Instead of using my own laziness as an excuse, I'm so cold that I can barely type. What's out there in Blue Jays news today?
If we try hard enough, you think we could convince JP to sign both Alou and Magglio?
I don't think JP is the one that needs convincing.
Apparently, there are some reports out there stating that Alou has agreed to terms with the Mets. Nothing is official yet though.
Should be interesting today though. What would it take to get Durazo from the A's?
Anyone have any other ideas of possible DH's who may be non-tendered today?
Failing the non-tender list, it looks as though we may have to trade for a DH. I'd personally, would rather see Hinske getting the shot at first next year as opposed to trying to pick up a first baseman and switching Hinske to the DH role.
Should be interesting today though. What would it take to get Durazo from the A's?
Anyone have any other ideas of possible DH's who may be non-tendered today?
Failing the non-tender list, it looks as though we may have to trade for a DH. I'd personally, would rather see Hinske getting the shot at first next year as opposed to trying to pick up a first baseman and switching Hinske to the DH role.
RotoWorld rumor:
Nationals GM Jim Bowden hasn't ruled out non-tendering one of his arbitration-eligible players in order to save money.
Tony Armas Jr. and T.J. Tucker would seem to be the most vulnerable players in the group that includes Brad Wilkerson, Nick Johnson, Brian Schneider and Tomo Ohka.
Tony Armas would be an interesting pitcher if available, for the closer role or 5th starter role. Although if Johnson gets non-tendered, JP has to jump on it.
Nationals GM Jim Bowden hasn't ruled out non-tendering one of his arbitration-eligible players in order to save money.
Tony Armas Jr. and T.J. Tucker would seem to be the most vulnerable players in the group that includes Brad Wilkerson, Nick Johnson, Brian Schneider and Tomo Ohka.
Tony Armas would be an interesting pitcher if available, for the closer role or 5th starter role. Although if Johnson gets non-tendered, JP has to jump on it.
Johnson would be okay, but where does that leave Hinske? Full-time DH?
Would Bowden actually non-tender Wilkerson?
There's someone to jump all over.
There's someone to jump all over.
Bowden can trade Johnson and Wilkerson in a heartbeat (the issue is just what he gets back) so I don't see either of them being non- tendered.
If he has money problems he may just have to be a little more reasonable than Johnson for Rios (the rumour several weeks ago).
I still think if Keilty is non tendered he might be a good bat against lefties as part of a platoon at first or DH.
If he has money problems he may just have to be a little more reasonable than Johnson for Rios (the rumour several weeks ago).
I still think if Keilty is non tendered he might be a good bat against lefties as part of a platoon at first or DH.
If J.P. wanted to have a righty/lefty platoon at first, he'd probably be more interested in Josh Phelps.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits3?statsId=6246&type=batting
My recollection of last years arbitration non-tender date, was somewhat anti-climatic, lots of big names ,but when push came to shove, teams generally retained the top players. We'll see what happens this year.
One name who consistently gets mentioned as being non-tendered because his team is financially constrained is Jaques Jones.(Comm for 3 year splits) I really doubt if he was a free agent that he'd come to Toronto, but if the market is soft and you didn't overpay, he'd make a nice platoon partner with Reed Johnson in left, moving Cat to D.H. Its just a thought, but I'm glad the Jays still have some bullets in their financial holster.
My recollection of last years arbitration non-tender date, was somewhat anti-climatic, lots of big names ,but when push came to shove, teams generally retained the top players. We'll see what happens this year.
One name who consistently gets mentioned as being non-tendered because his team is financially constrained is Jaques Jones.(Comm for 3 year splits) I really doubt if he was a free agent that he'd come to Toronto, but if the market is soft and you didn't overpay, he'd make a nice platoon partner with Reed Johnson in left, moving Cat to D.H. Its just a thought, but I'm glad the Jays still have some bullets in their financial holster.
If Alou signs with the Mets, the list of remaining names is getting pretty underwhelming. I think I would rather JP hold off (or make minor moves only), rather than overspend or give up excessive talent for a mid-range player. He can always make deals during the year. Of course, if he can trade Hinske and acquire someone like Johnson or Choi, without giving up too much, I would be in favour.
Pumped you're right about J.P. seeming to want an everyday DH, we'll see how the market falls out in this regard, I just want to illustrate some options out there if this plan fails.
Problem is, if you do move Hinske, then you need a DH AND a first basemen. I agree, the F/A list isn't that impressive. It looks like we may have to trade for a right handed power bat.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1949689
Apparently Moises Alou got in a car accident yesterday in the Dominican (COMN). He wasn't hurt. But I kinda hope the Jays pass on him. I know there's not much else out there, but to me, he typified the Cubs last year. A selfish player who thinks about himself first and whines about everything in sight.
Apparently Moises Alou got in a car accident yesterday in the Dominican (COMN). He wasn't hurt. But I kinda hope the Jays pass on him. I know there's not much else out there, but to me, he typified the Cubs last year. A selfish player who thinks about himself first and whines about everything in sight.
Wow! I don't think I've seen it this dead here in a long time. What about Aubrey Huff? Anyone know what Tampa needs or would want for him? What about his contract status?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/huffau01.shtml
I mentioned Aubrey yesterday and Tampa is looking to trade him. I am unsure about his contract status though. COMN for his stats. He had 29 homeruns and 104 RBI last season and that was still with a slow start to the year.
I mentioned Aubrey yesterday and Tampa is looking to trade him. I am unsure about his contract status though. COMN for his stats. He had 29 homeruns and 104 RBI last season and that was still with a slow start to the year.
Didn't realize Huff was a lefty. It apperars he's pretty close to untouchable as you can get. Tampa would probably have to be blown away to trade him.
The Jays are in a tough spot right now and I'm not sure what they should do. With $9M left on the table they have a few options. The bullpen should be addresed through free-agency while getting a right handed power bat via trade. I'd love to see them go after Ben Broussard. He is a great looking 1B who just needs an everyday job. Problem is Clevland may want a lot for him.
http://tampabay.devilrays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tb/news/tb_news.jsp?ymd=20041213&content_id=922097&vkey=news_tb&fext=.jsp
Well, the Rays are looking for a 3rd baseman and LF/4th outfielder, something the Jays could accomodate for if they were in serious intereset for Huff. COMN.
Maybe Hinske, Gross or Cat would interest them.
Well, the Rays are looking for a 3rd baseman and LF/4th outfielder, something the Jays could accomodate for if they were in serious intereset for Huff. COMN.
Maybe Hinske, Gross or Cat would interest them.
What about Hinske, Reed Johnson, + prospect for Huff?
Huff is signed for $4.5M in 2005 and $7.5M in 2006 after which I believe he is a FA.
Bowden can trade Johnson and Wilkerson in a heartbeat (the issue is just what he gets back) so I don't see either of them being non- tendered.
I don't know about this, since a player like Wilkerson, in particular, is only deemed "valuable" by a small cabal of teams. Obviously teams like Oakland and Toronto recognize how good Wilkerson is, and could conceivably ship off a sexy-looking prospect (by the numbers, not by a chic hairstyle) for the less sexy but better Wilkerson.
Johnson has limited trade value. No team would offer much more than a Grade C prospect, and with good reason; no matter how good Johnson could be, he's unreliable (duh). But, sure, why not? There's upside there (duh), and if all it costs is Fernando Seguigonol, or some permutation thereof, the Jays or A's or Dodgers or Padres should do it (duh).
I don't know about this, since a player like Wilkerson, in particular, is only deemed "valuable" by a small cabal of teams. Obviously teams like Oakland and Toronto recognize how good Wilkerson is, and could conceivably ship off a sexy-looking prospect (by the numbers, not by a chic hairstyle) for the less sexy but better Wilkerson.
Johnson has limited trade value. No team would offer much more than a Grade C prospect, and with good reason; no matter how good Johnson could be, he's unreliable (duh). But, sure, why not? There's upside there (duh), and if all it costs is Fernando Seguigonol, or some permutation thereof, the Jays or A's or Dodgers or Padres should do it (duh).
http://www.aarongleeman.com/
Aaron Gleeman reports that AJ Pierzynski will be non-tendered. COMN. If the Jays sign him, and someone else signs Zaun, the Jays net a draft pick in the process. Zaun made himself a favourite here by his play last season, but sometimes it's a cold, cold game.
Aaron Gleeman reports that AJ Pierzynski will be non-tendered. COMN. If the Jays sign him, and someone else signs Zaun, the Jays net a draft pick in the process. Zaun made himself a favourite here by his play last season, but sometimes it's a cold, cold game.
Wow! I don't think I've seen it this dead here in a long time.
We're all frozen solid. And those newfangled LCD things get all messed up in the cold.
We're all frozen solid. And those newfangled LCD things get all messed up in the cold.
The Devil Rays have Crawford/Baldelli/Cruz signed to be their OF, so I can't imagine an OF, even a 4th OF, would be a very high priority, even as insurance against Baldelli's health issues. That should remove Johnson as trade bait.
Given Piniella's defense-first approach, I think Huff will continue to be relegated to DH, even with 1B and 3B still up in the air. That should remove Catalanotto (and his chunky salary) as trade bait, since he'd only be useful to them as a DH.
I think TB's plan is to keep Upton at 3B, and that would remove Hinske as trade bait. Even if Upton were to start the season at SS, I can't fathom TB voluntarily forking out $4-5M a year for Hinske, even given their dubious braintrust. The only way Hinske gets moved is if a big chunk of his salary gets moved with him. And even then, while Hinske has improved defensively, he may not flash enough leather for Piniella's taste. I think Hinske would retire before playing for TB and enduring the heckling "fan" that has haunted him the past two seasons.
The only thing I can see interesting TB in Huff would be someone like Bush. I don't see Ricciardi making that deal.
Given Piniella's defense-first approach, I think Huff will continue to be relegated to DH, even with 1B and 3B still up in the air. That should remove Catalanotto (and his chunky salary) as trade bait, since he'd only be useful to them as a DH.
I think TB's plan is to keep Upton at 3B, and that would remove Hinske as trade bait. Even if Upton were to start the season at SS, I can't fathom TB voluntarily forking out $4-5M a year for Hinske, even given their dubious braintrust. The only way Hinske gets moved is if a big chunk of his salary gets moved with him. And even then, while Hinske has improved defensively, he may not flash enough leather for Piniella's taste. I think Hinske would retire before playing for TB and enduring the heckling "fan" that has haunted him the past two seasons.
The only thing I can see interesting TB in Huff would be someone like Bush. I don't see Ricciardi making that deal.
Aaron Gleeman reports that AJ Pierzynski will be non-tendered.
I would think that the $9M/3-year deal (ugh!) signed by Matheny has already served as the writing on the wall for Pierzynksi.
I wonder if Pierzynski's abrasive nature might be enough to keep the Jays uninterested. Someone figures to get him for cheap. As Per Lee Sinins, he has been a league average hitter and a very good hitting catcher over his career (773 career OPS vs 767 league average and 701 positional average).
I'd rather have him than Zaun.
I would think that the $9M/3-year deal (ugh!) signed by Matheny has already served as the writing on the wall for Pierzynksi.
I wonder if Pierzynski's abrasive nature might be enough to keep the Jays uninterested. Someone figures to get him for cheap. As Per Lee Sinins, he has been a league average hitter and a very good hitting catcher over his career (773 career OPS vs 767 league average and 701 positional average).
I'd rather have him than Zaun.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/10458751.htm?1c
Aaron Gleeman reports that AJ Pierzynski will be non-tendered.
Since Pierzynski was released last week (COMN), Gleeman is a little late to the party. Next he'll be reported that President Lincoln has been shot.
Aaron Gleeman reports that AJ Pierzynski will be non-tendered.
Since Pierzynski was released last week (COMN), Gleeman is a little late to the party. Next he'll be reported that President Lincoln has been shot.
'Aaron Gleeman reports that AJ Pierzynski will be non-tendered'
I thought he already got flat out released. See the week in quotes on Prospectus.
I thought he already got flat out released. See the week in quotes on Prospectus.
The Jays would have to send T-Bay something pretty hefty to get Huff. They have plenty of young positional talent already. Looking at their starting pitching however appears to be their single greatest weakness.
Therefore I think it would be Ted Lilly who would be attractive to them. I can't see any way the Jays could afford to send him south.
Huff sure would look good on the Jays.
I like the Broussard suggestion above. Cleveland are starting to encounter a log jam of position players. Halfner is reported healthy and ready to go and is ahead of him on the depth chart.
Finally I suggested this one on 2004 trading deadline thread, Batista for Mench. I think with a some tinkering this is a trade that could satisfy both teams needs.
Therefore I think it would be Ted Lilly who would be attractive to them. I can't see any way the Jays could afford to send him south.
Huff sure would look good on the Jays.
I like the Broussard suggestion above. Cleveland are starting to encounter a log jam of position players. Halfner is reported healthy and ready to go and is ahead of him on the depth chart.
Finally I suggested this one on 2004 trading deadline thread, Batista for Mench. I think with a some tinkering this is a trade that could satisfy both teams needs.
But, can we really afford to deal a part of our projected rotation for next year, especially after losing out on Clement? I can see dealing Towers or Chacin, but Lilly or Batista, I don't know.
I wonder if Pierzynski's abrasive nature might be enough to keep the Jays uninterested.
I think the Jays value character as much as any team, and I think it'll likely be moot because the market for Pierzynski will be too rich for the Jays blood. He made $3.5M last year and, in the words of Sabean "led the league in RBIs for his position". Ooooo, RBIs! Shiny!
My ideal scenario has the Jays retaining Zaun and also signing...Matt LeCroy. No strong reason to believe the Twins will non-tender him, but he'd sure look good in a Blue Jay uniform as the complement to Cat at DH. He'd also serve as 3rd catcher and first base backup.
I think the Jays value character as much as any team, and I think it'll likely be moot because the market for Pierzynski will be too rich for the Jays blood. He made $3.5M last year and, in the words of Sabean "led the league in RBIs for his position". Ooooo, RBIs! Shiny!
My ideal scenario has the Jays retaining Zaun and also signing...Matt LeCroy. No strong reason to believe the Twins will non-tender him, but he'd sure look good in a Blue Jay uniform as the complement to Cat at DH. He'd also serve as 3rd catcher and first base backup.
if theres really nothing to spend the money on, why not roll the 10 million into next years budget and allow the prospects to get a chance this year? With the team we have now getting a veteran bat (alou) isn't worth the risk(risk being silly money for an old player and Toronto press giving it to the franchise when he goes down), save the dough, invest it, and hope that the youngsters take some big steps this year and bring in some more fan interest. As a fan that goes to 25 to 30 home games a year adding a Moises Alou really doesn't get me too excited. I rather watch the development of the Gross'es, Russ Adams, Quiroz, Rios. Don't bring in guys just for the sake of spending money. This way if we actually contend this year we have money alloted to take on a high-priced player mid-season who can help us down the stretch. Wishful thinking????
I'm no Matt Lecroy fan... Maybe its because he's fat... But seriously, I can't see him ever amounting to anything but a pinch hitter in the NL.
It's certainly possible that Pierzynski's market value has plummeted from last year. Thanks, lurker and Jim, for the correction on his status.
As for the reports of an "abrasive personality", there was no talk of this when he played in Minnesota. He might have had good reason to be abrasive in San Francisco.
As for the reports of an "abrasive personality", there was no talk of this when he played in Minnesota. He might have had good reason to be abrasive in San Francisco.
No, no, apparently Pierzynski rattled his teammates in Minnesota, too; he certainly irritated the A's back in the ... well, during one of those Twins/A's playoff matches.
As for Huff/Bush ... quick poll: do you make that trade if the Rays come calling?
As for Huff/Bush ... quick poll: do you make that trade if the Rays come calling?
As for Huff/Bush ... quick poll: do you make that trade if the Rays come calling?
Worst.. trade.. ever.
Bush at 300K next year is going to provide more net value to the Jays then Huff will for the rest of his career.
Worst.. trade.. ever.
Bush at 300K next year is going to provide more net value to the Jays then Huff will for the rest of his career.
Heh. Tony Armas. Fernando Seguigonol. Ted Lilly. Nick Johnson.
Apparently today's "Question of the Day" is "How many former Yankee propspects can you work into conversation in today's thread?"
Do you think the Jays could package Jason Arnold and John-Ford Griffin for Alfonso Soriano?
Apparently today's "Question of the Day" is "How many former Yankee propspects can you work into conversation in today's thread?"
Do you think the Jays could package Jason Arnold and John-Ford Griffin for Alfonso Soriano?
Do you think the Jays could package Jason Arnold and John-Ford Griffin for Alfonso Soriano?
Only if the Rangers could then sign D'Angelo Jimenez to play 2B, in keeping with the ex-Yankee prospect theme.
Only if the Rangers could then sign D'Angelo Jimenez to play 2B, in keeping with the ex-Yankee prospect theme.
As for Huff/Bush ... quick poll: do you make that trade if the Rays come calling?
Not a chance. Bush will be earning close to the minimum for the next few seasons; Huff, as detailed above, is set to make $12M over two years before becoming a free agent after 2006. That's pretty close to fair market value for the production Huff provides, but the Jays aren't in a positon to be paying FMV for any but a handful of players. It's the $300,000 guys like Bush who can give the team a fighting chance.
Not a chance. Bush will be earning close to the minimum for the next few seasons; Huff, as detailed above, is set to make $12M over two years before becoming a free agent after 2006. That's pretty close to fair market value for the production Huff provides, but the Jays aren't in a positon to be paying FMV for any but a handful of players. It's the $300,000 guys like Bush who can give the team a fighting chance.
Oh, no, I would not swap Bush for Huff, either. I'm not sure it's the "worst trade ever," however, since at least a position player is in general more reliable than a pitcher, salary considerations not-withstanding.
I agree, no way in hell do I trade Bush for Huff. There aren't too many I'd trade Bush for at all. This kid looks amaging so far, and from what I saw year, I think he could develop in to one of the better pitchers in the game.
Bush at 300K next year is going to provide more net value to the Jays then Huff will for the rest of his career.
Here's where bang-for-buck gets taken too far: Sure, you can take Bush's 2005 Win Shares and divide them by his 2005 Salary and come up with a far bigger "net value" than Huff's 2005 WS divided by his $4.5M salary. But if you really think that's a good way to measure things, you might as well put GQ at catcher to start the season, Eric Crozier as the first baseman and Brandon League as the closer. They'll all give you much more "net value" than any free agent you could sign for those spots.
Not to say that I'd make the trade, given the context of these Blue Jays. But I also think that the majority of Major League GMs would not even consider making the trade... from Tampa's perspective.
Now, TB's Jonny Gomes... there's a player they appear to have no intention of using who could be very handy.
Here's where bang-for-buck gets taken too far: Sure, you can take Bush's 2005 Win Shares and divide them by his 2005 Salary and come up with a far bigger "net value" than Huff's 2005 WS divided by his $4.5M salary. But if you really think that's a good way to measure things, you might as well put GQ at catcher to start the season, Eric Crozier as the first baseman and Brandon League as the closer. They'll all give you much more "net value" than any free agent you could sign for those spots.
Not to say that I'd make the trade, given the context of these Blue Jays. But I also think that the majority of Major League GMs would not even consider making the trade... from Tampa's perspective.
Now, TB's Jonny Gomes... there's a player they appear to have no intention of using who could be very handy.
Here's where bang-for-buck gets taken too far: Sure, you can take Bush's 2005 Win Shares and divide them by his 2005 Salary and come up with a far bigger "net value" than Huff's 2005 WS divided by his $4.5M salary. But if you really think that's a good way to measure things
No. I think that's a real bad way to calculate things, particularly net value. :)
No. I think that's a real bad way to calculate things, particularly net value. :)
Hey Johnny,
I'm all for your idea of giving the closers role to League next year! :)
I'm all for your idea of giving the closers role to League next year! :)
yeah, I actually almost used Jiminez instead of Soriano becuase Griffin and Arnold would never net Soriano, but would be overpaying for Jiminez.
in keeping with the ex-Yankee prospect theme.
Speaking of which, has Eric Milton signed back to the mother ship yet? I can't find anything on that.
in keeping with the ex-Yankee prospect theme.
Speaking of which, has Eric Milton signed back to the mother ship yet? I can't find anything on that.
Bush for Huff? No thanks. If salary were not a consideration, I'd have to think a bit.
A catcher irritating the opposition? Say it aint so.
A catcher irritating the opposition? Say it aint so.
No. I think that's a real bad way to calculate things, particularly net value.
Right. So what is your definition of "net value" that makes you so confident that Bush will provide more of it in 2005 than Huff will over the rest of his career?
Pumped, I'm not even in favour of League starting the season on the big league roster, let alone as the closer.
Right. So what is your definition of "net value" that makes you so confident that Bush will provide more of it in 2005 than Huff will over the rest of his career?
Pumped, I'm not even in favour of League starting the season on the big league roster, let alone as the closer.
Actually JP was quoted in the Saturday Star (BBRRS=split pea soup) as indicating that Batista would likely move back to the rotation. Geoff Baker inferred that Speier, Frasor and League would be considered for the closer's role.
Batista in the rotation, Speier as closer, League in AAA to determine whether he's a starter or a reliever. Sounds good to me.
Right. So what is your definition of "net value" that makes you so confident that Bush will provide more of it in 2005 than Huff will over the rest of his career?
Well, first of all using Win Shares for a calculation like this is beyond idiotic because of the baseline it uses. No net value calculation in the world would suggest such an approach.
Look at it this way: For $15 million I can either have Huff, OR I can have Bush and a $14 million bat for 2 years. Say a guy like Corey Koskie.
Would you trade Huff for Koskie and Bush? That's essentially what this trade would suggest that you do. You might think that's a good idea, but to me it seems like a self-evidently bad one.
When you consider that if Crozier played the entire season in Toronto he'd win up with a fairly negative WARP3, I'm floored that you'd even suggest that he'd had a positive net value. Honestly, if I didn't know you better, I would have thought you were trolling.
Well, first of all using Win Shares for a calculation like this is beyond idiotic because of the baseline it uses. No net value calculation in the world would suggest such an approach.
Look at it this way: For $15 million I can either have Huff, OR I can have Bush and a $14 million bat for 2 years. Say a guy like Corey Koskie.
Would you trade Huff for Koskie and Bush? That's essentially what this trade would suggest that you do. You might think that's a good idea, but to me it seems like a self-evidently bad one.
When you consider that if Crozier played the entire season in Toronto he'd win up with a fairly negative WARP3, I'm floored that you'd even suggest that he'd had a positive net value. Honestly, if I didn't know you better, I would have thought you were trolling.
I agree with Jonny (maybe it's the engineering thing). A roster full of rookies will give you bang for buck, but very little wins.
I'm not sure I'd do a Huff for Bush trade, but I'd seriously consider it. Many starting pitchers without dominating stuff start off well and then struggle as the league figures them out.
I also don't want to see League as the closer, but I would like to see him in the bigs, maybe getting 100 to 120 innings in a middle relief / spot starter role.
I'm not sure I'd do a Huff for Bush trade, but I'd seriously consider it. Many starting pitchers without dominating stuff start off well and then struggle as the league figures them out.
I also don't want to see League as the closer, but I would like to see him in the bigs, maybe getting 100 to 120 innings in a middle relief / spot starter role.
A roster full of rookies will give you bang for buck, but very little wins.
If they don't give you many wins, then where's the bang? It seems like they'd give you no bang for the no bucks. :)
If they don't give you many wins, then where's the bang? It seems like they'd give you no bang for the no bucks. :)
Johnny,
Are they really still considering making League a starter?
NGD, if you're advocating League being on the big league roster in the bullpen, why not give a shot at the closers role?
I don't believe in this whole "you can't throw a rookie in to close, because he has to be groomed into that type of role" theorey.
To me, he's the perfect closer. Big, intimidating prsence on the mound, with a fastball that hit's 100 m.p.h.!!! If you think he's good enough to pitch in the bigs, then he's good enough to close in my books. As long as you don't mind a few bumps in the road, and the organization shows the confidence in him, I don't see the problem. I stay stick him in the role, and leave him there.
Are they really still considering making League a starter?
NGD, if you're advocating League being on the big league roster in the bullpen, why not give a shot at the closers role?
I don't believe in this whole "you can't throw a rookie in to close, because he has to be groomed into that type of role" theorey.
To me, he's the perfect closer. Big, intimidating prsence on the mound, with a fastball that hit's 100 m.p.h.!!! If you think he's good enough to pitch in the bigs, then he's good enough to close in my books. As long as you don't mind a few bumps in the road, and the organization shows the confidence in him, I don't see the problem. I stay stick him in the role, and leave him there.
A roster full of rooks(and second and third year guys) would give you a $7.2 million payroll. If a $50 mil team wins 80 games, the rookie team would need to win 12 games to be as efficient monetarily. You're telling me if you traded all your vets for talented cheap players you couldn't go 12-150?
Koskie and Bush take up two roster spots, while Huff takes up one. I'm sure you can find 9 or 10 players that together produce more than Barry Bonds. But Bonds is more valuable.
Koskie and Bush take up two roster spots, while Huff takes up one. I'm sure you can find 9 or 10 players that together produce more than Barry Bonds. But Bonds is more valuable.
A roster full of rooks(and second and third year guys) would give you a $7.2 million payroll. If a $50 mil team wins 80 games, the rookie team would need to win 12 games to be as efficient monetarily. You're telling me if you traded all your vets for talented cheap players you couldn't go 12-150?
How on earth do you figure that?
First of all, a win tends to average abouot an extra $2 million in revenue. So a team with a $7 million dollar payroll would have to win about 58 games to achieve the same level of performance, something it is unlikely to do. Where are you getting 12 from?!?
How on earth do you figure that?
First of all, a win tends to average abouot an extra $2 million in revenue. So a team with a $7 million dollar payroll would have to win about 58 games to achieve the same level of performance, something it is unlikely to do. Where are you getting 12 from?!?
I don't believe in this whole "you can't throw a rookie in to close, because he has to be groomed into that type of role" theorey.
I don't either. My reasoning for middle relief is to get more innings, and learn in the bigs so that if successful, he can start the next year.
If he closes, he'll likely be pitching one innning at a time and 70 innings max. I think he'd then be locked into a relief role. In the end League may be better suited for closing, but I'd at least like to try stretching him out a little first.
I don't either. My reasoning for middle relief is to get more innings, and learn in the bigs so that if successful, he can start the next year.
If he closes, he'll likely be pitching one innning at a time and 70 innings max. I think he'd then be locked into a relief role. In the end League may be better suited for closing, but I'd at least like to try stretching him out a little first.
Moffatt, I agree, but that wasn't the tone up above when the first few Huff for Bush comments were made.
Moffatt:
Item 1) Apologies for making a gross assumption on what you meant by "net value". I wasn't advocating Crozier as first baseman, I was taking that assumed definition to extremes to show how it doesn't make sense.
Item 2) You're still not getting your original point across to me. Besides the fact that you randomly added $3M to Huff's salary over the next two years, your statement was that Bush 2005 has more net value than Huff for the rest of his career. I just can't picture any definition of "net value" that makes that a reasonable statement.
Item 1) Apologies for making a gross assumption on what you meant by "net value". I wasn't advocating Crozier as first baseman, I was taking that assumed definition to extremes to show how it doesn't make sense.
Item 2) You're still not getting your original point across to me. Besides the fact that you randomly added $3M to Huff's salary over the next two years, your statement was that Bush 2005 has more net value than Huff for the rest of his career. I just can't picture any definition of "net value" that makes that a reasonable statement.
http://www.baseballreference.com/g/gamblos01.shtml
You want ex-Yankees, you got 'em. Happy Birthday, Oscar!
Just for fun, here are Huff's BR comparables. Jim Edmonds is really closest (offensively, he added quickly). Huff hits for a little less power, and walks somewhat less, but also strikes out much less.
You want ex-Yankees, you got 'em. Happy Birthday, Oscar!
Just for fun, here are Huff's BR comparables. Jim Edmonds is really closest (offensively, he added quickly). Huff hits for a little less power, and walks somewhat less, but also strikes out much less.
Are they really still considering making League a starter?
I don't know. I'm not talking about what they're considering, I'm talking about what I would consider.
I don't know. I'm not talking about what they're considering, I'm talking about what I would consider.
Moffatt, could you calculate the net value of AMR Corporation for our year-end annual report, please? )8-P
Moffatt, I agree, but that wasn't the tone up above when the first few Huff for Bush comments were made.
Sure it was. I guess I wasn't explaining it clear enough.
Take a guy like Crozier. You pay him 300K and you get what from him.. 200K, 250K worth of performance. That's a net loss.
A guy like Huff might give you 12M of performance over 2 years, but you have to pay him 12M. So not much of a gain.
But Bush on the other hand, will likely give you a couple million in performance (when you translate wins into revenue), and you're only paying him 300K. That's value!
The key from the GMs side is maximizing the total amount of value you get out of your players given the budget constraint you have. Trading guys who are going to give you a great deal of positive net value for guys who aren't is not a good way of going about it.
Sure it was. I guess I wasn't explaining it clear enough.
Take a guy like Crozier. You pay him 300K and you get what from him.. 200K, 250K worth of performance. That's a net loss.
A guy like Huff might give you 12M of performance over 2 years, but you have to pay him 12M. So not much of a gain.
But Bush on the other hand, will likely give you a couple million in performance (when you translate wins into revenue), and you're only paying him 300K. That's value!
The key from the GMs side is maximizing the total amount of value you get out of your players given the budget constraint you have. Trading guys who are going to give you a great deal of positive net value for guys who aren't is not a good way of going about it.
Fair enough. I could be wrong, but I thought I remember J.P. saying in the summer that he thought he was more suited for the bullpen in the long term. I think at the time, I was trying to figure out why?
Well I can just see it. Gitz has gone from *sigh* to *snicker*.
Bush at 300K next year is going to provide more net value to the Jays then Huff will for the rest of his career
...
First of all, a win tends to average abouot an extra $2 million in revenue.
Moffatt, with these two statements you must see why I think your position has changed.
I also think there is a pretty real chance that Huff provides two wins over Bush next year (thereby making up the diffence in salary).
...
First of all, a win tends to average abouot an extra $2 million in revenue.
Moffatt, with these two statements you must see why I think your position has changed.
I also think there is a pretty real chance that Huff provides two wins over Bush next year (thereby making up the diffence in salary).
Sorry Moffatt, your post wasn't up when I posted my last one.
I just can't picture any definition of "net value" that makes that a reasonable statement.
Really? Maybe I ought to start a finance thread. :)
There's two ways you can think about it. Either in absolute terms, or percentage terms (ROI). In this case it doesn't really matter too much which you want to think about.
We'd expect that when Huff becomes a free agent, his expected net value will end up being zero. He'll get paid X dollars and receive X dollars in return. Of course, his realized net value will be more or less than zero, since the market for players is far from efficient, and there's a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to future performance.
Given Huff's salary, I can't see him providing a great deal of net value over the next two years. You're right, it's 12M instead of 14M.
Bush, on the other hand will next year, unless you expect him to pitch at replacement level. If he's a couple wins above replacemen next year, he'll provide a few million worth of value to the team and only get 300K in return. There's a great deal of value there.
There's no net value in playing replacement level players and giving them replacement level salaries, because you're getting what you pay for. But if you can get a guy like Bush, who will provide above replacement level performance but you can pay him replacement level salaries, then you have something!
Really? Maybe I ought to start a finance thread. :)
There's two ways you can think about it. Either in absolute terms, or percentage terms (ROI). In this case it doesn't really matter too much which you want to think about.
We'd expect that when Huff becomes a free agent, his expected net value will end up being zero. He'll get paid X dollars and receive X dollars in return. Of course, his realized net value will be more or less than zero, since the market for players is far from efficient, and there's a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to future performance.
Given Huff's salary, I can't see him providing a great deal of net value over the next two years. You're right, it's 12M instead of 14M.
Bush, on the other hand will next year, unless you expect him to pitch at replacement level. If he's a couple wins above replacemen next year, he'll provide a few million worth of value to the team and only get 300K in return. There's a great deal of value there.
There's no net value in playing replacement level players and giving them replacement level salaries, because you're getting what you pay for. But if you can get a guy like Bush, who will provide above replacement level performance but you can pay him replacement level salaries, then you have something!
Jonny Gomes, eh? 35 homers, 65 walks, 185 Ks per 600 PAs. A slightly lesser version of Ryan Howard.
Moffatt, with these two statements you must see why I think your position has changed.
No, not at all.
I also think there is a pretty real chance that Huff provides two wins over Bush next year (thereby making up the diffence in salary).
But Huff's contract is for two years, not one. You can't cut him after the first year, so you have to consider the value of the second year's contract. So it's not 4.5/1 that is relevant, but 12/2.
Keep in mind there's also budget constraints in play, so it's not an unconstrained optimization problem. That makes some difference as well.
No, not at all.
I also think there is a pretty real chance that Huff provides two wins over Bush next year (thereby making up the diffence in salary).
But Huff's contract is for two years, not one. You can't cut him after the first year, so you have to consider the value of the second year's contract. So it's not 4.5/1 that is relevant, but 12/2.
Keep in mind there's also budget constraints in play, so it's not an unconstrained optimization problem. That makes some difference as well.
Moffatt's basic point is sound; unfortunately he felt the need to hyperbolize.
There's no way to know how much Aubrey Huff will either earn or create in value over the course of his career, which will likely be around a dozen years (because he's such a good hitter). At a guess I'd say he will outperform his contract over the next two years, but as soon as he's eligible for free agency someone will give him a long-term mega-deal that will make it difficult for him to justify it in terms of production.
Dave Bush will very likely add more value than he's paid over the next 4 years, so I think it would be a huge mistake to trade him for Huff. There are very few players in baseball I'd trade Dave Bush for right now.
There's no way to know how much Aubrey Huff will either earn or create in value over the course of his career, which will likely be around a dozen years (because he's such a good hitter). At a guess I'd say he will outperform his contract over the next two years, but as soon as he's eligible for free agency someone will give him a long-term mega-deal that will make it difficult for him to justify it in terms of production.
Dave Bush will very likely add more value than he's paid over the next 4 years, so I think it would be a huge mistake to trade him for Huff. There are very few players in baseball I'd trade Dave Bush for right now.
Just following some of the MLB news out to see if there is a match for the Jays in terms of a trading partner when I stumbled upon this.
The Tigers are reeling a bit from their inability to sign FAs - after being spurned by Glaus and Beltre, et. al.
Apparently they need a 3rd baseman, since their intention now (after losing out on Glaus and Beltre) is to move their current back up catcher (Brando Inge) to 3rd or to centre field, based upon their decision of what to do with their current CF, Alex Sanchez. I'm not making this up, COMN for the story.
Side note: Is Brandon Inge the next coming of Craig Biggio?
Is there a match here for the Jays? We have Hinske currently without a true position, and a person could make a case for Sparky as a CF.
I see 2 players that fit - one would be Dmitri Young (although his salary is a little high at $7.75M last year, so maybe the Tigers eat a little salary and we toss in a prospect). His career line is 293/.351/.831 and he's a switch hitter. His SO rates are up, and he could take a few more walks but his power is still there - and moving out of Comerica into the Skydome would probably help his HRs totals. He is only signed through 2005, so no long term commitment required from the Jays.
The other would be Ugeth Urbina. His K rates are still strong at 9.33/IP, but he walked a few too many last year. The Tigers picked up his option for 2005, so again no long term commitment. Sparky and Hinske for Ugie seems reasonable.
Any takers?
The Tigers are reeling a bit from their inability to sign FAs - after being spurned by Glaus and Beltre, et. al.
Apparently they need a 3rd baseman, since their intention now (after losing out on Glaus and Beltre) is to move their current back up catcher (Brando Inge) to 3rd or to centre field, based upon their decision of what to do with their current CF, Alex Sanchez. I'm not making this up, COMN for the story.
Side note: Is Brandon Inge the next coming of Craig Biggio?
Is there a match here for the Jays? We have Hinske currently without a true position, and a person could make a case for Sparky as a CF.
I see 2 players that fit - one would be Dmitri Young (although his salary is a little high at $7.75M last year, so maybe the Tigers eat a little salary and we toss in a prospect). His career line is 293/.351/.831 and he's a switch hitter. His SO rates are up, and he could take a few more walks but his power is still there - and moving out of Comerica into the Skydome would probably help his HRs totals. He is only signed through 2005, so no long term commitment required from the Jays.
The other would be Ugeth Urbina. His K rates are still strong at 9.33/IP, but he walked a few too many last year. The Tigers picked up his option for 2005, so again no long term commitment. Sparky and Hinske for Ugie seems reasonable.
Any takers?
The FAN is reporting that both Justin Speier and John McDonald have been resigned. I haven't found any details yet.
He'll get paid X dollars and receive X dollars in return.
This should say "He'll get paid X dollars and provide exactly X dollars in performance in return". I was typing too fast for my brain to catch up.
I don't think it's at all hyperbolic to suggest that Bush next year will provide more net value than Huff will for the rest of his career. To me it seems almost self-evident, which is why I came across too sharply. I was rather stunned to think there would be much objection to the statement. Sorry guys.
This should say "He'll get paid X dollars and provide exactly X dollars in performance in return". I was typing too fast for my brain to catch up.
I don't think it's at all hyperbolic to suggest that Bush next year will provide more net value than Huff will for the rest of his career. To me it seems almost self-evident, which is why I came across too sharply. I was rather stunned to think there would be much objection to the statement. Sorry guys.
There's no net value in playing replacement level players and giving them replacement level salaries, because you're getting what you pay for. But if you can get a guy like Bush, who will provide above replacement level performance but you can pay him replacement level salaries, then you have something!
This is particularly so, in respect of starting pitchers. One of the inefficiencies of the current free agent market is the salaries given to average or slightly above average starters. The range seems to be $7-$8.5 million per annum. In the case of starting pitchers, the increments between replacement level and average are greater than at other positions.
Is it plausible that David Bush will pitch as well as Matt Clement next year? Sure. The market assigns tremendous value to that.
This is particularly so, in respect of starting pitchers. One of the inefficiencies of the current free agent market is the salaries given to average or slightly above average starters. The range seems to be $7-$8.5 million per annum. In the case of starting pitchers, the increments between replacement level and average are greater than at other positions.
Is it plausible that David Bush will pitch as well as Matt Clement next year? Sure. The market assigns tremendous value to that.
http://www.freep.com/sports/tigers/tigers20e_20041220.htm
Oops! Forgot the link. Near the bottom of the article.
Oops! Forgot the link. Near the bottom of the article.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2004/20/c7405.html
COMN for the details on Speier and McDonald signings. Speier gets 2 years 4.15M and McDonald gets one year 400K. While it's nice to get the signings done, there's really no news here, is there?
COMN for the details on Speier and McDonald signings. Speier gets 2 years 4.15M and McDonald gets one year 400K. While it's nice to get the signings done, there's really no news here, is there?
Moffatt's basic point is sound; unfortunately he felt the need to hyperbolize.
Thanks, Robert, that's pretty much how I feel. Will Dave Bush have more net value than Aubrey Huff over the next 5 years? Probably. Will Dave Bush 2005 have more net value than Aubrey Huff for the rest of his career? Impossible to say, but awfully unlikely.
Thanks, Robert, that's pretty much how I feel. Will Dave Bush have more net value than Aubrey Huff over the next 5 years? Probably. Will Dave Bush 2005 have more net value than Aubrey Huff for the rest of his career? Impossible to say, but awfully unlikely.
There's really no news here, is there?
Some of us were holding out hope that they wouldn't carry McDonald on the big league roster... oh well.
Some of us were holding out hope that they wouldn't carry McDonald on the big league roster... oh well.
Thanks, Robert, that's pretty much how I feel. Will Dave Bush have more net value than Aubrey Huff over the next 5 years? Probably. Will Dave Bush 2005 have more net value than Aubrey Huff for the rest of his career? Impossible to say, but awfully unlikely.
Why? Honestly, please back this up. Because to me this makes no sense.
If anything 5+ years from Huff is likely to have negative net value due to teams often overpaying for older players.
What do you mean by net value? Do you think the free agent market is undervaluing players?
Why? Honestly, please back this up. Because to me this makes no sense.
If anything 5+ years from Huff is likely to have negative net value due to teams often overpaying for older players.
What do you mean by net value? Do you think the free agent market is undervaluing players?
Oh.. you mean Bush over the next 5 years, not Huff over the next 5 years. Whoops. Nevermind.
I think what Robert says is correct (which is why I said I wouldn't trade Bush for Huff). I still don't see how that is the same as saying Huff will have more net value next year than Huff for his career.
I am hoping the rumours are true and Alou is not going to sign with the Jays. As I pointed out in an older thread there are many stats that suggest he won't be very good this year.
The guys I like that have been mentioned already include:
- Brad Wilkerson - he'd be my #1 choice
- Ben Broussard
- Aubry Huff
As far as the hypothetical Huff/Bush deal goes, you have to look at what the alternative is. If the Jays can't find a good hitter to come to Toronto, would you rather keep Bush in the rotation, but the leagues worst offense? Pitching prospects is one area of strength for the Jays, however hitting is a weakness, therefore a deal like this may be necessary for the Jays.
The guys I like that have been mentioned already include:
- Brad Wilkerson - he'd be my #1 choice
- Ben Broussard
- Aubry Huff
As far as the hypothetical Huff/Bush deal goes, you have to look at what the alternative is. If the Jays can't find a good hitter to come to Toronto, would you rather keep Bush in the rotation, but the leagues worst offense? Pitching prospects is one area of strength for the Jays, however hitting is a weakness, therefore a deal like this may be necessary for the Jays.
I still don't see how that is the same as saying Huff will have more net value next year than Huff for his career.
Because his net value in 2006 could very well be negative, and we'd expect that hiss net value post 2006 will be zero (with an efficient market). Since the market for players is far from efficient and we see things like the winner's curse, there's a good chance that 2007-retirement Huff has a sizeable negative net value.
In 2005, though, his net value will certainly be positive, unless he gets hurt or something.
Make sense?
Because his net value in 2006 could very well be negative, and we'd expect that hiss net value post 2006 will be zero (with an efficient market). Since the market for players is far from efficient and we see things like the winner's curse, there's a good chance that 2007-retirement Huff has a sizeable negative net value.
In 2005, though, his net value will certainly be positive, unless he gets hurt or something.
Make sense?
I'm going to start a new thread about the Speier signing.. just give me a second.
RE: The Signings
We now have 12 Players under contract (assuming Myers makes the team - he is under contract for 700,000 if he does)
Those 12 (Hinske, Koskie, Wells, Cat, Myers, Menechino, McDonald, Doc, Lilly, Batista, Speier, Ligter) are under contract for 38.6 million
We also can expect 9 non-arb players to make the team (Hudson, Adams, Rios, Reed, Bush, Towers/Chacin/Downs, Frasor, Chulk, Downs/Miller/League)
So we have 21 players likely to make the team under contract for somewhere between 41 and 41.5 million and our budget is supposed to be somewhere between 52 and 53 million - So we have anywhere from 10.5 to just under 12 million left to up our budget
We now have 12 Players under contract (assuming Myers makes the team - he is under contract for 700,000 if he does)
Those 12 (Hinske, Koskie, Wells, Cat, Myers, Menechino, McDonald, Doc, Lilly, Batista, Speier, Ligter) are under contract for 38.6 million
We also can expect 9 non-arb players to make the team (Hudson, Adams, Rios, Reed, Bush, Towers/Chacin/Downs, Frasor, Chulk, Downs/Miller/League)
So we have 21 players likely to make the team under contract for somewhere between 41 and 41.5 million and our budget is supposed to be somewhere between 52 and 53 million - So we have anywhere from 10.5 to just under 12 million left to up our budget
I think a big part of the confusion, Moffatt, is that you measure value in strictly economic terms. An 85-win team with a $55M payroll may provide more net value than an a 95-win league champion with a $90M payroll, but no fan would choose the former.
http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tor/news/tor_news.jsp?ymd=20041220&content_id=924325&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp
I'm not sure if this has been reported on this thread, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet. However this was posted on the Jay's site just over an hour ago. Zaun has declined arbitration. COMN for the release.
I'm not sure if this has been reported on this thread, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet. However this was posted on the Jay's site just over an hour ago. Zaun has declined arbitration. COMN for the release.
My objection is to the choice of phrasing. I don't see it as particularly useful to compare a year of Bush to the remainder of Huff's career.
There are so many variables and so little information on the marketplace for Huff's services over the next 12 years, as well as Huff's skills over that time frame, that it seems foolish to me to make any statements whatever about them.
Suppose for a moment that the Jays did acquire Huff for Bush. Very likely they would keep him for only two years and would not attempt to sign him through his free agent years. I personally think there's a every chance that Huff will significantly outperform his salary over the next two years: he's a super hitter in the prime of his career.
Suppose that the Jays sign him to a 5 year 35 million dollar contract (or some other team) upon acquiring him. That's certainly possible, with Huff trading some dollars per year for security. Now suppose there is then a drastic upturn in the salaries for position players thereafter. Further, suppose that Huff turned out to hit like Edgar Martinez did at the same ages. That's certainly possible.
Huff would then be indervalued to the tune of perhaps 20-25 million dollars over 5 years.
This is but one of many scenarios. We know so little about both Huff and the market more than one or two years into the future, so why would one wish to speculate on that if not for effect?
There are so many variables and so little information on the marketplace for Huff's services over the next 12 years, as well as Huff's skills over that time frame, that it seems foolish to me to make any statements whatever about them.
Suppose for a moment that the Jays did acquire Huff for Bush. Very likely they would keep him for only two years and would not attempt to sign him through his free agent years. I personally think there's a every chance that Huff will significantly outperform his salary over the next two years: he's a super hitter in the prime of his career.
Suppose that the Jays sign him to a 5 year 35 million dollar contract (or some other team) upon acquiring him. That's certainly possible, with Huff trading some dollars per year for security. Now suppose there is then a drastic upturn in the salaries for position players thereafter. Further, suppose that Huff turned out to hit like Edgar Martinez did at the same ages. That's certainly possible.
Huff would then be indervalued to the tune of perhaps 20-25 million dollars over 5 years.
This is but one of many scenarios. We know so little about both Huff and the market more than one or two years into the future, so why would one wish to speculate on that if not for effect?
I think a big part of the confusion, Moffatt, is that you measure value in strictly economic terms. An 85-win team with a $55M payroll may provide more net value than an a 95-win league champion with a $90M payroll, but no fan would choose the former.
Given the playoff revenue the second team would get, that may not be the case.
Also I assumed that the budget was fixed from the GM's perspective. I've never said once that this was an unconstrained problem.
Given the playoff revenue the second team would get, that may not be the case.
Also I assumed that the budget was fixed from the GM's perspective. I've never said once that this was an unconstrained problem.
The new thread about the Jays two signings is up.
http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tor/news/tor_news.jsp?ymd=20041220&content_id=924325&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp
Zaun has declined arbitration. COMN.
Zaun has declined arbitration. COMN.
This is but one of many scenarios. We know so little about both Huff and the market more than one or two years into the future, so why would one wish to speculate on that if not for effect?
I didn't speculate on it at all. I just gave it an expected value of zero, which makes a great deal of sense. Of course, it's not likely to be zero, but it's a decent enough expectation to make.
I didn't speculate on it at all. I just gave it an expected value of zero, which makes a great deal of sense. Of course, it's not likely to be zero, but it's a decent enough expectation to make.
I would also offer my full support to the Jays if they did the following:
- let Zaun walk and sign Pierzynski
- sign Tony Aramas Jr.
- let Zaun walk and sign Pierzynski
- sign Tony Aramas Jr.
Because his net value in 2006 could very well be negative, and we'd expect that hiss net value post 2006 will be zero (with an efficient market). Since the market for players is far from efficient and we see things like the winner's curse, there's a good chance that 2007-retirement Huff has a sizeable negative net value.
In 2005, though, his net value will certainly be positive, unless he gets hurt or something.
Make sense?
Are you already taking into account the marginal value of a win here? It seems that you are back into your wins/dollar argument. But higher wins result in higher dollars (as you mentioned before). So while not necessarily more efficient, it could result in more profit (or higher payroll).
Example:
Team A wins 55 games at $10 million payroll.
Team B wins 80 games at $20 million payroll.
Team A is more win/cost efficient, but at $2million additional revenue a win, Team B has more money and more wins.
The goal is to have the most wins cost effectively. It is not to have the most cost efficient wins.
Since the additional wins Huff provides over Bush are higher over replacement, they are also worth more.
In 2005, though, his net value will certainly be positive, unless he gets hurt or something.
Make sense?
Are you already taking into account the marginal value of a win here? It seems that you are back into your wins/dollar argument. But higher wins result in higher dollars (as you mentioned before). So while not necessarily more efficient, it could result in more profit (or higher payroll).
Example:
Team A wins 55 games at $10 million payroll.
Team B wins 80 games at $20 million payroll.
Team A is more win/cost efficient, but at $2million additional revenue a win, Team B has more money and more wins.
The goal is to have the most wins cost effectively. It is not to have the most cost efficient wins.
Since the additional wins Huff provides over Bush are higher over replacement, they are also worth more.
I think a big part of the confusion, Moffatt, is that you measure value in strictly economic terms. An 85-win team with a $55M payroll may provide more net value than an a 95-win league champion with a $90M payroll, but no fan would choose the former.
Golf clap!!!!! I think there are too many people around here that would rather save money than win games. I appreciate the desire and need to be thrifty on a payroll as opposed to overpaying mediocre guys, but I think there are a bunch of folks around here that have taken it to the other extreme.
Golf clap!!!!! I think there are too many people around here that would rather save money than win games. I appreciate the desire and need to be thrifty on a payroll as opposed to overpaying mediocre guys, but I think there are a bunch of folks around here that have taken it to the other extreme.
Are you already taking into account the marginal value of a win here? It seems that you are back into your wins/dollar argument. But higher wins result in higher dollars (as you mentioned before). So while not necessarily more efficient, it could result in more profit (or higher payroll).
I'm also assuming the GM has no control to change the budget, remember. That's one thing that's been missed, despite me having said it a few times. :)
Team A is NOT more cost efficient. Wins/$ is an absolutely insane way to calculate things from an efficiency standpoint. I have never EVER suggested such a scheme. In fact, I've said several times it's a bad idea, whether you're using wins or win shares (which are just wins*3).
Why do you and JG keep thinking I'm suggesting that?!? Did someone put in a efficiency is wins/$ sign on my back when I went to the fridge to get some orange juice?!?
I'm also assuming the GM has no control to change the budget, remember. That's one thing that's been missed, despite me having said it a few times. :)
Team A is NOT more cost efficient. Wins/$ is an absolutely insane way to calculate things from an efficiency standpoint. I have never EVER suggested such a scheme. In fact, I've said several times it's a bad idea, whether you're using wins or win shares (which are just wins*3).
Why do you and JG keep thinking I'm suggesting that?!? Did someone put in a efficiency is wins/$ sign on my back when I went to the fridge to get some orange juice?!?
I think Huff will add more value to a team each of the next two years than Bush will, regardless of their contracts. However if the Jays keep Bush, maybe Ted Rogers could buy another yacht with the savings?
I'm not sure exactly what Zauns problem is. For all the talk of him wanting to return, he seems to be setting his contract sights pretty high. Not sure what he is expecting to get on the open market, but I don't imagine there are too many teams out there willing to dish out the kind of money he's looking for. Especially for one good season, and having to give up a draft pick on top of that.
#2706100 Posted 12/20/2004 04:30 PM by DeMarco:
I think Huff will add more value to a team each of the next two years than Bush will, regardless of their contracts. However if the Jays keep Bush, maybe Ted Rogers could buy another yacht with the savings?
Echoing Mr. DeMarco's sentiments, if this team doesn't spend money on this ballclub this season, they are gonna have one really disenchanted fan by the name of Smirnoff. I said a million times last year and I'll say it again-- what they do with the Delgado money will go a long way towards determining how I feel about the owner and the general manager. So far, we have signed a decent third baseman even though we already had a third baseman.
This owner needs to get off his freaking yacht and spend some money on this club. The Yankees are gonna have a payroll around $230 million and we are losing out on bidding wars for mediocre pitchers.
I think Huff will add more value to a team each of the next two years than Bush will, regardless of their contracts. However if the Jays keep Bush, maybe Ted Rogers could buy another yacht with the savings?
Echoing Mr. DeMarco's sentiments, if this team doesn't spend money on this ballclub this season, they are gonna have one really disenchanted fan by the name of Smirnoff. I said a million times last year and I'll say it again-- what they do with the Delgado money will go a long way towards determining how I feel about the owner and the general manager. So far, we have signed a decent third baseman even though we already had a third baseman.
This owner needs to get off his freaking yacht and spend some money on this club. The Yankees are gonna have a payroll around $230 million and we are losing out on bidding wars for mediocre pitchers.
Bush at 300K next year is going to provide more net value to the Jays then Huff will for the rest of his career.
This is what you wrote. That's a prediction made using very forceful language. It does not include any qualifiers like "based on the assumption of net zero return on Huff over the course of his career".
While the market as a whole, almost by definition, leads to net zero value, that assumption does not apply to all classes of players within that marketplace. I'd say there's good reason to suggest that players in their prime from small markets (like Huff) are good candidates to exceed net zero value. If Huff were acquired by an organisation that understood market inefficiecies (like the Jays), that further increases the chance that Huff is signed at below market rates.
Your statement was make without the requisite qualifiers, and without attention paid to the nuances of Huff's particular situation: thus my charge of hyperbole.
This is what you wrote. That's a prediction made using very forceful language. It does not include any qualifiers like "based on the assumption of net zero return on Huff over the course of his career".
While the market as a whole, almost by definition, leads to net zero value, that assumption does not apply to all classes of players within that marketplace. I'd say there's good reason to suggest that players in their prime from small markets (like Huff) are good candidates to exceed net zero value. If Huff were acquired by an organisation that understood market inefficiecies (like the Jays), that further increases the chance that Huff is signed at below market rates.
Your statement was make without the requisite qualifiers, and without attention paid to the nuances of Huff's particular situation: thus my charge of hyperbole.
This is what you wrote. That's a prediction made using very forceful language. It does not include any qualifiers like "based on the assumption of net zero return on Huff over the course of his career".
I'll try to remember to put more fine print in the predictions I make from now on.
That being said, I still think my prediction will end up holding. It might not, but that's why it's a prediction. I guess we won't really know until Huff retires, so I doubt anyone is going to remember to call me on it 15 years from now, so I'm probably pretty safe. I mean, it's not like you've made bold predictions about the future, such as the Yankees and the playoffs over the next 2 decades. :)
I'll try to remember to put more fine print in the predictions I make from now on.
That being said, I still think my prediction will end up holding. It might not, but that's why it's a prediction. I guess we won't really know until Huff retires, so I doubt anyone is going to remember to call me on it 15 years from now, so I'm probably pretty safe. I mean, it's not like you've made bold predictions about the future, such as the Yankees and the playoffs over the next 2 decades. :)
Moffatt must be getting really worked up...he spelled his name wrong!
I predict Mike will spell his last name incorrectly at least once in 2004.
I think you could say have said 2005, and you'd be proven right by about the 3rd of January. :)
Official tallying doesn't commence until the bloodstream is Keith free
Some more actual news:
The Season's Pass has returned. It is no longer sponsored by the Toronto Star, and is now $162. That comes out to two bucks a game, which is still a spectacular deal in my book.
Of course, with a baby due at any minute, it also is expensive enough that I didn't automatically hand over my credit card number -- not because of the price, but because I don't know how many games I'll be able to attend, since I'll have a teeny little infant to look after. The good news: the infant gets in free.
Well, I hope the kid likes baseball. There's already a life-sized Orlando Hudson growth chart behind their door.
So it's official-official. You can call up and buy a pass right now.
The Season's Pass has returned. It is no longer sponsored by the Toronto Star, and is now $162. That comes out to two bucks a game, which is still a spectacular deal in my book.
Of course, with a baby due at any minute, it also is expensive enough that I didn't automatically hand over my credit card number -- not because of the price, but because I don't know how many games I'll be able to attend, since I'll have a teeny little infant to look after. The good news: the infant gets in free.
Well, I hope the kid likes baseball. There's already a life-sized Orlando Hudson growth chart behind their door.
So it's official-official. You can call up and buy a pass right now.
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/home_MLB.asp?sport=MLB
According to ESPNews (via Rotoworld - COMN) Steve Kline has agreed to a two year deal with Baltimore. Scratch one more name off the Jays list.
According to ESPNews (via Rotoworld - COMN) Steve Kline has agreed to a two year deal with Baltimore. Scratch one more name off the Jays list.
Rotoworld has a story on Steve Kline going to Baltimore:
According to ESPNews, Steve Kline and the Orioles have agreed to terms on a two-year deal.
Take this as a sign that B.J. Ryan will be Baltimore's closer.
According to ESPNews, Steve Kline and the Orioles have agreed to terms on a two-year deal.
Take this as a sign that B.J. Ryan will be Baltimore's closer.
I predict it will be three more days before Moffatt doesn't use a :) or ;) at the end of his post...
If by days you mean minutes, you're probably right =P
Moffatat sounds like a fancy drink.
"Bartender, I'll have a Moffatat. Easy on the vermouth, please."
"Bartender, I'll have a Moffatat. Easy on the vermouth, please."
Moffatat sounds like a fancy drink.
Really? It sounds like a planet or something from Star Wars.
After the base on Hoth was evacuated, the rebels flew their X-wing fleet to Moffatat, where they rendezvoused with Admiral Ackbar.
As it turned out, it was a trap.
Really? It sounds like a planet or something from Star Wars.
After the base on Hoth was evacuated, the rebels flew their X-wing fleet to Moffatat, where they rendezvoused with Admiral Ackbar.
As it turned out, it was a trap.
I seem to be doing pretty well with my Yankees prediction;-)
It'd be easier for all of us for you to accept the charge of hyperbole ;-)
It'd be easier for all of us for you to accept the charge of hyperbole ;-)
Sure. It was hyperbolic. Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter. Jim Bowden is a fine General Manager.
I'm in a giving mood. It's the Holidays!
I'm in a giving mood. It's the Holidays!
Steve Kline signs with the Orioles. Damn.
According to Rotoworld: "Orioles signed LHP Steve Kline, who had been with the St. Louis Cardinals, to a two-year contract."
They also traded Chris Gomez back from the Phillies for cash.
According to Rotoworld: "Orioles signed LHP Steve Kline, who had been with the St. Louis Cardinals, to a two-year contract."
They also traded Chris Gomez back from the Phillies for cash.
The Season's Pass has returned. It is no longer sponsored by the Toronto Star, and is now $162. That comes out to two bucks a game, which is still a spectacular deal in my book.
I wonder how the rest of the Season Ticket holders are going to react to that news, especially after the Jays supposedly announced early last year they were no longer going to offer the Season's Pass.
About 3 weeks ago, I got a message at work that a sales rep from the team had called. It is a good deal (not as great as $81 though!), but I'm waffling on whether to get the passes since I have to get one for my girlfriend as well. It's a big difference coughing up $324 than $162 and driving in from Port Hope. That's why it was great for us when the Passes were $81 each. I may be leaning towards a flex pack to start with. The Flex Pack may be flexible in price, but the Pass is more flexible in deciding which games you want to go to.
NFH, did the team mention if they're going to guarantee seats for Opening Day again and did they have a deadline for you to decide whether you wanted to renew the pass?
If I do get the passes, it'll be comforting to know the words "Toronto Star" will no longer be defacing them. I refuse to buy that paper again after that "White Jays" B.S.
I wonder how the rest of the Season Ticket holders are going to react to that news, especially after the Jays supposedly announced early last year they were no longer going to offer the Season's Pass.
About 3 weeks ago, I got a message at work that a sales rep from the team had called. It is a good deal (not as great as $81 though!), but I'm waffling on whether to get the passes since I have to get one for my girlfriend as well. It's a big difference coughing up $324 than $162 and driving in from Port Hope. That's why it was great for us when the Passes were $81 each. I may be leaning towards a flex pack to start with. The Flex Pack may be flexible in price, but the Pass is more flexible in deciding which games you want to go to.
NFH, did the team mention if they're going to guarantee seats for Opening Day again and did they have a deadline for you to decide whether you wanted to renew the pass?
If I do get the passes, it'll be comforting to know the words "Toronto Star" will no longer be defacing them. I refuse to buy that paper again after that "White Jays" B.S.
Team A is NOT more cost efficient. Wins/$ is an absolutely insane way to calculate things from an efficiency standpoint. I have never EVER suggested such a scheme. In fact, I've said several times it's a bad idea, whether you're using wins or win shares (which are just wins*3).
Maybe I missed this, but what are yousuggesting is the most efficient way to calculate such things?
Maybe I missed this, but what are yousuggesting is the most efficient way to calculate such things?
If I lived in Toronto I would buy that season pass. It's a great deal and for most games I would just move up behind home plate or around the field level bases after an inning or 2.
Maybe I missed this, but what are yousuggesting is the most efficient way to calculate such things?
It's essentially a constrained optimization problem, where you try to maximize the total value of all your players, given several institutional constraints (your budget, the fact you can't have 11 3B and 1 pitcher, etc.)
If you want some sort of net value consideration, you can either do in absolute terms or consider percentages (ROI).
The key is that you have to have a baseline that makes sense. Almost by definition a replacement player costs 300K and provides 300K worth of performance. So a team of replacement players you'd expect to have a net value of 0. Thus a team that spends $8 million and wins 40 games isn't at all efficient, despite having 5 wins per million dollar.
I'm getting really bored with this topic, but does that make sense? :)
It's essentially a constrained optimization problem, where you try to maximize the total value of all your players, given several institutional constraints (your budget, the fact you can't have 11 3B and 1 pitcher, etc.)
If you want some sort of net value consideration, you can either do in absolute terms or consider percentages (ROI).
The key is that you have to have a baseline that makes sense. Almost by definition a replacement player costs 300K and provides 300K worth of performance. So a team of replacement players you'd expect to have a net value of 0. Thus a team that spends $8 million and wins 40 games isn't at all efficient, despite having 5 wins per million dollar.
I'm getting really bored with this topic, but does that make sense? :)
They also traded Chris Gomez back from the Phillies for cash.
GOMEZ COME BACK TO BALTIMORE NOW SORRY ABOUT THAT WHOLE RULE 5 BUSINESS
GOMEZ COME BACK TO BALTIMORE NOW SORRY ABOUT THAT WHOLE RULE 5 BUSINESS
NFH, did the team mention if they're going to guarantee seats for Opening Day again and did they have a deadline for you to decide whether you wanted to renew the pass?
They didn't say. I asked him to call me back in a couple of months, when I'd have a better idea of what it was like to be living with this kid.
If you want to call and find out, I'll give you the number of the guy I was talking to. He was nice and helpful, so I'll feel bad not giving him any commission. COMN and e-mail me.
They didn't say. I asked him to call me back in a couple of months, when I'd have a better idea of what it was like to be living with this kid.
If you want to call and find out, I'll give you the number of the guy I was talking to. He was nice and helpful, so I'll feel bad not giving him any commission. COMN and e-mail me.
BTW, the 40 wins comes from teams like the '62 Mets who were comprised of almost entirely replacement level players. I should have mentioned that before.
Rotoworld says:
Blue Jays sent RHP Steve Andrade outright to Triple-A Syracuse.
Just like they did with Seung Song, the Jays quickly dropped Andrade from the 40-man roster after claiming him off waivers. Since he made it through waivers this time, he'll remain in the organization and get a chance to win a bullpen spot in spring training.
Blue Jays sent RHP Steve Andrade outright to Triple-A Syracuse.
Just like they did with Seung Song, the Jays quickly dropped Andrade from the 40-man roster after claiming him off waivers. Since he made it through waivers this time, he'll remain in the organization and get a chance to win a bullpen spot in spring training.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Sports/2004/12/20/790756-sun.html
Did someone put in a efficiency is wins/$ sign on my back when I went to the fridge to get some orange juice?!?
Uh, sorry about that.
I guess we won't really know until Huff retires, so I doubt anyone is going to remember to call me on it 15 years from now
He don't know me very well, do he?
I hope the kid likes baseball.
No doubt, but have you looked at how much money tennis players are making? When they're like 15 years old (i.e. when you're still young enough to enjoy it.)
If we had a traditional roundup today, we'd have a link to Bob Elliott's column, right? COMN. The Steve Kline signing fits right in with his theme.
Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi has extra money in his pocket to spend. But who does he spend it on now that all of the premium items are gone? It is easy for teams to spend on the best free-agent players available such as Carl Pavano, Edgar Renteria, Pedro Martinez and Matt Clement. The biggest mistakes in baseball come after the top free agents have signed and teams still have money to spend. Remember Erik Hanson?
Wait a second... that wasn't Ricciardi, was it?
Did someone put in a efficiency is wins/$ sign on my back when I went to the fridge to get some orange juice?!?
Uh, sorry about that.
I guess we won't really know until Huff retires, so I doubt anyone is going to remember to call me on it 15 years from now
He don't know me very well, do he?
I hope the kid likes baseball.
No doubt, but have you looked at how much money tennis players are making? When they're like 15 years old (i.e. when you're still young enough to enjoy it.)
If we had a traditional roundup today, we'd have a link to Bob Elliott's column, right? COMN. The Steve Kline signing fits right in with his theme.
Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi has extra money in his pocket to spend. But who does he spend it on now that all of the premium items are gone? It is easy for teams to spend on the best free-agent players available such as Carl Pavano, Edgar Renteria, Pedro Martinez and Matt Clement. The biggest mistakes in baseball come after the top free agents have signed and teams still have money to spend. Remember Erik Hanson?
Wait a second... that wasn't Ricciardi, was it?
Stephen Brunt, who ought to know better, was just saying that Ken Dayley was the first signficant free agent ever signed by the Blue Jays.
January 10, 1984. Toronto Blue Jays sign free agent pitcher Dennis Lamp. Lamp led the AL West champions White Sox in saves with 15.
January 10, 1984. Toronto Blue Jays sign free agent pitcher Dennis Lamp. Lamp led the AL West champions White Sox in saves with 15.
Remember Erik Hanson?
See, this proves that Mr. Elliott is objective and has absolutely no axe to grind with the current administration. P-)
See, this proves that Mr. Elliott is objective and has absolutely no axe to grind with the current administration. P-)
Now that Speier is signed and Kline is gone perhaps the Jays should just be completely content with their staff and bullpen. the staff is well above league average. The pen will be no worse than last year and perhaps much better.
If JP is as satisfied as I am then why not go out and take on some salary and trade for a big bat. The team must get some offense to put some bums in the seats. Heck even NFH is thinking about staying home this season.;-)
If JP is as satisfied as I am then why not go out and take on some salary and trade for a big bat. The team must get some offense to put some bums in the seats. Heck even NFH is thinking about staying home this season.;-)
The only reason I don't like Pierwhats the spelling is becuase he tosses another left handed bat in the lineup. I would like to see the Jays get a righty that can hit 25-35 home runs. Beggars can't be choosers I spose
I'd go get a bat and then save the rest of that cash for next off-season. Knowing how much they'll have to work with right off the bat should help the team score somone, anyone, of stature.
They can't save the cash. As someone posted a couple of days ago, any unused money in the budget will never be seen again. An alternative to overpaying for one of the remaining free agents would be to work a trade for someone whose club is looking to shed some salary. Someone who the Jays could use, but in most scenarios couldn't afford. I'm not exactly sure who comes to mind, but someone might have a suggestion.
How much is JD Drew asking for, anyway?
How much is JD Drew asking for, anyway?
According to Rotoworld, Kline's deal is worth 5.5 million over 2 years.
As expected, the Astros' Wade Miller was non-tendered, and Chad Bradford was resigned for 1 year at 1.4 million; RW thinks he'll be tendered before the start of the season if Cruz and Street look ready.
Only a few hours to go before we start finding out about non-tenders; how exciting! And yes, I am a nerd.
As expected, the Astros' Wade Miller was non-tendered, and Chad Bradford was resigned for 1 year at 1.4 million; RW thinks he'll be tendered before the start of the season if Cruz and Street look ready.
Only a few hours to go before we start finding out about non-tenders; how exciting! And yes, I am a nerd.
Fozzy: enthusiast, fanatic yes, nerd no.
After all, non-tenders might offer us some more bargain basement prices that previously weren't there and we might be better equipped to solidify depth where needed with 3 or 4 less expensive signings rather than one big one. I'd like to see another starter to throw into the mix competing for the #5 spot and a lefty reliever, although as usual that market is threadbare. As well, a righty bat with pop (which is probably where the largest chunk o' change would have to go). I'm generally pleased with the pieces, now let's round out the depth.
After all, non-tenders might offer us some more bargain basement prices that previously weren't there and we might be better equipped to solidify depth where needed with 3 or 4 less expensive signings rather than one big one. I'd like to see another starter to throw into the mix competing for the #5 spot and a lefty reliever, although as usual that market is threadbare. As well, a righty bat with pop (which is probably where the largest chunk o' change would have to go). I'm generally pleased with the pieces, now let's round out the depth.
The desperate, disbelieving wails of Aaron Gleeman could be heard through the Arctic air mass that blanketed Toronto (weather not too cold in Minneapolis, though later this week Brrr!!!). "LUIS RIVAS, LUIS F'N RIVAS, WHY!!!!!" Friends and family should approach Aaron with extreme caution over the holidays, as the Minnesota Twins have tendered a 1-year contract to Aaron's favourite player Luis Rivas. He is unarmed, but still considered dangerous.
Rotoworld is also suggesting Jacque Jones was tendered, as well. Gleeman will be opening his second bottle of vodka right about now.
Additionally, the Angels have signed Cabrera to a 4 year $32 million contract, and it looks like Eckstein will be non-tendered, as a result. He doesn't really fit in here, but it's news to pass along.
Jay Payton, Ramon Vazquez, Dave Pauley and cash considerations were sent from San Diego to Boston for Dave Roberts.
Additionally, the Angels have signed Cabrera to a 4 year $32 million contract, and it looks like Eckstein will be non-tendered, as a result. He doesn't really fit in here, but it's news to pass along.
Jay Payton, Ramon Vazquez, Dave Pauley and cash considerations were sent from San Diego to Boston for Dave Roberts.
Just wondering where Jay Payton fits in Boston, maybe as a fourth outfielder who can play all 3 spots? Also that looks like a lot for Dave Roberts, just in terms of number of players, regardless of quality, and cash. Does Boston have another move in mind?
I've long felt that Theo Epstein gets more credit than he deserves, but if RotoWorld has this one right he just robbed Kevin Towers blind.
For the low-low price of Jay Payton, Ramon Vazquez, B-prospect David Pauley, San Deigo receives 39-year-old Dave Roberts.
Oh yeah, and for the privelege of receiving the worst major league player in the deal, San Diego pays Boston $2.65M.
Blech.
For the low-low price of Jay Payton, Ramon Vazquez, B-prospect David Pauley, San Deigo receives 39-year-old Dave Roberts.
Oh yeah, and for the privelege of receiving the worst major league player in the deal, San Diego pays Boston $2.65M.
Blech.
Roberts is actually 32, but aside from that it looks like a bit of a heist.
You're right, of course. Why did I think Roberts was that old?
IF, (and this is a big if, I realize) JP can't/won't spend the money this offseason... does it make any sense for him to go for someone like a Weaver or Drew in next year's draft?
I agree completely re: the Payton trade, and the Cabrera contract is pretty bad, regardless of his defensive abilities.
Faulds will not be back with the Jays. Surprised to see this wasn't posted here, but The Star says Faulds will not be announcing the games for Sportsnet next season.
As much as he might be a nice guy, he never was nor never will have become a decent baseball announcer. Hopefully they will find someone who has a much better feel for the game. My favourite moments with him last season included the gems;
"There's a basehit...right to Gomez who makes the easy play at first."
and of course the memorable, I think from Kansas City, time when he completely lost track of a near the warning track fly ball to Rios and said "It's a homerun...no it's a foul ball, no Rios caught it just shy of the track."
As much as he might be a nice guy, he never was nor never will have become a decent baseball announcer. Hopefully they will find someone who has a much better feel for the game. My favourite moments with him last season included the gems;
"There's a basehit...right to Gomez who makes the easy play at first."
and of course the memorable, I think from Kansas City, time when he completely lost track of a near the warning track fly ball to Rios and said "It's a homerun...no it's a foul ball, no Rios caught it just shy of the track."
You're right, of course. Why did I think Roberts was that old?
It's the grey in his beard.
It's the grey in his beard.
and of course the memorable, I think from Kansas City, time when he completely lost track of a near the warning track fly ball to Rios and said "It's a homerun...no it's a foul ball, no Rios caught it just shy of the track."
lol, that was actually in Puerto Rico. Apparantly it was really hard to see...click here for the game thread, and a post by Scott Carson:
Faulds wasn't so bad. I'm going to miss Cerutti, personally.
lol, that was actually in Puerto Rico. Apparantly it was really hard to see...click here for the game thread, and a post by Scott Carson:
#202829 Posted 07/02/2004 07:38 PM by Scott Carson:
Gotta cut him some slack, Bauxites. I'm sitting behind him in the booth, looking through some dirty glass, with the worst lighting I've ever seen. I haven't seen a fly ball yet...
Faulds wasn't so bad. I'm going to miss Cerutti, personally.