That's a good point. Choi's "true" potential may never be known because of that fact (and also because of his collision with Mark Priro in 03). I didn't mean to portray that Choi spells the end of the Jays hopes of a playoff spot. Nor is it likely that he alone will be the difference in whether the Jays finish ahead of the Red Sox or not.

However, he is a clear upgrade over Snow at this point in his career. Snow's defence isn't what it used to be and Choi is a better hitter than Snow. He also has a much better chance of posting, say, a .850+ OPS. The fact that the Red Sox upgraded their first baseman for free is something that should not be appealing to any Jays fan.

And yes, I think the fact 20 teams passed on him is surprising. Some of them have good players at 1B/DH, but you don't think Choi is an upgrade over Travis Lee? That he'd fit with Seattle after Jeremy Reed just broke his wrist? Or that he'd make a decent platoon with Craig Monroe in Detroit (with Dmitri Young playing the OF when Choi DH's and DHing when Monroe plays LF)?

It's a decent comparison. The main problem is that someone who can mash right-handed pitching is far more valuable than someone who can mash left-handed pitching.

There is a Danny Hill listed among the Blue Jays non-roster invitees

Since you're going to slag the comparisons to Josh Phelps Oleg, it only seems fair to bring up his player comp as well.

age 24 - 352/562
age 25 - 358/470
age 26 - 304/450

What does it say? To me, it seems to say that sometimes you get a waiver wire pickup and it every once in a while, they live up the to the hype and become a David Ortiz, but most of the time becomes something much, much less.

As well, if you cruise over to Mr. Gleeman's site, there's a very interesting article he posted about the Twins' lack of power hitters (under the Twins notes for March 23). In it, and I quote the site, "Ortiz's situation is the example that is brought up the most. He was asked to alter his natural approach at the plate while with the Twins and once he got to Boston, where he was able to let loose and try to become a full-blown slugger, that's exactly what he did." Something tells me Mr. Choi, he of the mighty uppercut swing, is not of the same mold as a pre-Sox Ortiz, being asked to hold 'anything back'.

The Jays have an already loaded 25- and 40-man roster, and are already looking at the possibility of adding Brian Tallet to the big league team. Considering the Jays had so many options at the corners that the team paid to have Corey Koskie not play for them (to mention nothing of being the first of many teams to let go of Phelps), I would find it difficult for to see the team even attempting to pick up Choi.

Frankly, there's a much better, cheaper and ready solution to Choi sitting in Syracuse right now, a Mr. John-Ford Griffin. We're also paying another pretty nice solution, his name being Hinske, who can at least play defence and has some speed to go along with that lost potential.

That is perfect summary of my viewpoint. A high-reward waiver claim, in my books, is someone who has a good chance of becoming a useful contributor to your club on a semi-regular basis, at least. If you measure a high-reward waiver claim as someone likely to become David Ortiz then these claims happen once a decade. Maybe it was a poor choice of words.

Regardless, I'd argue that it is likely that Choi would help the 2006 Toronto Blue Jays if utilized effectively. Therefore, I would have claimed him, given the likelihood he would helped our office as weighed against the cost of his salary and the roster moves necessary to accommodate him.

I think it's equally as likely he'll help the 2006 Boston Red Sox.

I'd somewhat forgotten about that trade, and Mike's comment made me want to go back to the Box thread for it... very amusing.

Yes, because there can only be two sides to this debate: "Pena > Hillenbrand" or "I am a J.P. apologist."

Honestly...

And, Halsey has been traded to the A's for Juan Cruz.

To date, the Jays have sold 1.1 million tickets so far, which averages to just about 14,000 a game to date. That beats the Florida Marlins target of tickets sold the entire season, hehe. The increase over last year at this point should lead us to averaging 31,000 a game when it's all siad and done. A successful May and April will aid the ticket increase as well.

The Jays have so much money tied up in Hillenbrand and Hinske, that I doubt we'll see Pena, but I think its a perfectly fair question to ask if Hillenbrand provides good financial value.

A ridiculous statement nonetheless but it is now more glaringly obvious than ever that Hillenbrand is grossly overpaid (which was the point of my ridiculous comment).

Ok, someone is going to have to explain this to me. It is clear now, without having seen him play a single real game since he was signed, that the signing was ill-advised? Why now? What evidence have you seen in spring training, an environment which has practically zero predictive value whatsoever? Does Pena produce a comparable OPS to Hillenbrand? Yes. If calculating player-value was as simple as measuring OPS then the salary for a baseball executive would be substantially lower.

Of course that isn't the best way to calculate value. The signing of Hillenbrand was most likely influenced by several factors which you have ignored.

1. Hillenbrand can play reliable (if unspectacular) defense at both 1st and 3rd. Hinske cannot make the throw across the diamond. This sort of durability has value.
2. He has the durability to play 162 games a year if necessary.
3. He can hit lefties and righties.

Is he worth 5.5 million? Perhaps. However, with the tangible benefits that he brings to the team beyond just some isolated production statistic it is patently absurd to suggest that the signing is indefensible.

Perhaps more importantly, if someone can explain to me how signing two players who might exceed the production of one would be prudent, especially given the Blue Jays roster limitations, I would really appreciate it. Simply saying "make a move" or "it's pointless to argue" has about as much logical merit as "your mother smells of elderberries."

This is a good point.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle here. I do think that it's a mistake to tie up your 1b/DH slot with a pretty large contract to a player like Hillenbrand. His bat to me just doesn't justify making that type of commitment.

Unless I have an elite first baseman or DH, I'm not tying up the slot because the supply of players at that end of the defensive spectrum means that you have a better shot of getting a similar contribution at a savings. That money should still be spent, but spent elsewhere.

Pena hits into fewer double plays partly because he can't make contact with the ball like Hillenbrand (and when Pena does hit the ball, I presume he's more likely to hit flyballs than grounders).

Hillenbrand has a very poor BB/AB ratio that he ought to improve, but he's a guy who's always going to look for a hit and carries a good K/AB ratio. But if you add in Hillenbrand's HBP and his free pass ratio looks slightly less abysmal.

Question is would you bet a few more million on Hillenbrand correcting the flaws in his game than what you would spend on Pena? I believe the 95 K in 260 AB by Pena would only get worse for a guy who must struggle to get playing time and motivate himself to prepare to face the challenge of overcoming his weaknesses -- all while in a limited role on a team trying to contend. Pena hasn't bounced around because folks like his work ethic.

Sure, it works. No question that it can work, although I know that Robert's used position players against me at DMB in the past to throw garbage innings :) That kind of option ain't available in MLB.

The central question, of course, is who you'd rather have. The seventh reliever can easily face 250 batters in a season, but if your fourteenth hitter bats 150 times it's fairly unusual.

There are positives and negatives. I agree that generally seven isn't necessary but I understand why managers want to allow themselves that luxury.

Okay, I get it. Chicks dig the long ball. And so does Mike Green.

When a player has it in his mind that it's the long ball or bust, there's not a lot of room for him to improve his performance at the plate. Dunn has always shown that he's capable and willing to hit more than bombs to the bleachers. Pena offers no such hope. No hope for improvement. I doubt he even shows the effort to change his method.

Pena isn't a lower case version or a poor man's version of Dunn. He's Dunn's power with no other skills or temperament to make him a regular or even a role player. He's done.

Never bet against an insurance company getting its way.

I'd like to read Newton's opinions but I've yet to come across one. His postings (I'm assuming it's a he) don't contain opinions but facts. Of course, his facts are facts solely because he claims them to be. Nothing backs them up other than his certainty. He'll then chide other posters for qualifying their posts with "perhaps" or "maybe". That other posters aren't arrogant enough to claim certainty is then used as evidence that his facts trump their opinions.

Pena, Choi, Durazo... all could be had for a song, the value of which may or may not be more than Adam Peterson. The presumption is that, just like these guys, nobody wanted Hillenbrand (or else the Diamondbacks could have gotten more for him). I think what Newton is pointing out is that comparable players to one that the Jays have under contract are being waived around and thrown in the wind like Benjamins in a rap video.

I do not want to debate the relative merits of the four players, except to say that - assuming there are no off-field variables - Choi is the only one that piques my interest as much as Hillenbrand. The interesting thing in all of this is that people often claim that the concept of 'freely available talent' implicit in replacement level analysis is a myth and that that does not appear to be the case at present.

Mike D., it does not appear to me that Newton is claiming a greater level of baseball knowledge than is had by front-offices. I read his comment to mean that the release of comparable players can lead us to reasonably question the efficacy of signing Hillenbrand to a multi-million dollar deal. He appears to be questioning one GM, not thirty.

Everyone starts somewhere, though. Chacin has significantly increased his workload in each of the last two years. That's a danger sign.

2003 69 innings
2004 167 innings
2005 203 innings

Towers, likewise, had a huge jump in innings last season (although he sailed through 2003 despite pitching 196 innings).