So is he the next Calvin Pickering or next David Ortiz?

Year 	Slugging pct. 	Batting average 
2000 	.501 	        .291 
2001 	.497 	        .286 
2002 	.480 	        .279 
2003 	.458 	        .272 
2004 	.450 	        .266 
2005 	.440 	        .264 

We've talked before about how GMs don't spill all their beans to the media, and it's quite possible that JP Ricciardi is working on a Ted Lilly deal right now. But if his comment to Gammons is straight shooting (and to be fair, Ricciardi isn't known for outright fabrications), then Lilly is going nowhere this year, not even for powerful Ryan Howard. That implies a few things:

1. Ricciardi thinks Lilly can still turn it around and be a consistent winner this year. He thinks the Jays are a better team with Lilly than without him. That's worth considering.

2. Related to that, it's now squarely the responsibility of John Gibbons and Brad Arnsberg -- two men who've reportedly had it with Lilly -- to put aside their frustrations and make a breakthrough with the left-hander. Ricciardi isn't going to let them off the hook by dealing Lilly; he's saying: "It's your job to get him back on the beam."

3. He's actually not deeply enamoured of Ryan Howard, who, despite a .700 slugging percentage, is 25 years old, has 57 strikeouts in 196 AB, and has still not convinced some scouts he can hit major-league pitching consistently.

4. He's determined to instill "attitude" in the Jays clubhouse. It's why he's hanging on to Hillenbrand, who, whatever his other personality features, hates to lose as much as Ricciardi does. It's why he publicly remonstrates his centerfielder for careless play. It's why he's changed his coaching staff from a group of teachers to a group of performance-focused guys.

5. Ricciardi knows the Jays don't have the talent to win yet, but he wants the team to develop the expectation of winning; adding more talent to the club down the line would then simply reinforce the winning attitude already in place, instead of trying to import one fresh from the outside. It's one of the reasons he wanted to get guys like Gross, Rios, and Adams out the wasteland of Syracuse last season. He's convinced that losing is a habit picked up from the culture of a clubhouse, just as much as winning is.

This underlines my belief that Ricciardi will only deal spare parts before the July deadline, unless someone blows him away with an offer for a Batista or a Lilly. He wants to give his club the best possible chance of winning every game, and he wants them to know it. (Batista, interestingly, has been stretched out for some multi-inning appearances recently, as we've suggested. The experiment has gone very well, making him more valuable on the market, but also more valuable to the Jays -- and that's not counting his reported mentorship role for Gustavo Chacin).

JP is playing this whole thing very interestingly. He's unquestionably in a buyer's position -- he has both the money to spend and the prospects to deal -- but he's placing the focus on the players he has now (and particularly their coaching staff) to maximize every opportunity to win and instill that appraoch to all the young guys coming up from the minors. It's a cautious but cagey approach, and it could really pay off. I'm coming to like it.

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes. If you win 20 in the show, you can let the fungus grow back and the press will think you're colorful. Until you win 20 in the show, however, it means you are a slob."

As for the Game Report, which is excellent despite Gwyn stealing my idea (kidding, kidding), it's interesting that Halladay has the highest standard deviation among his starts. In fact, maybe it isn't. That includes his injured 2004 and his three worst starts in the chart include June and July before he went on the DL. Focus on 2003 and 2005 instead and you'll see a consistent pitcher.

However, looking at "average - SD", you can really see how good Halladay has been in relation to the rest of the rotation:

Halladay    38
Lilly       34
Bush        33
Chacin      31
Towers      27

This is hardly surprising, since he has four of the top five starts for Blue Jay pitchers this year. Doc also doesn't show up on the list of worst starts -- again, through June 14 -- until the 13th spot, and even then, he went six innings (April 24).

Most of the rotation gets more efficient (fewer pitches per inning) the longer they throw and the reverse is true (inefficient in short starts): Bush, Chacin, Towers. Interestingly, Lilly and Halladay do not, at least to any mathematical extent, follow that pattern. Looking at all the starts overall, it seems pretty random, though the RHP are significantly more consistent in this Pitches/IP measure than the LHP, if that means anything.

Gustavo Chacin, Justin Speier and Gabe Gross? It's possible. A lot would depend on whether Arnsberg could extract the ace from inside Burnett. You also have to be very careful of a pitcher who's delivered more than 120 innings only twice in six major-league seasons and who's going to get expensive next year. I'd rather see the resources plowed into a bat than an arm, especially with the young pitchers close to the majors, but Burnett is certainly intriguing.

I don't think this has to be a pitching or hitting situation. I say go get both!

The Jays have that $210 for 3 years and are using around $50 million of that this year. That leaves an average of $80 million/year for 2006 and 2007. Keeping everyone currently on the roster will get the payroll to the $60 million range, which gives around $20 to work with. That should be plenty to improve several areas.

As for Vernon Wells: I think that people expect too much from him. He's far from perfect, but he's not one of the major problems with the offense. The Jays should worry about the hitters with an OBP below .300 who aren't in double digits in home runs before demanding more from V-Dub.

This: .254/.302/.453 is a major problem any way you slice it. Wells is expected to be the leader of this offence... for reference his .755 OPS puts him behind Rios(.766). That is simply unaccecptable. Throw in his lazy play in the field and on the bases and you have a player who is very far from perfect.

Uhhh, no. I think the word lazy is probably not the word you're looking for. Vernon Wells is not lazy by any stretch of the imagination. He had *ONE* play this year where the result was unacceptable from a Major league point of view, but it happens. Considering all the factors in a ballgame, in an entire career, everyone will make a very bad play. Other than that, I see no way at all that anyone can say he's lazy, or that he loafs, or that he dogs it. Not at all.

In terms of running the bases, where did that even come from? Because Richard Griffin said so?

This is the same Vernon Wells who said, "You need to get on a treadmill, man" and "You've obviously been drinking there [if you, a Phillies fan, think Jimmy Rollins is a CF]" to a fat guy in Clearwater. I'm sorry, I can't criticize his character after that. His .300 OBP, sure.

Alex Rios always strikes me as a very casual player. Two things: catching fly balls at shoulder-height with his head not facing the glove and wearing sunglasses on his hat followed by losing a ball in the sun.

In terms of running the bases, where did that even come from? Because Richard Griffin said so?

Yes, because he just made it up right? Watch Wells when he runs to firstbase on fly balls to the outfield, most of the time he is not running hard. Wells is far too casual in his approach to the game. He might not be lazy but he certainly lacks intensity.

He had *ONE* play this year where the result was unacceptable from a Major league point of view, but it happens.

He had one play where the result was unncacceptable, but it wasn't the first time where he casually went after a ground ball.

.Alex Rios always strikes me as a very casual player. Two things: catching fly balls at shoulder-height with his head not facing the glove and wearing sunglasses on his hat followed by losing a ball in the sun.

Rios' approach in the field bugs me too. I hate to rag on Wells more, but if you're a young guy and you see the way a gold glover and outfield leader catches balls, maybe you think it's ok to play that way as well. Now if you're a gold glover you probably get the benefit of the doubt, but when you are rookie I don't want to see any casual basket-type catches. Two hands on that ball kid :).

If there's a easy fly to the outfield, you're not going to see any player running hard. Those balls are going be caught all the time. Other than that, there hasn't been a single moment where Vernon has run the bases poorly and it has been obviously noted.

He had one play where the result was unncacceptable, but it wasn't the first time where he casually went after a ground ball.

What is casual? Like baserunning, there are just some plays that are so routine the outcome is expected. If a batter hits a basehit up the middle, he's going to round 1st and go back upon realizing Vernon fielded the ball and threw it in. Tejeda took advantage of a slower ground ball and that it took more time for Vernon to field it. It hasn't happened before, it probbaly won't happen again, so its hardly an issue. There are a ton of routine plays where you can criticize the players in volved for not going full out.

Now the reason Vernon looks very casual when he's making catches is due greatly to the excellent reads he gets on them. He doesn't have to be running full speed because he's going to get to the ball regardless. Which is why you wonder why some outfielders plays look like fantastic running catches, when Vernon's look quite routine.

The thing about this 1st to 3rd issue is thet Griffin took one comment (above) and stuck it with a play in the game, regardless if there was any relation at all. Now, if Griffin directly asked Vernon why he didn't run to third, and he gave the above quote, then there is a relation, however that does not seem to be the case, unless someone can correct me.

What is casual? Like baserunning, there are just some plays that are so routine the outcome is expected. If a batter hits a basehit up the middle, he's going to round 1st and go back upon realizing Vernon fielded the ball and threw it in. Tejeda took advantage of a slower ground ball and that it took more time for Vernon to field it. It hasn't happened before, it probbaly won't happen again, so its hardly an issue. There are a ton of routine plays where you can criticize the players in volved for not going full out.

Tejada took advantage of a player who was simply not paying attention on a routine play where the outcome was expected and guess what, Tejada was not casually running to first base he was hustling and that gave him the opportunity to take advantage of the situation. That's the difference between someone who plays with some intensity and someone who takes a casual approach to every routine play. While that was only one play it was symptom of a larger issue. Being a Gold Glove winner doesn't excuse his approach.

I don't expect players to give 110% on every routine play, but I do expect them to be focused and to approach every play with some intensity.

To put it simply, Wells would be a better player if he had an attitude more like Reed Johnson or Shea Hillenbrand.

Rookie mistakes, yeah. But then, he's practically still a rookie. This doesn't excuse the mistakes - it's one of the reasons why managers don't like playing rookies - but it is an explanation. The key is to move beyond making those sorts of mistakes and I think Rios has become more consistent in the field, even though he doesn't break all that well to his left yet.

Of course, many of the worst mistakes in the field this year have been made by Reed Johnson - who (for example) twice in two games last month got himself turned around on fly balls over his head, once missing and once almost missing balls that should have been caught easily. And yet he's played errorless ball on the season and is defensively a gem in left field, and great except for throwing in right.

I'd say each of Rios and Johnson are right up there with the best defenders in the game at their positions. Johnson's better... I'd say that while Rondell White's still the class of leftfielders with Carl Crawford ready to take over, Reed is right behind them.

As for Rios, there's a group of RFs who are hard to separate, who are the best in the business as far as I'm concerned. Ichiro's the most well-known, although Geoff Jenkins is probably better. Along with those two, there's Jose Guillen who is just as good but less consistent with his throws (though he has a better arm). Alex is probably up there with Vladimir Guerrero and Juan Encarnacion in a group behind those three.

Throw in Vernon, who is up there with Beltran and Torii Hunter and Jim Edmonds and Andruw Jones (although the new star is Rowand, who's flat-out incredible) and that's three outfielders who are among the best at their position. Cat sort of throws a spanner in the works, but even he has improved noticeably in the last year and a half.

Slowly, almost without fanfare at all, the Blue Jays are turning into an elite defensive team. Few errors and a high defensive efficiency highlight that - now only one task remains before they are elite (other than getting Koskie back at third base), and that's increasing the double play effifiency. The Jays are only about average at turning the double play (they're about +1 this year over their expected double plays) despite Hudson's terrific range. I'd attribute most of that to Adams - he's not that good when called on to be the pivot man and only OK at getting the ball to the O-Dog quickly. (For his part, McDonald looks great on the double play).

So based on one play, you're concluding that Vernon Wells doesn't play with intensity. One play shows the difference? Intensity can't be measured by one play and one fan. The only person who can fairly assess the amount of intensity Vernon Wells plays with, is Vernon Wells. And intensity is something quite different than to originally say that he's lazy.

For one Burnett's a pretty good player, and for certain teams might be the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs (or winning a series or two).

But even if you trade for Burnett and he signs with another team this offseason you're going to end up with a couple high draft picks (which could also be better than the players you give up, albeit much further down the road).

So based on one play, you're concluding that Vernon Wells doesn't play with intensity. One play shows the difference?

No, in the part you quoted: "...and someone who takes a casual approach to every routine play." That one play was just a symptom of his approach.

I'll add that lacking intensity is essentially laziness and that any fan can assess the intensity a player plays with, otherwise players like Reed Johnson would not become fan favorites.

Sure, people talked about Robbie Alomar's (perceived lack of) effort all the time. (Well, I did, anyways). Now THAT was a player who didn't run out ground balls.