is something that would certainly pay dividens. Cat comes off as a great guy who is wonderful when played in the right spots, but he won't play 162 games a year, and probably not even 135. Add to that, firstbase, in the AL especially, requires someone with a high slugging percentage and that puts Frankie out of a job.

_Jacko - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#33104) #

We've discussed this before, but I don't see Cat fitting into the picture next year. Between Kielty, who IMO should be a lock for 1 corner OF, and Wells in CF, you still have Gross, Johnson and Werth for the other corner OF. Said another way, Cat is going to cost about $2.5 million next year. The difference between he and the 3 headed monster of Gross, Johnson and Werth isn't as great as the difference between a current ineffective Jays pitcher and a $2.5 million free agent pitcher.

Damn, it's hard to remain cold and logical when Cat is (a) a decent hitter and (b) such a nice guy. It is easy to get misty eyed and sentimental (and who knows, maybe that's appropriate in this case).

Regaarding your three-headed monster theory, I don't think Gross is going to start the year in the majors. Like all their other prospects from recent years, I fully expect him to spend the first few months of 2004 in Syracuse. Which leaves Werth, Johnson, and Cat (if he is re-signed) to fight it out for the last spot. I think Johnson is best suited to the 4th outfielder slot, and will be a cost effective backup for all three spots. Werth, instead of finishing the season strong, ended the season in a bad funk, so I would not feel all that confident handing him the RF job in 2004.

Even if Cat is reasonable with his demands, I don't think they can offer anything more than something like the deal Jose Cruz signed with the Giants (quick question: does 'mutual option' mean both parties have to say 'yes' for it to kick in?)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with your point that with the team being run on a shoestring budget, the money might be better spent elsewhere.

_Jacko - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:08 PM EDT (#33105) #

BTW, it was good to see Kielty go deep batting lefthanded yesterday. Perhaps he's finally getting his LH swing figured out (he's been dynamite batting righthanded since the trade).

_Nigel - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:30 PM EDT (#33106) #

A - I agree that the preferred plan in the American League is to have boppers at both 1st and DH, but the question is what resources do you have to achieve that (i.e. prospects or cash). In the Jays case the one obvious resource is Phelps and I agree that he is plan A for one of those positions. The Jays do not have any obvious choices for the other spot. The "extra" outfielder is likely Johnson or Kielty and is not an option relative to F-Cat. In my opinion, the Jays have to use cash (i.e. either in resigning Delgado or going out and getting someone else) to fill the position. The question is how much do you want to spend. If you want Delgado type production that is going to cost at least $10 million minimum. I would argue the money should be spent on pitching. I think F-Cat and his production is at least worth thinking about for '05 in that context. A lifetime .465 slugging percentage is not a disaster (brought down a little by an injury plagued '02) from the DH/1B position. Also, the 2 or 3 games he has played 1st this year are not really a full experiment with respect to his ability to play the position. I just think you have to consider him an option.

_Jacko - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:53 PM EDT (#33107) #

Another hijack:

Has anyone read anything about Rios' defense? Is he going to push Wells out of CF?

At 6'1", 225, I wonder if Wells will lose his speed as he ages, and be forced to move to a corner. Which would move Gabe Gross over to LF (BTW, Rios is listed as 6'5", 190).

Either way, by the time 2005 rolls around, the Jays OF defense is going to be phenomenal.

_A - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:02 PM EDT (#33108) #

Has anyone read anything about Rios' defense? Is he going to push Wells out of CF?

I think that's been the general concensus in most circles for a while.

Coach - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:06 PM EDT (#33109) #

A Montreal Radio station apparently called Bud Selig and had a conversation with him while pretending to be our beloved PM.

Jeff Blair of the Globe and Mail mentioned the prank today.

The Expos' nomadic status took a bizarre twist yesterday afternoon when a Montreal radio drive show on CKOI-FM, aired a prank telephone conversation between Marc-Antoine Audette of the comedy group Les Justiciers masques, pretending to be Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and baseball commissioner Bud Selig. The commissioner said that "we need to do something with that team and we're looking at a lot of options . . . we can't leave them there." Selig also said, "You know, I wished we'd had this conversation a couple of years ago."

_85Jays - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:34 PM EDT (#33110) #

I think Bud was suspicious that it was a gag. He was polite, but he didn't waste anytime getting "Chretien" off the phone.

_Jordan - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:41 PM EDT (#33111) #

Has anyone read anything about Rios' defense? Is he going to push Wells out of CF?

My impression is that he has good range and a very good arm, especially for a centerfielder. That said, I don't think he'll be shoving Vernon into left field for several years yet. There's seniority reasons, of course: rookies don't push MVP candidates out of position, unless you're in San Diego. Plus, Wells is a very good centerfielder already:

Defensive Win Shares 2003, AL CF
M Cameron, 6.35
C Beltran, 5.92
J Damon, 3.94
V Wells, 3.57

And consider positional value: Vernon's numbers are very good for a left fielder, but they're terrific for a CF. I expect it'll be a couple of years before Rios' bat has that kind of punch at the big-league level. And anyway, Alexis has only just mastered AA; give him a year to get the hang of Triple-A, and the earliest he sees major-league daylight is April '05.

_DS - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:46 PM EDT (#33112) #

If the Jays have the cash available, using Kielty/Cat as a dynamite platoon would be ideal.

Kielty vs. LHP .324/.432/.622
F-Cat vs. RHP .319/.369/.499

Pistol - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:57 PM EDT (#33113) #

(quick question: does 'mutual option' mean both parties have to say 'yes' for it to kick in?)

Yes, which essentially means the player is a free agent.

_Jacko - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:17 PM EDT (#33114) #

Yes, which essentially means the player is a free agent

Ah, but if the team say 'Yes' and the player says 'No', does the player walk away from his buyout?

Craig B - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:31 PM EDT (#33115) #

A mutual option is usually designed, I thought, so that *either* party can exercise without the other, basically a shotgun provision. Wouldn't a "both have to agree" clause be a joint option?

_Jacko - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:36 PM EDT (#33116) #

A mutual option is usually designed, I thought, so that *either* party can exercise without the other, basically a shotgun provision. Wouldn't a "both have to agree" clause be a joint option?

Don't think so. The whole concept of a buyout would be meaningless then, right? There would be no point, because the player could say 'Yes' and overrule the buyout.

Joint option? Sounds like my last camping trip :)

Mike Green - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:36 PM EDT (#33117) #

Gabe Gross has clearly surpassed Jayson Werth at this point. Werth's OBP this year in Syracuse was under .300 and he strikes out 160-180 times a year, so it is unlikely that it will ever reach acceptable levels in the majors. Gross is 24 and is arguably ready for a major league job at the start of next season, and will be ready by June.

Frank the Cat might have a platoon role available in left-field for a month or two in TO in 2004, but I'm sure that with his bat, he can find a better and higher-paying gig.

Hijack alert. After reviewing a post from Robert Dudek, I checked Eric Hinske's fielding stats last year and this year. They are essentially consistent (he caught a few more popups last year) and terrible in all aspects, except that he does not make a huge number of errors. His range (whether measured by range factor or zone rating, which was marginally better in 2002 than in 2003) has been abysmal, and he turns only 14 DPs per full season. His career offensive line shows an OBP of .348 and a slugging percentage of .461. These major league numbers are almost exactly the equivalent of his minor league work.

It is clear to me now that Hinske, despite his ROY selection last year and despite his excellent attitude and work ethic, is a below average major league third baseman, taking into account both his offensive and defensive contributions. The Jays would be better off to play a platoon of Howie Clark and Mike Bordick (or some other right-handed facsimile- good defence, .330-.340 OBP, no power), until Aaron Hill arrives. I am hoping that Hinske has a great September, and that JP has the guts to admit to himself that the decision to give Hinske a long-term contract has not worked out, and trade him.

Mike Wilner on radio described Hinske's defence this year as horrible, but indicated that it was just a bad year and he would give Hinske a mulligan. If you look at last year's stats, and compare them with this year, you'll see that they are essentially the same.

Mike D - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:41 PM EDT (#33118) #

The trouble with your otherwise well-reasoned analysis, Mike G, is that Eric Hinske dramatically improved his defence last year as the season progressed -- in both objective and subjective assessments. The end-of-season 2002 snapshot doesn't fully reflect the promise he showed with the glove last August and September.

The Eric Hinske of last season's second half was certainly not below-average overall, and was a good enough player to justify Mike Wilner's mulligan.

_Jacko - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:52 PM EDT (#33119) #

Mike Wilner on radio described Hinske's defence this year as horrible, but indicated that it was just a bad year and he would give Hinske a mulligan. If you look at last year's stats, and compare them with this year, you'll see that they are essentially the same.

I don't have the numbers to back it up, but it seemed that in 2002, Hinske was horrible in the first half, and improved a lot in the second half under the tutelage of Brian Butterfield -- overall, below average. It was disappointing to see him regress this year, but I imagine it had something to do with his injury.

Since he's not blocking anyone, why trade him? I would agree with the RPU (replaceable platoon unit) approach if there was a stud 3B prospect charging through the minors _and_ Hinkse's contract was up. Since he's been signed long-term, they might as well try to help him work out his problems, both on defense and offense.

Speaking of prospects, are scouts predicting Hill won't be able to play SS in the majors?

Also, it's a little unfair to pick on Hinske for his power outage this year. It can take up to a year for a broken hamate bone to heal, so his lack of power is not surprising, nor should it be worrisome.

It would be asinine and shortsighted to trade Hinske based on his poor performance in 2003.

_Donkit R.K. - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:58 PM EDT (#33120) #

I'd like to see Hinske get to .360/.480. I don't think it's out of the question, but I also think it's his ceiling or at the very least his over/under once he enters his prime. He might have a season ro two better, but he'll ahve a season or two worse thrown into the mix. If he could play defence like he did last July thru September, THEN we have a great asset.

_Donkit R.K. - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 06:04 PM EDT (#33121) #

And by very least, well I don't know what I meant. Maybe "at best" would fit better.

Gitz - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 07:54 PM EDT (#33122) #

Last year Mick, Coach, and I engaged in a very mild Nick Johnson vs. Eric Hinske debate. While Coach and I favored Hinske at the time -- my opinion was due in part to Hinkse's hard-nosed attitude and my gut feeling that he was a "baseball player" -- I may be changing my tune after this year's performance. Granted, both these players may not reach or even approach their ceilings, but, as Mike Green says, this may be the best we're going to get out of Hinske.

I confess that hand injuries scare me to no end. I mean, is there a more important facet for a hitter than his hands? Sure, Hinske could recover completely, but it's something to worry about, just as Johnson's chronic wrist/ankle/nose/groin/hamstring/pinky/femur/wrist hair/left pinky toe injuries are worth noting.

_Spider - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 07:55 PM EDT (#33123) #

Junior Felix. That's all I'm gonna say.

_Rich - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 08:27 PM EDT (#33124) #

It's also worth noting, in Hinske's defence, that 3rd Base is not a critical defensive position. How many teams would dump a lousy fielder at the hot corner if he produces at a .350 / .460 clip?

I think the defensive problems at short (no, I'm not including Bordick) are much more significant. If Woodward can straighten himself out or Adams or Hill grows up to be a good defender, then the Jays can live with Hinske's defence, considering how many other good defenders they are likely to field in the next couple of years. Hudson has been good, Carlos has improved, Cash and Quiroz will be an upgrade, and Gross, Kielty, Wells, Rios, and Werth are all good defenders.

_Jacko - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 08:34 PM EDT (#33125) #

I confess that hand injuries scare me to no end. I mean, is there a more important facet for a hitter than his hands? Sure, Hinske could recover completely, but it's something to worry about, just as Johnson's chronic wrist/ankle/nose/groin/hamstring/pinky/femur/wrist hair/left pinky toe injuries are worth noting.

Gitz, don't be too worried.

Hamate injuries are fairly common.

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=hamate&sa=N&tab=wi&meta=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22broken+hamate%22+remove+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

The only issue is recovery time -- you can come back quick, but some maintain it can take up a year before your hand is good as new.

Pistol - Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:26 PM EDT (#33126) #

Speaking of prospects, are scouts predicting Hill won't be able to play SS in the majors?

I think the thoughts among scouts were mixed.

However, I'm pretty sure that the Jays wouldn't draft Hill if they didn't think he could handle the middle infield. I don't think I've ever seen JP discuss Hill anywhere but SS or 2B.

_okbluejays - Sunday, September 07 2003 @ 09:59 PM EDT (#33127) #

I think the plan is for Hill to be the SS and Adams our 2B in 2 years time. Of course, if we're contending by then, we may not want to have rookies going through their growing pains. But then again, the idea is to get good cheap production from the youngsters and then spend the rest of our money wisely.

As for Hinske, I think we're stuck with him. We don't have a real replacement right now, and I don't see people rushing to take a gamble on him at this point. If he does well next year we'd just keep him. If he does poorly nobody would want him. The same thinking process that gave Hinske his long-term contract got us Vernon Wells at great money, so I'm not going to complain.

And wasn't Rios drafted as a 3B?

_Simon - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:42 AM EDT (#33128) #

Yes he was okbluejay.

Leigh - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:08 AM EDT (#33129) #

Mike Green,

Hinske was the third most valueable thirdbaseman in baseball in 2002 according to Baseball Prospectus' VORP [http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/vorp_pos2002.htm].

Also note see a bright pinch hit by a dim man: [http://www.battersbox.ca/archives/00000930.shtml].

_TUCKER FREDRICK - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:21 AM EDT (#33130) #

Rios was 3b as an amateur, but was drafted with the intent to put him in the outfield, primarly as Rfielder, but thru other injuries in the system was switched to Centrefield. In a radio interview with New Haven MGR Marty Peave " Rios breaks just as good on fly balls as Vernon" which really says something, because some rosters and Baseball America list Rios as big as 6'6 203 lbs!!

Craig B - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:45 AM EDT (#33131) #

rosters and Baseball America list Rios as big as 6'6 203 lbs

Dave Winfield size. (Hey, how's *that* for a ridiculous comparison?)

robertdudek - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:55 AM EDT (#33132) #

I think we need to see what HInske can do with the bat next year. His high doubles total suggest that, with full health, he'll convert some of those to dingers. If he can hit .260 to .270, his secondary skills will make him a valuable hitter for the position.

_Jordan - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 10:27 AM EDT (#33133) #

Dave Winfield size. (Hey, how's *that* for a ridiculous comparison?)

Hey now.

There are a number of very smart people who think Alexis Rios has taken a real step forward in fulfilling his first-round draft choice potential. Rios, you might recall, was one of the Belgian brewmeisters’ bargain first-rounders, out of a high school in Puerto Rico. For much of his professional career, Alexis has looked like a real bad idea. That started to change in 2002, though, when he posted his first useful season.

There are indeed signs that Rios has finally turned the corner. He’s still quite young, only turning 22 this year; he suffered a hand injury this past season that sapped much of his power; he doesn’t strike out a whole lot; and he has tremendous tools that are just waiting to emerge. In many ways, he’s learning how to hit and still growing into his frame. I’m still not entirely convinced, however. His strike-zone judgment is brutal, 27 walks in over 450 ABs; significantly, his BB/K ratio in 2002 (27/55) was almost identical to his 2001 Charleston season (24/59), when he posted a robust 689 OPS. He’s a long tall drink of water who still chases the first pitch that looks reachable, and unless he proves he can avoid that, pitchers have acres of strike zone to exploit. He gets caught stealing far too often to justify sending him, and he’s shown only marginal improvement in this area over his pro career. The optimist sees Dave Winfield; the pessimist sees DeWayne Wise.

The Jays certainly think there’s something there, though, because they’ve placed him on the 40-man roster, presumably to see if he can build on the steps he took this past season. It’s worth remembering that power is normally the last tool to develop, and that Rios, like all other Jays prospects, will be getting strike-zone judgment drilled into him all year. I may be a Rios doubter, but if the power and plate discipline do arrive together, look out.

- From Farm Report 3(a): A-Ball Hitters, Feb. 12, 2003

_TUCKER FREDRICK - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#33134) #

Rios, not Griffin or Gross or anyone is the best pure hitter in the organization. 1ST of all is OBP is 403 and he had an improved 39 walks this season. He's not an easy to guy to strikeout and nearly 60 extra base hits couting his playoff production, plus being a good defensive center fielder, put him up for trade and see how many buyers you have. Since when is 11 for 14 steals a bad base runner??, with another organization he might have 30 steals and said by his MGR Marty Pevey at New Haven that "he's an excellent baserunner"!!

_DS - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:00 PM EDT (#33135) #

Tucker,

Notice that Jordan's assertions were made before this season. I'm sure he's singing a different tune now.

_TUCKER FREDRICK - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#33136) #

ds

That's why they have scouts, to figure out players like Rios, everything isnt cut dried with just stats!!!

_DS - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:13 PM EDT (#33137) #

I don't think anyone has ever said scouts aren't important. It's always going to be tools vs. performance in grading baseball players, mixing potential with results. The Jays have streamlined their scouting staff to accentuate performance based results. Tools players won't be completely overlooked, but the team needs to have solid minor league depth before they start taking chances on raw potential (ie. HS players). Toronto doesn't have the luxury of taking chances. They have to limit risk in order to compete with the bigger market teams. Until the minor league system is stocked, they will keep drafting the low risk players, and even then they might not waver from this strategy.

Based on what Rios had done going into this season, it was reasonable to think that he might stall a bit in AA. His breakout year in Dunedin was excellent, but mostly in comparison to what he had accomplished in previous years. Before 2002, Rios could almost be considered a bust. But for every Rios and Quiroz success story, there are multiple Miguel Negrons and Joe Bernhardts who fail. For the amount of money these high risk players are being signed for, especially when dealing with a fixed budget which is far below the competitors, don't you think using more tangible metrics for evaluation is more prudent?

_TUCKER FREDRICK - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:59 PM EDT (#33138) #

Why would you want to say Miguel Negron is a bust, he was hitting 305 when he injured his arm, is an excellent baserunner and well abv avg defensive player, this player was starting to come along last season in the 2nd half and made very good progress. As far as taking the for sure college guys, Toronto has done so since 96 mixing that with tools type players that you describe. Ala Billy Koch 96 Clemson,John Bale 96 5th round Southern Mississippi , Casey Blake 7th round Wichita State 96. Then in 97 Mike Young in the 5th rd out of UC Santa Barbara and Mark Hendrickson out of the NBA, via Washington State in the 20th and Orlando Hudson out of Spartanburg Methodist JC in the 43rd.

1998 produced Jay Gibbons in the 14th out of Cal State LA and Bob File out of Philadelphia Textile in the 19th

1999 brought Brandon Lyon out of Dixie CC in the 14th and Reed Johnson out of Cal ST Fullerton in the 17th and in 2000 the draft has
yielder Mike Smith 5th round out of Univ of Richmond.

Needless to say that there are more college players yet to come from these drafts and the 2001 draft.

So with the college players being the safer pick and Toronto not really picking these players isnt it amazing that they have produced 11 safe major leaguers in a 6 yr period?

The natural retort will be cutting down some of these picks, but lets just see what happens down the road with these drafts versus what has been proclaimed the best two draft in Toronto's history.

Oh by the way the any draft will be hard to beat when it comes to production vs the 82 draft which included, David Wells, Jimmy Key and world series MVP Pat Borders in the 6th round. By the way two of those people were high school picks, I'll let you decide who they were!! Why would it have been reasonable to think Rios would falter in 2003 when he had a break in season with an over 300 season in the tough and hot Florida State league which was pitcher dominated and not ballpark friendly fields either!!

_DS - Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:06 PM EDT (#33139) #

I was probably premature to say that Negron has been a bust. But at this point, he certainly hasn't broken out the way Rios has. And chances are he will not breakout the way Rios will.

I don't have a problem with the way they are drafting right now. The team needs pitching, lots of it, and fast. Drafting these college guys is the best way to go about it.

robertdudek - Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#33140) #

I don't get this high-risk/low-risk stuff. Russ Adams and Aaron Hill didn't sign for less money than other guys around them, so they certainly weren't a cheap option. Those guys are more likely to become major leaguers than a high-school kid, but on the other hand the draft is about getting potential stars (since ordinary ballplayers can be found relatively cheaply on the f.a. market). So they aren't low risk in my book.

The idea of a draft should always be about maximizing impact players - players who would be very expensive on the open market.

With pitchers it's a little different because (with the exception of 1 or 2 guys per year) there's no way you can predict stardom for any of them. You have to draft as many good arms as you can and hope that a few of them become good big league pitchers.

This suggests that you'd be wise to stay away from high-school pitchers in the first few rounds, but nothing much else which would favour college players over high-schoolers.

_DS - Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#33141) #

This suggests that you'd be wise to stay away from high-school pitchers in the first few rounds, but nothing much else which would favour college players over high-schoolers.

Other than developmental time.

As for the high risk/low risk comparison, the college players are considered to be less of a risk when being drafted because there is more information to evaluate the players on. The team should have a pretty good idea of what type of player they are getting out of college. For a lot of high school players, it's still a tossup.

But what makes a good draft? One high impact player, or 4 or 5 guys who make it to the show?

_Spicol - Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 02:40 PM EDT (#33142) #

But what makes a good draft? One high impact player, or 4 or 5 guys who make it to the show?

I think you need to keep your objectives flexible, so much so that you can change direction during the draft if need be. Not every draft has impact players in it and certainly more often, not every draft has impact players that are available when it's your turn to pick.

_Ken - Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 03:08 PM EDT (#33143) #

Nice thread guys.

On the high risk/low risk issue, the great thing about the jays system at the moment is that they have a few potential big impact players (Rios, Quiroz, McGowan) aswell as some safer/lower risk college players (Adams, Bush, Gross)
I think that the first 3 are far more exciting to follow but may end up not being as successful as the latter 3 over time. The jays system has the balance and the depth is coming through the organisation. Very exciting time.

robertdudek - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 02:11 PM EDT (#33144) #

From my perspective, if we know less about high-school players then that is an argument FOR them, because we are less certain they won't be impact players.

Mind you, I think that pitchers are a different story because of the high risk of injury (college pitchers have survived 3 extra years without serious injury).

"But what makes a good draft? One high impact player, or 4 or 5 guys who make it to the show?"

My unequivocal answer is the one high-impact player draft - you can get those other guys pretty much anywhere.

Craig B - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 02:27 PM EDT (#33145) #

I'm 100% with Robert. The impact players are the guys who are worth $20 million to develop, because I get six years of him at below-market rates.

A guy who just makes it, who cares? I can pick up that guy for the minimum.

Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 03:46 PM EDT (#33146) #

http://economics.about.com
The reality is that your drafting strategy has to be a function of the drafting strategies of the other 29 clubs and your position in the draft. If the other teams are picking mainly highschool players, then you'll be able to pick up an impact collegian like Frank Thomas with the 7th overall pick or Mo Vaughn with the 23rd. But if for some reason drafting college players becomes really popular and the first 18 of 20 picks have been college players, if you've got the 21st pick overall chances are a highschool player will be your best choice.

Saying that highschool picks are better than college picks is like saying polar bears are better than camels. It all depends on what your environment is.

Mike

robertdudek - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 11:31 PM EDT (#33147) #

Mike is absolutely right.

I think there has been a noticeable shift away from high school pitchers to college pitchers in the early rounds, but I haven't observed the same thing for position players.

Regardless, I believe that a club should take the available player who the club thinks has the best chance to be an impact player. And by that I don't only mean superstars, but players like Mike Bordick and Aaron Boone - solid major league regulars.

_TUCKER FREDRICK - Friday, September 12 2003 @ 07:43 PM EDT (#33148) #

That's what was said, about Karsay, Shawn Green, Stewart, Carpenter, Doc Halladay, Vernon Wells, that they were high risk, lets look at the low risk drafts in the Jays history, Matt Williams RP 1981 1st round Rice University, also same yr 1st rd John Cerutt Lp Amherst Univ. Augie Schmidt 82 ss/3b Univ of New Orleans. Earl Sanders 86 Rp Jackson St U, Alex Sanchez Rp 87 UCLA both 1st rounders. Eddie Zosky ss Fresno State U. Only safe picks to make it were Ed Sprague 88 1st rd 3b out of Stanford and Billy Koch rp 1ST rd out of Clemson in 96 who had a arm blowout almost right after. So you compare the 1st group vs the 2nd group and tell me which one is the better high risk or SAFE?? Sprague and Koch only safe picks to make it with some inpact, thou Cerruti wasnt too bad!!

Star's Stars Step into Da Box | 56 comments | Create New Account

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