Does anybody support a Hinske/Hillenbrand platoon at DH?

Besides me? :-)

Hinske was the team's best DH in 2005, but it doesn't matter. Ricciardi and Gibbons don't support the idea. He's the backup at three positions (although I imagine Hillenbrand will actually be the fill-in at 3B and possibly 1B as well.) The Dude might as well shag some fly balls this spring...

It's hardly unheard of for infielders to move to the outfield in mid-career. Sometimes it works just fine (Robin Yount), sometimes it's not so good (Larry Parrish). Usually it's somewhere in between (Hubie Brooks, Frank Catalanotto.) While Hinske looks like he ought to be a big slow guy, he's no such thing. As a third baseman, I didn't think his arm strength was a problem - he doesn't have a particularly good first step, though, which is why men much slower afoot than he (Brooks Robinson, John Olerud) had much more range at corner infield spots. But Hinske runs well. And as I recollect, at third his throwing errors were usually overthrows, and often seemed to happen when he had a few seconds to think about it...

Ricciardi was talking about seeing if Hinske could handle LF, which would give them the option of playing Catalanotto in RF. These are options one wants to be very careful about using. If a groundballer like Doc or Burnett is pitching... against a team that doesn't have any speed... in a park with a small outfield area... then maybe. I guess.

The Brewers website says the Jays are paying part of Koskie's salary.

It sucks the Jays couldn't get a better prospect but I don't think this move makes a whole of lot of sense for Milwaukee either, unless they got the Jays to pay a good chunk of Koskie's salary. Regardless, I think the Brew Crew had their 3B already in Bill Hall, who had a pretty darn good year for them last year. Listening to MLB radio last month, the Brewers beat reporter felt Hall was the team's MVP last year. I guess they wanted a veteran presence on the infield alongside Fielder, Weeks, and Hardy at the other spots.

It's too bad things didn't work out for Koskie here but Baseball Prospectus called it, it was a bad signing from the get-go. Now it's Milwaukee's turn to make the same mistake.

The key to the deal was Toronto’s willingness to pick up at least half of the $11 million left on Koskie’s contract. Melvin would not specify the exact sum the Blue Jays took back other than to say it was “a fair amount.”

I think it's worth keeping him around as a platoon player who gets 400 at-bats.

I understand the point, but that number of at bats just weren't there to give him, unless someone actually gets hurt. Which is always possible, but in the meantime it's not just the two expensive players covering the same backup role - it's the construction of the 25 man roster that absolutely demanded the move. You can't carry two essentially identical players as backups. There just isn't enough room on the modern bench.

Objectively, we all know that Koskie is a better player than Hillenbrand.

Prior to 2005, no doubt whatsoever. Koskie had been a better player every season. From 2006 onward could very well be another story, though. Koskie is at an age when a lot of players do suffer a significant decline, he has a history of banging himself up, and speaking subjectively, he looked like he had lost a step.

At any rate, it seems pretty hard to call 2005 a career year for Hillenbrand when he couldn't improve on his already established career bests in BAVG, OBP, SLUG, Hits, Runs, RBI, 2b. (Yes, despite new career highs in BB and HBP, he didn't post his best ever OBP in 2005.) In fact, his line in 2005 is so close to his career average per 162 games that it's a bit spooky:

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G  AB   R   H  2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BAVG  OBP  SLG  TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP 
2005 29 TOR AL 152 594  91 173 36  2 18  82  5  1 26 79 .291 .343 .449 267 0  3   2  22  21
162 Game Avg       616  81 178 38  3 18  87  3  2 25 79 .288 .327 .448 276 0  6   3  13  20

Props, as always, to baseball-reference.com

Hillenbrand was going nowhere - Gibbons and Ricciardi love him, and maybe even more important, he hits right-handed. He's not going to be platooned, either. So one of the two LH batters was going. The Jays kept the guy who is: a) younger; b) cheaper; c) they have a shorter commitment to down the road; d) played better in 2005.

And I don't seem to recall anyone expressing any reluctance to picking up part of Hinske's salary if that was required to trade him.

Well, with the exception of last year, Koskie has always been a much better player than Hinske. And it isn't just picking up "part" of the salary that sticks, it's picking up (a reported) 65% of the salary. That's quite a lot of money to play a guy to not play for your team! Myself, I just wonder if either of these dealings with Milwaukee were necessary.

In his career, Koskie has been a similar hitter to Lyle Overbay:

162 game average:

            AB   2B   3B   HR   BB   K     AVG   OBP   SLG
Overbay    539   42    1   15   76   117   .285  .373  .450
Koskie     558   35    2   20   76   131   .277  .369  .455

I guess what I'm getting at is that if Koskie can bounce back (which I think I will,) he isn't much worse than Overbay. So it seems to me that it would have made more sense to hang on to Koskie rather than send all those resources to Milwaukee for a marginal upgrade.

Essentially, we could have:

1B: Hillenbrand (4.5?)
3B: Koskie (5.25)
DH: Glaus (9.25)
X: Hinske (4.33)

TOTAL:($23.33M)

And still have Bush and Jackson available to trade for other needs. Instead we have:

1B: Overbay (1.00?)
3B: Glaus (9.25)
DH: Hillenbrand (4.5?)
X: Hinske (4.33)
PLUS: Koskie (3.675)

TOTAL: ($22.75M)

So unless I'm missing something obvious, the Jays are only saving about half a million dollars by sending Koskie packing and bringing in Overbay. They also lost Bush, Jackson and Gross. Did I mention that Melvin is doing a hell of a job in Milwaukee? Wow.

BTW, salary information comes from www.hardballdollars.com, with the exception of Overbay and Hillenbrand where I had to guess. If anyone thinks those guesses are off please correct them. I am also going off the 7.35M that is being reported and assuming that the Jays are paying 3.675M each year.

I, presumably like others, had thought the 1200 PA's had to be reached over the three years of the contract, not the final two. But this account of the trade describes the vesting option differently and makes it virtually unachievable given Koskie's propensity for injury and presumed new playoon role.

Just thinking about the third base situation under JP's watch:

1) Sign Hinske to big $ long-term deal after ROY season, even though he still controlled him for years, cheap

At the time it looked like an excellent move. Most expected Hinske to improve and even if he didn't improve it would have been a great value. I don't think anyone could have predicted his regression to his 2004 level.

In hindsight it wasn't a great move. However, it's not like he ties up a huge percentage of the payroll and provides no value at all. Granted his 100 OPS+ isn't great for a corner infielder, but he wasn't costing some deserving player in the system precious at-bats.

It was also very early in the Riccardi regime, and GM's have growing pains just like players. It was an expensive mistake but one that I think JP learned a lot from. It's going to be much tougher for Adams and Hill to get that big multi-year contract, that buys out their arbitration years.

The Koskie deal was a bad one, but he didn't have the budget to throw around then that he has now. When you are coming off a season like 2004, with little to spend it's not likely you are going to hit the jackpot.

I must have missed when the transition occurred. When exactly was it not about economics?

I initially thought that, too, Jordan, but then I figured it was too risky. What if Koskie, himself, got hurt in spring training (as opposed to another team's third baseman)? I say if you're going to move him, move him while he's healthy and halfway tradable.

At the risk of upsetting those who think Orlando Hudson is the Jays' best player, my crystal ball says he'll be involved in a big deal about this time next year. I'm hoping he wins a Gold Glove and has his best season yet with the stick, so his value is even higher than it is today. Trading O-Dog to a richer club just before he becomes prohibitively expensive will allow the Jays to acquire more power.

Props to the writer of that paragraph -- the one and only Coach.

Aaron [Hill] has a legitimate chance to become Jeff Kent (with a better glove) at 2B. That's where I expect to see him on Opening Day 2006.

Thanks for pointing out those prognostications in that thread, Jordan.

I'm amused by the predictions made in this thread about Chicago's chances in 2005 by the user _Jordan. Would that be you? ;)

April: .253 / .327 / .407 (91 AB)
May: .241 / .290 / .466 (58 AB)

Hinske gets chance after chance because he's UNTRADEABLE! Hinske is owed about 10M over the next two years and no team is going to take this without the Jays picking up almost all the salary owed to him. With Koskie we didn't get back "virtually nothing in return" we got back 4-5M in salary relief. Huckamaniac, if 5M is virtually nothing to you then I wish I lived in your world. No one was going to give a similar deal for Hinske. JP tried all through the winter meetings with no luck. There are a number of valid reasons to dislike the Koskie deal but your reason isn't one of them.

Signing Hinske to a multi-year deal after his 2002 season was not a mistake - it was a good decision that yielded poor results. In 2002, Hinske hit .279/.365/.481. He was the best thirdbaseman in all of baseball in 2002.

Baseball Prospectus' VORP Leaders, 3Bmen in 2002.
Player       Team        VORP
E. Hinske    Tor         55.4
E. Alfonzo   NYM         54.3
E. Chavez    Oak         51.4
M. Lowell    Fla         46.8

I don't buy this. Signing ANY player to a long term contract after only one year of major league service is a mistake. I'm sure JP knows this by now but the league has to be given a chance to adjust to the player and most importantly, the player needs to prove that he can readjust to the league. And yes, before anyone points out the obvious, signing Wells to a deal similar to Hinske's deal was also a mistake. However, it was a mistake which has not blown up in JP's face.

That's more than a stretch. It's flat out wrong. That is an arrogant and ignorant statement. Sorry if that's rude, but there are exactly 30 people in the entire world (not counting whatever co-GM situations there are) who hold the title of GM of a MLB team and the fact that you think you could perform as adequately as any of them is unbelievable to me. Sadly, I think there are a lot of people who feel they could perform just as well as an MLB GM or manager. It's just plain silly.

Isn't this why you hold off on handing millions of dollars to a player until you have as much information as possible? That we all felt Hinske was a better risk than Wells doesn't mean that giving either of those contracts was smart. Wells has turned out but it still doesn't make it a smart decision. JP could have taken the entire payroll to Vegas and quadrupled it. However, it still doesn't make the decision to do so a smart one. Are we going to have to have the process versus results argument again?

You're right Jordan. Nobody knows anything. However, people get things done all the time. And the only way to minimize the risk of any decision is to have a sound process. Signing Hinske and Wells to 5 year contracts was not smart decisionmaking.

Was it a bad idea with Vernon Wells too? Or just with Hinske?

I take it that what you really mean is that when it works out, it was a good idea, and when it doesn't work out, it was a bad idea.

The Diamondbacks signed Brandon Webb to a long-term deal. The A's, who most people think are pretty well run, signed Rich Harden and Dan Haren to four-year deals and Bobby Crosby to a five-year deal. The Indians, who are another team that are generally seen as well-run, signed Travis Hafner to a four-year deal, C.C. Sabathia to a four-year deal and Victor Martinez to a five-year deal. Heck, they signed Jeremy Guthrie to a four-year deal before he had played a single professional game. The Red Sox did the same thing for Craig Hansen, the Brewers the same for Rickie Weeks. The Padres signed Brian Lawrence and Jake Peavy for four years each, the White Sox signed Juan Uribe for three and the Cubs inked Mark Prior for five. If long deals to players with very little experience are a bad idea, major league GMs seem enamoured enough of them to make us wonder why.

Out:
Player    2006$M 2006Age 2005VORP 2005WARP3 avg3yearWARP3 
Hudson    ~1     28      17.4     6.0       6.5
Batista   4.75   34      8.9      3.6       4.8
Koskie    5.25   33      11.0     3.1       4.8
Bush      ~.35   26      15.2     3.3       3.0
Gross     ~.35   26     -0.4      0.6       0.6
Jackson   ~0     
$7.25m [amount reported at Cot's baseball contracts]
responsibility to pay Koskie 2007 5.75m and 2008 0.5m [buyout].
ability to control Hudson, Bush, Gross, Jackson's post 2006.

In:
Player    2006$M 2006Age 2005VORP 2005WARP3 avg3yearWARP3 
Glaus     9.25   29      45.4     5.6       3.5
Overbay   ~1     29      33.3     6.5       5.4
Santos    ~0
responsibility to pay Glaus 2007 10.75, 2008 12.75, 2009 11.25 [player option].
ability to control Overbay and Santos post 2006.

Package A:
2006 Glaus
2007 Glaus
2008 Glaus
2009 Glaus

Package B:
2006 Koskie + $11.25m
2007 Koskie + $5m
2008 $12.25m
2009 $11.25m

It's hard to say if I want to win more than I want Corey Koskie to succeed as a Canuck.

It strikes me as a classic JP manoeuvre though. Like the Lopez, Mondesi, Quantrill/Izturis deals before the Koskie deal, JP has shipped a player out of town who isn't living up to the organization's expectations.

Is it a good move? It's hard to relate the money aspect in terms of immediate good and bad -- it isn't public money being used to grease the deal's wheels, and no one but JP is to decide how such money will be spent. It could however become a very good or very bad deal depending on how the money is spent. (i.e. If we use the salary room to trade for Hector Carrasco, it would be a bad move. Getting Bengie Molina signed as a co-#1 catcher, a good move.)

While I think it was harsh to end Koskie's tenure so quickly, I do appreciate JP's urge to make the team as good as possible, as soon as possible.

If the improvements made for the '06 team let us win 85+ games next year, most of us will enjoy the improvement.

I don't know how many times this is going to get repeated, but the Jays were not able to afford Delgado at pretty much any price, other than the lowball cheesy offer they made. The stadium deal - which freed up the money the Jays currently can spend - came through a couple of months later, after some 5 years in the works. In addition, if the Jays had offered Delgado arbitration and he accepted, which there was a good chance of happening, they would have ended up paying him some 19 million dollars, which they could hardly afford.

Knowing what we would've ended up with after the offseason of 2004 (Koskie, Shea, and SS, although it almost was Clement, Lee, Koskie), I'd take Delgado even if we had never gotten that payroll increase. I always felt that the 2004 team was never given a fair chance what with the injuries and that some health could've taken us above 2003 form. But we didn't keep Delgado and I'm okay with that too. Life's too short for hindsight.

No doubt, but this applies to every living breathing GM currently working, and probably every other one who's ever been employed. You don't like Hinske's contract? You didn't like the money wasted on Ligtenberg? Billy Beane is paying Jason Kendall $10 million a year. Would you rather have that contract on your hands? I think Beane would probably like to have Jeremy Bonderman back, too. Anyone want to compile a list of some of the follies committed by John Schuerholz (Danny Kolb?) or Brian Cashman (Jaret Wright? Tony Womack?) All of these guys make lots and lots of moves that don't work. It's the nature of the beast. Kerry Ligtenberg is pretty small potatoes by comparison.

I could have done just as well given Ricciardi's resources.

You're including overseeing the amateur league draft, tracking the 150 or so players under contract on some half a dozen minor league teams, making sense the information passes your way by several dozen professional and amateur scouts, negotiating contracts with Scott Boras and his colleagues, explaining everything you do to Messrs Godfrey and Rogers and all the rest of it, right?

Signing Hinske and Wells to 5 year contracts was not smart decision-making.

But it could have been really smart. The exact same strategy worked brilliantly for John Hart with Cleveland in the early 1990s. Lock up your young players as soon as you can, so you don't get walloped by any huge arbitration awards.

There are all kinds of sound ways of doing business, but there are absolutely no guarantees that any of these sound methods will actually achieve your goals. It didn't work as well here as it did in Cleveland, but does anyone want to think what Vernon Wells would be making if they'd been going to arbitration these last few years?

Gross was dumped despite being a better hitter.

A better hitter than who? Ken Huckaby? I think Gross can be a useful player, but right now he's a 26 year old corner outfielder with a .226, .316, .326 line in 221 major league at bats. He may never be a major league regular. Alex Rios is significantly younger and has hit signifcantly better at the major league level.

Maybe, but the team absolutely could not risk offering arbitration - no way, no how. He might have accepted. And once the arbitration deadline passed, they could no longer negotiate.

No, you missed my point. Saying that you don't care about the payroll because the "money is not [yours]," implies that you don't care what the Jays do unless it affects you directly. But if that's the case, then why do you care whether they win or not? It doesn't affect you directly!

My point is that for all this crying about "payroll flexibility" (or the post above desiring Koskie and a bunch of money to be spent on somebody else later), who else is there out there that the Jays can acquire? Every player who has been courted by the Jays and who would come to Toronto this offseason has come to Toronto. That's two free agents and one guy with a no-trade clause that specifically mentioned Toronto.

This offseason. I agree that there isn't much this offseason, although I would love to get the Big Hurt. But there's always next offseason. Why is everyone so hellbent on doing everything RIGHT NOW? Patience, my friends, patience.

Why do some people want to have a less-good team now and some money just in case some player becomes available later? That seems like a crazy gamble. Why not try to win from the outset?

"in case some player becomes available later?" What is that? Aaron, somebody WILL be available later. Every single offseason there are great players "available." Usually better ones than AJ Burnett. Why should we torch our chances at the 2007 offseason just so we can add five wins in 2006?

It's pretty evident I think. These games aren't played in a vacuum. 92 wins in 2006 might be better then 95 wins in 2007. Or 98 wins in 2008.

When you are going against about $350MM in payroll in just 2 teams in the division, you have to pick your spots. Riccardi picked his. I agree with it, I think Boston is going to struggle this year, but I do like the way they have set themselves up for the future.

Um, did you see Halladay's ERA? How about Towers'? How about Chacin's? That's what their defense got them! With Glaus/Hill instead of Koskie/Hudson, I'm positive the Jays' pitching staff wouldn't have looked nearly as good.

Because everybody is better defensively than the Yankees? Damon, even though he throws like me, is indeed an improvement on what they had last year. But still... the Yankees have exactly one guy (the third baseman) who can be expected to be above-average defensively at his position. Maybe the left-fielder.

Here are some free agents of the future! Guys who might - might - be available next winter, unless they've already signed an extension while my head was turned, which is very possible:

Sean Casey               
Shea Hillenbrand           
Derrek Lee                
Darrin Erstad              
Craig Wilson              
Nick Johnson               
Aubrey Huff                  
Mark Loretta          
Jeff Kent        
Alfonso Soriano        
Melvin Mora           
Julio Lugo                    
Barry Bonds
Cliff Floyd
Carlos Lee
Jim Edmonds
Mike Cameron
Milton Bradley
Juan Pierre
Torii Hunter
Frank Catalanotto
Shannon Stewart
Jay Gibbons
Jose Contreras
Ted Lilly
Vicente Padilla
Jason Schmidt
Brad Radke
Kelvim Escobar
Adam Eaton
Kip Wells
Jason Marquis
Barry Zito
Andy Pettite
Mark Mulder
Scott Schoeneweis
Doug Davis
Guillermo Mota
LaTroy Hawkins
Troy Percival

There are other possibilties as well, players whose teams have an option for another year, And of course, many of these guys will not make it as far as free agency. All praise is due to the invaluable Unofficial Major League Baseball for the list.

The fact that the three best front offices in baseball - A's, Red Sox and Cleveland - are also after Wilson should tell you all that you need to know about how good he is.

More than anything else, Ricciardi is a scout - it's what he did from 1986 through 1995, and when he moved into the Oakland front office, his job eventually included directing the scouting operation.

You could say that he hired a stats geek, if you think that describes Keith Law. Not being one himself, perhaps he saw a need to have one around.

Why? Because of players like Terrell Owens that's why. Players who get front loaded deals are excited in the first or second year of the contract but quickly become disgruntled and agitated when they realize that they're making less money each year and when other players around them are signing new contracts for more money all the time. Even if the player doesnt hold out for more money and honours his contract, it takes a very special kind of person to see the big picture and not get demoralized in years four and five of the deal.

Let me guess...he was on your fantasy team in a league that counts holds? Actually, Schotime was terrific last year, as Alex Obal can tell you.

I bear a striking resemblance to Antonio Banderas, and spent most of my time fending off the hordes of women camped outside my door

And speaking of fantasy...

My best understanding is that the Jays had tried everything they could to get Lopez's head screwed on right, but he hadn't responded, and they were at the end of their rope with him. And Arnold, at the time, was a very highly regarded prospect. As for Woodward...here's a shortstop who a) fields well, b) hits with some power, and c) played pretty well in '02. It was perfectly reasonable for the Jays to try to use him to fill the position until Adams was ready.

This was effectively confirming what had happened on the field in 2002, when they handed Felipe Lopez the starting job, and Woodward simply took it away from him. At the time, Lopez seemed to be looking to Raul Mondesi as a role model, which would have struck terror into my heart, too. Well, he was only 22, and maybe it all happened a little too fast. Got to admit though, Jason Arnold sure hasn't amounted to anything.

Giving all that money to a 30 year old closer... what can ya do? Someone was going to give him that kind of money. People were giving that kind of money to 34 year old closers.

Tell me about it. Maybe we need a Booby Prize for "Most Uninformed Post of the Week."

I don't think that's quite right. Alex Rios is still here, Dave Bush is gone. Miguel Negron is still roaming through the system...

No doubt, Lopez for Arnold looks very smelly now. If we pick over the bones of it.... at the time, it was 22 year old infield prospect with major league experience but a bad attitude for 23 year old pitching propect. (Acknowledging, as always, that There Is No Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect)

If we could turn back time, things might have worked out differently if Lopez hadn't been brought to the majors in the second half of 2001 to play third base (after Gord Ash so cleverly lost Tony Batista on a waiver claim.) If Lopez had remained in Syracuse in 2001, he would have had to actually win a job in 2002 instead of coming to camp as a returning regular. It seems pretty clear now that he was brought to the majors before he was ready - as a player and as a person - and he was coming to a team that had Raul Mondesi in the clubhouse. Raul's not a bad guy and he always plays hard, but he lives even harder and he's not exactly the ideal role model for the youngsters. Sometimes you like your players to get some sleep in between games...

Oh well.

Oh yeah? Wanna see my scars?

Robert, as those who know him will attest, is a nice man indeed, a very reasonable fellow. It's just that he's already thought these things through, and he's prepared. I was shocked, frankly. It had been a very long time since I'd come across someone who actually had a better understanding of some baseball issue than I did.

Of course, that may be providing way too much information on the crowd I was running with...

WHO??!?! Who is a comparable pitcher to Ryan who signed or will sign for millions less? As far as I'm concerned the only comparable available was Billy Wagner, who is 4 years older and signed for more per annum.

Well they also got Santos, and that minor league pitcher. And it's kind of interesting to note that Overbay and Glaus are the two best players in that list.

Yeah, come on Magpie, you were making Robert sound like Spencer Fordin. ;)

That is not right. They traded Hudson, Koskie, Batista, Bush, Jackson and cash, and got in return Overbay, Glaus, Santos, Wolfe, Ryan, Burnett, McDonald and Phillips. Because, if they don't sign Ryan and Burnett, they don't trade Batista and they don't trade Bush. So you can't just leave out the important parts.

If you honestly believe those three are in the same class as Ryan, there's really no point in you & I discussing this. I will point out that I made no mention of strikeouts. And I will ask this: if you make Speier the closer, does that not leave you with a gaping hole where you used to have a very good setup man? It's a significant step down to Jason Frasor, and yet another down to Vinnie Chulk.

Maybe not, but you if it fails, you just try someone else. Boston did it last year.

You do realize that Boston had an absolutely horrendous pen last year, right?

Every year there are a lot of closers who pitch very well who make very little money.

How many of them can you name right now who will do so in 2006? And let's be realistic about which ones are relevant to the Jays need for a closer this offseason - Huston Street is one, but acquiring him would have cost the Jays a whole lot more than $47M to acquire.

I have absolutely no idea who Chad Hemenson is. Please enlighten me.

Maybe not exactly the same argument, but definitely relevant to what we're talking about here. I agree that both Frasor and Speier could perform well as closer. Either could definitely turn in a season or two like the ones Dustin Hermanson and Todd Jones just had. But neither will ever be a lights-out closer consistently (I'm talking both in-season and year-to-year), which is what I'm expecting Ryan to be. And as I alluded to before, having Speier and Frasor as your righthanded setup men is a very good thing - it's not like their talents are being wasted by having Ryan in the closer spot.

I wonder - as much as last year's starters were helped by the strong defence, how much of the losses there will be made up for this year by the fact that there will rarely be a need to push a starter beyond 6 innings when he's not having a great game? I'm seeing the direct benefit of not getting lit up becuase of being asked to continue the game despite being too tired or ineffective, the ancillary benefit of being more rested throughout the season, and the mental benefit of knowing that if you turn in a quality start it will translate to a Toronto win far more often than it did last year. The improved offence also being a big part of this last benefit.

Well said. The whole post actually, not just this line - but I want to add one more: The scrap heap is fine when you can use it to push a young player and/or add insurance that can be stored at AAA. Hello, Jason Phillips.