Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

JP's checking his offseason list (2 arms, 2 bats)
He's checking it twice (3 down, 1 to go)
We're gonna find out who's naughty (Hudson?) or nice (Hill?)
Troy Glaus is coming to town??

Yesterday Ken Rosenthal reported that the Jays, Red Sox, Orioles and an NL team were in the hunt for Troy Glaus. The Jays offer reportedly was centered around Orlando Hudson. Since the talk has been mixed. Peter Gammons said that the Jays are close to a deal for Glaus. However, a report in the Boston Herald said that while the Jays were 'furthest along in talks' one baseball executive, who reportedly talked with Snakes GM Josh Byrnes, said “I think (Glaus) is going to Boston.”

Posted by Pistol on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:59 AM EST.

'Tis the Season | 135 comments | Create New Account

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

Ryan C - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:48 AM EST (#137321) #

One thing I didnt realize that would seem to increase the likelihood of Glaus going to the Sox:

Arizona's new general manager, Josh Byrnes, previously was the Red Sox's assistant G.M.

I hate the idea of giving up Hudson. But the Jays do need to add another bat and Glaus would give them that. And Id even pay a little extra if it means keeping him away from one of their main rivals in their hunt for the wild card spot (Bosox).

Glevin - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:51 AM EST (#137322) #

Glaus may have a no-trade clause to Toronto but another AL GM (reported on Rotoworld) thinks Glaus will come to the Jays. Not sure what to make of this because Glaus is the big bat the Jays need to compete, but at some point, they have to stop acquiring 3B/1B/DH types. I also don't know if Hudson alone would do it, or if they'd have to throw a prospect in as well. My gut tells me that Boston will get him, maybe for Clement.

Mosely - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:59 AM EST (#137323) #

Boston might get him, but it won't be for Clement. The snakes don't want to take on salary, and Clement is owed ~20 M over the next two years.

Maldoff - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:01 AM EST (#137324) #

I think this would be a great move for the Jays. Yes, I agree, it is adding another 1B/3B/DH type player, but Glaus is at another level than the others. And, it would be mean the move of Hill or Adams to 2B, leaving the 1B/3B/DH roles to be filled by Overbay(1B)/Koskie(3B)/Glaus(DH) with Hillenbrand filling in for someone every day. Sounds good to me (although I loath losing O-Dawg).

Leigh - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:04 AM EST (#137325) #

I did a little math this morning. Here are the OPS+ numbers over the span of the last two seasons (I weighted by plate appeances) for some notable Jays:

Hillenbrand 107
Catalanotto 105
Wells 104
Koskie 104
Zaun 94
Hudson 94
Hill 92*
Adams 91*
Hinske 86
Rios 84

*sample size alert

And how about the newest Jay? Overbay, 120, easily the team leader. And the prospective Jay? Glaus, 129.

Leigh - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:16 AM EST (#137327) #

One thing that many may not remember about the Season from Hell is that Hudson's wasn't. He hit .270/.341/.438 in 2004, his age 26 season. Given the defence that he plays, that's good stuff. Will he produce that again? Impossible to tell, I suppose; he fell to .271/.315/.412 in 2005.

Pistol - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:32 AM EST (#137330) #

Hudson at the plate will probably be right between 2004 and 2005 - which is more or less his career average.

One of the reasons I don't mind trading Hudson is that his value is at its peak, it likely isn't going to get any higher, and Aaron Hill is waiting in the wings. I think could be better than Hudson as early as this season. (But I did find Mike G's opinion of Hill replacing Adams interesting. I suspect the Jays still see Adams as a significant piece to the team).

Sell high, buy low!

CeeBee - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:43 AM EST (#137331) #

"Sell high, buy low!"
O.K. if you're playing the stock market but I've got a wee bit more of an attachment to most players than whats written on a piece of paper. However, if a trade improves the Jays I can live with it. Losing Hudson and having a lot more uncertainty in the middle infield doesn't look like much of an improvement to me, even if Glaus hits 40 home runs. Those 40 home runs don't necessarily add 40 to the team total. It all depends on whose at bats he replaces. It seems to me that what's lost defensively and in the clubhouse is also an issue here.

lexomatic - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:50 AM EST (#137332) #

i'm curious about how this would affect the overall salary... i mean that's more than 10 mil coming here.. if the dbacks aren't picking up anything. that's a lot if the jays are only giving up hudson and batista.
i dn't mind getting glaus - dh'ing would probably save him from injury, i just don't want hudson as part of the trade. i don't really want hill as part of it either.
don't the dbacks have some high offense type prospect for 2b anyways?
there's too much info that's not available. i don't see this happening as it's reported.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 10:21 AM EST (#137335) #

With 2 division rivals in the bidding, I think Arizona has a lot of leverage and will therefore not have to kick in any money. Boston is desperate for good press at this point and could end up offering a whole lot for Glaus.

Newton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 10:37 AM EST (#137336) #

Bauxites, there may very well be room for sentiment in the rafters above your garage, but their is absolutely no room for sentiment in the managerial decisions of successful pro sports teams.

The 0-Dawg is a tremendous person and a solid all around 2nd baseman.

However, he will never appear in an all-star game nor will he ever get on base regularly enough to hit 1st of 2nd in a major league lineup as top 2nd baseman often do.

Glaus adds 20 HR and .100 OPS points to the DH slot and his addition to the lineup may help Vernon return to his 03 form (virtuous circle anyone?).

It'll be ok if 15 extra singles get by Hill that Hudson would have smothered.

Pistol - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 10:48 AM EST (#137337) #

The Jays have a new beat reporter at MLB.com. Jordan Bastian replaces Dr Prison Fence who goes to the Orioles as compensation for BJ Ryan.

Bastian has a mailbag up as well: http://tinyurl.com/cjmeq

Jonny German - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:05 AM EST (#137338) #

Let's go with Newton's numbers, dubious as they may be: 15 singles over 600 AB is 50 points of OPS, so half of the Glaus upgrade on offence is given back on defence. Glaus is slated to make $9.25M next year, while Hudson figures to make not more than $3M in his first arbitration year. Net: Over $6M for 50 points of OPS in 2005, not to mention the $23.5M owed to Glaus in '07 and '08. Sounds horrible to me.

Would it not make more sense to add 50 points to the DH production by signing Matt LeCroy to a $2M contract? Both this scenario and the Glaus scenario necessitate clearing Hinske and/or Hillenbrand off the roster.

It would be a different story if Glaus were not fragile and of non-neglible value defensively.

jfree - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:24 AM EST (#137341) #

Jonny, wouldn't the 15 singles be over all the batters on the other team not just one player, so it wouldn't be counted over 600 AB but over 5400 AB, which would be about 8 points of OPS. Giving up 15 more singles than last year would have negligible difference compared to the offensive advantage of hill over hudson and glaus over hillenbrand.

Newton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:27 AM EST (#137344) #

Glad to see the debate has taken on a more objective tenor.

I was comparing Glaus to Hillenbrand in putting together the projected .100 pt OPS difference.

If the deal involves Hudson and Batista there is no where near a 6 million dollar gap in salaries exchanged and we may get an additional prospect.

The 15 singles came out of thin air, but I would be very interested in any modes of analysis out there that might help quantify the difference between Hudson and Hill in this way.

I didn't take into account the potential offensive upgrade Hill might provide over Hudson which may account for the defensive loss independent of Glaus' addition.

Newton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:28 AM EST (#137345) #

jfree, I knew something seemed off but couldn't put my finger on it.

Thanks

Pistol - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:31 AM EST (#137347) #

"Wouldn't the 15 singles be over all the batters on the other team not just one player, so it wouldn't be counted over 600 AB but over 5400 AB, which would be about 8 points of OPS"

Right, but an increase in offense at one position is just one out of nine spots as well.

Newton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:32 AM EST (#137348) #

On further review we're not considering Glaus' impact on the team OPS merely on his roster slot. So Johnny's point remains very germaine.

jfree - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:40 AM EST (#137351) #

I see your point, the offence added by glaus and hill has to be more than the defence lost by having hill instead of hudson, if we agree that around 15 singles would be the likely increase in the opposition then we need that at least added by hill and glaus, i personally think hill could accomplish this on his own, then glaus over hillenbrand (about 80-100 ops) would be gravy, if we can get rid of batista hudson league (hillenbrand in another deal) we wouldn't be taking on any salary (4.75+3+5.5 = 13.25) we'd actually be saving 4M this season, although the salary increase over the next couple years would be significant.

Pistol - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST (#137354) #

Let's break it down Win Share style:

In 2005 Glaus had 23.6 win shares, and 19.6 of them were on offense. Unless the Jays traded Koskie (which I don't anticipate) Glaus would be the primary DH. So let's just go with 20 win shares for Glaus.

Right now the DH spot is effectively Hillenbrand's position. Hillenbrand had 12.8 offensive win shares in 2005.

So Glaus is about 7 win shares better than Hillenbrand, or slightly over 2 wins in 2005.

Hill would go in for Hudson. Hudson had 15 WS over his 461 ABs this year. Hill had 9 over 361. With an equal number of ABs and the same rate of production Hill would have 12 WS. So with no improvement in Hill the Jays would lose 3 WS, or 1 game.

So the net increase in a Glaus for Hudson swap is 1 game for about $7 million in added salary, not considering what the Jays could get in a trade for Hillenbrand and/or Hinske.

I have to say I'm a little surprised that's how little the difference is. You could argue that Hillenbrand won't be as valuable this year if you think HBPs are more random than repeatable, and I think it's logical to expect Hill to improve this season. So you could argue that the difference is larger than the one game, but I don't think it'd be that much different.

Newton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:51 AM EST (#137355) #

Interesting Pistol, but any one transaction that adds 1-2 wins with a salary neutral outcome (after supporting deals) is one to consider.

The Star just posted a brief article in which JP states we will not be getting Glaus.

Jonny German - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:54 AM EST (#137357) #

If the deal involves Hudson and Batista there is no where near a 6 million dollar gap in salaries exchanged and we may get an additional prospect.

The additional prospect is absolutely key. Lesser pitchers than Batista are getting 4 years $37M (Washburn) and 2 years $14M (Byrd) on the free agent market. He's not a shiny trinket to be thrown in to a trade, he has real value and it's an absolute failure for Jay management if he's salary-dumped.

So what I'm getting at is that including Batista makes the deal worse for the Jays, unless the prospect is legit.

Brian B. - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:00 PM EST (#137358) #

More hope is dashed to the rumor millstone:

Glaus not in Jays plans - Geoff Baker with J.P. quotes:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=866063d49cf983b7&pagename=thestar/Render&c=Page&cid=969907739730

Brent S - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:01 PM EST (#137359) #

Here is the link that Newton referenced.

Leigh - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:02 PM EST (#137360) #

If you trust Baseball Prospectus' numbers, Orlando Hudson was a more valuable second baseman last season than Troy Glaus was a thirdbaseman.

Hudson had 1 batting run above average, and 16 fielding runs above average. Glaus had 25 batting runs above average, and was 11 runs below average defensively. Net: Hudson +17 runs, Glaus +14 runs.

However, were Glaus to be DHing rather than playing third base, the defensive disadvantage is nullified, so it becomes Hudson +17 runs or Glaus +25 runs.

Let's assume that Glaus would replace Hillenbrand as the everyday DH. Hillenbrand was 14 batting runs above average last season. I think a more reasonable projection is, say, 9: he was +7 in 2004, and essentially inert in 2003 (+3 with Boston, -2 with Arizona [with more playing time in Arizona]). So, Glaus is 16 runs better than Hillenbrand.

Let's assume that Hill would replace Hudson. Let's somewhat arbitrarily project Hill as a slightly above average secondbaseman, both offensively and defensively. I don't think that it's unreasonable to project a +5 on each of offence and defence. So, from Hudson to Hill, we lose 7 runs (17 minus 10).

That's a net positive of 9 runs in the transition from Hudson and Hillenbrand to Hill and Glaus.

Over the last five seasons, Miguel Batista has averaged 6 pitching runs above average. So, even with the naive assumption that we could replace Batista with an average pitcher (a seemingly hot commodity this offseason), it appears as though we are looking at adding about 3 runs.

3 runs?

When I first heard about this trade, I was solidly on the 'pro' side, but now I'm wavering. If Hill outperforms the above projection(5 batting runs and 5 fielding runs above average), then it is a better deal. If Hillenbrand doesn't regress as I expect him to, then the deal might actually favour Arizona.

I'm torn.

jfree - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:04 PM EST (#137361) #

I don't think you could say that it's obvious that Batista is better than those two. He's had poor second halfs the last three years especially and he lost his rotation spot to a rookie with 2 career starts. He's not a career starter even though we speculate that he could perform better than those two if put in the rotation but he hasn't proven he can do that. Though his contract is very reasonable to comparable talent out there, and once the rest of the FA starters are signed the demand for batista should increase.

Leigh - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:06 PM EST (#137362) #

While typing simultaneously, Pistol and I (using different methods) both came to the conclusion that the deal would yield about one extra win (he said one win, I said three runs, or about one win).

Rich - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:18 PM EST (#137363) #

I love Glaus as a player, but it my mind, if you can acquire him for pitching, would it not have made more sense to have made the Overbay deal for Glaus instead? Glaus still doesn't address the lack of power at the outfield corners, which is the team's biggest weakness. Don't get me wrong, I'd take him if I could get him without dealing Hudson, but if O-Dog has to be part of the deal then it creates just as many problems as it solves.

Jacko - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:29 PM EST (#137365) #

Realistically, this is for the best.

Glaus is a fine player, but he because he plays a position the Jays already have depth at, his marginal value over what we currently have is limited. As in, he's not filling a hole, he's _replacing_ a reasonably productive player (Hillenbrand). Thanks for the objective analysis in your previous posts, Pistol and Leigh. Intuitively I knew this all along, but it's nice to see some concrete numbers to back it up.

If Glaus played RF (or even LF) it would be a whole different story.

CeeBee - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:32 PM EST (#137366) #

"However, he will never appear in an all-star game nor will he ever get on base regularly enough to hit 1st of 2nd in a major league lineup as top 2nd baseman often do"

A long time ago I learned it was better to not say "never" ;)

Jacko - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:33 PM EST (#137367) #

BTW, if the Jays really do have no interest, then where the heck did the rumours come from? I wonder if Arizona spreading rumours and half-truths in an attempt to drive up the price teams are willing to pay for Glaus...

Newton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:33 PM EST (#137368) #

Leigh: Don't we have to consider Batista versus his internal replacement from the Jays in the run plus-minus analysis.

Do we have an extra above average pitcher to play with?

Newton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:38 PM EST (#137369) #

Also do the 3rd base offensive averages approximate the DH offensive averages?

R Billie - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:45 PM EST (#137370) #

Leigh, that's exactly the conclusion I came to as well. When everything nets out you're looking at maybe one or two extra wins. And then you have the serious difference in salary in 2007 and 2008. A deal of Hudson for Glaus straight up may not even work for the Jays going strictly by numbers without even including salary.

That's why I said if the Jays were also throwing Batista and League into the deal that adding that talent and still taking on a lot of additional payroll in the last two years of Glaus' deal only made sense if the Jays were getting a great hitting prospect back at a place they were weak at present or down the road (outfield, corner infield, catcher).

To me giving up those three players for Glaus only makes sense if you're also getting a Chris Young, Stephen Drew, Carlos Quentin, Connor Jackson, or Miguel Montero back. Man do the Diamondbacks ever have a lot of quality hitting. Would the Jays have picked Drew over Purcey if he had slipped one additional spot to them?

Rich - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:50 PM EST (#137372) #

I can't see any way that JP would have selected Drew, considering that he'd already picked Adams and Hill, not to mention the Boras factor.

In his time as GM, I can't think of a single Boras client JP has signed, traded for, or drafted.

Jonny German - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:55 PM EST (#137373) #

Scott Schoeneweis.

Jacko - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST (#137375) #

To me giving up those three players for Glaus only makes sense if you're also getting a Chris Young, Stephen Drew, Carlos Quentin, Connor Jackson, or Miguel Montero back. Man do the Diamondbacks ever have a lot of quality hitting. Would the Jays have picked Drew over Purcey if he had slipped one additional spot to them?

It's funny you mention Conor Jackson. The Jays passed on him to take Aaron Hill in 2003. It should be interesting seeing how the next decade plays out with those two. I am still pretty high on Jackson, but he still hasn't found his power stroke yet. Until he adds some power, he's a Lyle Overbay clone.

As for drafting Stephen Drew, why not? You can never have too many SS prospects. They are easy to convert to other positions on an as needed basis. How much did Drew eventually end up signing for?

MattAtBat - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 01:17 PM EST (#137376) #

I don't know who to believe -- the normally reliable Ken Rosenthal or Geoff Baker, who appears to have spoken to Ricciardi. Ricciardi might just be playing it coy, while Rosenthal may be speaking to the Arizona end.

A possible scenario involves a deal that was on the table a few weeks ago that all of a sudden the D-Backs are reconsidering. That's why word out of Phoenix is Toronto is the front runner, but word out of Toronto is something like "Us? We've already discussed this. It's not going to work!"

In any event, Rosenthal's latest:
"Blue Jays closer to deal, but issues remain" http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5192008

Well, enjoy.

Glevin - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 01:51 PM EST (#137379) #

Apparently, Glaus doesn't want to DH which would make it a lot more difficult for him to fit in on the Jays as the Jays would have to unload Koskie. Another potential problem is his salary. He is due around $35 million over the next three years. That means the Jays will be spending roughly $45 million dollars a year on 4 players-Burnett, Ryan, Halladay, and Glaus over the next 2 years (and more if they can re-sign Halladay). If the Jays' budget is going to be $75 million a year or so, that only leaves 35 million for 20 players which does not leave much flexability for signing or re-signing players. Also, he is definitely a major injury risk, especially if he wants to play 3B.

Mylegacy - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:21 PM EST (#137381) #

First:

Someone is lying. Either the D'Back side was using BS talk about TO to pry more from the Sox OR JP is lying to try and bluff Boston into thinking they have no hurry. Both sides use media guys to do it. Gammons, Rosenthal and Baker at the Star.

Secondly:

IF the trade happened it would have been Hudson, Batista and League for Glaus and Hill. In the same way that we traded FOR Alomar, Carter and OLERUD while giving up Fernandez and McGriff.

Thirdly:

Hill is four years younger than Hudson and over the next four years MUCH cheaper. Over the next four years will Hill outhit Hudson? I think yes. Over the next four years will Hudson be that much better than Hill? I think no where near enough to make up for a Delgado type bat.

Fourth:

Addition by subtraction. Glaus NOT in Boston and IN Toronto is DOUBLY good.

Fifth:

I think I'll go back to bed.

Jim - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:24 PM EST (#137383) #

'Let's break it down Win Share style'

No offense, but I've seen you do this a few places now - and it makes no sense.

Win Shares aren't like WARP or VORP where you can add them together and try to figure out team wins.

Win Shares to distribute at the team level are based on the teams actual wins from the prior year. So if you believe what some posters think about the 2005 Blue Jays based on third order wins if the Blue Jays in 2006 had the same exact roster and the same exact player performance then they SHOULD end up with more team wins. So if the 2006 Blue Jays have more team wins then the 2005 Blue Jays then the exact same player performances would be worth more Win Shares - even though the performance is exactly the same.

So a player from say the Yankees in 2005 would end up with more Win Shares then a player from the Jays in 2005 - even if they had the exact same performance (and exactly the same realtivity to their teammates), because the Yankees win total was much higher then could be expected from the run elements while the Jays win total was much lower then what would be expected from their run elements.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I can't imagine that James or anyone who is very fluent with Win Shares would support using them for this kind of analysis.

Jim - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:44 PM EST (#137385) #

Here is the issue between comparing Hill to Hudson on even just a win share basis between them. And all of this ignores all the flaws in even calculating Win Shares.

Batting
Hill 407 PA - 6.6 WS
Hudson 501 PA - 7.0 WS

Fielding
Hill 286 Innings - 2.8 WS
Hudson 1100 Innings - 7.9 WS

So much of Win Shares is based on opportunity:

Let's pretend it's linear for a second. Getting Hill to 501 PA gives him 8.1 WS hitting.

Let's really go nuts and pretend that the fielding WS are linear - 10.8.

So 8.1 and 10.8 is 19.9. Now obviously this is wrong and Win Shares can't be used like this, unless you think that given the same amount of defensive innings that Aaron Hill is worth a win over Hudson with just the glove.

I'm also mostly sure that it is harder to accumulate win shares at third (where Hill spent most of his time) then second (where Hudson spent all his time). This would make the gap even larger.

Jim - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:56 PM EST (#137386) #

'So 8.1 and 10.8 is 19.9'

Well it's actually 18.9, but you know... I just work with numbers for a living..

Geoff - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 03:08 PM EST (#137387) #

Glaus is a fine player, but he because he plays a position the Jays already have depth at, his marginal value over what we currently have is limited.

Which is why we should all send a note of respect and admiration to Shawn Green to convince him to return to a club where he can leave an indelible mark in his veteran career.

How could Shawn not want to be a part of this? He doesn't hate this organization does he? And I hope he's not so attached to SoCal that he can't possibly make his living here? If Shawn Green didn't want to come here now, he ought to be moved into the gone and forgotten category. I can't believe that he wouldn't want to approve a trade here.

Just think: the outfield defence, and the lineup:

Adams
Hill
Green
Wells
Overbay
Hillenbrand
Koskie
Rios
Zaun

What do the statheads say about the added value of Green? I had presumed before that D-backs would want O-dog and perhaps the Cat as well as a pitching prospect. If they want to dump salary, let them dump Green.

Newton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 03:22 PM EST (#137390) #

Quick Question on Win Shares: If you are below average defensively at a position do you acquire defensive win shares? If so the system is deeply flawed for the purpose of evaluating the proposed Glaus-Hudson deal.

The Run differential formula seems much better suited for the purposes of evaluating this deal.

I have often wondered if there existed some formula that could roughly approximate a players overall value.

I had envisioned starting with OPS and making additions or subtractions for baserunning performance (ie stolen bases count towards slugging, caught stealings could be accounted for in OBP ditto GIDP), and additions/subractions for above/below average defence at a given position (you'd need to assign OBP/Slugging values to certain errors and exceptional plays based loosely on some of the defensive metrics out there).

It obviously wouldn't be as objective as pure batting stats but it would be interesting.

Perhaps someone could explain how the runs analysis works?

Rich - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 03:24 PM EST (#137391) #

I was thinking of Green as well. He is older than Glaus and hits left-handed, but given the roster makeup he seems like a better fit.

On a sidenote, talking of players like Green and Glaus show just how much the market has shifted since Beane and JP's teams first started winning. The Jays single biggest weakness now is their lack of players who possess the exact combination that Glaus, Green, Wilkerson, and Delgado have, and that JP loves: power and patience. 5 years ago it seemed a lot easier to acquire these kinds of hitters, and my guess is that the Jays will remain playoff outsiders until they can nab at least 1, but more likely 2 in this mold.

garth - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:03 PM EST (#137394) #

latest espn link on glaus/jay trade

sports.espn.go.com/mlb/ne...id=2270112

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:11 PM EST (#137395) #

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2270112

I don't know what's going on. Baker has direct quotes from JP saying otherwise, but Rosenthal and Gammons are acting like something's imminent. This ESPN report has it Batista and Hudson for Glaus and a prospect.

This report says they are "on the verge" of completing the trade.

Kieran - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:14 PM EST (#137396) #

I know it's been hammered to death here already, but if the ESPN article turns out to be true (and Ricciardi's comments to Baker are false) then we have a serious glut of 1B/3B/DHs.

My concern is that the Jays will be in a poor leverage position to make a deal involving Koskie, Hillenbrand or Hinske. Other teams will know that they *have* to deal at least one of them, and the Jays' bargaining power will be reduced.

Regarding the actual trade, I love the O-Dawg as much as anyone, but I have always thought he was a player with no above average offensive skills (average, patience, power, base stealing, etc.) His defense is fun to watch, but so would 35-40 HRs from Glaus.

Chuck - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:17 PM EST (#137397) #

Add me to the heap on the anti side of Hudson et al for Glaus. Of course there's a part of me that would love to see Glaus' big bat in the 4-hole, but calmer heads have to prevail.

For the Jays to take a big leap forward, they need to upgrade RF (with apologies to those who see Rios morphing into a 350/450 player).

Mike T - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:17 PM EST (#137398) #

JP also denied the Ryan signing, then later that day or the next they signed him. Wouldn't be surprised to see this deal go through. Boston would be pretty mad...First loosing out on Overbay, then Glaus, hehe.

Maldoff - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:20 PM EST (#137399) #

Just heard Wilner on the Fan 590. He seems to think this trade is a go also. He said it will be Batista and Hudson for Glaus and a prospect (most likely a low-grade one). He also said that Hillenbrand would be dealt if this deal is made to lower salary.

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:22 PM EST (#137400) #

After looking at the numbers and thinking it over for a few hours, I am thoroughly convinced that Orlando Hudson is worth more than Troy Glaus.

I would not trade him straight up, and if other players are included then it just gets worse and worse for the Jays.

Hope it doesn't happen.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:22 PM EST (#137401) #

After reading Rosenthal's article again, it seems to me that the Jays will have to add a sweetener to get get Glaus to waive his no-trade. Add more money/years? Ugh. I think the Jays also want to have a trade in place to trade Hillenbrand before agreeing to a Glaus deal. I think JP is probably upset this got leaked and issued the denial. I find it hard to believe that there is *nothing* going on as JP stated.

VBF - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:23 PM EST (#137402) #

Buy him a tractor.

Rich - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:31 PM EST (#137403) #

I don't know if Hudson is worth more than Glaus, especially to a power-starved club, but at the same time I don't see how Glaus and prospects for Batista, Hudson, and Hillenbrand makes the 2006 Jays much better, if at all.

Ron - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:38 PM EST (#137404) #

At the current time the Jays are still missing one bat.

By getting Glaus and dumping Hillenbrand (assuming he will be traded to move salary) the Jays will still be missing one bat considering Hillenbrad will be traded away.

RF still hasn't been addressed, neither has the catcher position.

R Billie - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:40 PM EST (#137405) #

Do we need a press conference with Ted Rogers and Paul Godfrey to award the tractor?

garth - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:40 PM EST (#137406) #

It would be nice if Koyie Hill was the prospect Arizona was giving up.

R Billie - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:43 PM EST (#137407) #

I have a feeling the "prospect" will be Koyie Hill who is no longer much of a prospect if he ever was. So that would kind of sort of address catching but not really with a solution that is any better than Quiroz. It would help in the sense that they would have a warm body if Quiroz or Zaun are unable to make a go of it.

I hope the Jays have a trade they're sitting on to move Hillenbrand or Koskie for an outfielder. That is the only way this trade would make sense.

HollywoodHartman - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:45 PM EST (#137408) #

Am I the only one who is genuinely thrilled with the idea of this trade? It sucks to lose O-Dog, but I don't think it's to far-fetched to assume Aaron Hill will produce similar offensive #s, and play most likely above average D. Also I LOVE the idea of Glaus being in T.O. and should provide some protection for Vernon.

Matt - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:46 PM EST (#137409) #

So the 'upgrade' would be Glaus over Hillenbrand. What do the advanced stats say about how much of an upgrade that is?

(this is without factoring Hill v. Hudson at second base)

VBF - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:52 PM EST (#137410) #

Yes, R Billie. With lots of pictures of Glaus and Rogers in it.

Ted Rogers: "This is the greatest day in the history of the world!--no, the UNIVERSE!"

VBF - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:53 PM EST (#137411) #

It's been mentioned before, but what about moving Koskie to the outfield. Would it be that bad? Has he not played there before?

Jim - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:53 PM EST (#137412) #

Actually it would be nice if the prospect they were giving up is Conor Jackson or Stephen Drew :).

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:54 PM EST (#137413) #

Why would the Jays want Koyie Hill? I'd rather have Quiroz...

I think Glaus is being a tad overrated because of his shiny homerun total. Runs are runs, it doesn't matter how you get them.

By VORP,

Glaus: 45
Hillenbrand: 32

Lefty - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:56 PM EST (#137414) #

Been a while since I chipped in with a post, but have enjoyed all the excellent speculation from all the posters over the past couple months.

Heres my two cents on the Glaus proposition.

As great a team guy and excellent defender as Orlando is, he is on the verge of costing real money to keep. Adams and Hill are Ricciardi's guys and I believe he thinks thay are going to be at the very least, adequate major league players and they will be cheap for at least three seasons to come. So as much as has been said about the corner DH logjam there exists a middle jam as well.

When John McDonald was re-aquired one or two astute posters speculated something was up in the middle infield plans. I think that was right.

Adams and Hill are in the longterm plan for team construction. Hinske, Hillenbrand and Koskie are not. They carry little trade value or any other tangible value for the team going forward and are only eating up salary. This is not to diminish any of their contributions past or going forward. But these are the players most expendable on the team. As well these players are taking up valuable roster space and Ricciardi is probably viewing them as sunk cost.

Trading Hudson and Batista solves three problems. First it clears a spot for the young - cheap - middle infielders. Second, it clears Batista's redundant salary and third it puts into play a valuable bat in the remake of the hitting roster.

One of Hinske or Hillenbrand will not be on this team before spring. For accounting purposes whatever salary is eaten might not count on the team budget. Finally, I have a feeling we might hear that the 75 million cap is not set in stone. It looks to me like the team is really going for it and a few million here or there might not be a serious consideration.

Jim - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:00 PM EST (#137415) #

I've been looking at their 2005 stats for the past 10 minutes and cannot wrap my head around the idea that only 13 runs separates them.

They must have one hell of a park factor for Arizona because there is a huge disparity in the raw numbers.

Rich - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:01 PM EST (#137416) #

I think Glaus is being a tad overrated because of his shiny homerun total. Runs are runs, it doesn't matter how you get them.

I'm not sure I like the trade, but the "shiny home run total" IS the reason why Glaus is valuable. Yes, runs are runs, but when you are 11th in a 14 team league in home runs and 10th in slugging, it's hard to score a lot runs. I know the Jays were 5th in the league in runs, but the Yanks and Sox outscored them by more than 100 runs each. That's a ton in relative terms. If the Jays hope to make the playoffs they need to narrow this margin, and the easiest way to do is to add a 30+ home run bat, especially if he also draws walks.

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:08 PM EST (#137417) #

My point is that Glaus probably doesn't add as many runs as would appear. You look at the 37 homers and think he's a superstar, but he's not. I mean, look at his other numbers. His OBP is nothing special, he only had 29 doubles...not very many for a slugger.

I mean, look at Tony Batista. Dude hit 41 homers one year and still sucked. Obviously Glaus is significantly better than Tony, but don't let his 37 homers fool you into thinking he's replacing Carlos Delgado.

Glevin - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:09 PM EST (#137418) #

I don't think there is a doubt that the Jays would win this hypothetical trade (we don't know the final details if it does happen). Hudson is a mediocre offensive player and Batista is completely expendable. However, Glaus' contract is large and the Jays would have one spot for Koskie, Hillenbrand, and Hinske none of whom would have all that much trade value. Also, in event of a Hudson or Adams injury, there was Hill to take their place. Now, John Macdonald would probably have to play a larger roll. Still, the Jays seem to be in win-now mode, and this gives them a better shot to make the playoofs this year.

Jim - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:14 PM EST (#137419) #

Here is the problem with a stat like VORP. VORP is going to apply the same park factor to every hitter. So Arizona is a good offensive park and it lowers Glaus' VORP relative to say Hillenbrand.

Here is where the problem lies. Every hitter is different. Right handed hitters in general have problems in Yankee Stadium, but what if you had a Right handed Shawn Green? He'd have a field day going the opposite way and the park would actually help him, even if the park factor for right handed hitters says the opposite.

It could also work in other ways. One hitter might pull the ball 390 feet most of the time, another might pull the ball 410 feet most of the time. A park with a 380 foot wall and a park with a 400 foot wall is going to effect those players very differently.

Glaus' VORP may be innaccurate because much of his power could still translate to other stadiums, and he might not lose 8-10 home runs that another Diamonback picked up by playing at the BOB.

Now in 2005 he did have much better numbers at home then on the road, but that could also be related to the number of away games he plays at Petco/Dodger/Pac Bell(Or however it is known right now).

Ryan C - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:18 PM EST (#137420) #

Not talking about anyone in particular, but I find it funny that one day the general sentiment is that JP overvalues Hillenbrand and how his OBP is inflated by his hit-by-pitch total, which is not repeatable, and he's really not as good as the stats say. Then the next day he's almost as good as Glaus. As long as it means keeping O-Dog that is.

Personally I love Hudson and would hate to see him traded. However if Glaus can add 30+ HR with a respectable OBP, and Adams/Hill can be league average defensively at 2nd base, then I would probably make the trade. Assuming of course that I have something in mind to address the Hinske/Hillenbrand situation.

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:20 PM EST (#137421) #

I was in no way endorsing VORP as the be-all and end-all, but even with its problems I prefer it to the archaic method of "who has more homeruns?"

I don't think it should be ignored that Glaus' SLG% was 100 points lower on the road than it was at home. If you want to do an in-depth study on Arizona's park factors on players like Glaus specifically, then all the power to you. :)

Glevin - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:30 PM EST (#137422) #

OPS+ the last 4 years

Player A)118, 138, 125, 115
Player B)108, 106, 95, 109
Player C)161, 128, 160, 153

Those are Glaus(two half years in there due to injury), Hillenbrand, and Delgado respectively. So, while Glaus is clearly much better tha Hillenbrand, he is also clearly nowhere near the hitter Delgado is.

Ron - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:35 PM EST (#137423) #

It seems like Home vs. Road OPS effects a lot of other power hittes:

Teixeira
1.109/.809
Manny
1.034/.936
Konerko
.959/.863
Soriano
1.011/.639
Dunn
1.056/.805
Ensberg
.993/.901
Griffey Jr.
.990/.902
Burrell
.973/.806
Wells
.846/.722
Tejeda
.925/.809

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:38 PM EST (#137424) #

The 138 OPS+ wasn't even in a half-season...it was in 58 games.

In his last three FULL seasons since his incredible year at age 23, he's been:

2001: 127
2002: 115
2005: 125

That's a good hitter...better than anyone on the Jays in 2005, but it's not anywhere near superstar level, and IMO it's not worth trading your gold-glove fan-favorite 2B for. And it's definitely not worth tossing in a perfectly good starter as a throw-in.

I'm starting to not like this offseason too much.

Jonathan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:43 PM EST (#137425) #

There seems to be a lot of numbers thrown about here, talking about VORP in replacing one player with another, and whether we are a better team with one player or another.

However, it seems to me this trade is important to make because:
-getting middle-of-order power hitters got a lot harder this offseason, with the dearth of them available through the FA route.
-the Jays have a glut of Pitchers.

While the price of Hudosn and Batista may be roughly equal to Glaus, the key piece in my mind is that we must overpay in order to get the middle of the order bat that TO desperatly needs. Batista is totally expendable and emotions aside, Hudson is too. Further, when we add up Batista's salary and the escalating salaries Hudson will recieve over the next three years, I think this trade is attractive.

Looking at other elite middle of order bats would at least take Hudson and Batista and a top prospect. This trade addresses today's needs without touching anythign the Jays have been buidling that will carry forth over the next four years.

melondough - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:46 PM EST (#137427) #

You may find it as interesting as I did to get a perspective of this rumour from a D-back blog page.
They seem to dislike the trade for Arizona as much as I do for the Jays.

http://www.azsnakepit.com/main/1

Glevin - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:49 PM EST (#137428) #

Re: Ron's home vs road OPS effects. I think in general, players numbers will be better at home. Teams win more games at home, so it would make sense that their offense is better at home. Howeverm that list in particular, it's not the fact that these guys are power hitters that gives them big splits, it's the fact that they almost all play (or played in the case of Soriano) in good to great hitter's parks.Miguel Cabrera and Carlos Delgado were both better away. So were David Wright, Andruw Jones, Richie Sexson, and many other guys who played in pitcher's parks.

melondough - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:52 PM EST (#137430) #

Sportsnet (posted 34 minutes ago) is reporting that if the deal is completed, an announcement would be expected after the holiday's next week due to ironing out the no-trade clause and other contratual issues.

The article indicates Koskie would take over full time DH (although how would they know) and that Hillenbrand would be traded.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/mlb/article.jsp?content=20051223_164232_5304

Oh boy, this may mean continued discussions for a whole week without resolution.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:55 PM EST (#137431) #

Wow, time for a new thread. The deal in final pending a physical:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5192008

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:55 PM EST (#137432) #

Oh man.

If Glaus is playing third and pushing Koskie to DH then the trade is even worse. Glaus has been a terrible defender since his injuries.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:56 PM EST (#137433) #

Glaus waived his no trade. I have mixed feelings on this. Say what you will, but this is an...interesting time to be a Jays fan.

Andrew K - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:03 PM EST (#137434) #

How does the budget stand? Glaus is due $4.5M more than Batista in 2006. With Hudson gone, the Jays seem to be about $4M over budget, something like that? Anyone care to do the sums?

Which would mean that losing any one of Hillenbrand, Hinske or Koskie would clear the budget and presumably the worst of the logjam. Still, I'd hate to see Glaus playing 3B ahead of any of the better options (Koskie, Hill, even Hinske or Hillenbrand).

I have very mixed feelings about this trade. A power hitter is great, but after Robert Dudek's little comment about virtuous circles -- Hudson's awesome defence being a perfect foil for Halladay and Burnett -- I feel that we gave up a lot.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:04 PM EST (#137436) #

Goodbye O-Dog. That's tough. I love O-Dog. Isn't he in town right now? That's the sucky side of being an athlete - he loves the city, his teammates, and the fans, but he has no control over where he works next year. I expect his Gone, but Not Forgotten thread to set a record for number of posts in a GBNF thread

Rich - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:05 PM EST (#137437) #

I guess Jeff Blair has gone on holidays; surprising there's still no word from him on the deal.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:05 PM EST (#137438) #

Batter's Box will need a new banner too.

VBF - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:05 PM EST (#137439) #

We're gonna miss you Orlando. Thank you so much for all you've done in Toronto. There never has, nor will be another O-Dog in Toronto.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:08 PM EST (#137441) #

No Arizona games on the schedule next year. I remembered the Jays were playing at Coors Field for the first time so I thought they were playing the NL West but it looks like the NL East. Not sure why we are playing the Rockies.

Jim - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:09 PM EST (#137442) #

I'll miss Hudson, but I think this trade improves the team.

Now I'd just like to see Koskie moved and let Hillenbrand DH, with Hinske around as insurance.

Adams - SS
Hill - 2b
Overbay - 1b
Wells - CF
Glaus - 3b/DH
Hillenbrand - 3b/DH
Rios - RF
Zaun - C
Johnson/Cat - LF

JP smells blood in the water with the Red Sox looking like they are going to be down. I agree, 2006 is the year to go for it.

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:09 PM EST (#137444) #

This is seriously rough.

Lost Delgado last offseason, and now we're saying goodbye to the O-Dog.

Will Roy be traded next year? Sigh.

Sherrystar - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:10 PM EST (#137445) #

wait... this isn't final yet... i don't see anywhere it's final...!!!

(O-Dog denial!)

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:10 PM EST (#137446) #

Sorry to keep posting, but I'm blown away right now.

The physical is scheduled for Monday. With Glaus, that might be more than just a routine step toward consummating the trade.

Newton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:10 PM EST (#137447) #

Glaus generates a potential virtuous circle himself in that he provides protection for Vernon.

I think this is good for the Jays.

What you're feeling now are growing pains.

melondough - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:11 PM EST (#137448) #

Read the article closely:

"In return for Glaus, the Diamondbacks are expected to acquire second baseman Orlando Hudson and right-hander Miguel Batista. The Jays also might receive a prospect in the deal".

This essential word being "EXPECTED". I am hoping this means that Hudson may not be involoved.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:13 PM EST (#137449) #

I am hoping this means that Hudson may not be involoved.

That is wishful thinking. There is absolutely no way Glaus is coming to Toronto without Hudson leaving. No way at all.

Sherrystar - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:16 PM EST (#137450) #

Where does it say the deal is done pending physical? Am I missing something here in my excitement/mourning?

jamesq - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:17 PM EST (#137451) #

Who doesn't love the O dog, if this is true, I'll miss his glove and spirit on the field. BUT, we got Hill and he looks like a real gamer and we're bringing in a guy who can hit a clutch HR when needed, something we sorely lacked last year. Didn't Glaus win a WS MVP?

Rich - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:18 PM EST (#137452) #

Another concern I have with the trade is our lack of depth up the middle. If either Adams or Hill gets hurt or struggles badly then the team is in trouble. I know MacDonald actually had a decent year with the bat, but an extended stretch from him could really hurt next summer, and there isn't really anyone in the high minors who looks capable of stepping in if needed.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:18 PM EST (#137453) #

Where does it say the deal is done pending physical?

Rosnethal at Fox Sports. I linked it a few posts ago.

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:19 PM EST (#137454) #

Of course, if Glaus has another season like 2000 it will be worth it. :)

But I'm going to miss Hudson a lot.

Mylegacy - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:19 PM EST (#137455) #

D'Back fans (on their mlb message board) seem to agree that Glaus is brutal on defense.

However, we know Koskie is REAL BRITTLE, is he more brittle than Glaus? Would Koskie HEALTHY at DH be an upgrade over Hilly at DH?

I think WHAT MAKES SENSE, offensively and defensively, is Hilly at third, Glaus at DH, Overbay at first and either Koskie or Hinske as backup to all three. Whichever one we can't unload.

However just because it makes sense don't mean it'll happen.

JustinD - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:25 PM EST (#137457) #

Koskie, from what I remember was very good defensively at third. I wonder what Wells thinks of this deal. Werent him and the O-Dog close?

Geoff - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:44 PM EST (#137459) #

Noooooooo... I've been confident in many of JP's moves but getting Glaus is a bit frightening. I would have been happy to see the Red Sox deal their starting pitching and some other part to acquire yet another third baseman. Would they put Lowell, Glaus or maybe Ortiz in CF and leadoff?

And why would we dump Hillenbrand when Hinske is clearly less impressive? Send him and $2-mil for a backup catcher. Screw the few mill on the budget. JP should dump the lefty bat, not the righty. I fear Koskie will get the axe, perhaps to Minnesota again for a reliever.

And isn't Koskie the superior defender? Why not DH Glaus? This deal doesn't make any more sense since the first time I saw it mentioned. How can JP do this trade and juggle budget issues when you have so much invested in 1B/3Bmen?

Shoulda been Green I tell you, Green!

melondough - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:49 PM EST (#137460) #

Geoff, I would bet that Glaus would not waive his no-trade clause unless he got assurance that he would not be the full time 3bman.

I am a huge Odog supporter but I need to look forward. Now that ODog seems to be gone I need to remember all the things did poorly. This may make all of us Odog supporters feel a bit better. Remember how the Odog would....

-look over a perfect strike three without flinching
-Geez I can't think of much else he did wrong.

Crap!

melondough - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:51 PM EST (#137461) #

From Rotoworld....

The Blue Jays have reached a tentative agreement to obtain third baseman Troy Glaus from the Diamondbacks, FOXSports.com Ken Rosenthal reports.
Orlando Hudson and Miguel Batista are expected to go the other way, with the Jays likely getting a prospect in return. Rosenthal says that Glaus will waive his no-trade clause and stay at third base for the Jays. If so, they're not getting much, if any, better with the trade. Between subtracting perhaps the game's best defensive second baseman and going from Corey Koskie to the well below average Glaus at third base, what the team gains on offense, it loses on defense. If Glaus can be convinced to accept the trade while becoming a DH, the Jays would be far better off. Dec. 23 - 6:09 pm et
Source: FOXSports.com

Mark - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:55 PM EST (#137463) #

This doesn't make sense at all and I can not see how the team is better.
- Any struggles by the two second year infielders (big risk) Hill or Adams, which is very possible, leaves the team with a HUGE hole in the line-up.
-The infield defence has become a lot worse, putting more pressure on the rotation.
-EVERYONE on the team agrees that Hudson is the leader and Zaun, Wells, and Halladay (the 3 other "leaders") have all publicly stated their desires for the O-Dog to be around.
-We take on another huge salary.
-We lose the one player people would tune in to watch play defense. It's true, don't deny it.

On the whole this moves shows me that the GM has horse blinders on. Adding Overbay and Glaus for Bush, Hudson, Batista, Jackson and Gross plus the anticipated dumps of Hillenbrand and Hinske is too steep a price. His desire for 2 bats got the best of him. We are no longer a pitching and defense team yet our offence still can't battle the big guys. We have potential holes in LF, RF, SS, and 2B now. Plus, on the chance that Glauss tears it up and the jays miss the playoffs he can pull a vazquez and demand a trade. Whatever, I am just upset.
I think the team was better before and we traded a great player.

R Billie - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:57 PM EST (#137464) #

Well what makes sense is if Koskie is healthy, he plays third and Glaus goes to DH. Koskie is still above average when healthy. I don't think he was very healthy in 2005 and there's no guarantee of that in 2006 either.

Glaus playing third may be an issue. Last year he was 10 runs below average for the position but still above replacement level. Maybe another year off the shoulder surgery will help or maybe not. Hillenbrand despite complaints about his defence has been around average.

Glaus does have a couple of years where he was well above average defensively too. A healthy Glaus has a cannon arm. But I'm more concerned about the strain of 3B on keeping Glaus healthy than the potential defensive cost.

Anyway, that's for JP to work out. I really wish Giles had signed but Glaus is definately a better fit for the middle of the lineup than anyone else the Jays have. He's just not Giles nor an outfielder. Maybe he can have a better year if he is indeed stronger.

Of course both Delgado and Glaus could have been signed last off-season for no cost in assets. It just seems strange that a year after saying the Jays could not afford to be involved in anymore Delgado like contracts that we've now added three of them. For players who probably don't contribute as much as Delgado.

So yeah, there's more freedom now but that freedom is being chewed up FAST. I think right now we're up to about $44 million commited to Glaus, Halladay, Burnett, and Ryan in 2007. Leaving $40 million to fill out 21 more players which will include arbitration eligibles. We'd better hope that many of our remaining pitching prospects turn out and are effective off the bat.

Seamus - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:57 PM EST (#137465) #

Hey (this is my first time posting, but i've been reading for ages)

Regardless of how well these moves pan out this offseason, you have to be impressed with the guts JP has shown as GM.

I think the Jays should dump Koskie and Hinske while keeping Hillenbrand. Glaus would be a major upgrade offensively over Hinske or Koskie, but not nearly as big an upgrade on Hillenbrand who is quite productive.

melondough - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:57 PM EST (#137466) #

For whatever its worth, the Mets fans feel like we won the deal hands down.....

http://www.metsblog.com/blog/_archives/2005/12/23/1492784.html#comments

nicton - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:58 PM EST (#137468) #

By next Tuesday Hudson will probably be lucky if is good enough to make a single A roster.

Which team needs a Hinske bad enough to take on $8 mil in salary AND trade something that is baseball related??? Doesn't NJ have a team in the Atlantic League???

Ron - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:33 PM EST (#137476) #

"Of course both Delgado and Glaus could have been signed last off-season for no cost in assets. It just seems strange that a year after saying the Jays could not afford to be involved in anymore Delgado like contracts that we've now added three of them. For players who probably don't contribute as much as Delgado."

AJ, BJ, and Glaus are nowhere near a Delgado type contract in terms of average salary.

IIRC Delgado signed a 4yr/68 mil contract which means 17 mil a season.

Jefftown - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:35 PM EST (#137477) #

Glaus and a prospect for Batista and Hudson?

Without a doubt that would be a stupid trade. Way too many corner IF. Glaus is too injury prone and being paid too much. Lowers the trade value even more of Hinske/Hillenbrand/Koskie.

I'm not someone who is overly enthralled with "heart," but it still does matter, and Hudson has a lot of it. Not so sure about Glaus.

This would be a bad trade. Maybe Hinske and decent prospect for Glaus and some cash, but not this.

R Billie - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:39 PM EST (#137478) #

Delgado's contract with the Marlins was 4 years, $52 million or $13 million per year. I'm not speaking of the original contract Delgado signed with the Jays but the one he signed when he left which JP believed could not be afforded.

Then in one off-season, $47 million over 5 years to Ryan. $55 million over 5 years to Burnett. And over $10 million average for the next three years to Glaus.

Lefty - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:43 PM EST (#137479) #

There was a poll question a couple weeks ago regarding Ricciardi's contract extention. I voted for something like; why extend his contract with two years remaining?

Well I'm really glad he's signed on till 2010 now. This gives me confidence that the guy is in for the long haul and will be around for either the praise or the flames with all these big money and long contract obligations.

With that said I've always been a big fan of Troy Glaus, we had him in Vancouver before he went on to mash for the Angels. He's a class guy who has had some bad luck with injury. I see no reason why he won't put up numbers close to his first couple seasons. As well his defense should bounce back too.

I see this deal as Orlando for Glaus straight up and I would do that deal any day of the week.

It won't take long for Vernon to get over it with a big scary bat hitting behind him. Boston's offense wasn't legitmate until they signed Ortiz. And lets remember how effective Vaddy_wasn't_without a big scary bat behind him in the playoffs.

Great deal Ricciardi, why don't you take the rest of the year off and enjoy the holidays with your family.

Nick - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:48 PM EST (#137481) #

Delgado made only $4 million last year. His average salary is $16 million the last 3 seasons I believe.

Mark - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:50 PM EST (#137482) #

Remember Delgado signed late. He had no offers in december. If they offered 4/40 at the deadline he would be a jay.

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:51 PM EST (#137483) #

See, now here we go again with the comparisons.

Troy Glaus is nowhere near the hitter that David Ortiz is.

That said, I AM glad that Troy Glaus is a Blue Jay, as I sorely missed watching homeruns last year. I just wish it hadn't cost so much.

Ryan Day - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:54 PM EST (#137484) #

Complaining about last year is kind of a moot point. Ricciardi didn't get the budget increase until after the Dome sale went through, and that was late in the offseason.

Now, you could complain about Rogers' accounting and management, but that's another kettle of fish. If Ricciardi only had a $50 million payroll going into the offseason, Delgado and Glaus were out of the question.

Lefty - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 07:59 PM EST (#137485) #

Troy Glaus is nowhere near the hitter that David Ortiz is.

Niether was Ortiz when he was with the Twins. But then I wasn't saying Glaus is a better hitter than Ortiz, just that he will have a similar effect in the Jays order.

Ryan Day - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:04 PM EST (#137487) #

<i>Troy Glaus is nowhere near the hitter that David Ortiz is.</i>

No, he's actually pretty near. Maybe not quite as good, but not that far off, either: Ortiz' last three OPS+ have been 144, 145 and 161, while Glaus has done 118, 138 and 125. And Glaus has done much better in the past, and is still a year younger than Ortiz.

Glaus might not, indeed probably won't, be better than Ortiz, but it wouldn't be shocking if he was.

Glevin - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:05 PM EST (#137488) #

It's true that Ricciardi didn't get the budget increase until the sale of the dome, but I still think Delgado could have been signed. If the Jays hadn't have signed Koskie, traded for Hillenbrand, and signed Schowenweiss and Koch, they would have had enough for Delgado and just left Hinske at 3B with Hill coming up at half year and went cheaper on middle relievers. Hinske was not that bad as a 3Bman. As a 1bman and DH, he is horrible. J.P. said the big problem with Delgado is how much salary one player ate up which doesn't make sense to me if you're willing to spend 21 million a year on a closer and #2 starter.

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:08 PM EST (#137489) #

Niether was Ortiz when he was with the Twins

OK, that's a good point.

I will concede that if Glaus hits like David Ortiz the next three years, it will be a good trade. ;-D

Lefty - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:10 PM EST (#137490) #

Ryan, you realize your debating yourself now eh? Those were your words in italics, not mine.

Anyways your obviously getting over it. Glaus is going to be a great Jay.

Lefty - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:15 PM EST (#137491) #

Glevin, I think the point here is that JP will say whatever he has to say in view of the circumstance of the day.

Heck earlier today he said said something to the effect that the Jays were not dealing for Glaus. Since August he was saying the Jays would not be signing any premium hitters. I think the lesson here is not to listen to what he says so much but to watch for the signs.

Lefty - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:23 PM EST (#137492) #

I think theres an important factor that should not be overlooked here today.

One could say that Ryan and Burnett were mercenary in signing for big money longterm deals with the Jays. Sure there are attractions of the city, Canada is quaint, yada yada. But in the end these were premiume dollar deals.

Glaus on the other hand already had a pretty sweet deal swinging his stick in the city he chose as a free agent. Further Glaus had a "no trade to T.O." in his contract.

For him to waive that gives me immense satisfaction on the direction of this team.

Theres no doubt, it could all go pear shaped yet. But this is really looking positive.

King Ryan - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:29 PM EST (#137494) #

I don't see how I'm debating against myself, but if I am it wouldn't be the first time. I just hope I win.

Lefty - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:40 PM EST (#137495) #

haha, Merry Christmas KR.

Ryan C - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:54 PM EST (#137496) #

Assuming the Burnett and Ryan deals would have happened anyway, which of these packages brings the Jays closer to winning now and in the future:

Package 1:
- 2B, Defensively amazing, Offensively light to average, age: 28
- Two middle of the rotation starting pitchers, ages: 26, 35
- 4th OF, age: 26
- prospect, late 1st round SP.
- ~$5 million

Package 2:
- 1B, career: .285/.373/.450, age: 28
- 3B/DH, career: .253/.358/.501, age: 29

That's essentially how I break down the two trades at this point in my mind. Im estimating that the money is roughly the difference in salaries next season. Or to put it another way, if the Jays currently had Overbay and Glaus on the roster would you trade them for Hudson, Bush, Batista, Gross and Jackson? And would that bring the Jays closer to competing?

And please dont say "win now mode". All four of the big acquisitions this off-season are under 30 and are under contract/control for 3 - 5 years I believe. So it's not a "mortgage the future to win now" style operation going on IMHO. And of course we still have yet to see what happens with Hinske/Hillenbrand/Koskie...

Matt - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:07 PM EST (#137497) #

Well this is an interesting strategy by JP, thats for sure.

I think its fair to say, whether he gets dealt or not, Hinske has been removed from any semblence of a meaningful role on this club.

The question is now, who else do you bench/trade, Hillenbrand or Koskie?

If Koskie does get dealt back to the Twins or if he goes on the move anywhere else, than a meat of the order in including Wells, Overbay, Glaus and Hillenbrand sounds incredibly interesting.

Thats four guys who should all get 20 jacks minimum, along with the more statistically sound offensive stats to boot.

If Koskie stays, hopefully he still starts on the field. I don't how he's any use to this club as a DH. His main strength certainly has to be in his D.

That issue needs to be resolved. After that, I don't know of too much that's left to be done.

jmoney - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:19 PM EST (#137498) #

Well, the one big positive for me is that a guy from the West Coast lifted his no trade to come to Canada.

That would have never happened before the Ryan and Burnett signings. Of course, you can tear these deals apart, but obviously players around the league are taking note that something big is happening in Toronto...

Mylegacy - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:52 PM EST (#137499) #

Jmoney right on!

We will KEEP which ever of Hinske, Hilly and or Koskie we can't trade.

Adams
Cat/Johnson
Wells
Glaus 3RD or DH
Overbay
Hilly/Koskie or Hinske 3RD or DH
Zaun
Hill
Rios

If Rios blooms, 40%-60% chance, this is an above average offensive team. AND, the pitchin' ain't half bad either!

Gerry - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 09:57 PM EST (#137500) #

I have started an unofficial "Troy Glaus is a Jay" thread here:

http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20051223213126260#0comments

Geoff - Friday, December 23 2005 @ 10:48 PM EST (#137510) #

*sigh* Glaus had better be healthy enough to live up to his contract. For those who griped about Burnett and how pitchers are too risky

anyhow, here's my take on a lineup:

Adams
Hill
Overbay
Wells
Glaus 3RD or DH
Hilly/Koskie or Hinske 3RD or DH
Cat/Johnson
Zaun
Rios

For me, Johnson strikes out too much to be kept in 2 and Cat isn't enough of a baserunner. Press Hill into duty and see if he likes the pressure. And Koskie or Hinske would cause a shuffle of the bottom 4.

Let's bloom Rios, let's bloom.

'Tis the Season | 135 comments | Create New Account

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