Does this mean the Jays will now go after Batista?

I am, for once, quite impressed with the Star article on the Escobar signing...of course, Mr. Griffin has yet to weigh in on the matter

Does this mean the Jays will now go after Batista?

As far as I know Batista is only spectulation on the part of the bauxites. For all we know the Jays don't want him at all.

Nothing will likely happen before Dec 7th

Nevermind. The Star spectulated on the Jays going after Batista and Sheets.

Ricciardi said dropping Escobar from the payroll would leave the Jays about $8-million to get a starter or two, two pitchers for the bullpen and some help at short to play behind starter Chris Woodward.

FWIW - Elliot says that the Jays are interested in Tim Worrell as well.

Jordan beat me by about two minutes; I had a long post ready. Here's the gist of it:

There were rumours about an Escobar trade to Anaheim at least as far back as the 2002 deadline, and he continued to impress his new team in 2003, taking a shutout into the ninth on August 3, and pitching five scoreless relief innings in May. The Angels hit just .136 off him this year; no wonder they think he's worth the money. I certainly don't.

I'm not going to call this move "addition by subtraction," but since I never liked the man or the pitcher, I'm glad to see him go. Even before the sexual assault allegations, my perception of Escobar off the field was one of a fun-loving spoiled brat. His performance on the mound alternated between brilliant and horrible, sometimes in the same inning. My observation, which may not be shared by everyone, has been that he frequently didn't seem to care, simply looking perplexed and shrugging his shoulders at another blown save, and that his concentration was easily distracted -- an error, an ump's call or a couple of broken-bat flares often ruined an outing.

Whether we're talking about peewees, high schoolers or major leaguers, I have a preference for players who work hard and use their heads to make themselves more valuable to the team than their physical skills would suggest. That's not to say that I don't appreciate brilliantly talented guys who also have great attitudes; you can't have too many of them. I've never coached a marginal player who is lazy, selfish or undisciplined; they've all been cut. But once in a while you get someone with tremendous skill, who for some reason or combination of reasons, doesn't appreciate their gift. Those are the most frustrating group to coach, and even the ones who are good enough to make the Show are my least favourite players.

Jeff Weaver gets stoned in an airplane washroom, then sexually harrasses the flight attendant who is just trying to do her job. He is found guilty and fined, but is blatantly unremorseful. I really don't care how tight the spin is on his curveball; he's an immature jerk whose failures between the lines are immensely satisfying to watch. Jeremy Giambi's exploits may not be as well documented, but whatever skill he has with the stick seems dwarfed by his negative contributions in the clubhouse. Raul Mondesi has trouble showing up for a day game after a day game. There's a long list of underachievers, and it doesn't just include "party animals".

The uncoachables, who nod their heads but never listen while you're trying to teach them, are equally annoying. Guys who won't look the pitching coach in the eye when he comes to the mound really bug me. Some people can't be helped, but the ones who won't be helped are even worse. When they are sufficiently gifted, or when you're stuck with them, that's one thing, and you make the best of it, but I don't see why any team should go out of their way to aquire headaches.

Almost twenty million bucks over three years is an enormous bet that Escobar has matured, or will mature, into someone who (finally) gets the most from his considerable ability. Good for Bill Stoneman and the Angels if the gamble pays off, but it's way too rich for my blood. If there were no other suitors, and the Jays ended up paying him $5 million in an arbitration award, I would have held my breath and crossed my fingers for another up-and-down season, but I would have been disappointed if J.P. commited more than ten percent of his payroll to another three years of tantalizing potential.

Though I'm happy, this may not be a mistake for Anaheim -- it's certainly not as bad a deal as the Mariners' signing Raul Ibanez at about triple the market rate. A late-blooming 28-year-old harnessing his talent isn't impossible (hence my enthusiasm for Ted Lilly's chances) so maybe Kelvim will be a Cy Young candidate after all. It doesn't matter; the Jays get a nice reward for their restraint -- two high draft picks. A Boston paper reports that the Jays asked for Trot Nixon in a deadline deal for Escobar; now they will "settle" for the equivalent of an extra David Bush and Josh Banks (the last two #2 picks) in the 2004 draft, in addition to the starter they sign.

Whoever replaces him in the Toronto rotation, comparisons will be inevitable. The fact is, Kelvim wasn't close to a "legitimate #2," compared to teams with great pitching, and I don't think the Jays will acquire one. But overall, the rotation will be improved. I would have been content with an Escobar-for-Lilly trade last year at this time, and their 2003 production was fairly similar. So that's already a wash to me, except for the payroll savings, which make it advantage Toronto. I am very confident that Pat Hentgen will have a better year than Cory Lidle just did, again at a fraction of the cost. So whether the next addition is Batista, Sheets, Thomson or a complete surprise, it will be an upgrade to the staff -- not necessarily someone superior to Escobar. The effective difference will be between this new, nominal #2 and the Tanyon Sturtze-Doug Davis-John Wasdin spot, to name three guys who won't be missed.

The 2004 Jays could get a chance to try their luck against Kelvim's arsenal of awesome stuff in a three game series at the Dome May 24-27 and/or in the final series of the first half, July 9-11. Toronto's only visit to the O.C. next year is scheduled for September 7-9. Let's hope it has playoff implications.

I am a big backer of Kelvim, but for this money I'm glad to see him go. If a number two is picked up, and the bullpen is shored up I think the Jays are Wild Card contenders into September. If the Yankees have trouble shoring up their pitching, and the Sox have problems with their pitching and Manny, the division (for the first time in a while) isn't completely out of reach.

BTW, as for the names thrown around as possible number 2's for the Jays I'd prefer Ben Sheets, then Batista then Thomson. If we can get Sheets without giving up one of Rios, Quiroz, and McGowan (I'd be a little upset in losing Banks, Bush, or Gross too) I'd love it. He's still young, and is already established but hasn't reached his ceiling. I'd like to see Sheets come over for League/Perkins, Adams and a fringe guy (maybe gauge their interest in Gassner, Godwin, Nin, Reimers...can these guys still be traded ?). If I was running the team, though, I think the SP I'd be picking up would be Brian Anderson. I think he is significantly cheaper than the rest of these guys ( correct me if I'm wrong), and that might allow the Jays to open their wallets with a three year offer to , say, LaTroy Hawkins and still have money for a Graffanino/Gomez type IF.

ERA's for the last two months of the season:

Escobar: August 4.22, September 4.20 (with 20 BB in 30 IP).
Lilly: August 3.90, September 2.05.
Hentgen: August 3.57, September 2.62.

The Jays can now go sign somebody with Escobar's money, and enjoy the extra draft picks. No complaints here.

Has there been any talk of the Jays resigning Lidle? If not, anyone know why? I mean, isn't Lidle precisely the type of pitchers they Jays should be looking at? DIPS ERA indicates he was pretty unlucky and he'll come cheap.

On Batista or Sheets, I can't really make up my mind whom I'd want. On the one hand Sheets is younger with a higher upside, but hasn't pitched as well as Batista the past two years, has some injury history, has enough service time that he'll cost close to what Batista will, and it will take trading a prospect to get him. If I were confident the Jays were about to start their five year run, I'd go for Sheets in a heartbeat, but until then I wouldn't want to give up a prospect for the difference between Batista and Sheets.

I wonder whether Baker's speculation (Sheets/Batista) is purely a reflection of "internet chatter" (i.e. he Geoff lurks in da Baxor does he actually have true baseball sources for those names in particular.

Forgot to press "preview" again! D'oh!

http://economics.about.com
Has there been any talk of the Jays resigning Lidle? If not, anyone know why? I mean, isn't Lidle precisely the type of pitchers they Jays should be looking at? DIPS ERA indicates he was pretty unlucky and he'll come cheap.

From what I've read in the press Lidle and his wife really disliked the city of Toronto and can't wait to get out. So that might be why.

I agree with Coach 100%. Personality *matters* and it's something that should be taken into account.

Cheers,

Mike

I wonder if it would be a better idea to try and obtain a number 2 starter, or perhaps sign a number 3 or 4 type pitcher for a lesser amount and spend more money to upgrade the bullpen. To me, it was the bullpen that cost the team far more often than the lack of quality starts.

I mostly agree with Coach. Escobar at one point in the late 90s was apparently putting in a fine effort, working on his fitness about as well as anyone on the club. Something happened (I have no idea what), and since then his attitude and his focus on the field have suffered.

There is no question that he has significant talent, but whether it can be consistently harnassed is an open question.

Too bad, Lidle isn't going to hurry up and sign somewhere so that the Jays can get picks for him too. I wonder if he disliked Toronto so much that if JP did offer arbitration and he had to choose from the payday in Toronto or the new digs somewhere else, if greed would win and accept the arbitration?

If I was eyeing a Ben Sheets trade, I'd open my bidding with Werth, Cash and League

Has there been any talk of the Jays resigning Lidle? If not, anyone know why? I mean, isn't Lidle precisely the type of pitchers they Jays should be looking at? DIPS ERA indicates he was pretty unlucky and he'll come cheap.

I agree, but I think there's other factors at play here.

Lidle, in addition to being unlucky and/or having bad defensive support, was also injured for a stretch of time.

I wonder whether Baker's speculation (Sheets/Batista) is purely a reflection of "internet chatter" (i.e. he Geoff lurks in da Baxor does he actually have true baseball sources for those names in particular.

Interesting. Thinking about it, at least on the Batista front, no average baseball follower would think of Batista as a #2 starter, they'd consider him a swingman between the pen and starting.

I wonder if it would be a better idea to try and obtain a number 2 starter, or perhaps sign a number 3 or 4 type pitcher for a lesser amount and spend more money to upgrade the bullpen. To me, it was the bullpen that cost the team far more often than the lack of quality starts.

If there isn't a '#2' starter to be acquired at a fair price, the Jays shouldn't force the issue. The key is to utilize what resources you have in the most effective manner. If 2 good relievers are going to be better than a starter and a reliver, go with the relievers, even if there's still a hole in the rotation.

No one says the team you take to spring training is the team you have to have in August. And no one says that the budget you have for the year has to be used up prior to spring training. Last year if you could add salary you could get a lot of bargains at the trading deadline.

It would be nice to get away with just giving up Werth, Cash and League to get Sheets. I think you could also go the other way around and just do a straight Rios for Sheets since the Brewers do have financial problems and since he is finally able for arbitration this year, Sheets will likely make get a hefty raise from the 428,000 that he made last year.

If I was eyeing a Ben Sheets trade, I'd open my bidding with Werth, Cash and League

The Brewers are dumping money. There's no need to trade them 2 players who would start & make the minimum, and a solid pitching prospect, for Sheets.

I like Sheets, but he's put up ERA+ of 93, 96 and 98 in his 3 years.

Well if we could do better than giving up those 3 then obviously I'd be all for it - those are just 3 guys with value who I wouldn't miss

If we took out League, we'd make out like bandits I think

As a lifelong Angels' fan, I was looking forward to the infusion of Arte Moreno's enthusiasm and apparent willingness to spend as the new owner. I had visions of Bartolo Colon as the #1 starter dancing in my head (strange but pleasant visions).
On the West Coast, Escobar isn't well known so I was going to email Coach for his thoughts, but his post here confirms my gut feelings about the Halos' new pitcher. Hopefully we will be proven wrong and Stoneman right, but not a great way to start the Hot Stove League for Anaheim. Perhaps a saving grace will be if they sign a bigtime hitter (Guerrero, Tejada, Matsui) with the money saved on Escobar over Colon or Pettite.
So far no signs that the 2002 season won't be the once-in-a-lifetime experience it seemed at the time.

I post this for the benefit of those who have not read Moneyball...

In that book, the author describes a disagreement between Billy Beane and his entire scouting staff regarding two pitchers. The Oakland A's had an early selection in the expansion draft and the scouting staff wanted Beane to select Ben Sheets. He had the build of a workhorse, and they felt he projected better than this other SP. Beane, relying on his trusty statistics, passed up Sheets in order to select the pitcher his numbers said was better.

I'm sure he has no regrets about selecting Barry Zito...

The Moneyball thing with Sheets is that Beane and I guess most stat-heads feel that high school players take longer (and possibly more expensive) to get to the majors. On average (supposedly, but where is this figure based on? I dunno, I have no link) high school players take 4 years as opposed to 3 for college players to get to the majors.
Given a good contract situation, I don't see any problem with Beane, or JP, or the Orioles signing Sheets, he has shown he is a reliable MLB starter (as opposed to Sturtze, ugh).

I'd like to see Batista.

His 3 Year (2001-03) Away Numbers are nice:

3.46 ERA
283.1 Innings
255 Hits
187 K
98 BB
15 HR

His Home numbers at hitter friendly BOB are pretty good too:

4.12 ERA
234 Innings
227 Hits
157 K
92 BB
23 HR

His career K/9 is 6.01; K/BB is 1.57; G/F is 1.64 (2.04 last year)

Halladay career K/9 is 6.49; K/BB is 2.51; G/F is 2.16

Batista is Halladay-lite with less control. By that I mean a strikeout/groundball pitcher. Okay, it's not really a good comparison.

Elliot says that the Jays are interested in Tim Worrell

I hope the interest is mutual. If Worrell wants to come here, he'd be a great addition. He's more experienced than Lopez and would deserve to be the closer; one more good year in the role, and he could cash in. I still think Aquilino can do the job in the ninth inning, but he might be even more valuable as a setup man, and he remains next in line. If the Jays aren't in contention, they could flip Worrell for prospects at the deadline. I've never been in favour of bringing in a Proven Closer, but this works.

Worrell should get over $3 million (I'm guessing) which, according to Ricciardi's shopping list, would leave less than $5 MM for "one or two" starters, another (lefty?) reliever and "some help" at short. I don't think they can afford the likes of Batista if they spend on the bullpen, but guys like Josh Towers and Mark Hendrickson will face strong competition just to make the team if J.P. brings in two more starters.

not a great way to start the Hot Stove League for Anaheim

Brad, it could work out fine. A change of scenery and a slight attitude adjustment might make Escobar a star. He may concentrate through every inning of 35 starts and be just as good as Colon or Millwood. He could have a Loaiza-like year, and the Jays will be subjected to second-guessing. I just think the bright lights of L.A. and the lawsuit may be distractions, and he's always been inconsistent, so I'm predicting more of the same.

Has there been any talk of the Jays resigning Lidle? If not, anyone know why?

Lidle would, as I understand it (haven't checked, could be wrong) need to be re-signed at a minimum of 80% of his 2003 salary. That won't be happening.

By the way, that's the same rule that Cleveland are trying to get around with the Danys Baez farm-him-and-bring-him-back thing that has triggered the union's grievance against the Indians.

If Ricciardi is saying $8M left to spend, then I'm guessing he's projecting Roy at $8M in 2004. But that's also assuming a $2.5M projection for Ted Lilly... according to Rob Neyer, Lilly is not arbitration eligible. Rob's a pretty smart guy, but I haven't heard this anywhere else and looking at Lilly's stats, he definitely appears to have the three years under his belt. Anybody know for sure?

Jonny, seeing as how Ricciardi is banking on Lilly making approx. $2M next year coupled with the fact that every non-Neyer source is saying that this is a money-saving deal for Beane and Co., I'm inclined to suggest that, as smart as Rob Neyer is, he's wrong in this case (although I wish he wasn't).

http://nextbaseball.blogspot.com
Bringing in Batista would be a lot like keeping Escobar, and after that signing I think Miguel's going to look for Kelvim money. They are very similar players in the sense that they can pitch in any role.

I think the Blue Jays would be smarter to go after Sheets, who really does have ace potential. Miguel will be a guaranteed #3, but Sheets could suprise and back up Halladay very nicely. The club is absolutely loaded in prospects, and the Brewers would jump at the ability to acquire Werth and Cash, whom were both mentioned earlier.

If you're a Blue Jays fan, I don't think you're complaining with:

Halladay
Sheets
Lilly
Hentgen
Chulk/Arnold/Davis/Towers

The Jays are fortunate to rid themselves of Escobar as they cannot afford to allocate 10% of the payroll into a pitcher who is "the model of inconsistency." Ben Sheets would be a great addition to the Jays rotation providing them with a steady arm that can log 200 to 230 ip. I would also like to throw out a couple of other names to consider trading for. A.J. Burnett? Wade Miller? Tony Armas Jr.? Mark Buerhle? Shawn Chacon? To name a few. Let's face it the Jays have the prospects at their disposal to lure a top notch starter to T.O. What do you guys think it would cost in the way of prospects and salary to pay whom I've mentioned.

I am not a fan of resigning Lidle, but if he did come at a very inexpensive price then why not. Where would have been without him at the beginning of this past season? I'm sure we wouldn't of had as many wins without him. I've never really heard any reasons to why we aren't resigning him so I can believe the who wife hating Toronto thing. I mean, if JP was willing to sign him for the amount of money he did this past season, why wouldn't we take him for less?

From now on I will proof read my posts. Promise.

benum,

Over the last three years (i.e., the "New and Improved" HLH), Halladay's numbers are:
7.14 K/9, 4.31 K/BB, 2.67 G/F. Last season this was 6.9 - 6.38 - 2.70.

Yeah, that's not such a great comparison :)

I am amazed at how the jay propaganda machine (coach) puts such a positive spin on this. Coach, is there anything the jays do that you disagree with ?

In my opinion the jays gave away their chance at a division title for 1 Million dollars; Escobar would have stayed here if the jays would have given him 6 mil/2years. It is so stupid ... they got two reliable 3/4 starters that will pitch for little money, an ace, a great offence, and the only thing they miss is a #2 starter and a closer. You wont find a #2 starter on the free agent market (not with the money we have), and no one will give you a #2 starter in a trade (Rios, Quiroz, and McGowan aside). Ben Sheets is not a #2 starter. Look at his ERA (Central NL lol), and his age, and you will be hard pressed to give me one advantage he has over escobar. You would say money, right ? But to get him we would have to give some pretty good prospects -- that would cost 10s of millions of dollars and for what? to save 1 million on escobar.

If we would have taken a chance at escobar, there would at least be a realistic shot at 95 wins. Now, we will either trade away the future for such a chance, or try to plug another hole with jps favorite "cork" - starters someone else gave up on. It is just a shame they don't always work out (maybe 5% success rate).

p.s. Good starters are guys with "stuff", not necessarily guys with a good personality or ones that listen; This is not the pee-wee league, or a weekend game at the park. Look at each major league club, and 90% of aces are guys with "stuff".

Escobar would have signed for $6M, two years? Weird, I never heard anything. Common sense tells me that three years, averaging $6M a season in sunny California is a much better deal then two years, $6M in Toronto.

There was NO WAY Escobar was going to wear a Jays Uniform this season, and although I'll admit that I thought we had a chance, when you look at the deal its extremely obvious we were never in the running.

Escobar can take his California weather and California dollars...

Me, I'm going to wait and see what JP does with his $15M. Easily enough to sign a starter with a high ceiling and a closer/reliever.

One must remember that Escobar is not worth $6M a season over three years. He's worth $5M now and that's just because everyone is drooling over him. It's Shannon Stewart syndrome all over again (Shannon for MVP, are you KIDDING me?)... I'm interested to see what sort of deal Stewart ends up signing.

Anyways, I got off topic...

Escobar + $6M + 3 Years + California = A new Angel on the mound.

Escobar + $6M + 2 Years + Toronto = Yay right.

Replace Escobar with your own name and tell me you'd sign here...

according to Rob Neyer, Lilly is not arbitration eligible

I am sure I have read elsewhere that he is arbitration eligibe. Neyer could well be right though.

The three years service time is in days spent on the roster, at 172 days = 1 season, if I read the legalese correctly.

Lilly has only appeared in 96 games. If you say that that is one every fifth day thats 480 days - three years of service is 516. So its quite possible he is just under the three year wire.

There is another qualification beside the three year rule but its so confusing I needed a lie down and a strong drink long before I was able to tell if Lilly would be included by it or not.

"In addition, a Player with at least two but less than three years of
Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if: (a)
he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately
preceding season; and (b) he ranks in the top seventeen percent
(17%) (rounded to the nearest whole number) in total service in the
class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of
Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86
days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season."

Me, I'm going to wait and see what JP does with his $15M.

Where did $15 million come from ?

By my reckoning the Jays are in for around 40-42 million (assuming ~7 million to Doc and ~2 million to Lilly).

That leaves around $8 million for whatever the powers that be want to add to the roster. I would assume, like everybody else, thats that probably a starter a short reliever and an infielder.

Since we are all talking about salaries right now.

I put my Jays salaries spreadsheet online (for anyone who doesnt have their own)

I think there is a good chance that Escobar will excel in Anaheim. (I could see 190 IP, 15+ wins, 4.00 ERA in 2004.)

But I don't think the Jays erred in letting him go. The main thing is the big picture: the team's competitiveness in 2005-07. We don't want to fall into the 'Ash trap' of continually patching with expensive contracts or misguided trades (Gonzalez, Mondesi, Koch, Sirotka) that keep the team around 83-88 wins but undermine the goal of building a strong long-term foundation.

The key factor for the Jays is getting the ratio of performance:cost right across the entire roster. (This is why letting Cruz go last winter, and replacing him with Catalanotto, was such a good move.) Obviously you can't win with zero established, premier players, but for the next few years, anyway, JP is only going to be able to afford a few (say, Halladay, Wells, Hinske, and one or two others), and be highly disciplined about achieving excellent value with the rest (through player development, low-cost FA pickups, brainy trades).

In this writer's view, better to take the draft picks (now totalling 4 of the top 50 or so picks), maintain payroll flexibility, and stick with the long-term plan.

Angels are bidding on Colon, his agent says that they are one of the teams still in the running.
Don't know if that's out the window now that they have Esobar but it could be 3 of the top 50 picks and a shitty 3rd round pick.

With respect to the Sheets/Zito issue - it was NOT one of high-schooler versus college pitcher: Sheets was signed out of college. The issue was the scouts preference for a power arm, versus the more stylish Zito.

Or a fourth round pick if they also sign a hitter or two in addition which it looks like the Angels intend to do. The Jays could still probably find a decent college pitcher around there (they found Peterson and Isenberg in the 4th round the last two years) but they'll still have the sandwich pick to try to turn into a frontline prospect along the lines of Bush, Banks, or a college hitter in the Murton mold.

I'd prefer lower draft picks with Escobar in Anaheim, to slightly higher picks and facing Escobar in Boston for the next 3 years.

Well, having absorbed the loss of Escobar today I am inclined to think the free agent market for quality starting pitchers is likely to be outside of the Jays financial ability. If the likes of a two starter becomes impossible it would be incredibly productive for the team to pick up at least two quality relievers one of whom can close or set up A-Lo if he is lights out during spring training. Boston did it last season with only three real pitchers. They did it all the while patching the bullpen. They Jays do have an offense that can put up enough runs, the dicey part will be from the sixth innning on. If they can't get a money in the bank two or three starter then save the dough, go with who ever can win the four and five jobs and land one of Worrell, Benitez, Urbina or perhaps Gordon as well a Rhodes, Ligtenberg level pitcher. Theres loads of middle relievers on the market to choose from.

Lilly has only appeared in 96 games. If you say that that is one every fifth day thats 480 days - three years of service is 516. So its quite possible he is just under the three year wire.

He'd be a super two, almost surely (that's the two plus years service, in the top 17%). If he's not, I'd be shocked.

Lidle would, as I understand it (haven't checked, could be wrong) need to be re-signed at a minimum of 80% of his 2003 salary. That won't be happening.

That's only if the Jays offer arbitration to Lidle. They could re-sign him for any amount up until then.

I am amazed at how the jay propaganda machine (coach) puts such a positive spin on this

I can assure you that Coach has never been very high on Escobar (and more critical of Escobar than I thought he deserved at times). There's no spin there.

I put my Jays salaries spreadsheet online (for anyone who doesnt have their own)

That's a great sheet. I'd recommend setting that up with its own link on the site.

What are the rules about picks w.r.t. signings? How is it decided which round is given if more than one team is due picks?

Just checked a couple facts to see where some of the market is at.
According to Fort Worth Telegram John Thomson turned down a $5 million two yr. deal from the Rangers and the White Sox thought they might be able to re-sign Gordon for less than $3 million but Gordon is seeking somewhere in the range of $5 big ones, this according to Chicago Sun Times. Youch.

If we would have taken a chance at escobar, there would at least be a realistic shot at 95 wins.

95 wins won't be enough to beat the Yankees. The goal is not to make a 1-year run, but to build a consistent contender on a modest budget, like Oakland has done.

Good starters are guys with "stuff"

True, but having good stuff doesn't necessarily make you a good starter. To paraphrase Baseball Prospectus, if stuff was all that mattered, Mike Moore would be in the Hall of Fame.

Escobar may very well have a few good seasons out West; he has the ability. As people have written here time and again, the Jays' approach is about managing risk. Giving Vernon a $15 million extension or Hentgen $2.2 million for 1 year are good risks. Giving $19 million to a pitcher with a career ERA of 4.58 in 849 innings, as well as some well-publicized off-field problems doesn't fall into the same category. I'd rather see some of Kelvim's money go to Halladay, for whom the cash is reward for actual performance, not potential.

"What are the rules about picks w.r.t. signings?"

Compensation rules as explained by Baseball America:

Teams receive compensation in the form of draft picks based on the type of free agent they lose, according to the free-agent rating system established by Elias Sports Bureau. The three types of free agents: a Type A free agent ranked among the top 30 percent of major leaguers at his position, a Type B free agent ranked among the top half (but not the top 30 percent) of major leaguers at his position, and a Type C free agent ranked among the next 10 percent of major leaguers at his position.

A team that loses a Type A free agent gets the first-round pick of the team that signs the free agent and a supplemental pick after the first round. A team that loses a Type B free agent receives only the signing team's top pick. In both cases, a team selecting in the first half of the draft rotation cannot lose its first-round pick. Such a team would instead lose its second-round pick.

Teams that sign multiple Type A or B free agents continue to lose picks based on the number of players they sign. The pecking order for compensation is based on where the free agents ranked in the Elias ratings.

Elias ratings can be found here and here for the AL and NL respectively.

I second the praise of Gwyn's spreadsheet... pretty colours, ooh.

I'm going to predict that Kelvim has at least one season that will make the Jays regret letting him go. He'll also have one season that will make the Angels regret signing him; for the sake of PR, the Jays had better hope he has the latter first.

Anyone know why it's taking them so long to announce the signing? It's apparently been official for 24+ hours, but there's been no actual word from the team

Are we talking about the same Ben Sheets? The same Ben Sheets who sucks? (Although I think Coach has the right perspective about anyone other than Escobar.) He gives up a lot of homers--great skill for someone who'd have to pitch half his games in Skydome. (Not surprisingly, Sheet's DIPS ERA is worse than his actual ERA.) He's young, and clearly there's real room for development, but he's no #2 on any team that considers itself playoff bound. No way I'm giving up Rios for him. Sheets won't put the Jays over the top like a legitimate #1a-2 might (Colon, Millwood, Vazquez) with the right bullpen help. Since that's clearly not in the cards for this club, I think just getting the relievers would be a wiser investment.

I'm glad Kelvim's gone. The Jays can't afford to pay $18 M over 3 yrs for "potential". (And I thought J.P.'s reported offer of 2 yrs, $10 M was too much.)

If this is the market for mediocre and inconsistent starters, then I think J.P. is wise not hold off for now. No sense overpaying now for what other clubs will be giving away come July.

Why are these bad signigs coming first? (I bet the gang at U.S.S. Mariner are suicidal about their future LF.)

And, if you're lurking Gitz, I'm a Torontonian. But I work at a movie theatre (under my slave name, as Coach can testify) and so I generally keep West Coast Hours.

Anyone know why it's taking them so long to announce the signing? It's apparently been official for 24+ hours, but there's been no actual word from the team
ESPN said it would be announced after the routine medical.

Why are these bad signigs coming first? (I bet the gang at U.S.S. Mariner are suicidal about their future LF.)

First, look at the offers that Thomson and Gordon have turned down. Their expectations are probably a lot higher than they should be, and those seemed like pretty fair offers to me.

Second, some teams won't gauge the market correctly (Ibanez being the poster boy for that).

So unless you 'overpay' for someone now you're not going to sign him because they'll just wait for an offer they like.

If you've ever been in a fantasy baseball auction you know exactly how it works. I've never seen a draft where players went cheap early and expensive late. If you can hold off there's always bargains at the end, and I think we'll see the same thing this offseason in MLB.

I find a good strategy in a fantasy auction is to bid low on a player you don't mind having at a low price early on and let someone else buy him if they pay a dollar more than what you feel is a bargain price. Then at some point you should have more money for a player with better 'perceived' talent. I did this during Ray Durham's rookie year by making him the first player I bid on at $5 which I thought was a decent value; as it turned out no-one else in that particular auction even knew who Durham was so I could have bid a dollar and still had him. The moral is always open your bid at a dollar; even for A-Rod.

It doesn't work quite the same in real baseball of course. Every team has a different budget and different discretionary fund. And there's no draft compensation in fantasy.

I think Gordon and Thomson might be surprised at the lack of bigger dollars being thrown their way by mid-to-late December. At least until the compensation for them is set after December 7th. Thomson had a strong stretch run but he's still a guy whose ERA approached 5.00. Even if teams view him as a guy with 80% of Escobar's potential they won't pay him that way. And Gordon is too old and inconsistent healthwise to be able to ask for $4 million let alone $5 million. Last season Urbina had to settle for one year at less than $4 million and he was actually coming off a pretty good year.

Wow.

#1. Lidle cannot be resigned with a significant pay cut unless he were to accept a minor-league contract. You gotta think the Jays would do it in a heartbeat, but he wouldn't....

#2. I hate this, but the Jays can't sneak by the Yanks and Rox this year as the teams are right now. The trade for Sheets wouldn't be reasonable. It wouldn't help the Jays get by the big 2 on its own. I'd be a fan of the move only if he's not the only starter they pick up and as well the prospects we give up aren't great.

#3. Vazquez. Any chance in hell?

With the lack of quality pitching available in the F.A market I think prices are going to stay high. Pettitte might haul in over $10 million per. The Escobar signing I believe confirms the market, like it or not. If the Jays get another quality starter, they are going to have to pay, whether its dollars in salary or top level prospects. Remember what Montreal gave up for Colon, although that was in the throws of a pennant race. But the point is teams do not very often give major league pitching for prospects unless theres significant salary issues. I think I would rather take a flyer on Towers and Hendickson than get the same or worse performance impact back on 1-3 million gamble. Thats the life of the small market club. Now if Rodgers were to increase Jp's budget by $5-10 million life would look different.

I wouldn't bankk on Vazquez, the Expos are in such a flux that they will probably redo what they did last year, hold out on all deals until late December early January and thus screw over everyone banking on deals involving them.

FWIW, according to Baseball Prospectus, Escobar had 1.7 SNWAR in 11 starts in 2001, with a .650 SNPCT. Last year, he had 2.8 SNWAR in 26 starts, with a .576 SNPCT. Over 37 starts, that's 4.5 SNWAR; prorated to a 32-start season, you've got 3.9 SNWAR, which would have ranked him 21st in baseball this year.

The use of the word "mediocre" to describe Kelvim is wildly inaccurate. Insofar as this classification has any useful meaning, he's a very good "#2" starter and not a bad "ace." If he'd been with Cincinnati, Colorado, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, San Diego, Anaheim, Baltimore, Detroit, or Texas, he would have led his staff in SNWAR in 2003. If Kelvim Escobar had started every game for the Jays this year and pitched as well as he did in his 26 starts, they would have led the majors in SNWAR with 17.4, and it wouldn't have been a particularly close race -- Arizona and Montreal had 10.5 SNWA each.

It's also not fair to describe him as "inconsistent." Inconsistent from start to start? Fine. But what does that matter if his overall record every season is strong? He's been a valuable player every year since 2001, and I think it's fair to say that he would have been more valuable if it hadn't been for the ill-conceived closer experiment.

Moving on, it's disingenuous to quote Kelvim's career stats to support the assertion that he's a middling pitcher. Escobar pitched poorly in the major leagues in 1999 and 2000, his age 23 and age 24 seasons. What did other pitchers do at these ages? Well, at age 23, Roy Halladay set a major league record for worst ERA by a pitcher throwing as many innings as he did. Jason Arnold spent his age 24 season scuffling in Syracuse. David Bush spent his age 23 season in A and AA. I admit that this isn't a random sample. But if you'll forgive Halladay's historically bad 2000, you ought to forgive Kelvim's transient mediocrity.

Finally, it's a non sequitur to complain about Escobar not fulfilling his potential. So what? Who cares how well he might have potentially been able to pitch? No one's suggesting that he should be paid according to his potential rather than his performance. But his performance in the last three years has been very good, regardless of how much better he might have been.

So am I arguing that JP should have resigned Escobar for 3 years, $19 million? Actually, the funny thing is, I'm not. I agree with Coach: while Escobar hasn't been convicted yet, I don't support signing a player who's being tried for sexual assault. That's not a baseball decision, it's a moral one.

Escobar is a very durable pitcher, and I would expect him to bring in 2-3 marginal wins per year with the Angels. So they'll be paying about $2.5 million per marginal win. That's slightly more than the recent average, which suggests that they won't be getting a great deal. Moreover, the "clubhouse cancer" charge can't be dismissed outright, nor can the draft picks that will result from his departure. All in all, I don't think JP should have matched the Angels' offer. But that doesn't suggest for a minute that Kelvim isn't a very good major league pitcher, or that the Jays won't miss him on the mound. He is, and they will.

why aren't the jays going after free agent Wilson Alvarez on the dogers.He's a cheap #2 pitcher; he looked awesome since coming back, and we don't give up a compensation draft pick.

John Neary makes a valid case for Escobar deserving all his money. Then, according to him, it all goes down the drain because of the lawsuit levelled at Escobar? John hits the nail on the head when he suggests Escobar hasn't be convicted. And he won't be convicted because he hasn't been charged with anything. This is not a criminal prosecution. This is a civil case by a woman over something that happened three years ago. I really think that some here have already found Kelvim guilty (or immoral) based only upon his perceived 'bad attitude' on the mound. I find it frustrating because if this case was being levelled at a 'team' player, it would be assumed that some golddigger was after his money.

As far as I know, Kelvim is going to fight this case. I know nothing more than anyone here as to whether the case has merit. However, I won't use the case to rationalize JP's decision to let Escobar go. To me, he is worth the money the Angel's are giving him---even in this market. If you want proof, refer to the first 5 paragraphs of John Neary's objective analysis and ignore the last paragraphs dealing with intangibles.

It's my opinion that Kelvim always received a bad rap for not being more emotional when things went wrong. He didn't pull a Hinske when blowing a save; he merely shrugged his shoulders. Is this really a bad thing? I think Latin players are expected to show emotion and when they don't they are perceived as disinterested and uncaring. To me Escobar didn't let his failures affect him. I can't think of many psychological traits that benenit pitchers more.

Cristian, for me it's not the salary, as much as the commitment, that makes me glad the Jays didn't get in a bidding war over Escobar. If he returned for 2004 on a $6 million arbitration award, I'd be pretty excited about the Toronto rotation, though I'd be disappointed that there wasn't much money left to address other needs, like the bullpen. If he'd accepted the $10 million for two years that was on the table, I would still have my doubts about him ever developing an "ace" attitude, and he wouldn't be my favourite Jay, but I'd admit it was a reasonable deal. Three years at these numbers, with a budget unforgiving of mistakes, was simply too much for this pitcher, even if I'm imagining any character issues.

Again, I'm not trying to imply that this is addition by subtraction. Escobar is talented, and he won't be replaced by one guy. To contend, the Jays will need Doc to be great again, while Hentgen, Lilly and someone else all have good years. Nor am I predicting disaster for Kelvim or the Angels. There's a reasonable chance they will get their money's worth, and they might end up with comparable production to Colon or Millwood while saving millions, if he improves just a little. There is also the possibility of him becoming an expensive underachiever. The third year and extra $8.75 million (if the still-unconfirmed reports are accurate) was a bet that Stoneman felt comfortable making, and I'm glad Ricciardi didn't call. Especially when you get two high draft picks for folding.

I am not happy the Jays lost Escobar. But I think it signals an important difference from the Gord Ash era. Gord would have signed Escobar. JP would not give him 3 years even if it leaves a hole short term - which it certainly does.

Escobar has on the whole been inconsistent to slightly better than average. Looking forward I think you reserve 3+ yr deals for guys like Doc - guys who have had superior perfomance and are likely to continue. The diffrence in Escobar and Halliday is attitude. Doc has the look in his eye like a Clemons, Morris, Stewart. He has goals other than money or fame (although he will get plenty of each). Escobar, at least from afar, is likely to be inconsistent because although his stuff is great, his attitude is not. You can see it in the 5th when the first 2 guys get on, or when someone is battling him.

It seems that the really special/driven pitchers tend to stay healthy and successful no matter what. I don't see that with Escobar.

Coach,

My point is that Escobar is worth the money he is getting. It isn't so much that the Jays should have paid it. JP set a price he was comfortable paying and doesn't begrudge someone else giving Escobar more. I understand that JP has his budget and the responsibility of filling out the rest of his roster. However, this doesn't change the fact that JP's offer to Escobar was below his market value.

What really irks me is when people use things like his pending lawsuit or his perceived bad attitude to rationalize Kelvim's value below what the numbers show. When people in the Box argue for 'clutch' players and 'winning' players they get laughed at. We scoff at these intangibles because, absent proof, we question whether these intangibles matter. When Bauxites argue that Escobar isn't worth what the Angels gave him because of his lack of an 'ace attitude' or 'immoral' character, aren't they guilty of doing the same thing?

I agree with Coach: while Escobar hasn't been convicted yet, I don't support signing a player who's being tried for sexual assault.

To be accurate fair, Escobar has not faced any criminal charges. The lawsuit we have seen in the papers is a civil suit launched by the complainant, who is seeking only money ($8 million, I believe). Escobar is not on trial.

When people in the Box argue for 'clutch' players and 'winning' players they get laughed at. We scoff at these intangibles because, absent proof, we question whether these intangibles matter. When Bauxites argue that Escobar isn't worth what the Angels gave him because of his lack of an 'ace attitude' or 'immoral' character, aren't they guilty of doing the same thing?

They absolutely are Cristian. The Jays can't afford to pay Escobar $18 million over 3 years (unless Rogers allowed them the payroll room to do so). But anyone pretending for an instant that Escobar isn't worth that contract for some perceived attitude problems or performance issues at a young age are out in left field. The fact of the matter is this is a starting pitcher who's done this in his starts over the last three years:


37 starts, 16-12, 3.70 era, 231 innings, 215 hits, 15 hr, 95 bb, 196 k
8.4 h/9, 0.6 hr/9, 3.7 bb/9, 7.6 k/9, 2.1 k/bb


Keep in mind the Jays' turf defence has been fairly sad over the last two years. Those are numbers that stand respectably beside either Colon or Millwood's 2003 seasons, both of whom figure to get more than $10 million in a long term contract. Without rationalization or speculation, the Jays have lost a very valuable starting pitcher who shows the ability to provide 200 *quality* innings in a season. Will they get by? Maybe. Or maybe he'll be replaced by the 2003 versions of Tanyon Sturtze or Cory Lidle. It's impossible to know yet.

The opportunity that perhaps was lost was that Toronto may have been able to land Escobar for something less than the Angels were willing to pay him. We will never know unless Kelvim speaks out after the deal is finalized but perhaps $6-mil over two seasons would have been enough for him to stay in Toronto. As has been mentioned the Jays offer was not even in the ballpark.
Unless there are underlying issues, players very often give home discounts within reason in order to stay. However I don't think Kelvim was to attached to Toronto considering his treatment over the years and certainly the offer may have been considered by the player to be insulting. On the upside they have a lot more dollars to throw Halladay's way now.

Cristian,

Given that I obviously don't have my facts straight regarding Escobar's legal problems, I should retract the sixth paragraph of my earlier post. At present, I don't think I have enough information to take a firm stance on that matter. My comments were overblown, and I apologize.

However, the points in my seventh paragraph still stand, more or less:

1. I don't think Kelvim is going to provide enough marginal wins per marginal dollar to justify the contract.
2. Clubhouse issues can't be ignored. As we have less information than JP on this front, it's hard to have a strong opinion. By this I don't mean that we should throw our hands up in the air and say "well, JP must know best," but we need to take our assessments with a grain of salt. Then again, I really don't have any evidence at all that Kelvim was causing any trouble on the team, so I should probably back off on this one.
3. The value of the draft picks is not insignificant. Remember, if the Jays had matched the Angels' offer, they would have gained Escobar for three years, but they wouldn't have gained the two picks that are now coming over. I don't know how much value I'd assign to those picks, but I imagine that it would be at least $1M.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to rationalize JP's decision. I've criticized him before (e.g. I don't think leaving Thurman unprotected was a good idea), and I've been one of Kelvim's biggest boosters on this board all year. In baseball terms, I think the decision is tough to call. I would guess that the expected value of Kelvim's pitching over the next three years, minus the expected value of the two draft picks, minus any adjustment for chemistry (not a huge one), is slightly less than the value of the contract. I don't think the difference is all that great, and I would not be the least surprised if the Angels' decision turned out to be a good one. I will admit that I got carried away on the legal stuff -- I had forgotten that it's only a civil case, so I was off base with some of my comments -- and the chemistry stuff, and I'm quite aware that someone else could analyze the available data and present a good argument that Kelvim is indeed worth the money.

But I'm flattered that you enjoy the first five paragraphs of my analysis ;) -- I think Kelvim is a better pitcher than he's generally given credit for, and I'll miss watching him on the mound, even if I think the numbers line up ever so slightly against bringing him back.

Cheers,

John

As an addendum: if a player were on trial for a serious criminal offense, I would hope that the team wouldn't re-sign him until the case was decided. That's my own personal opinion, and I shouldn't be trying to push it on anyone else. If you think I'm totally off base, that's fine with me. My hypothetical scenario obviously does not apply to Escobar, anyway. My ill-advised use of the word "moral" was not directed at Escobar himself, but rather at the team. I think that the team has a responsibility to the community, and I would be uncomfortable if the Jays signed a player who was on trial for sexual assault (which, again, Escobar is not.) But I don't want to get into a debate about that point.

R Billie's assessment is quite astute -- it was probably a good move for the Angels, who have a fairly high budget, to offer Escobar that contract, but it would have been a lot tougher for the Jays to match it. If the money that the Jays saved on Escobar ends up being spent on Tanyon Sturtze, Doug Creek, and Jeff Tam v. 2.0, I'll be quite disappointed. If it's used to get HLH for an extra two years or so, I'll be pretty happy.

Again, I'm not trying to rationalize Escobar's loss, or at least I don't think I am. I made some overblown comments which I have since retracted in whole or in part. I think purely on baseball terms that the contract is tough to call, and while I'm slightly in favor of JP's decision not to match it (assuming that Escobar would have stayed in Toronto for the same amount), I don't think that the balance of evidence tips very much in either direction.

John

However, this doesn't change the fact that JP's offer to Escobar was below his market value.

Well, 'market value' is what the highest bidder is willing to pay. 29 other teams felt, for one reason or another, that Escobar (or any other player for that matter) wasn't worth what the Angels were paying him.

Slightly off topic, but I'm amused at the labels we give starting pitchers.

Everyone talks about #1 starters, #2 starters, etc.. and everyone knows what they mean.

However, if you went through and identified all the #1 starters you probably would only get 15-20, and a similar amount of #2 starters.

You'd think that the top 30 pitchers would be #1 type starters, the next 30 would be #2 starters, etc..

John,

I'm not asking for any sort of apology on your part. If I had to apologize every time I've gotten carried away in my writing I'd have to ask Coach for my personal apology thread. I am sorry that I jumped all over you about Escobar's legal troubles. It's just that sometimes it's easy to assume that everyone in the Box is a lawyer.

As for the draft picks, they obviously factored into JP's contract offer. Obviously, JP values high draft picks moreso than a Bill Bavasi in Seattle. I too am excited to see what JP can do with these extra picks. JP may have made the right move however it does not mean that Kelvim isn't worth the money that Anaheim paid. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I agree that clubhouse chemistry is important even though this is one of those unquantified intangibles that we should question. My contention is that I never saw Kelvim's mound persona as negatively affecting the team. Personally, I get more frustrated with the 'intense' Eric Hinske destroying Gatorade coolers than with the aloof Kelvim shrugging when blowing a save. I don't need a player to throw a temper tantrum when something goes wrong to believe that he cares about getting better.

Pistol,

Perhaps the answer is that there are fifteen above-average #1 starters and fifteen below-average #1 starters. Therefore, people are hesitant to call Escobar an "ace" even though you can make a very good case that he was somewhere between the 20th and 30th best starting pitcher in baseball last season. Personally, I see very little reason not to consider him an ace.

I think people concentrate too much on #1 starters, #2 starters, etc. To me it makes no difference whether your starting rotation is

Pitcher         SNPct  SNWAR  Rank
Mark Prior       .668   5.4   #1
Kerry Wood       .626   4.7   #1
Carlos Zambrano  .598   4.0   #1
Matt Clement     .519   2.2   #3
Detritus         .355  -1.9   #5

Total            .547  14.5

or

Pitcher         SNPct  SNWAR  Rank
Dontrelle Willis .624   3.7   #1
Josh Beckett     .597   2.6   #1
Mark Redman      .565   2.9   #2
Carl Pavano      .543   2.7   #2
Brad Penny       .538   2.6   #2
Detritus         .396   0.2   #5

Total            .550  14.2

at least until you make it to the playoffs, when all of a sudden rotation 1 looks a lot better (events of this past October notwithstanding.) And yes, I know that Dontrelle Willis wasn't pitching like an ace in October, etc., etc.

The other factor is that when people say "ace," "number 2 starter," etc., they're thinking about good teams. They're not thinking of a staff with an aggregate .500 SNPct. Even accounting for this factor, I think Kelvim is still a very good #2 starter, for whatever that's worth.

John

Cristian,

I agree with you that Kelvim's personality on the mound isn't a problem. For me, a character trait isn't a "chemistry issue" until it starts negatively impacting on the performance of other players on the team. I don't think that other players do worse because Kelvim's aloof on the mound. And if Kelvim is somehow hurting himself by being aloof (which I find far-fetched), then so what? It's already reflected in his stats, which we all know are really rather good.

I take your point about how this signing might turn out to be beneficial for both Anaheim and Toronto -- especially since the draft picks might be worth more to the Jays than to the Angels. And I actually appreciated your criticism of my first post. One thing I really enjoy about this board is how people will often start with rather extreme positions and then debate their way to the middle. I just take the process a bit too personally sometimes.

And I'm a medical student, not a lawyer. I think Craig and Jordan (?) are the only lawyers here.

Cheers,

John

I'm not overly concerned about losing Escobar, talented pitcher though he is. Money saved there can find another reasonable starter and, much more to the point, perhaps be used for the bullpen.

Even with a rather cobbled together starting rotation in 2003, the Jays won 86 games. I remember hearing during a game radio broadcast in August that, conservatively, the bullpen had cost the team 8-10 wins in games tied or with a Jays lead in the 8th inning. Had those games been won instead of lost, the Jays might very well have been the Wild Card team last year.

I think Craig and Jordan (?) are the only lawyers here.

And Shrike, and Leigh Sprague, and... OH GOD! DOES IT NEVER END!?

By the way, John N's characterization of Allan Travers Award winner Shawn Estes as "Detritus" wins my "Metaphor of the Week" award.

I couldn't have done it without a little help from my friends Juan Cruz and Sergio Mitre!

I think Craig and Jordan (?) are the only lawyers here.

Don't forget me.

Don't forget me.
Mike, I'm confused, is that an advertising tool or a hit list? ;-)

Shouldn't Estes find himself a nice quiet estuary somewhere, far from a major-league park?

A legal education doesn't stop word-play. This may qualify as a cost to society.

Despite his inconsistencies, losing Escobar will hurt Toronto. At worst, he ate a lot of innings...at best, he pitched several good games.

It will be interesting how a change in scenery and a change in pitching philosophies will affect his game.

Despite his inconsistencies, losing Escobar will hurt Toronto. At worst, he ate a lot of innings...at best, he pitched several good games.

He's hasn't pitched an entire season as a starter yet so it's unknown how he'd hold up over 33 starts. Until he does that without a problem, I don't think you can label him an innings eater.

This could go either way. He could excel in Anaheim or he could tank. He has the talent and the baggage to do either. So, he's clearly a risk and at $18.75 million, he's an expensive one.

Whether or not it hurts Toronto in terms of player production is irrelevant...signing him for that kind of cabbage screws the budget with a high risk investment and JP and Co. aren't into that.

Escobar pitched 180.1 innings last year, third only to Doc and Lidle. Yes, I would consider him an innings eater

I agree with Spicol. Kelvim has had a significant number of starts in three seasons, 1999, 2000 and 2003 (his contract year). He was ineffective in 1999 and 2000. He has never pitched more than 180 innings. I'm leery of attaching too much weight to performance in a contract year.

I've always felt that Kelvim would be most effective in a tandem starter regime in a 4 day rotation. The statistics over the last 4 years bear this out. He is ineffective in the 1st inning of work, but then very effective through pitch 75. After pitch 75, he loses effectiveness.

In the majors, he was most effective as a long reliever, which most closely emulates the tandem starter role. But, let's face it, no major league team is even close to implementing anything like a tandem starter 4 day rotation. So, at this stage, he is in my opinion an expensive high-risk pitcher, bearing in mind both the tangible and intangible aspects.

Was Baker premature in his announcement? Jeff Blair seems to think so. Escobar might not be an Angel yet.

Yikes, that's two "official" deals that have turned out to be less than firm in a week- first Kotsay and now this (reported both by the Star and the Sun).

I guess it's not "official", until they say so on mlb.com.

Doesn"t Kelvim have a defect in his back where he is actually missing a muscle or something? It does not impact his throwing. I vaguely remember this from a few years ago. this could be hodling up the physical.

Well I'll say this for JP's Jays; they make a plan and stick to it. I would rather have Kelvim than not but I like that they have a good idea how they're going to allocate their dollars, not just today but two or three years from now.

Yikes, that's two "official" deals that have turned out to be less than firm in a week

Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle talked to Kevin Towers, Mark Kotsay's agent Jeff Moorad and Paul DePodesta over the weekend, and it sounds like that one, while it could conceivably unravel, is still very much alive.

I wondered how likely it was that Escobar would be getting immediate medical tests on a weekend, so that delay isn't surprising either. Both of these were way more than idle speculation, with confirmations from a variety of sources, but we were a little quick to assume they were done deals.

What do you guys think about the Jays going after Kip Wells of the Pirates. He is affordable, young (26 I think)he throws hard (94 consistenly)and he has had an ERA under 3.50 the last two years. I think it would be wise to send a couple OF's to Pittsburgh (ie: Gross, Werth and maybe throw in Politte or Miller. Let me know if you guys think he is worth the price.

Sure he might be worth the price but I'm not sure that Pittsburgh would want to trade him. I think given that the Pirates have traded Giles and are now trying to trade Kendall that there will be little motivation for them to trade good players that they can actually afford.

Associated Press reports that the Escobar deal was signed today: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1669852. Phew.

The Jay's lose their #2 starter and Boston seems to be on the verge of gaining another #1 in Schilling. WFAN in New York is reporting that Curt Schilling will be traded to the Red Sox for Casey Fossum and 2 prospects. Pedro, Schilling, Lowe and Wakefield is a nice 4 pack. You have to be sure that the Yanks will now go nuts to get Petite resigned and Bartolo Colon in their rotation. Well see if this reported deal goes through but I have to say based on how the Jays offence performed last year I thought they could contend in 2004 for at least a wild card spot if they improved their pitching yet it seems so far that 2005 is more likely now.

Mike, thanks for the news that it's official. When it came from Baker and a Boston reporter, with exact numbers, I was pretty sure. They probably had a deal done last Thursday and wanted maximum news coverage; a Monday announcement and press conference made more sense than doing it on the weekend while everyone's watching football or outdoor hockey.

Well we might as well get this thread over a 100. Here's the West Coast view on Escobar's signing.I'm a little sad too see Kelvim go, I think there's a very good chance he'll establish himself as a top flight starter. The Jay's however given their spending limitations made the right call, its just a shame that we fans had to put up with his growing pains ,while the Angel's I think will enjoy the fruit of our suffering.

Griffin predicts that Escobar will win 16 to 20 games for the Angels thanks to grass and better defence. He also states that Escobar was arguably more consistent than Halladay, Carpenter and Koch, all of whom the Jays signed to multi-year deals.

Not surprisingly, Rich makes his point again that the Jays' "tepid efforts" to keep Escobar were about public relations. He suggests they could have kept him within budget and hints that they should have.

The first numbers that popped into my head for Kelvim as an Angel in 2004 were 17-15, 3.88, so I have to agree with Griffin's prediction. The difference between home parks will automatically improve his stats -- he was terrible at SkyDome, which wasn't entirely due to the infield defence -- but he might also miss the Toronto run support. He will have a better bullpen, which can't hurt. For fantasy owners, he'll help your K and hurt your WHIP like he always has. It may be my imagination that there's a slight additional "if" about Escobar's "intangibles," making a three-year commitment a bit more risky.

For the Jays, letting him go allows them a lot more flexibility in utilizing their limited resources. Griffin mentions Jason Johnson as one possible addition; there will be other non-tendered pitchers worth considering, for a lot less than $6 million, on a one-year deal. That would free up the funds for a significant bullpen upgrade, which would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, had they signed Kelvim. There's no reason this can't be a win-win decision for both teams and the player; it might be worth revisiting on draft day.

I do understand the sentiment that Rogers should open up the corporate vault to make the Jays more competitive for free agents. It's frustrating to chase two divisional rivals with such deep pockets. However, spending doesn't guarantee winning, and only winning will increase revenues. Maybe, if the team has a strong first half, and it's reflected at the turnstiles, J.P. will be allowed to take on payroll at the deadline. Until the fans come back, don't count on it.

The Jays offered 2 years, $10 million.

The Red Sox were apparently ready to go with 3 years in the $15 million range.

The Angels paid $18.75 for 3 years.

No other team was in on the action.

Out of 30 teams the Jays were at worst the 3rd best offer for Escobar.

Tepid, indeed.

Coach, 17-15??

Thirty-two decisions for a guy who's only had (exactly) 25 twice in his career is a hell of a leap.