http://economics.about.com
Anyone think the Jays would be interested in signing Erik Hiljus?

Mike

A couple of pitchers I think look interesting are Travis Driskill, Nick Bierbrodt, Ken Cloude and Brian Tollberg. Tollberg was a decent pitcher with San Deigo before he hurt his arm over a year ago. Cloude was a top prospect with the Mariners, until arm trouble a couple of years ago. Nick Bierbrodt was one of the Brewers top pitching prospects before arm trouble over a year ago. (notice a trend). Driskill is like a right-handed clone of Hendrickson. No K's, no BB's with some problems with home runs.

Anyone think the Jays would be interested in signing Erik Hiljus?

Hiljus was definitely the guy I saw on the list which I thought might be of most interest to the Jays as I know that the Jays have explored the possibility of acquiring him in the past and JP knows him from his days in Oakland. Based on this information, it would seem that Hiljus might just be a Jays player in 2004. Though, after looking at the trend in his statistics over the past couple of years, I'm not so sure: 2001 seems to have been a very good year for him as his K/9 and K/BB numbers were very solid and, particularly in AAA, you just couldn't get a hit off him; however, Hiljus has only regressed since then. He spent the entire year in 2003 in the minors and was mediocre at best; he was very tater-prone (albeit in the hitter-friendly PCL) and, although his K/BB numbers were respectable, the 15 unearned runs he allowed only serve to make his already unspectacular 4.69 ERA look worse.

Maybe what Hiljus needs is a change of scenery. Perhaps he's still the same kind of pitcher has was in 2001 but the pressure of striving to crack one of the best rotations in baseball was getting to him. In that case, Toronto/Syracuse just might be the place(s) for him as, at least in 2004, there will be rotation spots/long relief spots available for fringe talent that shows promise. In short, you could do worse than sign Hiljus -- at the very least, he's worth taking a flyer on.

Jebus...a lot of interesting names.

Return of Gary Glover, anyone?

Mike Mohler, there's a pitcher who might do something.

What's with all the former Jays on the Reds list? Almanzar, Michalak, Service, Crespo...

Give Benji Gil a shot at a part-time SS role?

Donnie Bridges...what happened to him? Last I heard, he was going to be the Expos' next ace...

Aaron Myette could be a good pickup.

Sirotka is on the list. Does anyone want to give him another chance?...Didn't think so.

Speaking of ex-Jays, how desperate must the Cardinals be for warm bodies on their 40-man roster that they'd protect Chris Carpenter and not grant him free agency? Regardless of whether I agree with the decision not to protect Corey Thurman, I'm sure glad I root for an organization that can afford to lose Thurman than an organization that has to hold on to an injured player such as Carpenter just to fill out their roster.

St. Louis made an investment in Carpenter for next year. They knew he would not pitch effectively this year, and signed him to a 300,000 contract for 2003 with an 2m option for 2004. Granted, St. Louis has a pretty barren system, but they are on the downward curve of the "success" cycle and need players who can help in the present. Being on the borderline of a large market and mid-market, they need to take these steps. I would prefer my team to have a farm system that constantly produces players in the minors, but even the best teams in, regards to developement, have a dry spell where they have to decide to go out with a bang and and play for the present, causing them to rebuild for 4-5 years, or tear it down to compete in 2-3 years time. I would rather have a team like the Marlins then say the Astros(who, BTW, are my second favourite team).

Jeez...I found 26 names in there that have been in the Jays' organization at some point (Not counting the one's who we just let go)

St Louis is a mid to small market. They make up for this by being one of the very best baseball towns around.

http://economics.about.com
ESPN has a list of free agents available here.

Of course, there will be more available in January after players are non-tendered.

Cheers,

Mike

St Louis is a mid to small market. They make up for this by being one of the very best baseball towns around.

Robert is right about this; St. Looie doesn't look small in the population stats but because a lot of its "surrounding area" is shared by the Royals, its broadcast market is rather small and some of its fan base is leached off.

They *love* baseball in St. Louis.

St. Louis is a great baseball town, but the Cards also have quite a diaspora of support. Until the Braves moved to Atlanta, they were the South's team; I have family friends that grew up in Jacksonville as rabid Cardinals fans thanks to the far-reaching Cardinals Radio Network.

To this day, those in the South who aren't SuperStation converts root for the Cardinals. In particular, Tennessee and Arkansas baseball fans are rabid Card-o-philes. Not that this makes St. Louis a huge market in terms of population, but it's frankly bigger than it's been represented in revenue-analysis circles.

Mike, the problem is there's no local TV in those markets, and people in Tennessee just aren't able to get to that many Cards games.

It presents a problem for revenue generation.

I imagine it would. But I'd be curious as to the percentage of total revenue generated by St. Louis locally, relative to, say, Tampa Bay or Pittsburgh (which each have virtually the same metropolitan populations.)

It's possible that the percentage is the same, and there's just more revenue in St. Louis because of better per-capita support. But I suspect that the percentage may be different. Is there any way to find out?

I should have clarified what I meant when I said St. Louis was a mil to large market. They are a mid to large market Baseball city. Much like Toronto is a large market Hockey city, but mid top low market in baseball and basketball.

Here's another interesting name: Jon Nunnally. After some success in the majors in the 90s, he was sent down in his late 20s. At 31, he hit .269/.408/.514 in Triple A Memphis this year. I'd be interested in him as a left-handed pinch hitter/5th OF type.

Here's another interesting name: Jon Nunnally.

Do not get thee a Nunnally.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. That was lifted straight from one of the old Rotisserie League Baseball books. Goes to show how long Nunnally's been around. He'd be useful, though perhaps not as much for an outfielder-laden squad like Toronto.

Dylan B,

I'm not sure how you are defining market. How does the size of the Saint Louis market depend on the sport? Is it merely a question of how popular a sport is within the city? That would be a very fluid definition of market size and of questionable utility.

Seattle would have been regarded as a small baseball market in the early 80s because few people really cared about baseball. Is it now a large market because of a successful team and a nice new stadium? In the early 90's, Toronto was routinely refered to in the North American media as a large baseball market (Bill James once wrote that Toronto had emerged as the 4th great and powerful city in MLB, after NY, LA and CHI of course).

To me, market size has to correspond to the largest potential revenue a market can generate for a sport. Viewing it this way, Seattle was never a small market, it was just a mid-market that was largely untapped in the 80s. Now that market seems to be almost fully tapped, so it LOOKS like a big market, but in reality it probably is still a mid-market.

Don't get me wrong, markets can change. A lot of money and people have flowed into the Pacific Northwest, and that has increased the potential revenue of the Mariners more than of a lot of teams. I think market size depends mainly on 3 non-baseball factors:

1) Population base - both local and regional;
2) Disposable income per capita;
3) Concentration level of large corporations;

All of these things change with time.

http://www.aarongleeman.com/
Gleeman had a nice column on 6 year FAs. Click on my name to read it.

Seconding Pistol's comment, Aaron Gleeman's column today is terrific. Calvin Pickering is Sam Horn, and he'll cost you nothing.

It's even better than terrific... he talks about me. Whenever Aaron talks about me, you know it's going to be a good column.

Whenever Aaron talks about Craig, it's a slow news day. This is a fine column anyway. :)

The relievers look most interesting to me; Gleeman makes strong cases for Dawley, Clontz, and Phelps, and a couple of his "other names to keep an eye on" look good, notably Josue Matos (104 K and just 58 hits in 88.1 IP) and Carlos Almanzar (54 K, 3 BB in 46.1 IP). There are plenty of potential Corey Thurman replacements out there, the trick is to sign the right one(s).

I agree, Coach. Josue Matos and Carlos Almanzar are particularly fine picks.

Jordan, you're the resident minor-league expert... what do you think of Josue Matos?

Josue Matos is interesting. He was a starter until last year. Hit hard in triple A Tacoma in 2002, 27 homers in 150 innings, but with good control. After being converted to a closer and placed in double A in 2003, his hits and home runs allowed were way down, his walks and strikeouts were way up.

A lot of the change is due to the difference between the Texas League and the PCL. The batting champ in the Texas League this year hit .302. There were only 3 regular players with slugging percentages higher than .500 in the league. With that in mind, Matos' hits and home runs allowed figures take on a different colour.

On balance, I think that I'd pass on him, but you never know with pitchers.

Jordan, you're the resident minor-league expert... what do you think of Josue Matos?

He's interesting, all right. I don't know what happened to his 2001 -- I assume some kind of injury -- but his K/IP rates have historically been terrific, and his BB/K rates at Double-A quite acceptable. Those are the kind of stats that usually get JP's attention, and for good reason: they're the best predictors of future success. He got rocked pretty good in 2002, but if he did indeed have surgery in '01, that would be part of the normal post-operative shelling that most pitchers endure.

I really like those K rates, especially last year -- you strike out 104 in 88 innings, you're doing something right. Last year was his first in the bullpen, and everything really seemed to click for him there. I'm not as fond of his age, though there was nothing wrong with Aquilino Lopez when he arrived. I'm also not fond of those dingers -- control pitchers will be around the plate a lot, but that's still a lot of home runs. He's never pitched effectively above AA, but the presumed surgery would've probably had something to do with that. Overall, why not? I think he'd be a low-risk gamble with the potential of high reward. I can't ignore those strikeouts.

"How does the size of the Saint Louis market depend on the sport? Is it merely a question of how popular a sport is within the city?"

Somewhat, Yes. St. Louis has been one of the leaders in attendance for over 25+ years. Some teams get more money per seat sold, and there is more to market size than just attendance, but I would still say St. Louis is a mid to large market.

"Seattle would have been regarded as a small baseball market in the early 80s because few people really cared about baseball. Is it now a large market because of a successful team and a nice new stadium?"

No, I would classify it as a mid-market now, but if the attendance stays at this level for another 10 years, if/when the team is at the lower half of the standing, then I would move them to a large market. Drawing well over a handful of years when the team is conntending for a play-off spot every year is not enough to be considered a large market.

"In the early 90's, Toronto was routinely refered to in the North American media as a large baseball market (Bill James once wrote that Toronto had emerged as the 4th great and powerful city in MLB, after NY, LA and CHI of course)."

When Toronto was a perenial contender, but when the teams preformance dropped, so did the attendance.

"To me, market size has to correspond to the largest potential revenue a market can generate for a sport. Viewing it this way, Seattle was never a small market, it was just a mid-market that was largely untapped in the 80s. Now that market seems to be almost fully tapped, so it LOOKS like a big market, but in reality it probably is still a mid-market.

Don't get me wrong, markets can change. A lot of money and people have flowed into the Pacific Northwest, and that has increased the potential revenue of the Mariners more than of a lot of teams. I think market size depends mainly on 3 non-baseball factors:

1) Population base - both local and regional;
2) Disposable income per capita;
3) Concentration level of large corporations;

All of these things change with time. "

While I agree with all of your factors, I would include a 4th, overall popularity of the sport in that area, regardless of how the major league team preforms. St Louis is the best example for baseball, Toronto for hockey, Green Bay for football. Granted, this would be very hard to calculate the exact number, but, IMO, it is an important factor.

http://economics.about.com
In the world's most meaningless hijack, Carlos Almanzar has just been signed by the Texas Rangers. Source: ESPN's Transaction Page.

Hey, Jordan, Josue Matos was apparently signed by the Jays. I guess we'll see how it all plays out.

Cool -- thanks for the update, Mike! Again, it's no guarantee that he'll do anything in the major leagues -- Aquilino Lopez posted better numbers a level higher -- but as a spring-training NRI, he's a low-risk, low-cost investment who could pay off. We shall see.