I agree with Pistol that he would make an excellent #4 (Duckworth that is, and not Pistol, though my scouting report on the latter is incomplete)

Well, I had an erratic Little League career pitching. I was the #2 starter on an average team. I threw reasonably hard (more so than our #1 starter), but didn't have a whole lot of control and only threw a fastball.

My K rate was pretty good, my HR rate was excellent, but the walks always killed me.

And our corner OFs never helped me out too much. No power and poor fielding. We needed to trade for some older veterans (some solid 12 year olds to replace those 9 year olds with the ground balls going between their legs) but the team couldn't take on the payroll (extra ice cream after the game).

Let's take Freddy Garcia off of the hands of the Mariners for a handful of B prospects. That's assuming, of course, that the M's will be paying him most of his generous contract.

http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?2538
Let's take Freddy Garcia off of the hands of the Mariners for a handful of B prospects. That's assuming, of course, that the M's will be paying him most of his generous contract.

Garcia seems like Escobar lite to me. If you're going to keep a head case it might as well be Escobar. I suspect the Mariners will non-tender him this off season.

I'd have my sights set on a different Mariner pitcher: Rafael Soriano (click on my name for stats). It might be unrealistic to expect the Mariners to trade him, but I wonder if they might start listening if you offered a Soriano for Hinske trade. That'd give Seattle a productive 3B at a reasonable price and it'd give Toronto a Johan Santana-esque pitcher.

So the questions I pose are:

Do you think the Mariners would be interested (I have the least feel for that)?

Do you think the Jays would be interested?

Would you want the Jays to do this?

I'd vote: Maybe, yes, and yes.

http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?2254
Ok, here's the pitcher that may be a good target:

Odalis Perez (click on my name for stats).

He's been mentioned in trade talks before, he's apparently available, he doesn't make too much money ($3.4 MM this year), and he's had an off year so his value isn't as high as it was a year ago.

The downside is that he gives up a lot of HRs, especially with Dodger Stadium as his homepark.

According to the article, Schilling is to make $12 million in 2004. I think that's a bit too rich for Toronto's blood at the moment, although if Schilling is willing to sign for 8-9 million in 2005, that might be more doable.

Did some investigating and found out Schilling is set to earn $12MM in 2004 but $6MM is deferred. Kind of makes you go hmmm, doesn't it?

According to Gammons, (and this isn't a detailed trade rumour per se so he's likely right) Jerry Colangelo is really looking to ditch some payroll from Arizona this offseason. I think Junior Spivey is eligible for arbitration and due quite a raise from his current $4xx,000, which is why he's a target for trade. Junior Spivey is a 2B but only because Alex Cintron was Arizona's "SS of the future" when they were in AAA together. Spivey would be a more than adequate defensive SS for the Blue Jays and has a bat to boot. Chris Woodward could be non-tendered very easily. More hmmmm...

If JP has $11MM worth of room after raises and such, Schilling and Spivey would be what, $8.5MM of that? Maybe $9MM? A John Thomson wouldn't cost much more than $2MM. As I've detailed before, there are few other FA options. A trade is the only way to really improve the pitching.

I've been a big advocate of sticking to the long term plan and not sacrificing 2005-2008 for short term gains. But there will be so much payroll flexibility in those years that taking on some deferred money now wouldn't be a terrible risk.

Suppose JP were willing to take on Spivey and Schilling without asking for money as well. What kind of package of kids do you think would get a deal done?

I'd say Spivey is due for an arbitration award of $2-3 million, yes.

I think it depends on what sort of market is out there for (1) starting pitchers and (2) middle-class players.

If Arizona have a salary budget, they're going to need to get those salaries off before opening day, which is the best possible scenario. If you combine that with an offer to take on the immediate $6 million, *and* the $6 million deferred, and ask for Spivey, I think you could get away with offering an A prospect and two C guys, or maybe three Bs. They might be willing to go after some older guys, like Hanson for example.

Would they be willing, I wonder, to accept Woodward? I'd love to keep Woody around in the role he was born to play... i.e. Dave Berg with power... but if Arizona wanted him around in case Matt Kata turned back into a pumpkin (which he's doing) then you could maybe knock a C prospect off the deal and save a bit of dough too.

Spicol, as you know, one of the Jays major issues over the last few years has been currency differentials. Richard Gwyn in today's Star suggests that the Canadian dollar may approach the $1.00 US mark in the near future, due to the significant American economic problems (huge budget deficits, inadequate savings ratios...). This would definitely help the economics for the Jays, and perhaps a .500 plus record will start to put more bums in seats.

As for Spivey, I don't quite understand what the problem is with Woodward. As it appears from his statistics and from my own observation of him, he is a modestly below average defensive shortstop and a modestly above average offensive shortstop. Basically, Bill Russell or maybe a little below him.

As a fan, I'd love to see Schilling in Toronto. But the question that has to be asked is, What do you really accomplish by having Schilling around in 2004? The team would be more competitive, which may put more fannies in the seats. But that's about it. He wouldn't be enough to make a serious playoff push, and he wouldn't be easily dealt mid-season unless Toronto pays the 6M deferred money. In that case, you're dealing prospects and 9M for different prospects. Lots of payroll flexibility post-Delgado or no, that sounds like a blatant waste of money. Same story if you keep him all year and he signs elsewhere, and if he re-signs in TDot you have to wonder why you bothered getting him a year early. Maybe Spivey makes it all more reasonable, but then you should probably just go after Spivey alone and let Philly pay for Schilling... and then steal Duckworth from Philly! Yes!

As for Spivey, I don't quite understand what the problem is with Woodward.

I could go on at length. Choose your "weapon" (OPS, EQA, Win Shares, RARP, anecdotes, $/production, acting ability, anything else...I can spin them all to describe how poor his performance was this year relative to the league). As Craig said, his best role would be Dave Berg with power, and I too would love for him to stick around in that kind of job. But I'm not convinced he deserves a starting job and I don't think JP is convinced anymore either.

But it's not just dissatisfaction with Woodward that makes me look to Spivey...taking two salaries off of the D-Back's hands would lubricate a deal whereas asking for Schilling alone might not.

If the Jays wanted Schilling and were willing to pay all of his salary I can't imagine another team being able to offer a better package for him.

Obviously just guessing, but the Snakes would want prospects that are close to being ready. Maybe an OF and a pitcher among Werth, Gross, Bush and McGowan?

No, I think Bush and McGowan are too much. If they want a Gross or even a Werth, I think you could get away with a couple of lesser pitching prospects.

I agree, I wouldn't trade:

Bush, McGowan, Rios, Quiroz, A Hill:

Everyone else is fair game if we could upgrade at starting pitcher.

As a fan, I'd love to see Schilling in Toronto. But the question that has to be asked is, What do you really accomplish by having Schilling around in 2004?

Simply replacing Lidle with Schilling and you win 6 more games than you should have in 2003, at least. I'll explain in detail.

Lidle has given up 121 earned runs in 184.66 IP. Were Schilling to pitch those innings for Toronto instead of Lidle, at his 2003 level of performance, he only gives up 61 earned runs. That's a huge difference. 60 runs! Suppose all other things are equal and you can subtract those 60 runs from Toronto's Runs Allowed total...the team would have given up 747 runs to this point instead of 807. The team has scored 867 runs. Plug those totals into James' Pythagorean theorem: Runs scored [squared] / (Runs scored [squared] + runs allowed [squared]). We're now talking 93 wins over 162 games, instead of the 87 that was expected this season, based on the team's actual run differential.

So, that's 6 wins. But the improvement is likely greater than that with my proposal. A healthy Schilling would pitch anywhere from 40 to 70 more innings more than Lidle has this season. That's 40 to 70 more innings that the Dan Reicherts and Tanyon Sturtzes of the world don't have to pitch. That could mean 1 or 2 more wins. Replacing Woodward with Spivey means further improvement. Conservatively, if we estimate Spivey will create 5 more runs than Woodward and save 5 with his glove, that's 1 more win (Spivey is much better than that offensively but I'm being conservative so I don't overstate my case).

Simply replacing Lidle and Woodward with Schilling and Spivey could mean the difference between 87 and 96 wins, even with 4th and 5th starters pitching as horribly as they did in 2003. Surely 96 wins is a 2004 contender.

Now, of course, this isn't a perfect scenario. It supposes that everyone else on the team performs at a similar level in 2004. Is that realistic? Also, it assumes that Thomson or another replacement can be found to supplant Escobar's 4.36 ERA in 173 IP. And Pythag is imperfect. But I think it's clear that this wouldn't only mean a slight improvement.

(Wow, I surprised myself. Even I didn't think it would look this good before I got my calculator out.)

Schilling in Toronto next year doesn't look too likely:

Curt Schilling isn't likely to accept an offseason trade to help the team lower its payroll in 2004, the East Valley Tribune reported Sept. 24. "I would say no, just offhand," Schilling told the newspaper. "I would imagine I'll play my final year here and become a free agent." Schilling, who will make $12 million (half deferred) next season, has a full no-trade clause in his contract and would prefer not to uproot his family. "Where I open up the first day of spring training I will finish the season," Schilling said. "I'm not going to up and move next year. I'm not going to be away from my family for an extended period of time."

I also agree with the line of thinking that asks whether Schilling would be a good investment right now. If this were 2005 and the team were one big stud away from a kick-ass rotation, then I'd say take the plunge; as it stands, though, we may have to resign ourselves to 2004 being another year in the continuing process of building towards a championship. Unless a Kevin Millwood falls from the sky like it did for the Phillies, then I don't see that it makes organizational or strategic sense to try and bring in a #1-A or #2 guy next spring.

I agree, I wouldn't trade: Bush, McGowan, Rios, Quiroz, A Hill.

I think you've nailed the club's untouchables, though JP sure likes John-Ford Griffin, too.

I'd trade anybody if I thought the deal was good enough.