Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - The Blue Jays Master Plan

If you were to believe what you read in Batters Box recently there is no hope for the Blue Jays. The low payroll dooms the team to eternal mediocrity. JP's signing and trading record is poor. There is no-one to replace Delgado. There is no-one to replace Hinske, and on and on. Several posters have suggested they do not see how the Jays can escape last place. Just remember the old saying "you are never as bad as you look when you are down". So what is the blueprint for success on a low payroll? Does JP have a plan? Is the light at the end of the tunnel a train?

The Jays plan, to my understanding, has three parts. Part one is the moneyball aspect "find undervalued players". Part two is to use the farm system to develop your own players. Finally you need a strong starting pitching rotation. In this story I want to focus on parts two and three, which I will synthesize as grow your own pitching rotation.

Recently Oakland, Minnesota and Florida have had success with low payrolls. I believe the success rests on a foundation of a strong starting rotation. I contend it is easier to find an above replacement-level hitter than it is to find an above replacement-level starting pitcher. I believe the corner stone of the Jays plan is to develop a strong starting pitching rotation. First let's look at the playoff rotations for the three "model" teams.

Oakland made the playoffs in 2000 to 2003. We all know about Hudson, Mulder and Zito who were a part of all four playoff teams. Gil Heredia and Kevin Appier filled out the rotation in 2000. Cory Lidle replaced Appier for 2001 and 2002. Ted Lilly came in via trade in 2002 and Rich Harden came in for 2003. Let's review the experience of the core starters. Barry Zito was a rookie in 2000 and played only part of the season in the major leagues. Tim Hudson was called up in 1999 and 2000 was his first full season. Mulder's first season was also 2000. So when the A's made the playoffs in 2000, their rotation consisted of two rookies, a second year player, and two veterans in their 30's. For 2001 to 2003 the A's moved out the veterans and went younger with a reliever converted to a starter (Lidle) and traded for a younger starter (Lilly). So the Oakland lesson is develop your own starters, at least the core, and fill around them.

Minnesota made the playoffs in 2002, 2003 and 2004. In 2002 the rotation included Brad Radke, Kyle Lohse, Eric Milton, Rick Reed, Joe Mays, and Johan Santana. In 2003 Kenny Rogers was signed to replace Milton. Radke was a home grown pitcher, but he was in his eighth season in 2002. Lohse was in his first full season in 2002, Mays in his fourth and Milton his fifth. Santana was a rule 5 pick but 2002 was the first year he threw over 100 innings in the majors. So the Minnesota approach was similar to Oakland in that they had a strong core of home grown pitchers, Radke, Lohse, Mays, Milton and Santana. They also filled around them with veterans as required. The difference is that the Twins did not make the playoffs as soon as the pitchers arrived, it took a few years. I could argue that the Twins pitchers were not as strong as the A's and so needed some experience to improve their performance.

Florida made the playoffs, and won the World Series, in 2003. Florida's rotation was Josh Beckett, Dontrelle Willis, Brad Penny, Mark Redman and Carl Pavano. Beckett was in his second year, Willis was a rookie, Penny was in his fourth year, Pavano was in his sixth and was not home grown, neither was Mark Redman. So again a core of young home grown talent, surrounded by a couple of older pitchers.

So could the Jays put together a home grown rotation of pitching studs and when will it be ready? Will the Jays pitchers be premium pitchers, as with the A's and the Marlins, or more average pitchers such as the Twins rotation. I am going to agree with JP Ricciardi and say that the Jays will not have a dominating home grown rotation in 2005. I will look to see who will be available in 2006 and 2007.

On 2004 Roster

Roy Halladay is signed through 2007.

Ted Lilly is under the Jays control for 2006 but will be a free agent in 2007.

David Bush may or may not be a stud. He does not have overpowering stuff but he appears to know how to pitch. Call it two definites and a maybe for 2006, one and a maybe for 2007.

Power Pitching Prospects

Dustin McGowan had TJ surgery in 2004. He will likely be ready to pitch in April 2005 and could be in the major leagues in 2006. McGowan features a 94-96 mph fastball with movement, a slider, a curve and a change. McGowan was rated as the Blue Jays #2 prospect coming into this season. He was rated as #18 in baseball by BA.

Francisco Rosario had TJ surgery in 2003 and after some injuries early in 2004 re-emerged at the end of 2004. Rosario is another 94-96 mph power pitcher who was highly rated before his surgery. BA had him as one of their top 100 prospects for 2004 despite his not pitching in 2003.

Brandon League is another power pitching prospect who we saw this year. We still do not know if he is starter or reliever material so he is a question mark.

McGowan, Rosario and League make for two or three power pitching prospects on the horizon.

Less Powerful Pitching Prospects

Gustavo Chacin pitched very well in his two September starts. He does not have the power repertoire of his fellow prospects but his location and deception could make him a solid starter.

Josh Banks is still only 22. He had to adapt to AA this year but by seasons end looked to be settling in. He should move to AAA in the middle of 2005 and be ready for the big leagues by 2006 or 2007.

Further Away

Shaun Marcum is a few months older than Josh Banks and was selected the round after him in the 2003 draft. Marcum has moved through the system a little bit slower than Banks but still is a prospect.

Ismael Ramirez is a year older than Banks but has turned in a couple of strong years, including being named pitcher of the year in the Florida State League for 2004. Ramirez is a longer shot but as long as he gets the results he can move up.

David Purcey/Zach Jackson were the Jays top picks in 2004. David Bush made the Blue Jays two years after he was drafted. That is quick and I don't want to put that expectation on Purcey or Jackson, but one of them should be ready for 2007.

So who could be in the Jays rotation in 2006? How about Halladay, Lilly, Bush, and two of McGowan, Rosario, League and Chacin. If Lilly is too expensive we need one of the other pitchers to be ready, or as in Oakland and Minnesota, sign a veteran to fill in the staff. In 2007 you can drop Lilly and add Banks or Purcey or Jackson.

The first thing I like is the possibility that the Jays could have three or four starters throwing in the mid nineties, Halladay, McGowan, Rosario and League all throw smoke, and if the Jays make the playoffs those smoke throwers have greater success. The second thing I like is that McGowan and Rosario have already gone through the TJ surgery so that is not a major risk for them.

So I give you the Blue Jays master plan, one more year to get the studs to the big leagues, and away we go. If other pitchers develop into solid starting pitchers they can be traded for hitters. By 2006 the Jays should have a solid pitching rotation to anchor their playoff push. Have faith, that light at the end of the tunnel is not a train.

Posted by Gerry on Friday, October 08 2004 @ 11:20 AM EDT.

The Blue Jays Master Plan | 49 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

_Craig Bugden - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 11:44 AM EDT (#27432) #

Assuming that the success of Minnesota and Oakland can be duplicated in Toronto, we are still in the AL East and we will always be completing against the big payrolls of NY and Boston, struggling to finish 2nd and perhaps win the Wild Card spot. In my opinion the only way we can make the playoffs is a) if MLB adds more playoff spots; b) if we move to the AL Central or the NL East or Central; c) if the MLB schedule is changed to allow lower placed teams to play weaker teams the following year, giving us fewer games in our division

_Blue in SK - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 11:49 AM EDT (#27433) #

Thanks Gerry for a good read.

The one contention you make about JP's master plan - ("I contend it is easier to find an above replacement-level hitter than it is to find an above replacement-level starting pitcher.") - will be either proven or refuted this off-season as JP and his front office team scours the minor league FAs, ML non-tenders and other team rosters for potential trades.

_ScottS - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 12:05 PM EDT (#27434) #

Assuming that the success of Minnesota and Oakland can be duplicated in Toronto, we are still in the AL East and we will always be completing against the big payrolls of NY and Boston

I'm honestly not too worried about the Yankees in 2007. I think they may be teetering on the brink this year, and even if they get the free agents everyone is expecting them to (Beltran and Pavano) that still leaves them with a shaky rotation (Mussina and Brown are both on the downside of their respective careers, who knows about Hernandez) and an old bullpen, and virtually no minor league prospects to either replace aging talent or trade for talent.
Boston may be more of a threat, but even they may be vulnerable in a couple of years - Pedro looks like he might be starting to decline, and how old is Schilling anyway? I don't know what their minor league system is like, though.

I think, like Gerry, that the Jays pitching is the key - if Halladay can avoid more injury problems, and at least one of McGowan, Rosario and League blossom, then the Jays are in really good shape. I guess that the difficulty of being a low payroll team is that a *lot* of stuff has to go right in order for you to succeed. If a lot of stuff goes wrong, well, you get the 2004 Toronto Blue Jays.

Gerry - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 12:05 PM EDT (#27435) #

Interesting comment about the Yankees. Peoples memories are short, the Yankees have always had big payrolls but they did not make the playoffs from 1982 to 1993. The Yankees made some bad personnel decisions in those days. The current Yankees have a good organization with Cashman, and a good core of home grown talent. If Cashman left and was replaced by say Bill Bavasi or Chuck Lamar would you feel as confident? The Yankees core are growing older and have a lot of dollars committed to them. Jeter, Posada, and Rivera are all 30 or older, injuries could become an issue for the Yankees. Does George have an unlimited payroll?

I believe the Yankees run will have to end sometime in the next five years.

Mike Green - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#27436) #

Oakland's success was a little more complicated. The 2000 team was actually an offensive machine, but had at best average pitching and defence in context. In 2001, the offence was still excellent, and Hudson, Zito and Mulder had come into their own.

Could Wells, Rios, Adams and Quiroz develop into Tejada, Giambi and Chavez? Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It does seem more likely that if this team is to succeed, it will be because some of the young pitchers arrive. It can happen quickly as it did for the 84-85 Royals (Saberhagen, Gubicza, Danny Jackson).

_Peter - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 12:44 PM EDT (#27437) #

Great Pitching Prspects, But where are the Bats, this next draft should address that , hopefully, where there are alot more position players than highly touted pitchers.

_dp - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 12:48 PM EDT (#27438) #

Not to sound like a broken record (other than djs and nostalgics, does anyone know what a broken record sounds like anymore?), but the pessimism I've expressed here lately doesn't come from a systemic thing- playing in the AL East, low payroll, ect. I'm worried about JP's philosophy on hitting and the fact that guys who gave me so much hope in the minors have failed or been discarded in 2004. I'm concerned that Rios won't develop power because of the approach JP wants instituted.

Maybe this isn't so bad. Maybe these are relics of Ash that just don't jive with JP, and once he gets his own "style" hitters on board, the organization will be fine. But he inherited a farm loaded with hitting talent. It looked like he was doing a great job- Quiroz and Rios took major steps forward after JP arrived. But he was unable to get the most out of on-hand talent- now we need a righty platoon 1B/DH and the guy who fit that role is gone. We could use Jason Werth, but he was dealt so Simon Pond and Chad Hermensen could trade spots as the unused man in April. A franchise with limited resources can't afford to make these mistakes.

Things aren't all bad; I do see a lot of hope if the pitching comes along and they shift from the 2003 model to one based on winning low scoring ball games. But there's no front-line hitting talent in the system, and that worries me, especially given the lineups the Jays are stacking up against in the East.

robertdudek - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#27439) #

Gerry,

The Yankees never spent over 2.5 times the median payroll until the last two years. It simply misses the point to say they have always had a high payroll. It's the EXTENT to which they outspend the average team that is the most worrying aspect of this development.

robertdudek - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#27440) #

There were people frequenting Baseball Primer three years ago who thought that the demise of the Yankees was just around the corner.

It seems that every year people predict that the Yankees are about to decline, that they are old and bound to collapse "soon" because they don't have an adequate farm system. Because this prediction is made every year it's bound to come true some day (I can't wait to read all those article saying "I told you so" when it finally does happen).

But if I ran the Yankees and you let me sign 2 of the top 5 free agents every year, the team would never decline. That's because the arrival of fresh quality talent in the quantity that they've been signing it is enough to offset the collective decline of the Yankees from thr previous season.

Another myth is that the Yankees won't be able to trade for veterans because they have no prospects left. That's nonsense. Although the Yankees have fewer quality prospects than almost any other team, they still have some. Dioner Navarro must be regarded as a blue chip prospect right now. Brad Halsey looks like he could fetch something from a team desperate to unload high priced talent. Robinson Cano, Eric Duncan and Bronson Sardinha are all poised to become trade bait. I expect that drafting and Yankee products from Latin America will continue to provide at least a minimal number of prospects for the big club to trade away.

_Sean -TBG - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#27441) #

http://www.hardballtimes.com
The Yankess might be in decline as soon as next year - according to their pythagorean projections they played above their heads this year, which is a sign of a team ready for a fall (COMN). Of course the Yankees are both rich and smart so I'm sure they're looking at things the same way. Their task will get harder and harder in the next few seasons to come, especially if Giambi is unable to play like he did before he got sick. Even healthy, he'll be old.

_dp - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:15 PM EDT (#27442) #

The Yankees never spent over 2.5 times the median payroll until the last two years. It simply misses the point to say they have always had a high payroll. It's the EXTENT to which they outspend the average team that is the most worrying aspect of this development.

Yeah, it really is amazing. My Yankee friends laugh when we watch Yanks/Jays games and I cheer for the Jays. When I point out the payroll thing, they blow it off as an old argument. But if every series, the Yanks had to give the opposing team say $60 million worth of talent, then the argument becomes a little more relevant- Jeter, Rivera and Mussina switch sides and play for the Jays to balance things out, and the Yankees are still left with a roster of $15 million all-stars, whereas most teams can't afford one of those.

_Moffatt - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:39 PM EDT (#27443) #

I suppose it depends what you mean by decline and collapse. Unlike the late 90's the Yankees haven't won a World Series in awhile and may end up getting bounced out of the 1st round.

Sure it's not 62-100, but it's a start.

_Magpie - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:45 PM EDT (#27444) #

we will always be completing against the big payrolls of NY and Boston

Not necessarily. Steinbrenner has an absolute commitment to winning, but he is 74 years old.

The Red Sox are trying desperately, but let's suppose they finally win one. Will they have the same burning need then? And they will still be in a ballpark that seats about 35,000... for whatever that's worth.

if I ran the Yankees and you let me sign 2 of the top 5 free agents every year, the team would never decline.

I believe you. But you weren't running the team in the mid-late 80s, when they tried it. And declined. The light bulbs were burning out faster than could put in new ones. Could happen again.

If they sign no one, I say they go 84-78.

If they bring in Beltran and Pavano and someone else... 93-69.

Oh, God. I put that in writing, didn't I.

Gulp.

Craig B - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:45 PM EDT (#27445) #

At the end of the day, if Yankees fans are prepared to pay the big bucks for the privilege of watching Sheffield, Jeter, Giambi, and Rodriguez, and everyone else, then they will continue to reap the rewards for the expenditures.

_Jobu - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:49 PM EDT (#27446) #

_Magpie - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT (#27447) #

I think Jobu is a prophet...

_Caino - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:53 PM EDT (#27448) #

I wonder if the A's and Twins would've even made the play-offs had the been in the AL East.

Great peice Gerry. Thanks.

Craig B - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:54 PM EDT (#27449) #

But you weren't running the team in the mid-late 80s, when they tried it. And declined. The light bulbs were burning out faster than could put in new ones.

Free agency is more liberal now than it was then, though. And the payroll discrepancies weren't as large (the amounts rich teams could afford to pay extra were smaller). And neither of those is likely to go backward; free agency will get more liberal as the players win more battles for the rights to negotiate their contracts, and revenues are likely to grow at a pace faster than the owners' willingness to rein in the richest teams.

It's possible that owners might surprise me and rein in the rich teams, but if they do that I think they will have to give up more negotiating rights to the players, liberalizing free agents even more. It's the only sensible thing they can give up in a negotiation on a salary cap, that the players would accept.

The players don't care about a salary floor (or shouldn't), since they ought to be smart enough to realize that the amount the teams in the "arms race" at the top are willing to blow over a median budget, will always be larger than those at the bottom are able to save.

So what would be taken away with one hand (the ability of the Yankees to spend 2.5 times the average) would be given back with the other (maybe moving free-agent rights from six years to five, or something like that).

Dave Till - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:56 PM EDT (#27450) #

The Yankees, and to a lesser extent the Red Sox, are trying to follow the Manchester United model of success: buy up all the best players you can, and then pay for them with maxed-out ticket, TV, and merchandising sales.

The question is whether this model is sustainable. Even the Yankees have an upper limit on how much they can spend, one supposes. And the only way you can win when you sign players like Sheffield and Giambi is to be able to afford to sign replacements for them two or three years later, and just eat the back end of their contracts.

If the Yankees are really willing and able to stamp the accelerator to the floor, imagine the 2004 team with Beltran added to play centre field (moving Bernie to DH), Delgado added at first base (with Giambi's contract simply eaten), and a top-flight starting pitcher added to the rotation. (I wouldn't be surprised to see Steinbrenner go after Pedro. He's expensive, he's a marquee name, and he's a Red Sox.) If this model is sustainable, the Yankees will win the AL East forever.

The rest of the AL East is hoping that the club will sink under the combined weight of age and expensive contracts.

I don't know yet what will happen, and that's what makes all of this so interesting.

_Moffatt - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#27451) #

The one benefit to the Yankees going nuts on spending is that it increases the Jays revenue sharing handouts by a great deal. The amount of money the Yanks are going to have to pay this year and the next is just obscene.

The Yankees may be the only reason why the Jays will be profitable in the near future.

Mike D - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:03 PM EDT (#27452) #

I wish you were right, Moffatt. But sadly, revenue sharing is only tied to revenue; the luxury tax tied to payroll spending goes (I think) to a players' fund.

In the NBA, teams paying the luxury tax pay it to teams not paying it. But that's not true in MLB.

_Moffatt - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:05 PM EDT (#27453) #

I wish you were right, Moffatt. But sadly, revenue sharing is only tied to revenue

Right, but you'd think those player cost should be generating some revenue to the team. ;)

RE: The Luxury Tax. 25% of that funding goes into the "Industry Growth Fund" which I believe includes things like giving the Jays millions each year due to the currency differential.

_Jobu - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:06 PM EDT (#27454) #

*crosses fingers* COMMON.....LEAFS SYNDROME

Mike Green - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:08 PM EDT (#27455) #

Here's a question for the economists:

how will a prolonged recession affect revenues of the large market teams?

I have no opinion on this, but do note that the Yankees seemed to do pretty well in the 30s.

_Moffatt - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:09 PM EDT (#27456) #

how will a prolonged recession affect revenues of the large market teams?

You guys sure do seem worried about Bush getting re-elected... :)

_Scott Levy - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:19 PM EDT (#27457) #

The Yankees have about 180 mil tied up on the roster for next year without factoring in the Beltran's, Pavano's, Pedro's, or whoever they are going to sign in the off-season. I'm sure that won't stop them from signing these guys, but it sure will be interesting to see just how high is George's limit to spend, if there even is one.

The Jays plan is exactly what is stated above. If McGowan, Rosario, and League (hopefully all stay starters) pan out, we're in good shape. Meaning, we're going to have to get lucky with health, reaching potential before free agency, etc.

No said it would be easy.

Mike Green - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#27458) #

Whoever gets elected is probably going to have to do something about the financial mess that Bush has created...ergo, real possibility of a prolonged recession. I don't know that that would have any impact on the Yankees' fortunes.

_Jobu - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:21 PM EDT (#27459) #

All this talk of up and comming pitchers makes me REALLY hope the Jays draft a high ranked college bat this year.

_Magpie - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:21 PM EDT (#27460) #

worried

Amazed and speechless that it still seems possible...

_Moffatt - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT (#27461) #

I would imagine it would impact each team roughly proportionally, so it should have no great impact.

Or to put it another way, a falling tide sinks all boats. :)

_Magpie - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#27462) #

a falling tide sinks all boats

??

One weird metaphor there, Moffatt.

Beaches all boats? Grounds all boats?

I dunno...

_Moffatt - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:30 PM EDT (#27463) #

I dunno either. The saying is about rising tides. I figure there has to be a corollary to that, though.

_ScottS - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#27464) #

If the Yankees are really willing and able to stamp the accelerator to the floor, imagine the 2004 team with Beltran added to play centre field (moving Bernie to DH), Delgado added at first base (with Giambi's contract simply eaten), and a top-flight starting pitcher added to the rotation. (I wouldn't be surprised to see Steinbrenner go after Pedro. He's expensive, he's a marquee name, and he's a Red Sox.) If this model is sustainable, the Yankees will win the AL East forever.

IF the Yanks add Beltran and Delgado, they'd probably win the East by clubbing everyone into submission, but even with Pedro, the starting rotation is shaky, and there's still the question of the bullpen. Of course, with that lineup, they'd probably never need an ace closer, since they'd win by scores of like 18-10 or something.

I'm not trying to say that the Yanks are going to finish last, simply that in 2 or 3 years they won't likely be as dominant as they are now. And it's always possible that they have a year like the Season From Hell... and finish third. :)

_Magpie - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 02:39 PM EDT (#27465) #

I wouldn't be surprised to see Steinbrenner go after Pedro. He's expensive, he's a marquee name, and he's a Red Sox.

In which case, the Red Sox will surely sign Pavano.

Wow. Dig the symmetry there.

_Loveshack - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 03:39 PM EDT (#27466) #

Isn't almost everyone on the Red Sox roster Free agents this year though? How many of them will they be able to re-sign realistically and which ones? We know the Yankees have essentially limitless amounts of money but do the Sox (especially considering that Fenway is the smallest park in the league if Im not mistaken)? And even if they do manage to keep their important guys will there be enough money left over to bring in anyone new?

_Ron - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 04:01 PM EDT (#27467) #

I don't see the Yanks dropping off anytime soon. People like to bring up the core of their roster is old and expensive. Drop off in performance due to age can be replaced by increased production from FA signings. Let's just say the Yanks add Beltran and Pavano in the off-season, both guys are still young and would add to core of the team. The Yanks are almost always at the top of the list in getting FA's because if you sign with the Yanks you will get paid, national exposure, and have a great chance to win. As long as George has a passion to win (considering he's already won a ton of championships it still looks like the case)the Yanks will be on top and never hit rock bottom like the Jays this season.

The Red Sox will also stay on top because they have owners committed to winning and a smart GM. I don't see the Red Sox trimming payroll to let's say 50 mil anytime soon. Just like the Yanks they are an attractive team for FA's.

As for the Jays, it's a big IF for all the pitchers to develop. Even if let's say the pitchers blossom where are the runs going to come from? The LA Dodgers showed everybody last season you can have dominant pitching but without the bats you don't go anywhere. Assuming Rogers doesn't increase the payroll by a large margin the Jays will always be bargain hunting for bats... and tell me when was the last time a team won the World Series with only 1 or 2 power threats?

And we haven't even discussed the improvig O's and Rays........

_6-4-3 - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 04:19 PM EDT (#27468) #

when was the last time a team won the World Series with only 1 or 2 power threats?

Say hello to the 2003 Marlins, and the 2002 Anaheim Angels.

It depends on how you define "power threat", but the Marlins had Lowell (32 homers) and Lee (31 homers), the rest of their hitters were in the 15 - 20 homer range. Their 157 homers ranked 11th in the NL, ahead of Arizona, Montreal, San Deigo, the Mets, and the aformentioned Dodgers. They beat the Yankees, who had 230 home runs, led by Posada (30), Giambi (41), and Soriano (38).

The Angels depended on Troy Glaus (30) and Garret Anderson (29). Tim Salmon and Brad Fullmer added more power, but the Angels had only 152 homers, putting them ahead of the Royals, Devil Rays, and Tigers, for a tie with Seattle for 10th in the AL.

I'd make a case for the 2001 Diamondbacks (They had Luis Gonzalez with 59, and Reggie Sanders with 33), but they had a balanced lineup with everyone but Tony Womack hitting more than 10 homers.

_Ron - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT (#27469) #

When I look at the Marlins of last year I would include Lowell, Lee, Pudge, and Cabrera as power threats. To a lesser extent you could also include Conine.

As for the Angels they had Glaus, Anderson, Salmon, and Fuller.

If you look at the Jays they have one power threat right now and that's Wells. JP has said he won't spend a large chunk of his money on one guy so you can cross off Glaus, Beltre, and Sexson. And I take into account the Jays don't have a legit top power prospect in the system (I know some would say Crozier but is ranked in the top 100 prospect list of any publication?). The power shortage looks bleak right now and also for the future. I'm going out on a limb and saying Rios won't ever be more than a 15-17 HR guy at best.

_Geoff - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 08:44 PM EDT (#27470) #

Mike,

With regards to your question about the US economic outlook and Yanks, it probably doesn't matter much. However, what is more important is the US dollar, which continues to sink like a stone. USD/CAD was over 80 US cents today and while parity is a ways off, don't rule it out over the next couple of years given the mess south of the border. A better question may be if it does go over parity, what excuses will Rogers come up with to keep the payroll at $50M.

robertdudek - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 10:56 PM EDT (#27471) #

_Moffatt - Friday, October 08 2004 @ 11:00 PM EDT (#27472) #

I'd like to know what Rogers' excuse is today, since the plan when they took over was to spend $50 million US for 2005 when the dollar was something like 68 cents US (I'm guessing here). So in today's money that should be at least 58 million US.

That's assuming that they're not doing any medium-term currency hedging. But they are. It said so in their annual reports.

So any rise in the Canadian Dollar will be off-set by a drop in the U.S. Dollar assets they're using to hedge against currency fluctuations.

robertdudek - Saturday, October 09 2004 @ 12:25 AM EDT (#27473) #

I've heard that line about hedging many times. The Canadian dollars that are purchasing the US dollars as a hedge are buying many more US dollars than they did before. Thus the cost of hedging, as well as US dollar-denominated salaries, are significantly lower now in Canadian dollar terms than they were when Rogers took over the team.

And I don't think they give details about how much they are hedging and the price of purchase of the US dollars in the annual report. If it's there please point to the page number.

_Geoff - Saturday, October 09 2004 @ 07:32 AM EDT (#27474) #

There is no question that they hedge, but I would find it hard to believe that they hedge forward more than a year (since they say they don't know what their budget is for next year). Once the budget is set in the offseason, they probably then put in the trade.

_Pete Warren - Saturday, October 09 2004 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#27475) #

I agree. If we are ever going to make the playoffs again, it'll be because we have a good starting rotation. I think the Blue Jays would be smart to spend the little money they have on pitching. If the Jays have Halladay (19 wins), Lilly (15 wins), and another strong FA signing (15 or more wins), we could win the East with superior pitching. When studs like McGowan and Rosario come up, we can use them to fortify the already outstanding rotation.

_Daryn - Saturday, October 09 2004 @ 05:54 PM EDT (#27476) #

I'm just hoping that once The Boss finally gets out of the way, a leafs type conglomerate group of "interets" will buy the Yankees, realize they make a bazillion dollars off the team no matter what they do, and keep the team just competitive but holding in as much cash as they can.

Wouldn't it be the perfect revenge for a bunch of guys like us to buy the Yankees REDUCE the payroll, REDUCE the chances of winning, INCREASE the profitability and KEEP IT!

_Daryn - Saturday, October 09 2004 @ 06:00 PM EDT (#27477) #

There were people frequenting Baseball Primer three years ago who thought that the demise of the Yankees was just around the corner.

I remember O'Neil, Duncan, and Tino Martinez, Wade Boggs, Girardi and Leytriz, (wasn't Sierra there then?), Jimmy Key, Dwight Gooden, David Cone, Wettland, in the Mid 90's.. THOSE guys were old then!!

_Daryn - Saturday, October 09 2004 @ 06:02 PM EDT (#27478) #

Blue Jays would be smart to spend the little money they have on pitching. If the Jays have Halladay (19 wins), Lilly (15 wins), and another strong FA signing (15 or more wins),

I agree, but not this year, NEXT year... unless you can sign these FA's for 3 year deals and they are about 29...

_Jabonoso - Sunday, October 10 2004 @ 04:34 PM EDT (#27479) #

Good work Gerry!
Do not agree with your pitching strategy.
I would go for a co-ace with full strenght. Someone in the Ben Sheets category, even if the cost is high in minorleaguers ( future's stock).
JP results so far are weaker and poorer that what we assumed. Two examples: a rotation of Doc, Chris Carpenter, Escobar and Lilly, would be both feasible and strong with just the fifth chip to be plugged into. Having Durazo instead of Arnold and Griffith would have made our lineup a bit stronger and respectable than we had in 04.
I'm not second guessing just frustated for our lack of "luck" and previsions.
Beside having a very good rotation, i do not see how you are going to build a respectable lineup. Ergo the 2005 forecast is prolonged to long term: 2007 and beyond, in the "not likely to be real" prognostication time frame.
A good team is a good team regardless of the league/ division it plays. Our is not a good team and it is not likely to be a good team in the next two years...

_Caino - Sunday, October 10 2004 @ 07:27 PM EDT (#27480) #

"A good team is a good team regardless of the league/ division it plays. Our is not a good team and it is not likely to be a good team in the next two years..."

- I think it may be premature to say the team will 100 % categorically for sure, not going to be any good within the next few years. I mean it isn't a guarentee, but it is a definite probability.

And I agree that a team is a good team regardless of it's division. However, it is a mathamatical fact that a team hoping to make the playoffs in the AL East perennially requires a better record than they would in other divisions.

The Blue Jays Master Plan | 49 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.