utility midget Dave Berg

Is Griffin a tall man? He seems obsessed with the height of this team.

Fordin is pretty lucid, but wouldn't you pay a queen's ransom for Hinske to start hitting again?

As a tall man who can't hit a lick, I really don't see why height matters all that much.

Quickly... I'd like to see more Phelps as well.

I have no opinion on baby names; yes, some are inexplicable and yes, I like traditional names but these discussions usually descend into overt racism pretty quickly as I've discovered in the past. Steer clear, folks, is my advice!

Griffin, silly shots about bunkers aside, is pretty much right on. (Normally I don't read him... has he been this good recently or is this a one-off?) Once Randy's out of the game, dump the little ball!

I like traditional names but these discussions usually descend into overt racism pretty quickly as I've discovered in the past.

That's a good point.. I've found this site doesn't descend into that at all. Mind you, I also think, Odin Åge is a good thing to name my son. :)

Mick gets 85 million points and this poster of Queensryche:

I'm surprised about Phelps too. Perhaps Hinske's contract forces him to play. I know that this is not going to be a popular opinon but I'd like to see the best players play all the time. Regardless of the pitcher, historic splits etc. I guess Tosca feels he has to manage but it drives a stake through my heart when I see an infield of Berg, Gomez, Woodward and Menechino. I've stopped watching the games where Berg is in the field. I think that they've lost them all.

Correct me if I am wrong but I am sure I have heard JP Riccardi state that Phelps was going to get over 500 at bats this year and this was a year that the Jays organization wanted to see what they have in young players like Johnson, Cash, Phelps etc. He also said that with Toronto's young players the fans need to be patient yet now obviously with Phelps the organization is showing little faith or patience. Its very frustrating in my opinion.

Where Dave Berg has 2 ABs or more (and therefore, presumably, plays the field) the Jays are 6-9.

Where Dave Berg has 2 ABs or more (and therefore, presumably, plays the field) the Jays are 6-9.

So Jays avec Berg are as futile as Jays sans Berg. I don't care, at least with Phelps etc. you promote the illusion that you're looking at future greats. Berg is scrub and it's hard to pay money or spend your time watching a scrub. Is Woodward the worst fielding SS? I wish he could put it together.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinon but I'd like to see the best players play all the time. Regardless of the pitcher, historic splits etc.

I agree. Being a non stat-expert, sometimes I wonder about things. Like if you always bench a guy against lefties then how is he ever going to learn to be better against them? I can understand if a guy has huge career platoon splits, but aren't most of the Jays like Hinske and Phelps a little too young to be coming to those kinds of conclusions about their careers already?

I dont know, maybe Im wrong, but Id prefer to see guys given a fair chance to succeed before it's just automatically assumed that they're going to fail. I mean honestly, Dave Berg is batting .190 against Lefties and that's his *good* split. Are Hinske, Phelps, Cat or whoever else really going to be that much worse? And maybe the experience will actually do them some good because here I thought they were in the teams long-term plans or something.

Is Woodward the worst fielding SS?

I'd say no.

His fielding percentage is .967, better than a bunch of other SS including former Jay Alex Gonzalez (.961), Padres uberprospect Khalil Greene (.958), and Japanese sensation Kazuo Matsui (.951).

His range factor of 3.50 is quite bad, but his zone rating is just mediocre at .792.

I can understand if a guy has huge career platoon splits, but aren't most of the Jays like Hinske and Phelps a little too young to be coming to those kinds of conclusions about their careers already?

Example: this year, the O-Dog has looked much better from his "bad" side.

I wanted to see Hinske against the Big Unit, because Eric seemed so pumped to face him. Which article was the quote in? He said something along the lines of wanting to face Randy Johnson because he's a baseball fan, and that there would be no pressure because everyone would expect him to go oh-fer.

His fielding percentage is .967, better than a bunch of other SS including former Jay Alex Gonzalez (.961), Padres uberprospect Khalil Greene (.958), and Japanese sensation Kazuo Matsui (.951).

He's put up those numbers in less chances due to his injuries. It could go either way, put the longer he plays I'd bet he commits more errors. I have to agree with you though, probably a mediocre fielder rather than awful. His mistakes seemed timed to maximize the damage lately.

He fielded .966 in 2002 and .964 in 2003. I'm not sure why you'd think his fielding percentage of .967 this year won't be sustained.

And why they dont throw hinske in, at the end of a game is beyond me. Its obvious he has worked very hard on his D this year, and showing a little confidence in the game, and putting him in late to shore up the defense is owed to him. On a side note, other teams must salivate when they have a lefty starting against the Jays, as the week lineup gets trotted out, and seems to stay in.

You know it's going to be a long week when you start off Monday agreeing with Richard Griffin...

In the current lineup, Phelps deserves to be starting more often. When Delgado comes back, it's more debateable - I don't think you can say Phelps deserves to play ahead of Carlos, Reed and Cat. But Howie Clarke and Dave Berg are spare parts. The marginal value they may add over Phelps doesn't merit neglecting Phelps' potential.

That said, there may be more to it, like Phelps' back acting up again. But if he's healthy, there's no reason he should be behind Berg on the depth chart.

(and hey, I even like "utility midget", though it probably applies to Menechino more than Berg)

I couldn't agree more with sweat regarding Hinske being an appropriate defensive replacement. Obviously you'd never want to use him there in a situation where he might pinch-hit, but where Berg (or Menechino or Gomez) is at third base, if the Jays are leading comfortably late I'd have Hinske go in for defense.

I, for one, would like to see Phelps play more, but then again, there could be all kinds of reasons to sit him that I'm not aware of.

I say throw Phelps out there and let him work out the kinks. Think of the time spent tolerating his struggles as an investment in the future. If you give playing time to Berg and Clark at first, guys who will play little to no role on future teams, you're robbing Phelps of the opportunity to learn and, in turn, robbing your 2005 team of a more experienced DH/1B.

My fear is that as soon as Phelps goes somewhere else, he'll put it all together and become the player many of us think he can be.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=kruk/040611
John Kruk had some good thoughts about the so called "Amatuer" Draft and a few poitned jabs for Boras too...

in fact he went off on everybody from P Diddy, to William Hung... bt he sure has a great photo of J.Lo COMN

And why they dont throw hinske in, at the end of a game is beyond me.

They did yesterday, as soon as the Unit was out of the game.

Much to my surprise, I enjoyed the Kruk piece. He's a much better writer than he is on-air personality. That's presuming he's doing his own writing, not dictating to a junior-level flunky in Bristol, which is probably more likely ...

But this caught my eye:
On behalf of all non-multimillionaires out there, I want to thank you guys for sharing with us dumb folk.

Krukkie, pal, according to baseball-reference.com, you raked in about US$11M in your career. That's not A-Rod money, sure; salaries have skyrocketed even since you retired. But if you're not a multimillionaire right now, that's you're own fault and you ARE dumb.

Rami Genauer has an entertaining article on Rotoworld, he just visited SkyDome as part of a big road trip. Be forewarned, he takes some not-underserved shots at the ol' concrete cavern, and runs through a standard selection of Canadian jokes.

But if you're not a multimillionaire right now, that's you're own fault and you ARE dumb.

Alright, who's spoofing Mick's handle?

I think it would be foolish to suggest benching Phelps is not the appropriate action to take with him at this point. In fact, when Delgado gets back, I'd like to see Phelps sent to the minors to work out his "kinks" down there.

Phelps is hitting .237/.297/.352 in 219 AB. Look at any "stat-heady" peripheral you can choose from, he's BAD at each one. BB/K? 0.25. ISO? .114. EQA? .225. Yuck. This is a bad season anyway you look at it, made even worse by the fact that he's a DH with no redeeming defensive quality.

Would I bench him for Berg and Clark? Probably not. But he's gotten progressively worse at making contact at the major league level, and when he's not making contact, he's not using his most attractive attribute: power.

Send him to Syracuse once Carlos gets back. I see no other alternative. If he's really part of the future of this club, his long-term hitting has to be corrected, either through advanced coaching (hello Barnett, you there?), or some additional seasoning in the minors. Right now, the latter seems like the most logical option.

Would Phelps have to pass through waivers if he went down? If so, I don't think you can take that risk...

Near the end of the Kruk rant, he mentions the show Superstar U.S.A. Has anybody seen it? It's appalling. I was flipping around the dial last night and came across it. The therapy bills for these kids are going to be huge.

Does anyone know if Carlos will be healthy for the San Fran series? The only thing I'm looking forward to more than seeing Carlos golf some into the lake is giggling at Blue Jay pitchers attempting to bat.

Re: Phelps, I said it before in another thread, I think he is obsessed with trying to hit the ball the other way. Why? I have no idea, since Delgado, Giambi, etc... all have made a very good living pulling the ball hard down the line. Phelps got to the bigs because of his power, I think JP & co. can live with the K's as long as he hits 260ish with an OBP of 310ish.... and most importantly has 40+ HRs.

The Jays should have a good read on his abilities by now, so either play the guy or trade him while you can get some value for him.

Question for those that follow the minors more closely than I, do we have any 1B prospects that have any big-time power?

Last question, is this our infield of the future? Hinske@1st, Hudson@2nd, Adams@SS and Hill@3rd?

The only thing I'm looking forward to more than seeing Carlos golf some into the lake is giggling at Blue Jay pitchers attempting to bat.

I remember this huge guy who used to play basketball smacking one out of the park unexpectedly last year.

Hendrickson was the highlight of interleague for me, I think. ;)

So, im proposing an over/under of 0.5 this year for Blue Jay Pitcher Home Runs During Interleauge.

Whose taking over, whose taking under?

I'll be brave and take over.

Question for those that follow the minors more closely than I, do we have any 1B prospects that have any big-time power?

There's no power hitters in the minors that are close to Toronto. At this point next year's 1B, if it's not Delgado, will almost certainly come from outside the organization.

Last question, is this our infield of the future? Hinske@1st, Hudson@2nd, Adams@SS and Hill@3rd?

Perhaps, but Hinske's been just as bad as Phelps.

How do 2 players start out so strong their rookie years and then drop off dramatically the next two years like Hinske and Phelps have? Were their rookie seasons flukes? Have they been 'figured out' by pitchers?

You have to wonder what the plans are for Phelps. On one hand I want to see him in the lineup, especially when Berg is in, but on the other hand he has been struggling for a LONG time. Perhaps the Jays are thinking that a young DH incapable of playing the field isnt worth the ivestment of time or money. I like the idea of sending him down for awhile, he should still have option years left although Im not sure. As for the future, its becoming apparent the Jays have no plans to play him at first.

Anyone else think that his problem might be with his bat speed? He really hasnt been the same hitter since his first streak(when he looked like a hot prospect), perhaps pitchers have figured out how to exploit his slow bat?

Anyway, this is my first post here, been lurking for awhile, and I like what I see.

But Howie Clarke and Dave Berg are spare parts. The marginal value they may add over Phelps doesn't merit neglecting Phelps' potential.

Spare parts who may not even be with the team in a month's time.

Last question, is this our infield of the future? Hinske@1st, Hudson@2nd, Adams@SS and Hill@3rd?

IMO, Hinske would have to start hitting like he did in 2002 to warrant the right to play 1B, the easiest position in the majors to fill. (His 2002 OPS would have ranked him 18th in MLB in 2002 for 1B with 300+ AB.)

Hinske has a long way to go to prove he has the bat for 3B, let alone 1B.

With his defensive play having seemingly been elevated to somewhere between not terrible and mediocre, I'd say that third base is just fine for the time being and the immediate future (unless a better candidate were to come along).

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=tor&cat=atBats&season=2004&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg
Wow. I didn't realize Phelps has more at bats than everyone except Wells and Reed (COMN). I thought he would be lower than Hinske, at least.

I too (to) (two) am (is) (are) disappointed in Hinske and Phelps this year. I predicted a Delgatoish year from Phelps. Oops.

You heard it here first: Phelps and Hinske WILL BE what we expected, only we blew it by one year, wait till 2005.

Phelps HAS to go down (ala Delgado and tons of other young big guns) to get his stroke back. Rios likewise. Bring back both in September.

This year will be remembered as the year the youngsters were not ready, McGowan fried his arm, Rosario came back very slowly, BUT Thorpe came back suprisingly well. Adams, Hill and Gross continue(d) to look solid. Pitchers doing well in the Sally league or lower are only there to break our hearts.

So be it.

Question for those that follow the minors more closely than I, do we have any 1B prospects that have any big-time power?

Outside of the first basemen who were just drafted last week, the two top 1B prospects in the system are Vito Chiravalotti (Dunedin) and John-Ford Griffin (New Hampshire). Vito is a very promising hitter, though his raw home run power is not comparable to Phelps', let alone Delgado's. Griffin is adding power as he progresses, but his average has plummeted and he needs to get very hot very fast to save his career. Neither are young for their levels.

Josh Phelps turned 26 last month. He's a career .279 hitter in the minors with a 170/507 BB/K rate in 1,780 ABs, with no more than 24 home runs at any stop. In other words, there's not much more ceiling there. His job is to hit major-league pitches over the wall 35-40 times a year, and he can't do that in Syracuse or on the bench. Play him now, every day, when his struggles don't matter so much to the team, and decide what to do with him after the season.

Last question, is this our infield of the future? Hinske@1st, Hudson@2nd, Adams@SS and Hill@3rd?

I think this is your starting infield in 2006. Don't give up on Hinske yet -- he's at .313/.425/.531 thus far in June and is showing definite signs of revival. There are legitimate questions about Hill and Adams' gloves at this point, but when he first came to the majors, Orlando Hudson was a defensive liability. Give those two guys a few months with Brian Butterfield and then we'll be able to decide. And don't dscount the possibility of the O-Dog at shortstop in future.

Thanks for the feedback.

So if Hinske isn't the answer at 1st, and with Phelps looking more and more like a question rather than an answer, and without anyone in the minors who could takeover @ 1st, and assuming Carlos doesn't re-up - I have to agree with Pistol that JP will have to go outside the organization (i.e. via trade or FA) for a first baseman.

So who would be available? Do we target a good glove, low power guy like Doug M. from the Twinkies (who eventually have got to get Justin Morneau some ABs) or is there a more traditional power 1B out there worth taking a chance on?

I'll throw out the first name, how about Nick Johnson? Great glove, good OBP, some pop (not a lot). I think he went to arbitration this year, so maybe he's available.

Last thought, if JP stays within the organization - how about Frankie C.? He would give a reasonably priced option and provide decent production (albeit without the power).

With his defensive play having seemingly been elevated to somewhere between not terrible and mediocre,

You watching the same Hinske I'm watching this year? He's been great, if you ask me. He's like a completely different guy on the field.

Last time I heard he was leading AL 3rd basemen in fielding percentage. I won't pretend that it means anything, because quite frankly I don't know what that statistic measures, but some commentators are bandying it about as a sign of his turnaround on the field.

My indicator of how much he has improved is the number of times per game that I go "Aww, cra -- WAY TO GO, HINSKE!"

Last time I heard he was leading AL 3rd basemen in fielding percentage.

He's not only leading the AL, he's leading MLB:

Hinske .993
Castilla .982
Ramirez .980

Not that FP is a great stat, but for a guy who was making a bunch of throwing errors, Hinske's improvement is nothing short of amazing.

Hinske is third in AL Fielding Win Shares for 3B, behind Blalock and A-Rod.

As for Cat taking over at 1B, I think I remember him playing a little 1B last year, and I remember him being really bad. I could be wrong though.

You heard it here first: Phelps and Hinske WILL BE what we expected, only we blew it by one year, wait till 2005.

While you may well be right, I think it's instructive to consider the ages of Phelps and Hinske and contrast their growth to Delgado's.

Phelps is 26. If he follows a normal growth progression (and peaks at 27 or 28), he figures to peak in 2005 or 2006.

Hinske is 26 and will turn 27 later in the season. Like Phelps, he figures to peak in 2005 or 2006.

OPS's 2002-2004: Hinske 845, 765, 678; Phelps 925, 827, 649.

Both are seeing their numbers heading in the wrong direction, suggesting the possibility that we have already seen their peaks and that they are not following a normal growth progression. I'd love to see them flash some serious age-27 seasons at us in 2005, but there is more than a little cause for pessimism. Those seasons will have to come out of the blue. Hinske is signed and will get the chance. It's not clear that Phelps will.

In Delgado's age 26 season, he was posting the first of 6 straight seasons of 900+ OPS. Ignoring that his star potential was obviously much greater than Hinske's or Phelps', it should be noted that his age 24-26 seasons showed progress, unlike Hinske's and Phelps'. His OPS's were 843, 878, 978. Delgado then had his career year at age 27, exactly according to Hoyle.

Hinske is one of my favorite players. He looks like he has intensity out there. I don't have any numbers but hasn't he started to turn it around lately with the bat? I would not write him off yet. Now that he has fixed his D, he will be quite valuable once he gets back to his career ave of .280/.350 20HR/year

Phelps is only 26, has 30 HR potential, and is cheap for the next few years, so I wouldn't be in a rush to deal him anytime soon. However, he does concern me a bit. The major leagues is not AAA. Pitchers will figure you out pretty quick in the majors, and it's up to Josh to make adjustments.

I'm pretty sure that Phelps can be sent to the minors with no waiver issues, but I'm not 100% sure. But if the option of sending him down is realistic, it's a no brainer.

In the end, I think Phelps will be okay. He probably won't live up to the big time power hitter projection some had for him, but I think he'll be a solid everyday 1B/DH. I think it was Gammons who compared Phelps to Paul Konerko, and I happen to like that comparison.

As for Hinske, if he's not a 3B, he's not on this team if I had any say in it. I don't think he'll ever get back to his rookie form, and even then, his numbers would have been unspectacular, if not below average, for a 1B. He may become better defensively with a switch, but with the relative ease to find competent .800-.850-ish OPS 1B for little money, I think it would be a risk to have a potential hole at 1B without significantly upgrading the 3B spot first (Signing Glaus or Koskie would make a Hinske move to 1B a lot more plausible, IMO).

I haven't heard anything about Hudson's return, have I missed something or has there been no news ?

I'm 99.9% certain that Josh Phelps is out of options and can't be demoted without passing through waivers (and surely, with his minor league credentials he'd be claimed by some team hoping to fix his swing).

Josh was first put on the 40-man roster in 2000. IIRC, a team has three option years on a player and the count begins the first season a player is placed on the 40-man roster, regardless of whether he actually is sent down any of those years or not. So the last time the Jays could have optioned Josh would have been 2002.

MLB Roster Rules

"A player on the 40-man roster but not on the 25-man Major League Roster is on what is called optional assignment. A player on optional assignment has three option years, and can be sent up and down as many times as the club sees fit during those three seasons.

"A player who has been in the Major Leagues for parts of three different seasons is out of options, and must clear waivers in order to be sent down beginning with his fourth big league season."

There might be some rare exceptions to these rules: I know that the Indians were granted an extra option year on Alex Escobar this season, most likely due to the fact that he missed an entire year due to injury.

Hinske has improved defensively - almost all his throws are now on target. His reactions to line drives are among thebest in the league at the position (which makes me think he could potentially be a gold-glove type 1B). His arm strength is till not sufficient to get a fast runner on a throw from near the third base bag, nor to get a fast guy on a bunt or slowly hit grounder that he has to charge.

Gwyn, this is from Fordin's notes a couple days ago:

...Orlando Hudson, meanwhile, could be back as early as Tuesday. Tosca said that he's 99 percent sure Hudson will be a go player by then.

But I haven't seen anything since.

Robert you are most likely 100% correct. He had 1 AB in 2000, so I assume that was late sept. so he has been on the 40-man from atleast sept. 2000, so he is out of options.

Maybe they can try and sneak him down on revocable waivers?

Okay, I stand corrected. Eric Hinske is Brooks Robinson. ;)

Last thought, if JP stays within the organization - how about Frankie C.? He would give a reasonably priced option and provide decent production (albeit without the power).

Oakland is doing just fine using Hatteberg as their 1B. Cat would be a very cost effective solution at 1B until the organization manages to produce its next Delgado.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2004&seasonType=2&split=81&sortColumn=zoneRating
COMN for the defensive stats of AL third basemen. Hinske's RF and ZR are about what they have always been, his DP rate is up but is not yet acceptable, and his error rate has gone from below average to excellent. FWIW. Win Shares has Hinske as more productive defensively than Chavez (hmmm...).

Hinske does look better out there, and he will go as far as his bat carries him. It's unlikely that he will ever be a good defensive third baseman, but he might end up as adequate.

Oakland is doing just fine using Hatteberg as their 1B.

Sure, but that requires the prescience to know that a 34-year old is going to have his career year after a season with a 725 OPS!

I also thought of Catalanotto as a potential replacement for Delgado. Just find a right-handed platoon mate, and that's a potential near-.900 OPS 1B platoon. It depends on what Catalanotto will ask for, since it will be his first year as a FA (I think), he may "play the field" a little bit.

IIRC, there are a lot of third basemen on the FA market this offseason: Beltre, Ramirez and Glaus for sure, I think Koskie, and Lowell apparently has an out clause he could use.

You could, hypothetically, sign Beltre or Ramirez to play third, move Hinske to first and re-sign Cat as the DH. Not a great offensive lineup, but perhaps a better defensive team - particularly if Rios can turn into a productive hitter in 2005. (probably unrealistic; Beltre's having a great season and he's represented by Scott Boras)

The Indians are leading the Orioles 14-zip in the 5th inning. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Just heard on the FAN that Tom Cheek has a brain tumor and surgery was not a complete success, but the tumor was apparently benign.

Sure, but that requires the prescience to know that a 34-year old is going to have his career year after a season with a 725 OPS!

?

Hatteberg's career line is .271/.360/.418

Are you sure the 725 OPS wasn't the outlier?

Hatteberg is not going to continue posting a 900+ OPS, but he should finish comfortably above .800. For 2-3 MM per year, that's what I would expect out of Cat.

Hudson ran yesterday at 80% will ran again before Tuesday game and if he runs at 100 % he is a go.

Get well soon, Tom Cheek!

Hinske has never had a bad glove at third. His problem has been this throws to first. He's turned this around this season by playing closer to the hitter than in years past. This way, he's stopping everything he can and then has more time to double pump his throws to first. The only problem is that by playing so close, he's not getting to as many balls as he otherwise would. There are many balls this season that are going for singles that last year would have been knocked down and then launched over Delgado's head.

Hatteberg's career line is .271/.360/.418
Are you sure the 725 OPS wasn't the outlier?

I saw an old player with old man skills: slow, low batting average, good walks but not much else.

I saw a player in decline and I thought Beane was crazy to re-sign him. Shows why Beane is a GM and I'm not.

The Blue Jays team page on ESPN claims that Delgado won't be back until June 22nd against the Rays.

I thought Hatteberg would rebound from his 2003 levels; not this much, but that he would at least approach his career norms. However, I still questioned the wisdom of the signing with internal options like Graham Koonce, Mike Edwards and Jason Grabowski (at that time).

That's terrible news about Tom Cheek. I hope he's okay.

I grew up listening to Tom on my dad's beat up little black radio out in the backyard. In my head, Tom Cheek means baseball.

Fordin is pretty lucid

That is one adjective I would never use to describe Spencer. It took me a minute or so to stop laughing.

In the Game 41 thread I wrote:

I also don't understand the hate-on for Hinske and Phelps. I still think both will be above major league average at the end of the year.

One down, one to go.

There's now a separate thread for news of and messages for Tom Cheek.

Sorry to go off topic for a moment but i caught the last 15 seconds of TSN's Off the Record on Friday and Tony Fernandez was on. He mentioned a charity golf tournament he was playing in but i missed all of the details. Does anyone have any information on this???

Thanks

Update on Tom Cheek from the team (please leave the "Best Wishes" thread for good wishes).

This from a press release a short while ago...

The TORONTO BLUE JAYS and The FAN 590 would like to update you on the health of Blue Jays broadcaster Tom Cheek.

After feeling under the weather on Friday, June 11, Tom was taken for a series of tests that revealed a brain tumor. CHEEK, who turned 65 yesterday, underwent surgery on June 13 to remove the tumor. The procedure was not a complete success and further treatments will be necessary. Tom is resting comfortably with his wife, Shirley and family.

The Cheek family would like to thank the entire medical staff at both Mt. Sinai and the Toronto Western Hospital for the tremendous treatment they have received.

Everyone at the Toronto Blue Jays wishes Tom a speedy recovery. Our thoughts are with the entire Cheek family and we hope to see Tom back in the broadcast booth very soon.

Paul V. Godfrey, President & CEO, Toronto Blue Jays

Everyone has an opinion on Phelps, so here's mine.

I think he has trouble protecting the entire strike zone. In order to be able to hit pitches that have been giving him trouble, he's had to become more defensive at the plate, which has cost him his power.

A parallel is Jose Cruz Jr. When he first arrived in Toronto, he was smacking home runs all over the yard. But pitchers soon found his weaknesses, and he stopped hitting for much power, at least for a while.

At this point, I'd say that Phelps's offensive numbers are likely to be similar to Cruz's. For brief stretches, he'll put it all together, but most of the time he'll be about a .260 hitter with medium-range power. Unfortunately, there are zillions of guys like that out there.

You can't win anything if your first baseman is only hitting 15 home runs, as other teams have first basemen that are hitting 40 home runs.

As for Hinske: if he moves to first, he'll be another run-of-the-mill hitter. His only value is as a third baseman. Fortunately, he's been defending a lot better this year, and I'm far more optimistic about him than I am about Phelps.

The obvious problem here is that Toronto's pitching is not, and does not look like being, a significant strength. Sure, Oakland can get away with a below average offence, because they have the best pitching and D in the league. That isn't going to happen in Tornonto anytime soo, so for this club to win the offence is going to have to be real good. Are Phelps, Hinske et all capable of this? Surely not as the centrepieces, they have been, and probably will be, a decent supporting cast. Toronto is going to need a Wells/Delgado like combo to anchor the offense.

Actually, the Jays' pitching has been strong this year, and especially lately.

fyi: In-context Jays stats for the past 25 days (100% new data since my previous report).

I'm not sure the Cruz analogy is quite apt. Yes, both had big-time power and big-time holes, but when Cruz stopped hitting homers, he started doing other things. He drew a lot of walks for a couple years before going back to a no-patience, power kinda guy.

What worries me about Phelps is that he's not doing anything. He's not hitting for average, he's not hitting for power, he's not drawing walks. If he were hitting 240/320/450 or something, I'd at least be encouraged. But 237/297/352? He's apparently turned into a slap-hitting middle infielder, which ain't good when you're a big, slow first baseman.

Every season between 1999 and 2003, Josh Phelps has been on 30 homer plus pace for a full season. He's obviously physically much stronger than Cruz Jr. While he may simply have lost his power, I do not think that this is likely. If he is to have difficulties in the future, it is much more likely to be from diminished ability to get on base than from loss of power.

It's been a while since I've agreed (for the most part, anyway) with Richard Griffin, but does anyone else find it ironic that the phrase "utility midget" was printed in the same paper that last year was slamming the "White Jays"?

About Phelps - I'm not sure that Phelps not producing is that big a worry. Sure he came into the season as Carlos' understudy, but there are a couple of things that might be important:

First, although I'll admit this is scenario is improbable, is that Carlos' value is going down daily and maybe even to the point where a budget-minded JP would take a shot at resigning him.. Before the season started, I would have guessed that he'd garner somewhere between $12-15 million as a free agent - certainly he'd get less than he's getting now. However when you add in a very subpar season that may or may not be aggrevated by nagging injuries, I think he's worth less now. Of course, there is always a 'greater fool' owner / GM, which makes me think this is not likley to happen.

Second, no Carlos = actual money for free agents. Yes, some current players will get raises, and Doc will need to be paid for, but it wouldn't take a lot of money to find a no glove, decent hitting first baseman that would improve on Carlos' production in '04.

So to sum it up - it would be great if Phelps could contribute, but I think its a bigger concern that the bullpen is underachieving.

I was just surfing TSN on TV and they had story on the Argos. They mentioned they were putting new turf in the Skydome (that stuff they have in Tampa Bay). Is this just for the Argos? Seems like they Jays might appreciate it too. Am I just dreaming? If not, how does a moop like me out in Edmonton break this story ?

Yes, and I believe Roma is coming to SkyDome as well (not exactly sure, not a big soccer fan) and they're putting down grass for them. I dont suppose there's anyway we could persuade them to just leave the grass there when they pack up?

It's been a while since I've agreed (for the most part, anyway) with Richard Griffin, but does anyone else find it ironic that the phrase "utility midget" was printed in the same paper that last year was slamming the "White Jays"?

I find it ironic too - you'd think the Star's writers would take more care to avoid using derogatory terms.

Griffin has been poking fun at the Jays' punchless bench for a while now. From his May 15th column when Pond was called up:

It's not like Pond had been tearing up Triple-A pitching. He hit .275 in 27 games, with three homers and 12 RBIs. But, until Ricciardi recalled him yesterday, the Jays had featured a four-man bench of similarly vertically challenged, singles-hitting clones.

In addition to backup catcher Gregg Zaun, filling in well for an injured Greg Myers, the Jays reserve squad had featured three slappy infielders, Chris Gomez, Dave Berg and Howie Clark. It was the baseball equivalent of the Smurfs as pinch-hitters

As much as I hate to say it, that's both accurate and funny...

jc