Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
I've mentioned a few times that the Jays need to consolidate their roster. The Overbay move was a good example of this.

As I mentioned in the weekend thread the key for the Jays at this point is to improve the talent that takes the field. Here's the example I gave:
If the Jays have 95 wins worth of value in 27 players it doesn’t do them much good when they can only use 25 players at a time and those 25 are worth 85 wins. When you run into that case you have to consolidate your roster to get more wins on the field. So if you trade 3 players worth 10 wins for 1 player worth 6 you’re still improving because those three players aren’t giving you their full wins if you can’t play them up to their full value. (All of the ‘worth’ numbers in this paragraph are purely hypothetical to illustrate the point.)

After I wrote that I figured that I could try to be a little more specific.

Last year the Jays won 80 games which gave them 240 win shares for their roster. I took the top 25, all of who were likley to be on the roster prior to free agency and then added in BJ Ryan and AJ Burnett (after the 25 man roster the remaining players in 2005 essentially totalled zero win shares). Adding Ryan and Burnett gets the Jays up to 267 win shares.

But you can't play with a 27 man roster, so to get it down to 25 I took off Scott Downs and Pete Walker - the two most likely to be bumped if the Jays made no changes. Once that is done the Jays are at 254 win shares for the 25 man roster. That's an increase of 14 wins shares, or close to 5 wins (3 win shares = 1 win).

Name	Pos	Bat	Pitch	Field	Total WS
Hillenn	1B	12.8	0	2.2	15
Hinske	1B	10.4	0	1.2	12
Adams	SS	8.3	0	2.2	11
McDond	SS	1.6	0	0.9	3
Hudson	2B	7	0	7.9	15
Hill	3B	6.6	0	2.8	9
Koskie	3B	4	0	2.4	6
Zaun	C	8.6	0	5.9	15
Wells	OF	14.5	0	6.7	21
Catatt	OF	13.9	0	2.6	17
Johnson	OF	7.6	0	2.9	11
Rios	OF	5.4	0	4	9
Gross	OF	1.2	0	0.8	2
Speier	RP	0	7.6	0	8
Walker	RP	0	7.2	0	7
Frasor	RP	0	6.3	0	6
Batista	RP	0	6.3	0	6
Schoeni	RP	0	5.4	0	5
Chulk	RP	0	4.6	0	5
Downs	RP	0	5.1	0	5
Hallday	S	-0.1	16.1	0	16
Chacin	S	-0.5	14.6	0	14
Towers	S	-0.4	14.2	0	14
Bush	S	0	6.2	0	6
Lilly	S	-0.1	4	0	4
Ryan	RP	0	11.8	0	12
Burnett	SP	-0.2	14.1	0	12
Number of Players/Win Shares    27	266.6
					
Less:					
Downs	RP	0	5.1	0	5
Walker	RP	0	7.2	0	7
					
25 Man Win Shares	  	25	254.3

Then the Jays traded for Lyle Overbay, giving up Bush, Gross and Zach Jackson. Making that swap increases the win shares up to 277. But that's for 26 players. Taking Scott Downs off decreases the win shares to 272 for the top 25.

Name	Pos	Bat	Pitch	Field	Total WS
Overbay	1B	16	0	2.3	18
Adams	SS	8.3	0	2.2	11
McDonld	SS	1.6	0	0.9	3
Hudson	2B	7	0	7.9	15
Hill	3B	6.6	0	2.8	9
Koskie	3B	4	0	2.4	6
Zaun	C	8.6	0	5.9	15
Hillen	DH	12.8	0	2.2	15
Hinske	DH	10.4	0	1.2	12
Wells	OF	14.5	0	6.7	21
Catalnt	OF	13.9	0	2.6	17
Johnson	OF	7.6	0	2.9	11
Rios	OF	5.4	0	4	9
Speier	RP	0	7.6	0	8
Walker	RP	0	7.2	0	7
Frasor	RP	0	6.3	0	6
Ryan	RP	0	11.8	0	12
Schoen	RP	0	5.4	0	5
Chulk	RP	0	4.6	0	5
Downs	RP	0	5.1	0	5
Batista	RP	0	6.3	0	6
Hallday	S	-0.1	16.1	0	16
Chacin	S	-0.5	14.6	0	14
Towers	S	-0.4	14.2	0	14
Burnett	S	-0.2	14.1	0	14
Lilly	S	-0.1	4	0	4
Number of Players/Win Shares	26	276.6
					
Less					
Downs	RP	0	5.1	0	5
						
25 Man Win Shares		25	271.5

Summarizing the above charts to make them easier to read:
                          Total WS    25 WS
After Ryan and Burnett:    266.6      254.3
After Overbay trade:       276.6      271.5
So the Overbay traded added 10 total win shares to the Jays roster. However, because the Jays traded away two players from the roster and only added one (and moved Walker back into the top 25) they increased the win shares for the top 25 players by 17 win shares.

Bush and Gross (and down the road, Jackson) could very well contribute more to the Brewers next year than Overbay does for the Jays. But in Toronto they weren't likely to produce more than they did this year. The Jays gave up a pitcher in Bush who was slated to be a reliever and spot starter next year. He wasn't likely to perform that much better than Downs did this year and potentially McGowan, Rosario, Marcum or Banks could step in as well. There might not have been any spot for Gross next year.

Now, obviously this isn't a perfect analysis. For one, the only catcher in the 25 man roster is Zaun. Also, Overbay, Hinske & Hillenbrand all won't be able to put up win shares as high as they did this year just because there's 3 players for 2 spots. Plus, win shares is based on the past and isn't predictive. And this doesn't take salary into account at all, plus the Jays are likely to make further moves.

The point is that when you have a surplus of depth it doesn't do you a whole lot of good to hold onto it. Even if you're potentially giving up more than you're receiving it can still be a good move. I think that's the case in the Overbay trade.

The Less The Merrier | 71 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 09:12 AM EST (#136275) #
Win Shares is a counting stat. So, for instance, last year, Hinske, Hillenbrand and Overbay all had Win Share totals that reflected full-time play. That obviously will not be true this year.
Matthew E - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 09:15 AM EST (#136276) #
The point is that when you have a surplus of depth it doesn't do you a whole lot of good to hold onto it.

In general I agree with what you're saying here. But let's not forget that one of the things that happened in 2004 was that the surplus of depth was simply nowhere near deep enough for the Jays to be able to cope with all the injuries and poor seasons. Let's not take depth for granted, is what I mean.

Jonny German - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 09:30 AM EST (#136277) #
Hinske, Hillenbrand and Overbay all had Win Share totals that reflected full-time play.

Which is why Pistol said

Overbay, Hinske & Hillenbrand all won't be able to put up win shares as high as they did this year just because there's 3 players for 2 spots.

This is a cool method. It'll be interesting to re-visit it as more moves are made, and a similar analysis could be done using a projection system (Win Shares aren't the only measure that will work for this, though they're handy because they include a fielding component).

Twilight - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 09:42 AM EST (#136280) #
Good analysis. I think this also gives us an idea of where a lot of the holes on the team are. I know Koskie didn't have a great year, but maybe he'd be worth more if he had played a full season w/o injury?
robertdudek - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 09:50 AM EST (#136281) #
But let's not forget that one of the things that happened in 2004 was that the surplus of depth was simply nowhere near deep enough for the Jays to be able to cope with all the injuries and poor seasons.

Allow me to beg to differ ... The depth in the infield in the form of Hinske, Hillenbrand and (in the minors) Aaron Hill, allowed the Jays to cope quite well with the injury to Corey Koskie, who had been counted on for a lot last season.

The starting rotation also had sufficient depth, in that Scott Downs and Dustin McGowan stepped in and did decent work in the wake of the Halladay and Lilly injuries.

There were no significant injuries in the outfield.

The only area where depth was a real issue was at catcher, with absolutely no one in the organisation able to produce at a reasonable level during the times that Zaun was either resting or injured. This remains a serious problem.

The REAL problem was that one of the best pitchers in baseball missed more than half the season - and you simply can't find talent that will even remotely replace that mid-season, if ever.

The OTHER problem was that some of the front line players fell below expectations, namely Vernon Wells and Alex Rios, as well as Corey Koskie and Ted Lilly when they were available. Then there was Miguel Batista, who had a good first half but faded down the stretch when the team was out of the race.

There were others, notably Reed Johnson, Gregg Zaun, Cat and Gustavo Chacin who performed better than expected.

So to sum up - the frontline talent, especially after the Halladay injury, just wasn't good enough, even though the depth behind it was fairly good in most areas.

We can't expect "depth" players to perform as well as the "frontline" players when the latter go down to injury - after all, there is a reason why they are not "frontline" players themselves. On the whole and relative to other teams, depth was NOT a problem for the Jays last year.
Paul D - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 09:58 AM EST (#136283) #
Robert, I think he was talking about 2004, not last year, where injuries to Halladay, Delgado and Wells were too much to overcome.
Mark - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 09:59 AM EST (#136284) #
Robert, Matthew was talking about 2004 not 2005.
robertdudek - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 10:00 AM EST (#136286) #
Whoops sorry.

Nevermind.

Matthew E - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 10:20 AM EST (#136289) #
However, it's interesting to compare the 2004 and 2005 teams. Robert is correct that depth was not a problem in '05. I would argue that that's a direct result of '04. Ricciardi picked up Hillenbrand *and* Koskie, when he already had Hinske and Hill around, precisely so that '04 (probably) couldn't happen again. Similarly in the outfield with Wells/Catalanotto/Johnson/Rios/Gross and the middle infield with Hudson/Menechino/McDonald/Adams/Hill. I think 2004 scared Ricciardi. It sure scared me.
Smaj - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 10:26 AM EST (#136291) #
Given the 25 man WS including AJ, BJ & Overbay for 2005 equates to roughly 90 Wins....not enough to reach post-season.

Anyone have a crystal ball for projecting 2006 WS per player?
subculture - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 10:29 AM EST (#136292) #
re: depth, I think we need to keep the kind of depth we had last year. Trading Hinske is okay as we have Overbay now, but if we trade one of Hill/Adams/Hudson, then who do we play if either of our SS/2b (or Koskie) goes down for any significant length of time? Plus we have all sorts of good match-ups (righty/lefty) that can compensate for a lack of slugging...
Geoff - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 10:48 AM EST (#136294) #
anyone notice that downs is removed from the first roster, and then again in the second? and the second roster has 26 players, so doesn't another player need to be removed?
Geoff - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 11:24 AM EST (#136297) #
...but if we trade one of Hill/Adams/Hudson, then who do we play if either of our SS/2b (or Koskie) goes down for any significant length of time?
A fine player by the name of McDonald. John McDonald. And why isn't Batista on the list of free agents after 2006?
Ryan C - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 11:38 AM EST (#136299) #
anyone notice that downs is removed from the first roster, and then again in the second? and the second roster has 26 players, so doesn't another player need to be removed?

No because Gross and Bush are removed from the second roster. Hence Downs and Walker were put back on, and then Downs was removed a second time. Confused me at first too.

Pistol - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 12:39 PM EST (#136317) #
Given the 25 man WS including AJ, BJ & Overbay for 2005 equates to roughly 90 Wins....not enough to reach post-season. Anyone have a crystal ball for projecting 2006 WS per player?

Here's a stab at it:

Name	Pos	2005	2006	Increase
Overbay	1B	18	18	0
Adams	SS	11	11	0
McDonld		3	3	0
Hudson	2B	15	15	0
Hill		9	9	0
Koskie	3B	6	10	4
Zaun	C	15	15	0
Quiroz		0	6	6
Hillen	DH	15	15	0
Wells	OF	21	21	0
Catalnt	OF	17	17	0
Johnson	OF	11	11	0
Rios	OF	9	9	0
Speier	RP	8	8	0
Walker	RP	7	7	0
Frasor	RP	6	6	0
Ryan	RP	12	12	0
Schoen	RP	5	5	0
Chulk	RP	5	5	0
Batista	RP	6	6	0
Hallday	S	16	24	8
Chacin	S	14	14	0
Towers	S	14	14	0
Burnett	S	14	14	0
Lilly	S	4	10	6
 Total WS	260	284	24
     Wins	87	95	8
Here's all that I assumed:

* Take Hinske off the roster, add Quiroz with 6 WS

* Modest increase to Koskie

* Assume Halladay is healthy the entire year at the same level he was in 05

* Modest increase for Lilly

* Every other player remains the same in 2006 as 2005

Simply doing that gets it from 87 wins right now to 95. And that doesn't include any other upgrades (like RF) that the team is likely to make prior to the start of the season or improvements from Hill, Adams, Rios, etc. Of course it also doesn't project any decreases from anyone either, and I'd be surprised if all of Chacin, Towers, Chulk, Frasor, and Walker perform as well next year as they did this year. But as of today I think a reasonable high end projection of the Jays for 2006 is 95 wins.

subculture - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:16 PM EST (#136326) #
...but if we trade one of Hill/Adams/Hudson, then who do we play if either of our SS/2b (or Koskie) goes down for any significant length of time?

"A fine player by the name of McDonald. John McDonald."

I like McDonald a lot, as a role-player, utility-guy, defensive replacement. NOT as a full-time infielder hitting against ML pitching (esp righties).

I like the strategy of having 6 quality guys each get 500 at-bats, instead of 4 quality guys getting 650 and 2 not-so great guys getting 200 at-bats each. It keeps guys fresher, and provides more flexibility, as well as getting a higher percentage of good pitcher matchups. I wonder, might this partially explain why the Jays actually scored more runs than would have been expected? And perhaps why their OBA was relatively high despite the team having no on-base machines?
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:22 PM EST (#136327) #
It's not really reasonable to project Doc to perform at the level of 2005 over a full season. He's never done that, even in his Cy Young season. If you take an average or weighted average of his 2002-05 performance, and project it over 32 starts, you have a reasonable projection. It would give you about 18 win shares.

In general, it is much better to use 3 or 4 year statistics, where possible, for projection purposes, with appropriate age adjustments. In essence, that was done with the projection for Koskie. The same logic applies to Halladay and Towers.

For this team to win 95 games will require significant leaps forward, most likely from one or two of the younger players, as well as a return to form from Koskie. That could happen, but betting on it at this stage would be an act of the heart.
Cristian - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:51 PM EST (#136332) #
Isn't this just a longwinded way to explain something we all know from fantasy baseball? Active roster spots are finite so one is always better off trading quantity for quality if the extra roster spots can be filled from the bench or the waiver wire.

On consolidating the roster, doesn't Javy Lopez make sense for this team if the O's take back a number of players equaling his salary? Hinske, Rios, Batista would do a fair bit for a team stuck in neutral like the O's. Though it won't make Tejada very happy I bet.
Craig B - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:52 PM EST (#136333) #
The odds that one of the young players will make a significant leap forward, and that Koskie will return to form, have to be around 50% together.

That would be 70% for each, right? And there are what, four or five young guys who might make that leap to choose from? Is there any reason why Koskie would not go back to being the player he was?

I'm not saying that this team is a 95-win team. I don't think it is. But there's a significant chance that this team will play considerably better than it did last year, and if you believe that they played like an 87-win team that had some bad luck, then...

Well, let me put it this way. If you asked me who was going to win the AL East in _2007_, I'd rate the Blue Jays' chances ahead of the Yankees.
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:03 PM EST (#136335) #
I can put it more constructively. The player who I believe is most likely to take a leap forward in the next 2 years is Aaron Hill. The combination of youth (he'll be 24 in March), natural broad-based talent and an excellent attitude makes him the most likely candidate in my view. He's most likely to make that leap forward if he is the regular shortstop or third baseman. We will see if the team places him in that position to succeed.

As it stands, he is slated for a utility role (or to be a second baseman if Hudson is traded) or perhaps even for Syracuse.
Jacko - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:16 PM EST (#136340) #
Isn't this just a longwinded way to explain something we all know from fantasy baseball? Active roster spots are finite so one is always better off trading quantity for quality if the extra roster spots can be filled from the bench or the waiver wire.

The poker analogy I immediately thought of yesterday was "3 pairs is no good in seven card stud."

re: Lopez

Perhaps the Jays are afraid he is about to step off a steep cliff? His numbers have dropped significantly in the last two seasons since his monster year in 2003. Maybe he's already fallen...

Mylegacy - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:32 PM EST (#136341) #
IMO, Chairman Mao's great leap forward will have to come from Rios. If it comes from anyone.

A healthy Koskie could be a significant improvement over an injured Koskie. It was painful watching Koskie try to come back from his injury last year he was awful. He seems brittle.

A strict platoon for Hinske would be an upgrade. Late last year in that role he was at least OK, maybe a bit better than that.

To me Hill is... Hilly, only able to play second base. Hill's trunk does not bode well for the future. This guy is built like a fireplug.

Wells was very ordinary (offensively) for most of last year. He could give us a mini-leap forward.

Sanders won't be much of an upgrade. If he plays left the Cat and the Kid don't play, if he plays right Rios can't blossom, if he DH's where does Hilly go?

Here is our problem in a nutshell; good pitching stops good hitting. For that reason we will do (and have done) well against the two evil empire ubberpowers. BUT while they pummel poor pitching our very average hitters do less against it and so (or should that be ah so)we can't clobber the little guys. The little guys can be battered into submission, but not by us, we're just not strong enough offensively. SO, we could easily win more than half our games with the evil empires and still finish third. Good grief Charlie Brown, that would be a p*ss off!

Now if we could only trade for Manny, Miggy and Big Papi.
Mylegacy - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:47 PM EST (#136344) #
I'm not the first to say it BUT, Frank Thomas is the only guy out there that might be able to help us in a significant way. He needs 52 home runs to get to 500. 26 a year would do nicely. He is moderately inexpensive.

Even if his foot is more or less healed he will be a gamble. But he could be the final piece in a playoff team. If he's a bust, well lets see who the 06 free agents are.

We could be a 93-95 win team without him. He might just be enough to put us into the post season. No guts no glory!
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:49 PM EST (#136345) #
Being short and solid is not a barrier to greatness. The classic shortstop with this build is Lou Boudreau; there are several great third baseman with a comparable build to Hill's. Hill shares many attributes with Boudreau, but of course, the Jays will be very fortunate if Hill develops into a player of the caliber of Boudreau.
Mylegacy - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:53 PM EST (#136347) #
Mike, agreed.

But watching Hill at second he looks a lot more plucky than smooth. Don't get me wrong, Hill is an OK BJ. In other words at best, solid average and a bit.
Zao - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:59 PM EST (#136348) #
But let's not forget that one of the things that happened in 2004 was that the surplus of depth was simply nowhere near deep enough for the Jays to be able to cope with all the injuries and poor seasons. Let's not take depth for granted, is what I mean.

Exhibit A: This lineup:
http://baseball-almanac.com/box-scores/boxscore.php?boxid=200406160SFN
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 04:06 PM EST (#136349) #
I agree. It's not as easy to make the transition from short to second as one might think. It can be done, but learning the fine skills can delay offensive development.

Short to third seems to be significantly easier.
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 04:07 PM EST (#136350) #
Zao, I haven't clicked on the link but I'm guessing that Dave Berg, LF might be part of it.
david wang - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 04:18 PM EST (#136352) #
But Dave went 3/5 with a couple of RBI.

Looking at Menechinos stats for 2004 is Mind Boggling.

300/400/500 in 250 AB

I wonder if all of that is against Lefties?
subculture - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 04:26 PM EST (#136355) #
I don't think Hill would start in Syracuse under any conditions. He was getting plenty of at-bats last year, even after Koskie came back. I would actually like to see him be the primary shortstop, and Adams alternate b/w SS and 2nd. I think he's enough of an athlete to be able to do both.

Has there ever been a team that used a kind of system like that for a full year? Ie, with a few guys that are super-utility type players, with Hill and Adams basically manning SS and also playing 3rd (Hill) and 2nd (Adams) a few days a week? Similar to what the Jays were doing last year with Hill, except with Adam's in the mix too.

A rotation of sorts, like this:

DH: Hillenbrand 70%, Adams 20%, Koskie 10%
1b: Overbay 90%, Hillenbrand 10%
2b: Hudson 80%, Adams 10%, John A 10%
SS: Hill 60%, Adams 30%, John A 10%
3b: Koskie 70%, Hill 20%, Hillenbrand 10%

Everyone except John A gets min 70% playing time in this scenario, and there's flexibility for late-inning pinch-hitting. I know Adams hasn't played 2nd but he can learn it fast I'm sure. And if anyone goes down, there's at least 1 person you can plug in right away without giving at-bats away.
Smaj - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 05:26 PM EST (#136358) #
A quick thought on the Catcher front (Javy Lopez): Unless the Jays are willing to carry 3 catchers there is little hope of a catcher receiving regular DH AB's due to the possibility of injury to the starting catcher both in a current game & long term. Plus, Quiroz will need to clear waivers & I don't think JP is ready to give up on him yet.
The last thing the Jays need is Doc digging into the batters box to take AB's after the starting catcher was injured & the DH moves to catcher.
robertdudek - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 05:43 PM EST (#136362) #
In the very unlikely event that the Jays acquired Javy Lopez, they would likely carry 3 catchers.
JB21 - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 05:45 PM EST (#136364) #
That is what he was saying.
Cristian - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 06:47 PM EST (#136372) #
I've never understood this catcher dilemma. How often will your starting catcher get injured? Once a year? Twice a year? So you're looking at twice a year, at most, where your pitcher will have to bat (in AL games) after the DH takes over for the starting catcher. A more likely scenario is a long extra inning game where the starting catcher tires. Still, the desire to carry three catchers stems from managers not wanting to look stupid on the hilight shows the one time where he loses his DH. It has nothing to do with a third catcher being truly needed.
John Northey - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 07:39 PM EST (#136379) #
The third catcher situation also is covered if you have a guy on the roster who is trained to cover in the event of injury. I remember years ago that Rob Ducey practiced as a catcher and would spend time in the bullpen just in case. I think Menechino was the emergency catcher the last two years but was never needed. I figure the Jays could ask McDonald to practice at it just in case, and the same with Hill (heck, he covers everything else). I know if I felt I was marginal to make the majors I'd look at anything like that to make it. Especially when players like Kevin Cash and Ken Huckaby get many chances to play despite bats that a pitcher would be embarrassed by.
Twilight - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 10:32 PM EST (#136398) #
Sorry for the stupid question, but what's the rule about the DH? If you move him to another position, you can't replace him and pitchers have to hit?

What if you change the pitcher, can you change the DH then?

I saw this happen once last year, where Rivera would have had to bat if he didn't complete the save. Never happened though, I mean, it's Rivera of course.
Rob - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 11:03 PM EST (#136400) #
If you move [the DH] to another position, you can't replace him and pitchers have to hit?

If you move the DH to, say, LF, then the leftfielder's spot in the lineup becomes the pitcher's spot; i.e., where the pitcher (or, of course, a pinch hitter) must bat. As far as I know, this is the rule throughout the game.

If you remember that awesome July 1, 2004 game between the Yankees and the Red Sox, Torre had to lose his DH. Bernie Williams went from DH to CF, which led to Gary Sheffield "playing" third base.

zaptom - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 12:48 AM EST (#136411) #
That really was an awesome game. Looking back on the boxscore, Rivera was never in a position where he was going to bat, so it could't have been the game Twilight was making reference to.
Rob - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 01:00 AM EST (#136412) #
so it could't have been the game Twilight was making reference to.

No, but it's the closest I could think of. :) Plus, it gives me a chance to mention that game -- the greatest regular season game I've ever seen, by far.

robertdudek - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 05:14 AM EST (#136424) #
That is what he was saying.

Not exactly.
Sean - TBG - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 08:36 AM EST (#136428) #
There was a Jays game where the DH rule came up... We were playing the Indians who at the time had Manny Ramirez in RF and a guy named Angel (Alex?) Ramirez as the 4th OF. Mike Hargrove had planned to start Manny at DH with Angel in RF, but Manny (surprise!) complained that we wanted to play the field so Hargrove reversed them. Problem was he didn't submit an updated lineup card to the Jays...
After Cleveland played an inning with Manny in RF, Jim Fregosi complained to the umpires, since according to his lineup card the DH (Manny) was moved into the field. So Angel Ramirez's spot in the lineup was taken by the starting pitcher, Charles Nagy. Smart move since I think the Jays won 4-3.
I couldn't bother to look it up on Retrosheet, but I think I've got the basics. Hopefully I've got Angel Ramirez's 1st name right...
Intricated - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 09:34 AM EST (#136437) #
First time poster, long time lurker. I believe this was the boxscore. Below is an abridged version:
Cleveland Indians     AB   R   H RBI      BB  SO      PO   A
M. Ramirez dh,rf       4   0   0   0       0   1       2   0
A. Ramirez rf          0   0   0   0       0   0       1   0
  Nagy p               2   0   0   0       0   1       1   1
  McDonald ph          1   0   0   0       0   1       0   0
  Rincon p             0   0   0   0       0   0       0   1
  Justice ph           1   0   1   0       0   0       0   0
  Shuey p              0   0   0   0       0   0       0   0
Oh, and I'm officially Bauxite #2690000. Cool.
Jonny German - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 10:34 AM EST (#136453) #
Johnny Mac!
Twilight - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 11:31 AM EST (#136461) #
Thanks guys!

So in this case, if the DH is moved and you use a pinch-hitter to hit for the pitcher, that pinch hitter does not become DH and the pitcher still needs to hit?

I didn't know that. Cool.
Rich - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 02:26 PM EST (#136492) #

Interesting comment from BA's John Manuel in his current ESPN chat on Bush and Jackson:

For me, neither is a frontline starter. I've always been a huge Dave Bush fan and think his best role is in the bullpen, where all his pitches go from average or fringe average to a tick above. He's got the makeup to close, was a stud closer at Wake Forest and has a durable arm. I would love to see the Brewers use him in that role setting up Turnbow. Zack Jackson's a funky lefty who screams fourth or fifth starter to me. He's solid, but not spectacular in any way.
dwright5 - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 03:43 PM EST (#136503) #
Hey guys, I'm a Mets fan visiting Batter's Box. I really like message boards here: Thoughtful posts and a civilized tone. Refreshing if you've ever visited a Mets board.

Anyway, I saw this rumor involving Batista at Metsblog:

Blue Jays RHP Miguel Batista recently told the Associated Press that his agent was contacted by Mets GM Omar Minaya. According to Batista, the Mets are interested in acquiring him…

“I know that Minaya was in contact with my agent and for me it is flattering that he has been interested in me,” Batista is quoted as saying…

MatO - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 03:59 PM EST (#136506) #
What can the Jays get from the Mets for this obvious case of tampering? What reason would there be for the Jays to give the Mets permission to talk to Batista?
dwright5 - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 04:12 PM EST (#136510) #
Iit sounds like Minaya talked with Batista's agent, who perhaps has a client on the Mets, too. It's possible the agent brought up Batista's name.

MatO - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 04:15 PM EST (#136512) #
Then Minaya has to say 'I can't talk to you about Batista, that would be tampering'.
Bid - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 04:37 PM EST (#136518) #
Same rumour on the Fan about Batista to the Mets. How about Cliff Floyd coming our way?
Doug C - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 04:58 PM EST (#136520) #
More likely to be Nady or Diaz, in my opinion. Could be one of those "recent developments" that JP mentioned have come up in the last few days.
dwright5 - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 05:13 PM EST (#136521) #
That was my first thought. Diaz is a bit rough afield, but he's got real power. Doesn't help the Jays logjam of DH types, though.

So how about getting rid of Hinske in the same deal? The Mets could use a lefty bat off the bench. Does Hinske have any corner OF experience?

binnister - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 05:16 PM EST (#136522) #
Re: Batista/Nady/Diaz

Either of those 2 would be an upgrade over '2005' Rios, but only Victor Diaz would have more upside. Nady is what Rios could reasonably turn into, if he doesn't realize his 'potential'.

If its a straight Bastista-for-Diaz trade (the Mets have made worse trades), I'm on the phone right away (and then I'm trading Rios to Pitsburg for their #3 pitching prospect).

Yeah! Trade rumours! Gotta lov'em.
CaramonLS - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 05:26 PM EST (#136523) #
http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9095848

Here is the same report from a slightly more reputable source.

First thing I thought of was Tampering as well.
binnister - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 06:04 PM EST (#136529) #
Hmmm..... apparently the FAN590 was able to contact J.P. about the Batista/Met rumour, and he was pretty upset (Rumour Level - diluted pudding).

If it *was* tampering, it would definately put a damper on any discussion the Mets and Jays might/may have....

(Although, J.P. could certainly make use the 'tampering' threat as leverage in any trade talks....if he were so inclined)
CaramonLS - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 07:01 PM EST (#136530) #
http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/news_story.asp?id=146982

Another story across the wire.

JP Talks about Miggy, various things. Nothing Earth shattering.
Nick - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 07:22 PM EST (#136533) #
Sounds like JP has no plans to address the backup catcher position. Ugh.
Malcolm Little - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 07:33 PM EST (#136535) #
I really would not want Rios included with Batista in a deal for either Diaz or Nady, but, I must admit, I'm very excited to hear this talk.

I would much rather JP's exploring what Batista (+ Hinske or bits) would get rather than outright shopping Hudson.

I would rather have Hudson and Diaz than simply having Wilkerson alone.

Diaz. I like it. Heck, even a Nady/Rios platoon would make me somewhat happy. This (getting a Mets OF), turfing Hinkse or Hillenbrand, and maybe rolling the dice on Frank Thomas, and I'm a very happy Bauxite.
Ron - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 08:20 PM EST (#136536) #
I sure hope JP is bluffing about the catcher position.

JP has said numerous time prospects have to force his hand to play with the Jays. Of course this didn't hold true for League last season and it doesn't look like it will hold true with Quiroz next season.

Forget the question of whether Quiroz is good enough for the backup job, my question is Quiroz even good enough for AAA?

And with Zaun's age, a rapid decline in performance wouldn't shock me. If I had the keys to the treasure chest, I would have accepted the Lopez for Hinske/Batista trade. And the current time I would be looking at Piazza and Molina.
Gerry - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 09:02 PM EST (#136539) #
Quiroz is out of options, so if he doesn't make the Jays he has to pass through waivers to be sent down. As teams are always looking for backup catchers I would guess Quiroz would have a 90% probability of being claimed.
Ron - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 09:23 PM EST (#136540) #
Quiroz being out of options is just one more reason why he should start the season at AAA.

At his age and injury history I would like to see how he responds playing almost everyday at the AAA level. I would dangle the bait and tell him there's a big league job waiting for him if can produce at AAA level first.

For a team that wants to contend for a championship/playoff spot next season, I'm extremely concerned with an opening day roster that features Zaun and Quiroz as the two catchers.
Jonny German - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 09:40 PM EST (#136541) #
And with Zaun's age, a rapid decline in performance wouldn't shock me. If I had the keys to the treasure chest, I would have accepted the Lopez for Hinske/Batista trade.

Oh, was that offered? I didn't get the memo. I did get the one pointing out that Lopez is 5 months older than Zaun.

Quiroz being out of options is just one more reason why he should start the season at AAA.

I don't think you're getting the concept. Being out of options means he can't be sent to AAA without first passing through waivers.

rtcaino - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 09:46 PM EST (#136542) #
""If I had the keys to the treasure chest, I would have accepted the Lopez for Hinske/Batista trade.

Oh, was that offered? I didn't get the memo.""

Ya me neither, but I have seen it mentioned around here sveral times. Does anybody have a link?
Ron - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 09:57 PM EST (#136543) #
"Oh, was that offered? I didn't get the memo. I did get the one pointing out that Lopez is 5 months older than Zaun. "

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051101.wblai/BNStory/Sports/?pageRequested=2

Neither did discussions with the Orioles about Javier Lopez joining the Blue Jays for Batista and Eric Hinske reach the level of seriousness that former Blue Jays manager Buck Martinez seemed to indicate on the radio in Baltimore.

"They approached us about something … not interested," Ricciardi said.


"I don't think you're getting the concept. Being out of options means he can't be sent to AAA without first passing through waivers."

- I didn't get the concept. In this case the Jays virtually have no choice but to give Quiroz the backup job or risk losing him on waivers. Hopefully he turns his career around next season.




CeeBee - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 10:24 PM EST (#136546) #
I think it's worth the risk giving Quiroz the backup catching job. Maybe having a 3rd catcher/dh type would not be a bad thing but I think Quiroz just may turn out better than most posters think. Catchers quite often take longer to develop and considering the injury problems that he's had I think that he's still young enough to become a decent major leaguer.
John Northey - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 10:40 PM EST (#136547) #
For catching I figure the Jays are probably going to sign another Zaun type, someone who is decent but hasn't had much of a shot in the majors, to a AAA contract. Low risk, low cost, but potentially decent payoff.
greenfrog - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 11:02 PM EST (#136549) #
Quiroz has had one good season (2003). His career minor league batting average is .235 (71 HR in 2002 AB). One report (posted on BA or BP I think) about his defense in the winter leagues was not good.

Not inspiring.
Glevin - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 11:03 PM EST (#136550) #
The Jays might be better off going after a catcher with a little more upside. It hasn't been mentioned much on this site, but Zaun was atrocious the last couple of months and was pretty bad after April. Maybe J.P. can flip one of the excess corner guys or pitchers for a catcher who can hit a little. Javier Valentin of the Reds might be a good fit especially if J.P. could swap Hinske for him. I thought Pete Laforest would have made a great pickup for the Jays as he has power and has never been given a shot. And the whole Canuck aspect of course.
Mylegacy - Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 11:31 PM EST (#136551) #
Catching is weak throughout the organisation. Thigpen is a better DH than catcher and the only real prospect is Jaspe the young latin kid in rookie ball.

SK in NJ - Thursday, December 15 2005 @ 08:11 AM EST (#136553) #
Quiroz won't hit for a high average, but he gives the Jays a back-up who can hit one out of the park once in a while. His ISO in the minors, especially considering his age, was always very good.

The Jays desperately need someone to take playing time away from Zaun. He crashed in the 2nd half last sesaon, and I would bet that a big reason for that was the amount of games he caught. I know the Jays are trying to compete next year, but I hope Quiroz gets a fair shot.
Leigh - Thursday, December 15 2005 @ 08:15 AM EST (#136554) #
If considering only offensive value relative to position played, Zaun is probably the second most valuable player on the Jays, behind Wells.
The Less The Merrier | 71 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.