I don't think the team will be asking Overbay to sit down once or twice a week to accomodate a neophyte first baseman who may not even be his equal as a hitter. Overbay has missed just 7 games in the past two seasons, so durability isn't an issue.

Another concern is that Koskie had a injury-plagued season last year and could well have a much better season this year.

While that certainly may be true, this optimistic thinking reminds me of Kelly Gruber's final seasons. After putting it all together at age 28, he started slipping, succumbing to injuries and the natural recessions associated with aging. Diehard fans kept saying that if he could just stay healthy, he could be his old self.

Koskie may well sustain value in his 30's. He may well shake the injury bug. But the odds are against him. How prohibitively so is anyone's guess -- and there are certainly a variety of opinons at this site -- but to bank on a turnaround is to court trouble.

I guess I'll forego summoning Hercule Poirot then.

I agree, though I haven't gotten to the Annual yet. The two players that come to mind for me are Reed Johnson and Craig Biggio. From 1995 to 2003, Biggio finished first in the NL in HBP five times. He has not finished out of the top ten in any single NL season since 1991! Clearly, that is a propensity. Reed Johnson's b-ref '162 Game Avg. HBP is 20, which (in 1,478 career plate appearances) most likely represents a propensity. Hillenbrand's season HBP totals so far in his career are: 7, 12, 6, 12, 22 - nothing out of the ordinary until 2005. It is not impossible, however, that 2005 was a reflection of a newly developed propensity.

Do you have data on this? My general impression is that the American League is the stronger of the two, but I haven't seen any hard evidence of it.

I think of all the aquisitions [Overbay] has the biggest "bust" possibility on him.

Wow, I think quite the opposite - He's the youngest of the four (by a few weeks over Burnett), will be paid less than half of any of the others over the next three years, and has never had a poor season in pro baseball. No exaggeration - check it here.

Was Shea the BA leader for the Jays ?

His .291 was second to Catalanotto's .301. What's the relevance of this?

Okay, it's just a difference of opinion then. I think Overbay's success has been considerably more than "minor", the fact that he's only been in the bigs for a few years is mostly a matter of the Diamondbacks not promoting him quickly in the minors (despite strong performances at all levels), and I think the change of leagues affects each individual player differently - for every Adrian Beltre there's a Richie Sexson.

You know the rules. You must offer up an argument, quasi or otherwise, for unloading each of the three. Actually, that would make a nice op-ed to Leigh's "keep 'em" arguments.

My two cents is that the market is minimal for all three and that the pros/cons of deciding who to move will be largely irrelevant. The market will dictate which, if any, are movable.

15 years ago it was, sure. But the AL is an extreme control pitchers' league now... last season AL pitchers posted the lowest rate of walks since 1911.

As for Overbay, he's typically a fast starter and a poor finisher. If Overbay struggles badly out of the gate the Jays will likely give him some breaks but I don't think it's likely to happen, nor would it likely be Koskie getting that work unless both Hillenbrand and Hinske were dealt.

By ym count, in 133 at-bats vs. AL pitchers from 2003 to 2005, Overbay has hit .278 with 13 doubles and 2 homers, a .421 slugging percentage. Not great, but far from terrible (his overall BA and SLG is .286 and .453).

If you mean *defensively* that MIGHT be true, but as a hitter, when you look at BBRef's Most Similars for the two, Koskie gets you Chris Sabo -- admittedly, an All-Star and Rookie of the Year -- while Glaus gets you Eric Chavez and Mike Schmidt.

Not a hard choice.

Troy Glaus is a fine third baseman who makes a few more errors than average. Calling him "incompetent" is either (1) sloppy analysis; (2) poor or inexperienced scouting; or (3) repeating something someone else said who is suffering from (1) or (2).

I don't make pure scouting judgments very often, but I've been watching Glaus for years now and I'm confident with this one. Writers don't like his defense because he makes stops look easier than they are and he makes throwing errors on top of it. He's got a good arm that can get wild, and his long reach helps him snag hard shots that other third basemen have to dive for. He'll be fine.

I should say that he *once* had a good arm... I didn't see enough of him last season to know how he's dealt with the shoulder problem, but it's two years in the past now, so I'm assuming he's got most of the strength back.

Incidentally, the statistical measures (except for those of Baseball Prospectus, which I don't understand or trust) agree that Glaus is fine, even above-average. Dave Gassko's "Range" analysis places Glaus 7th among 26 starting third basemen last year, at +8 runs per 150 games. Add in Glaus's tendency to errors, and he was about average overall.

First off, the whole point of this type of forum is to offer an opinion and then accept that some may agree and others may not. If they do not, they may say so, and hopefully be polite out about it. If I have appeared impolite, I apologize.

If you want to offer opinions but do not want feedback, perhaps you can say something to that effect in your posts.

As for Moneyball, that's your second reference to it. I have my idea about what the book is all about (taking advantage of market inefficiencies and capitalizing on undervalued assets), but I am wondering what you mean when you use the term. It appears that it has a pejorative connotation for you.

1. Batter's Box Is Not A Forum.
2. If you don't back up your opinions with proof, you will definitely be either
   1. ignored; or
   2. jumped on.
   If that makes Batter's Box "Moneyball," so be it.

Its the Delgado-Segui dilemma of the late Ash era.

There might be one or two teams trying to shed salary this year. *Everybody* else has money to spend, and because of the weak free agent market probably couldn't get all their pieces. Create the demand by waiting for teams to hit the panic button.

Just speculating, but Hinske may only wind up with that role once Catalanotto gets hurt. The talk of him starting the year in that role with Catalanotto supplanting Rios vs. RHP may just be a way to motivate Rios, who didn't end 2005 on a particularly high note.

Koskie has reached 600 PA's just once in his career, so that vesting option, if correct (and it does look suspicious!), would appear to be highly unachievable. Even if he were to manage to stay healthy for the next two years, he'd likely be a platoon player. That alone would eat up too many PA's.

Clearly the emergency backup in case two of Mac, Adams, Hill go down. I don't think he's going to excite too many people: 13 HRs in 8 years in the minors.

As for which one... I like Koskie's game, but Hinske is younger, likely to be a better hitter, and very likely to be more durable. Given enough at bats, I don't think it's at all improbable that Hinske would outhit Hill and Adams. After all, he certainly outhit both of them in 2005. For those of you have forgotten, Hinske actually outhit everybody on the team in 2005 except Catalanotto, Hillenbrand, and Wells. (This Data Table is already in the system! And already posted! No work required!)

And it's not like Hinske's entering the decline phase of his career...

A player has to have a certain amount of service time before he can refuse an assignment to the minors - not sure how much time that is. If Eric's not at that point yet, he'd have to pass through waivers as he's out of option years. If he was picked up on waivers, his new club would assume his contract; if he was not claimed on waivers he'd have to report to Syracuse or forfeit his contract. If he does have sufficient service time to refuse an assignment to the minors he'd become a free agent and Toronto would be on the hook for the remainder of his contract, minus what he's paid by whichever new club he signs with. This happens routinely, and the new club would be paying him the minimum, which is $327,000 in 2006. So instead of paying half his salary and getting a bag of balls back, the Jays would be paying 95% of his salary and getting nothing. Bad deal.

Every year in which you're on the 40-man, beginning with your fourth year as a pro, is one "option year".

Hinske has been on the 40-man for the last three years. He has no options left.

Craig, this is starting to drive me crazy. I thought pretty much exactly as you thought in a previous discussion (about whether or not Quiroz has options left), and was told by two posters, who I can't remember, that it doesn't work that way. I even linked to the Neyer transaction primer, and was told that it was wrong. For example, I was told that John Olerud still has options left, as he never used his up. I think someone also linked to something official looking which supported that view, because it changed my opinion.

When a player is on the 40-man roster but not on the 25-man Major League roster, he is on "optional assignment." One common misconception about the rules is that a player may only be "optioned out" three times. Actually, each player has three option years, and he can be sent up and down as many times as the club chooses within those three seasons.

When you hear that a player is "out of options," that means he's been on the 40-man roster during three different seasons, beginning with his fourth as a pro, and to be sent down again he'll have to clear waivers (more on those below).

I apologize if that's too big a quote. Seems to suggest to me that you only use up an option if you're in the minor leagues in a given year. So if you're in the majors and don't go to the minors, you don't use up an option. However, that's not the definitive source.

At any rate, Hinske was not optioned to AAA in 2003 anyway - he was there on injury rehab, just like Olerud in 2005. I would be very surprised if that would count as using up an option year. (If you can actually decide whether or not to use up an option year. I still think the inexorable passage of time uses them up for you!)

Anyway, I will report back when I have something that seems fairly definitive...

So bring back the 10 man pitching staff!

There's also the problem of taking highly paid regulars and making them into bench players. They will grumble. Even if they start out with the best intentions, trying to make the best of the role ("I'll show them, I'll get my chance and play my way back into the lineup") they will end up grumbling and unhappy. As sure as eggs is eggs. It's human nature.

True, but he ain't gonna hit .325 with 45 homers, either. That's Manny being Manny, not Eric being Eric.

Because he would stand a decent chance of being the best hitter on the team. I make the case in this comment.

Wager away. I'm willing to wager that the 2006 squad is better than any team they've fielded since '93. And it's on a smaller relative payroll than most of those teams too.

And it's not at all impossible for any number of the Jays current prospects to have better careers than all of the guys you mentioned. (Excepting Delgado, I suppose.) We'll know in ten or fifteen years.

Whatever Baseball America thought of Alex Gonzalez in 1993 simply doesn't matter now.

Neither have I. I always thought the emphasis on college draft picks was because Ricciardi believed that the farm system badly needed restocking. College players are much further along in the developmental process, and can be promoted much more quickly. As you can see - any number of Ricciardi's draft have gone by guys drafted by Ash. This is not a knock on Ash's selections, just a consequence of drafting high schoolers.

Well, for one thing, college pitchers reach the majors faaaar more often than high school pitchers. (The extra 'aaa' is for emphasis) As far as good major league careers, thats a slightly different. College hitters as well, I recall. More of a track record, if you get hurt you just dont get drafted, better competition, etc.

I have to say, putting Cat back in right field with a neophyte in left would not be among my list of the 14,700 most ideal defensive alignments. I would hope that Gibbons would rightfully decline to write "CATALANOTTO RF" on very many lineup cards.

That said, Hinske just might have what it takes to be a good defensive outfielder - in time. His arm's good for left field and he runs really well. He shows reaonably good instincts on the field generally (well, except in the batter's box) so while it would take him some time to learn the OF, he's going to have to anyway to have a long career...

The Brewers now have both Corey Koskie and Corey Hart at third base, and I'm thinking now they need a License to Drive, baby!

Carlos Delgado is an outlier, a truly great player (like pretty all the other players you mentioned.) If an organization comes up with one of them in a decade, they're doing very well indeed. But the ones we're really talking about, the other guys... they're all average to good major leaguers on the one hand, and a bunch of kids with a chance to be... well, average to good. Shannon Stewart did have a .377 OBP at age 24, and I was plenty excited... but he was also a corner outfielder with pretty obvious defensive shortcomings. Aaron Hill has an excellent chance to be a better baseball player than Stewart.

Actually, Russ Adams still has a chance to be a better player than Stewart.

Anyway - time may prove you right on this, but I think we have to wait and see.

I disagree about Gaston and young players, though. Despite the local legend, Gaston was actually very willing to stick a young and unproven player in the lineup. There's a long list - much longer than people realize - of players who got their first regular major league work on a Gaston team, many of them on a team expected to contend for first place. The specific problem with Shawn Green after his rookie year was that he kept hitting something like .220 through the first two months of the season, and Gaston would give up on playing him every day.

Well, let's check and be sure. In mid-June 1996, Green was hitting .216; at the end of May in 1997, he was hitting .217. Sitting him down against LH pitchers seemed both the best thing for the team, and the best thing for Green himself.

Oh, I'm just bitter. I thought he was going to be Almost-Rickey-Henderson - I was looking forward to a .400 OBP, 50 steals, 120 runs scored year after year.

The curse of Great Expectations.