Jordan: The rotation is very interesting. Right now, the Jays have #3 and #4 starters coming out their ears -- Lilly, Chacin, Bush and Towers are all pretty much in the same range of production, middle- to back-of-the-rotation. I don't see any of them making the leap to #2 status. Marcum and Banks profile this way too. Jackson is a year away, and Purcey probably two. At this point, League looks like a reliever to me, and should be given a specific role (long man, setup guy, closer, whatever) and allowed to perform it. There are no Halladays in the system -- not even Ricky Romero.

Magpie: Josh Towers, from mid-July forward, was not 4th starter material - he was ace material (7-4, 2.41). No one - not even me - really thinks he's that good, but you can add an entire run to his second half ERA and still have a legitimate number two guy.

Gerry: I think the Jays will keep Ted Lilly for several reasons: (1) he is entering his free agent year which usually means a pick-up in performance; (2) the Jays have several pitchers a year away who could replace Ted in 2007; and (3) I am not sure how much you could get for him in a trade.

I also think Josh Towers has moved up a level to "keeper" which makes Halladay, Lilly and Towers the first three pitchers in your rotation. That leaves Chacin, Bush, Downs and McGowan as candidates for next year. Downs is headed back to the pen, and McGowan will go to AAA or to the bullpen, so if the season were to start tomorrow both Bush and Chacin would be in the rotation. If you are building a team around pitching and defense, as I believe JP is, then you could upgrade one of these two spots with a less risky starter. Bush is like Towers was last year, some days he has it, others he does not, that wears on a manager and GM. I would try and upgrade Bush, and leave Chacin in the rotation.

I did not consider Marcum. His September numbers were good but his AAA numbers were not as good, I think he needs more time in AAA before being recalled.

Mike Green: Marcum and McGowan are ready to make a contribution. Towers, Chacin and Bush should be about the same in 2006, with Bush's improvement offsetting modest declines from Towers and Chacin. They don't need another starter.

Paradoxically, Lilly's poor season makes it more likely that he will return. He has a career ERA of 4.67 and a career dERA of 4.47, and it is reasonable to expect that he will return to his career norms in 2006. That doesn't make him a better pitcher than Towers, Bush or Chacin, but still a potentially valuable player.

The issue with Lilly is contract. An agreed contract at significantly less than what Lilly would get in arbitration would be viable for the club. Lilly's poor 2005 season makes it more likely that he might agree to this.

Pistol: I don't think Lilly's arbitration value will be all that high. He was 10-11 with a 5.56 ERA this year. That can't give him too much more than the $3.1 million he made this year - maybe $5 million.

The Jays won't be able to sign a pitcher of Lilly's caliber for less than that this off season. Certainly they won't be able to get a better pitcher at a similar price for just one year. Lilly could be as good, or better, than Burnett, Washburn, Millwood or any other FA pitcher. He likely WON'T be, but most pitchers are so unpredictable that he COULD be (he was the better than each of those 3 in 2004), and the risk will be considerably lower than each of those other pitchers who will get at least 3, and probably 4, year contracts.

Right now Lilly is an asset to the Jays, and potentially a very valuable asset. If he doesn't work out with Lilly in 2006 you can let him go and use that money somewhere else. If he does work out and there's a logjam of starters at the end of 2006 you can collect picks if he signs elsewhere or trade another player. However, given Lilly’s injury history I’d be hesitant to sign him long term.

Mike Green: It does not make sense for the Jays to spend $5 million per year for Ted Lilly. $2 million, maybe $2.5 million, would be tops, and even that is pushing it. The Jays have other better cheaper options, and better ways to spend the money. Now if Chacin is traded for a bat, then one might reconsider, but you have to bear in mind that at this point Chacin is a significantly better pitcher, FIP be damned.

Magpie: Lilly drives me nuts, and several times this past season I threw up my hands shrieking "Enough! I don't ever want to see this guy again."

But the fit passes, and of course they should try to bring him back.

For what it's worth, I got the impression that Lilly actually learned something from 2005, and that it may have humbled him a little. It's like he went into the season thinking "Hey, I'm an All-Star and if I had a half-assed team I would have won way more than 12 games."

By the end of 2005, he seemed to be singing a somewhat different tune - more like "Wow, did I ever suck, and I can't believe this team bailed out my sorry ass and let me win 10 games." That's really how he sounded by the end of September. It actually encourages me, and fills me with hope for 2006. Will I ever learn?

Pistol:

Player       K/9     BB/9    HR/9      ERA     FIP    xFIP
Towers       4.9     1.3     1.05     3.71    3.99    4.45
Chacin       5.3     3.1     0.88     3.72    4.30    4.89
Bush         5.0     1.9     1.33     4.49    4.79    4.71

(FIP factors in K, BB and HRs while xFIP accounts those factors plus FB/GB, both from Hardball Times)

So what should be expected of any or all of these pitchers next year?

Am I the only one that looks at Chacin's numbers and think that they're probably a fluke?

Thomas: I've supported trading Chacin since mid-season, including in the rumoured AJ Burnett deal. I will continue to back that motion until Chacin shows me something that indicates he is close to a 3.50 ERA starter than a 4.70 ERA starter. So far, I've not seen anything that's made my change my mind on him.

Now, 200 innings from a #4 starter for the league minimum is valuable, in the sense that Chacin will provide you with average performance out of that spot for a discounted price. Thus, the Jays can save money there to spend elsewhere. I certainly don't support giving Chacin away. However, with the fact that Marcum and Banks will be here relatively soon (as well as the insurance policy of Scott Downs), I'm more than comfortable trading Chacin away to a team that believes he is a 3.50 ERA starter, or even a 4.00 ERA starter, and is willing to pay accordingly. With the price pitching fetches a good young pitcher should do quite well on the trade front, and if the Jays can turn Chacin (alone, or as part of a package) into a somewhat talented offensive player, I think it's an offer they can't turn down.

Mike Green: Chacin has outperformed his FIP significantly for 2 years running (double A last year and the majors this year). How does he do it? He completely squelches the running game (8 SB, 10 CS this year). He gives up a little fewer than his share of homers, he gets more than his share of DPs, and leaves more than his share of runners on base. He's the archetypal crafty lefty.

It is certainly conceivable that he could increase his K rate up to 6 per 9IP; he would be very effective at that rate. His ERA and IP in my view give a fairly good estimation of his value, i.e. one of the top 20 starters in the league.

In a league with an average ERA of 4.35, as the AL was this past year, a starter who will give you 200 innings with an ERA between 3.75 and 4.00 is a fair 2nd starter or a good 3rd. Jeff Ballard had K rates under 4 per game his entire career; it's well nigh impossible to sustain success at that rate, but 5-6 is a whole other story (see Key,J).

Gerry: As I stated above, Bush and Chacin give you two similar pitchers and you should keep one. If I was choosing I would keep Chacin as he appears to be able to get out of trouble easier than Bush, and I think his pitches are better. But you could argue I would be selling Bush at the low point of his value and keeping Chacin at his high point.

If other teams will give you more for Chacin than for Bush then make that deal; if the deal is equal then trade Bush.

Jordan: Crafty lefties -- the question always is, which ones turn into Jamie Moyer and which turn into Jeff Ballard? Chacin is one of those guys who looks better on the mound than he actually is. That's not an entirely bad thing -- confidence is a major element in any pitcher's arsenal -- but I doubt he's going to get much better. Nor, on the other hand, will he get much worse.

I wouldn't trade him just for the sake of selling high, but he's pretty much the only pitcher on that staff likely to attract serious interest from clubs with major talent to deal. So, like Gerry, I say trade him if you can get a big piece of the puzzle in return, but if you can't, he'll be at worst a steady lefthanded #4 at $300K a season, and that's all right.

Magpie: I don't particularly want to trade Chacin - there's pitching on the way, but it's not here yet. A Blue Jay in the hand beats the birds in the bushes. (Groan!)

I still believe in Dave Bush, and I still like his upside. Despite spending almost two months in Syracuse, Bush had more Really Good starts (Game Score above 60) than anybody not named Halladay. I don't know that this means anything going forward - I just suspect that it does. So I suspect that when Bush puts it all together, he will be better than Chacin, or Towers, or Lilly. And I do think Bush is smart enough and talented enough and competitive enough to put it all together.

Mike Green: The bullpen performed a little better than I expected. Jason Frasor's improvement was the surprise. Gibbons handled the pen well, although I wish he moved a little further from the modern usage patterns for closers. I would suggest that Batista be used as a 5th starter/longman in 2006, with the idea that he throws 90 innings as a starter in the 1st half, and then be moved to the pen for the second half, as young talent is ready.

Magpie: I agree that Batista is best suited for the role of swing man, but I think it's going to be very difficult, as a practical matter, to get a veteran going into his FA year to be happy with a role where he can neither win 15 games or save 30.

So I expect him to be back in the same role when next year opens. But whether he stays with the team past the trading deadline... not nearly as certain. And with his history of pitching well in the first half, and not-so-well in the second half - that could work out very nicely, no?

Gerry: The bullpen ranks as one of the lowest items on JP's to-do list. I would leave Batista as the closer, unless someone knocks your socks off with an offer. The only question for me is Pete Walker. Do you replace him with a Bush or a McGowan? I would send McGowan to AAA for regular work as a starter, and have him as your #1 guy to recall in the event of an injury.

Jordan: For my money:

- Frasor as the new closer. He has the mentality and he has the repertoire. He'll have his bad games, and he won't ever be confused with Mariano Rivera, but if they give him the job and stick with him, he'll be in the top half of the league's closers by season's end.

- Speier, League and Schoeneweis in the 7th and 8th, Marcum in the 6th. I'd be content to make League a ROOGY at this point, until he becomes more consistent. Gibbons has shown he can rotate his righties to play the hot hand and hide the cold one.

- Batista as the new Pete Walker -- long relief, spot starts, swing man. Actually, the new Ramiro Mendoza might be a better comp. Scott Downs as the lefty equivalent.

That's a seven-man bullpen, a 12-man pitching staff, which is more than enough to start the season, what with off-days, rainouts and all. By May or June, with the innings piling up, someone like Rosario could be ready. With Doc in the rotation, most of the pen gets a breather every five days anyway. And if Towers can go 7 innings or more 13 times again, all the better.

Mike Green: I agree with all of Jordan's recommendations with respect to the pen. I'd probably see how League and McGowan look in the spring before deciding who gets the bullpen job and who works out the kinks in Syracuse.

------

Part II of the Roundtable on Wednesday will take a look at the position players.