I'm glad to hear JP plans on letting the kids play. Here's the sort of playing time breakdown I'd like to see, with number of starts per week beside each player.

C Quiroz 5, Zaun 1, Cash 1
1B Delgado 4, Crozier 3
2B Hudson 6, Menechino 1
SS Adams 5, Woodward 1, Gomez 1
3B Hinske 6, Menechino 1
LF Gross 4, Johnson 3
CF Wells 6, Rios 1
RF Rios 5, Gross 2
DH Delgado 3, Crozier 2, Zaun 1, Johnson 1

I'll be at my first game in a while this Friday; the lineup I'd love to see would be:

C Quiroz
1B Crozier
2B Hudson
SS Adams
3B Hinske
LF Gross
CF Wells
RF Rios
DH Delgado

I'd be shocked if any of the callups play 5 out of 7 games. I suspect we'll see them about twice a week.

With 3 catchers you have a few more options with pinch hitting and defensive replacements.

Yeah, but would you be surprized?

This was a redneck test, wasn't it Mike? And I failed.

With 3 catchers you have a few more options with pinch hitting and defensive replacements.

... unless the Jays get stuck in a Rut.

Or they could all go out next time against the Royals and get toasted at Max's Kansas City.

I'd be shocked if any of the callups play 5 out of 7 games. I suspect we'll see them about twice a week.

I agree it's unlikely, but I don't see much reason not to do it. Wins are quite meaningless for the rest of this season, and the players losing playing time (Zaun, Cash, Woodward, Gomez, Johnson) are not everyday players, not if you want a contending team. Let the kids play and find out which ones can be parts of a contender.

I think the frequency with which the callups start will depend largely on the seriousness of the games the Jays are playing. If they're matched against playoff contenders, the regulars will play (and there are a lot of contenders on the September schedule); otherwise, we'll see the kids.

I think Crozier will get a lot of playing time at first base, with Delgado shifting to DH, a position that's pretty much empty at the moment. Delgado probably won't like the DH role very much, but from my perspective at least, too bad: he hasn't had the kind of season, nor has he provided the organization the kind of assistance at the trading deadline, to make it worthwhile for the Jays to bother making him happy.

I also think Adams will see a lot of action, most likely at Woodward's expense: I get the impression the Blue Jays don't count him in their 2005 plans. Quiroz, I think, will be broken in more gradually, not least because he's the youngest and has had the weakest season of the three. Kevin Cash should count on joining Woody in another organization next year.

I think Crozier will play the most, followed by Adams then Quiroz. Against righty starters, Gibby will have two more LH bats to employ, so why not use them? More importantly, Professor Butterfield will conduct SS 101, Professor Breeden will conduct C 101, and the new students will cram in as much knowledge as they can in a month with occasional on-field tests.

As J.P. told Spencer Fordin, "In all fairness to (Syracuse manager) Marty Pevey, it's pretty hard when you're the manager trying to be the outfield guy, the catching guy, the hitting guy."

It's the same thing in Double-A. Mike Basso has so many responsibilities, including pitching batting practice, that there's no way he can spend daily one-on-one time fine-tuning Aaron Hill's footwork and release. That's why hard-working, talented prospects continue to improve defensively when they get to the Show. Like the kid at second base.

Assuming Wells can return to CF, Delgado will DH more often so they can give Crozier a longer look at first. Don't forget that Eric isn't limited to 1B/DH; he can also play the outfield, and it would be nice to find out how well.

The Fordin article suggests Quiroz might be playing the most:

Ricciardi said it's imperative for Quiroz to play in as many games as possible down the stretch, so he'll likely step in as Toronto's everyday starter.

I'd like very much to see what we have in this Crozier fella.

And at the same time, I heard in another thread that the $160 jerseys that say Phelps on the back are marked down to $60, along with Hentgen. I had seen the Phelps T-shirts marked down to $10 already.

But if I were going to get myself a bargain on a jersey, would I get Phelps or Hentgen? Neither were spectacular for us this year, but Hentgen did retire as a Jay...and almost made it to closer...

I know, you can get the Russell version of the new jersey unnamed at Nicholby's for $50, but the Majestic ones are much nicer -- the blue on the Russell jersey is the wrong colour!

The amount of playing time Crozier recieves at first should tell us something about the tone of the upcoming Delgado re-negotiation.

Well, think of it this way ... if Phelps comes to nothing in Cleveland, then he won't be worth remembering; if he breaks out and becomes a monster power hitter, the memories will be painful. Either way, it'd be better to have a beloved Cy Young winner's jersey in your closet.

if I were going to get myself a bargain on a jersey, would I get Phelps or Hentgen?

I'd get a Hentgen. In fact, I think I just might. Is that $60 the price at the Dome's stands, or somewhere else?

Actually, I've already got a current Cleveland jersey (unnamed... it was a $20 bargain at mlb.com) and I'm seriously thinking of getting PHELPS 45 put on it.

I haven't been around much lately, but it seems the consensus here is that Quiroz will be at least in a part-time major league role starting '05. Is that the best way to move him up? This year hasn't provided much insight about moving guys up- bringing Rios up before he was doing well in the minors worked, and Gross was hitting well when he was recalled, but has struggled a bit since. It wouldn't hurt to try and start '05 with Cash/Zaun again and let GQ play another month or two in Syracuse. It isn't like Cash has any trade value, so holding him for insurance doesn't hurt much.

The other option would be to give him a solid month of AB in September and make the decision based on that.

Because this is the roundup and anything goes: I got a lot of crap at work from my Yankee fan friends about the 9 run 9th. The Jays are a total joke to them after that, which will make it cooler when they start being competitive, but it feels like I've been saying that for 8 years. It is really annoying when they acknowledge the payroll issue, but don't see how it plays out on the field. Send us over A-Rod, Matsui, Brown and Rivera, then we'll be playing a fair game. At any rate, I'm starting to really like the Rios/Wells/Gross outfield, and will once again go into the offseason with a lot of hope.

Anyone else think upgrading 3B might be something to consider? I know Hinske has a lot of believers here, but he just isn't cutting it. There's a lot of good young 3B coming up, which will make more experienced, borderline starter types cheaper. Hinske's contract is really going to hurt the team- if they do decide to give up on him, maybe they can swap albatrosses with another team and get something potentially useful.

At the Bullpen Store at the Dome, Craig. Apparently on a rack, outside.

I'll paraphrase a line from the J.P. Bpro interview for discussion purposes

Ideal offseason: everyday 1B, DH, SS, one more SP, two more BP

If $$ becomes an issue: drop the SS and SP

That's what J.P. is sayin anyway

Plenty more goodies in the article - and still Part 3 to come

It's the same thing in Double-A. Mike Basso has so many responsibilities, including pitching batting practice, that there's no way he can spend daily one-on-one time fine-tuning Aaron Hill's footwork and release. That's why hard-working, talented prospects continue to improve defensively when they get to the Show. Like the kid at second base.

I think about this all the time. In fact, I suppose I think about it more than is really healthy.

The fact that the best coaches and teachers are found at the MLB level is a strong argument in favor of the Tampa Bay school of player development... bring 'em up early, throw 'em to the wolves, see what you get and let them learn from the best. It's all very well to make tut-tutting pronouncements about service time, but it's no good leaving them down on the farm if all they do there is go to seed.

But it's an argument, also, that the traditional player development model doesn't work. Why just have one roving catching instructor, and the like? Why don't you have a full roster of coaches at every level, working with the players each day to build their skills? Why can't every day be a learning opportunity?

Sure, it's expensive. If you have to (and you probably would have to, but I have no idea what minor league coaches make) pay those extra three coaches (most minor leage teams have two or three coaches, I think) $50,000 apiece, and half that for the short-season guys, you're looking at another $750,000 in the budget. Three coaches is to leave the manager in the dugout, add two base coaches who double as infield, outfield, catching, and baserunning instructors, and a full-time hitting coach. The pitching coach keeps his job as is.

$750,000 a year sounds expensive. It is, and it's probably why teams don't do it. But think about it... all it takes is one success every five years. You reach one talented guy who's going nowhere, and boost his career forward, so that instead of being a replacement-level guy whose career peters out in AAA with occasional time in the majors, he becomes a guy who can be a key reserve or an OK part-time starter. That kind of guy is worth a million dollars or so, every year, for four or five year while he's a young player. If you can reach one guy like that, with intensive full-time coaching, then you've made some money.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3405
Anyone else think upgrading 3B might be something to consider?

Not the GM:

BP: You talk about evaluation--what's happened to Eric Hinske this season? He really seems to have regressed.

Ricciardi: I guess I'm in the minority here. I think there have been expectations here that are a little out of whack. We see Eric as a guy who's going to hit .270 to .280, 20 home runs, 70 or 80 RBI. You want to have cost effectiveness for players who're going to be here four, five years, and we've got that with Eric. You look at some of the other facets of his game--his on-base percentage has gone down, which is disappointing. But his defense has improved. I don't look at him and see a disappointment. Expectations after you win Rookie of the Year sometimes just skyrocket through the roof.

Part II of the JP interview at BP is up (subscription needed). COMN.

Thanks Pistol. No BP sub for me, so I missed that. It's really great that JP sees Hinske as a .270/20 HR guy, but that's not what he is, at least this season or last season. It doesn't damn a guy to say that he made a mistake, and I think JP's either really letting his pride really get in the way here, or he's hiding their plans. Totally fine with him hiding his plan- I don't expect him to bash Hinske- but it is a concern if they're paying Hinske millions to hit the way he has this year.

I'd also be curious to see at the end of the season just how much Hinske's defense has improved- is he among the best in the league, above average, or has he just learned not to be a liability?

The amount of playing time Crozier recieves at first should tell us something about the tone of the upcoming Delgado re-negotiation.

If Carlos' priorities for his next contract include playing 1B every day, he's not coming back. I'm sure the Jays would love to have him as their primary DH, but I can't imagine that they will guarantee him a defensive job. Really, the only way I see him returning is if he doesn't get a long-term offer from anyone, and decides that a one-year deal to prove he's still a great slugger is in his best interests. If that happens, at least the Jays are in the picture.

The Orioles promised 1B to Raffy Palmeiro last winter, and that hasn't worked out very well, as the future HoF-er's SLG is below .400 for the first time in 15 years. It now looks like they are trying to keep him from getting the 140 starts he needs to kick in a 2005 option for $4.5 million, so as much as I'd hate to see Delgado as an opponent 19 times a year, I fear that Baltimore is right up there among his likely destinations.

Why can't every day be a learning opportunity?

Not a bad motto, Craig.

On a practical note, it's not as if there are a lot of coaches with Brian Butterfield's skill set who would welcome the long bus rides and low pay. Most of the qualified people already have better jobs than that. The #1 reason you coach in the minors is to get a shot at coaching in the majors. Running an NCAA program or working outside baseball allows you to make more money, live where you want and spend time with your family. So the positions could be filled, but there would be no guarantee of noticeable results.

It's a bit like the national hand-wringing over our Olympic results. Not only do we need high-quality facilities if we want to support our elite athletes, we need to recruit, train and pay more and better coaches at every level. Volunteerism is great, but too many of the best people can't afford to donate enough time because they have to make a living.

That said, my kids are grown, I'm broke anyway, and Mrs. Coach would welcome me being out of her hair for a few months, so if the Jays decide they need a full-time hitting coach in Pulaski next year, where do I apply?

BP should have a micropayment system that lets you purchase indivdual articles, or subscribe to a one section. I'd pay a couple of dollars to read the JP interview, and I'd pay $10 for a year of TA, but I can't bring myself to drop $40 on the sub. I know it'd be a hassle for them, but ultimately, I think it'd be a good return on the investment.

From one perspective, I understand that JP has to say those things about Hinske (who he's committed to like Hoffa is committed to his cement wellingtons) but that commentary about Hinkse is crap. Yes his defense has improved to make him an adequate defender (even above average at a few of the plays like line-drives) at 3rd, but his season offensive totals read like Woodward's career line - enough said. If he is happy and not disappointed with a corner infielder slugging less than .400 (whose ability to take walks seems to have disappeared in the last few months) and who he thinks would be worth the $12-13 million that he'll get over the next 3 years (at that offensive output) then the Jays are in serious serious trouble. Now I happen to believe that JP is extremely disappointed in Hinske's offense. I just think in a BP interview (where there are likely to be knowledgeable baseball readers) JP shouldn't try and snow people. He should say yes I'm disappointed but for the following reasons I think he'll bounce back, etc. One of JP's strengths is that the core baseball fans generally agree with his philosophy and generally have faith in the plan. Saying stuff like this doesn't help to keep the core fans supporting you (they just roll their eyes).

A couple of things
why not promise Carlos the majority of games at first base, if that can get us Carlos back. Is there any free agent we can get that hits aswell as carlos and fields way better?
Why would JP rip Hinske? It doesnt do any good to rip into him on a public forum. JP probably has talked to him in private and Hinske knows the score.
Bring on the rookies.

.270 with 20 homers and adequate defence would make Hinske about a league average third baseman, or a shade better. My question is, is that worth 4 million a year? Probably not, but it could be worth in the neighbourhood of 3 million a year.

Average third base performance this year: AL .346 OBP/.451 SLG; NL .335 OBP/.448 SLG

Hinske (career-to-date) .340 OBP, .436 SLG.

If this is just a bad year and he is capable of putting up those numbers above, then he's probably no more than an average player.

If this is just a bad year and he is capable of putting up those numbers above,

That's the question- after 2 years of decline, what can we expect from Hinske in 2005? If he hits like he has this year, they need to have a backup in place, and I'd seriously try moving him, even if it means taking some salary back and getting a project in return. With the offense they'll have next year, assumably sans Delgado, they can't carry Hinske unless he's playing gold glove defense at 3B.

Last year was an "off year" for Hisnke, and he's gotten even worse.

"Even if it means taking some salary back and getting a project in return"
Isn't that what hinske already is? Would there be any net savings in doing this? At least we know Hinske has hit in the past, and could hit again.

I suspect that Hinske's trade value wouldn't increase if JP really told you what he thought about his performance.

You think Hinske has trade value right now? With $12-13 million due to him over the next 3 years, I think JP would have to pull off a Mondesi type trade to move him and the contract. I'm not advocating that, I think there is a reasonable chance that he can return to the career line that Robert mentioned and play adequate defense. This would make him an average to very slightly below average third baseman. At that salary, that still wouldn't make him cost effective or even valuable trade fodder, it would prevent the contract from being a disaster. However, in my view there's nothing you could say or not say about Hinske right now that would help his trade value. His numbers pretty much speak for themselves. By the way, I wasn't suggesting that JP rip Hinkse. Just that there is no point in sugar coating what can only be described as a disappointing season.

The problem is with sticking with Hinske is what if his bat does not return. Sure his defence might be better than in the past, he is still costing us more runs by hitting 252. And lets not forget the quality 213 RISP average. These stats remind me of alex gonzalez except he was a great defender.

An average of $4 million a year over the next three years for a slightly above average third sacker with some pop in his bat is not comparable to Mondesi. If the Jays did decide to trade Hinkse it would no doubt be for a player getting a similar amound of money who also has disappointed but not been a total flop.

Marc - the point is that Hinske this year hasn't remotely resembled a league average third basemen. In fact, his VORP of 1.7 makes him only slightly above replacement level and the 40th best third baseman in the majors. Would you spend $4 million per year for the next 3 years on that? Now, if he returns to the .340/.436 numbers that Robert highlighted he will be a slightly below average third baseman and the trade wouldn't have to be Mondesi like dump. His contract (at his career numbers) still wouldn't be a good one and I doubt you'd get much for him but you wouldn't have to dump him.

He's played two more games this year then last so it's a good time to compare the numbers.

G AB 2B 3B HR BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
2003 124 449 45 3 12 59 104 12 2 .243 .329 .437 .766
2004 126 472 19 2 13 48 93 10 8 .252 .321 .383 .704

Doubles -26
Triples -1
Homers +1
Walks -11
Strikeouts -11
Average +9

It would seem that the big problem is the missing 26 doubles. A fluke or problem?

It's probably best (for your blood pressure) to look at Hinske's contract in tandem with VW's. JP signed both together for 5 years and ~$15M to get cost certainty.

Given that Wells has excelled you could apportion some of Hinske's salary to VW's contract - as part of risk management - and that is perhaps how JP thought about it when he signed them both.

Having said that, I still spend a lot of time day dreaming of ways to unload Hinske's contract and wonder whether trading him with a Lilly or Batista might be a cost effective move for the Jays...

It would seem that the big problem is the missing 26 doubles. A fluke or problem?

ok, but compare him to 2002, remember last year was the "lost year" due to his injury... this year was supposed to be better to start with

With a two wins against Seattle the Jays could find themselves dropping down from 4th pick to 7th in the next two or three days.

The race to last sits:

Arizona 41-90 5-5
Kansas City 45-85 2-8 Lost 5 in a row
Seattle 50-80 5-5 Win 4 in a row
Toronto 54-77 5-5
Montreal 55-76 4-6 3L
Colorado 55-75 1-9 Lost last 7
Milwakee 55-74 0-10 Lost last 12!
Baltimore 58-71 1-9

Actually, if you want to get your blood pressure going a little bit, take a look at these numbers:

'01 - .313/.350/.427 - .777
'02 - .275/.305/.457 - .762
'03 - .317/.359/.550 - .909
'04 - .273/.334/.450 - .784

Which one of these doesn't look like the others? Those are Wells' numbers the last 4 seasons. For comparison sake, the league average CF in the AL this year is .281/.337/.436. Vernon, other than last year, has been a league average CF (probably slightly above average when defense is considered). If league average is his established level then his is not a great contract either. Of course, if this is just a down year then the contract is a bargain. My gut tells me that somewhere in between is his likely production, in which case the contract will be a good one, not a great one.

I'm not criticizing JP for the contracts. At the time they looked like master strokes and I'm not a revisionist on these things. They may still work out well. But Hinske's contract is looking more and more like a millstone and the jury is still out on Wells'.

Damm what a difference a year makes.

I can't believe we are actually mentioing if VW's extension was a smart move by JP. You ask that same question after last season and the answer is a no brainer.

It would seem that the big problem is the missing 26 doubles. A fluke or problem?

Well, it was a fluke last year that he hit so many doubles and so few home runs. So it's problem this year, not necessarily of too few doubles, but of too few extra-base hits period. And if he's going to hit .250, he also needs to walk more. He apparently went in the tank due to the hand injury; why he hasn't come back out is a mystery.

Hinske's contract is looking more and more like a millstone and the jury is still out on Wells'.

"Millstone" is just a tad melodramatic. I'd be surprised if you could name 3 teams that don't have a player with a worse contract. And if the jury for Wells' contract is the 30 MLB GMs, I expect they'd be unanimous in wanting Wells' on their team for the next 3 years.

He apparently went in the tank due to the hand injury; why he hasn't come back out is a mystery.

It was mentioned a couple months ago that he'd altered his mechanics because of the injury. That was looking like a pretty good theory, as Hinske hit very well in June and July... but then he fell off a cliff in August. A big cliff, with sharks and alligators and a lion at the bottom.

I think Hinske can get back to the production of his rookie season, and if he does that he's worth the money. While I can share people's concern about his performance, I don't see the urgent need to move him. For one thing, you won't get anything decent in return; as someone said, the best you could hope for is another underperformer looking for a change of scenery. And it's not like he's blocking anyone: Even if we're really optimistic, there's little change Hill or Hattig will be ready to take over third within the next year.

If we're second-guessing contracts anyway, how about that Halladay albatross? :)

Well, it was a fluke last year that he hit so many doubles and so few home runs. So it's problem this year, not necessarily of too few doubles, but of too few extra-base hits period. And if he's going to hit .250, he also needs to walk more. He apparently went in the tank due to the hand injury; why he hasn't come back out is a mystery.

I'm really puzzled by Hinske. I cut him slack for last season because he had his hand injury. But I remember in a interview (which I believed aired on the Score) in Spring Training he said he dropped 20 pds in the off-season and was fully recovered from his hand injury. He went on to declare he was in the best shape of his life and was really focused to have an outstanding season.

RE: Hinske

This is a week old now, but I can't imagine things have changed much in that time.

Season	  AVG	  OBP	  SLG	GPA
2002	0.279	0.365	0.481	0.285
2003	0.243	0.329	0.437	0.257
2004	0.258	0.320	0.393	0.242
Total	0.261	0.340	0.440	0.263

Season	ISOBB	ISOSL	K/BB	  BB%	   K%
2002	0.086	0.202	1.8	12.0%	21.5%
2003	0.086	0.194	1.8	11.6%	20.5%
2004	0.062	0.135	2.1	 8.4%	17.8%
Total	0.079	0.179	1.9	10.8%	20.0%

If he hits .270 likes JP expects, and bumps his BB rate and SLG rate back to his career average (including this season) you're looking at a .270/.350/.450 player.

A nugget from part II of BP's interview with JP:

BP: Assuming Carlos Delgado does not return to Toronto, is Eric Crozier going to be the answer at first base?

Ricciardi: I don't want to get into a situation where we're playing so many kids, unless we're suddenly told we're going to have a $38 million payroll. We struck out way too much this year; we have to get guys in there who are going to solidify the lineup, put the ball in play more.

Maybe I'm not paying attention, but is this the first time we've seen talk from the team about limiting Ks?

Pistol, I heard JP mention cutting down the K's in an in-game interview with Jerry Howarth just a few days after trading away Phelps.

Nigel, I'm surprised to see the AL avg CF has an OPS of .773, but I think VW can get into the low to mid .800's. No doubt his '03 stats were aided by the monster year Carlos was having batting behind him, but I think the first 2 years VW was learning and this year he has suffered from injury and Carlos' down year.

I don't buy the "striking out too much" angle. It would be good for the Jays to strike out less (being on the hard turf of the Dome, if they put the ball in play more I think they'll do a touch better because they'll hit more singles, but the difference would be very minor) but it's nothing compared to the power outage. The strikeouts have probably cost the team five runs this year. The power outage, something like 70 runs.

Boston and Detroit both strike out more than the Jays, and both teams have fine offences. The strikeouts, in and of themselves, have probably been less costly than the team's innumerable baserunning mistakes.

In fact, using this team's extreme G/F ratio, low home run totals and very high GIDP rates, I think you could construct an argument that they're not striking out enough.

I'd de-construct that argument.

My hypothesis is that high strikeouts are damaging to an offence when coupled with low slugging. In other words, if you can't hit a lot of home runs, you need an on-base percentage/ball-in-play offence, both of which suffer when you strike out. But you'd gladly concede Ks if they come from swinging for the fences provided there is enough production to warrant that approach.

It works for Jim Thome. It does not work for, say, Alex S. Gonzalez.

I don't buy the "striking out too much" angle.

Boston and Detroit both strike out more than the Jays, and both teams have fine offences.

If you are a DIPS believer a pitcher can only control Ks, BBs, and HRs. If that's the case wouldn't putting the ball in play be favorable since hits rates on balls in play are generally pretty stable, so more balls in play would equal more hits?

Said another way, if Boston and Detroit struck out less would those fine offenses be better?

Or is making contact cutting down on slugging?

I am a DIPS believer.

Pistol, I think you ask exactly the right question. To whatever extent it cuts down on Boston's or Detroit's slugging, you wouldn't want to cut down on strikeouts. But if you're not slugging, like the Jays aren't, you do.

If there's a study that shows that players and teams invariably increase their power by striking out more, I'd like to see it. I doubt the correlation is in any way precise.

Put another way: Ichiro would create fewer runs if he abandoned his approach to swing for the fences. Thome would create fewer runs if he abandoned his approach and started slap-hitting.

If the argument is that the Jays need more Thomes, I completely agree. But I don't think the Jays' current lineup is full of players that would benefit from adding uppercuts to their swing.

If they struck out less and maintained their homeruns and walks they'd be better off. It doesn't work that way: homeruns, walks and strikeouts are linked.

To hit homeruns you have to swing hard, when you swing hard you're going to strikeout more. To draw lots of walks you have to get into deep counts; when you get into deep counts you strikeout more.

But I don't think the Jays' current lineup is full of players that would benefit from adding uppercuts to their swing.

That is almost certainly the case, but without putting words in Craig's mouth, isn't the surprising thing about JP's remark the fact that he is talking about adding players who strike out less? If we are talking about new, but experienced players, and bearing in mind Robert's point about the totals being linked, isn't it logical to infer from JP's comment that he's going to bring in yet more low-k, low slugging players? That doesn't seem particularly responsive to team's offensive struggles.

I am not a DIPS believer, and in any case its conclusions such as they are do not apply to hitters. Thus, it is completely irrelevant as regards this topic.

Mike D. is correct however: the Jays have not had the personnel this year to hit homeruns. With Gomez, Woodward, Clark, Berg and Cash getting lots of playing time, the other hitters like Delgado, Wells, Hinske and Phelps were counted on to hit homers. All of them have fallen below expectations in this regard.

Add to that the fact that Rios isn't yet a power hitter and Johnson, Cat and Hudson were not expected to hit for much power and you've got a recipe for finishing near the bottom of the league in homeruns.

It's also hard to walk a lot if you're not hitting homeruns. That's because opposing pitchers are going to go right after most of the hitters because they have no reason to fear them.

Under current conditions, it's nearly impossible to have a very good offensive team if you don't hit homeruns. So, the obvious solution is to acquire some guys with pop who can walk.

If J.P. means free-swingers who strike out a lot (and therefore have poor K/W rates), I agree with him. But why wouldn't you want to have someone like Adam Dunn, or Mark Bellhorn for that matter, on your team?

In past interviews JP has stated that he isn't concerned about K's and considers OBP and SLP more important. I think he's just frustrated with the offence this year and we shouldn't read too much into one part of the interview.

Aaron, Craig,

Yes, the Hentgen and Phelps jerseys were right outside the bullpen store along with some assorted cheap T-shirts (Montreal vs Toronto series, Phelps 17, etc) and videotapes (1993 World Series on VHS for $10).
I agonized over it for the better part of the bottom of the 8th on Saturday before deciding not to buy it because the only place I'd wear it would be SkyDome and I already had a #36 File 2003 Game Worn that I wear to games when I go. That and I'd already blown too much money on my hotel and food and beer. :) It was worth it though. Wings and Wedge Fries at Reilly's on Yonge are killer.
They had the Whites and the Blacks, no Greys. I liked the Whites, everybody else I was with liked blacks.

-Bob

On an unrelated note...

I started a yahoo fant. football league if any bauxites would care to join...

League ID#: 565010

League Name: Anti-Disestablishmentarianism

Password: HermanMunster

Ricciardi dealt Phelps and Werth within four months of each other. Those two were probably the two biggest whiffers in the entire franchise. Ricciardi has also not hidden his feelings about how good of a player he considers Frank Catalanotto, a .300+ hitter who doesn't strike out.

If Delgado isn't re-signed, the team would be stupid to continue with the "3-run HR" method of offense, because that would be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Other than Delgado, there isn't a guaranteed 30 HR player on the roster, and barring bargain signings of Glaus or Sexson, or trades for Dunn, we won't have anyone on the roster with that type of power other than maybe a healthy Vernon Wells.

We can't play station to station baseball when there isn't someone to drive players in, which is why I think we might see a philosophy change offensively in the off-season, more along the lines of what Ricciardi was talking about during the BP chat.