Starters:

Magpie: Five starters is not enough - it never has been. We can assume that Halladay, Burnett, and Chacin will be in next year's rotation. If Lilly can be retained, I'd probably be willing to let Marcum and Towers and the rest of them fight it out in the spring for the fifth spot. I actually think Towers will bounce back and win the job - he almost certainly won't be as good as he was in 2005, but he doesn't need to be. Marcum can and should make the roster in the bullpen, and step into the rotation if (if? when!) someone goes down.

But if Lilly isn't coming back, they need to bring in another starter. There's simply no way you want to count on both Towers and Marcum in the rotation. And the options beyond those two - Janssen, Rosario, McGowan, Taubenheim - well, we saw how that worked out in 2006.

Mike G: In my view, Janssen or Davis Romero could be ready for a starting role by July. Romero would ideally be in the bullpen for the first 3 months of the year, while Janssen would ideally be in the Syracuse rotation.

So, that leaves Halladay, Burnett, Chacin, Marcum and Towers to start the season. I guess that they do need somebody considering Towers' struggles of 2006.

I am not particularly worried about the health of the starters, anymore than I was at the beginning of 2004, 2005 or 2006. The likelihood that Halladay, Chacin, Burnett and Marcum will get through 2007 without a DL trip is about the same as that of Joe Volpe winning the Liberal leadership race. Did you know that two of Burnett's top three BBRef comparables are Erik Hanson and Jose Guzman? Fortunately, he seems to be doing better than them; I have hopes that he can be a decent starter for a few years.

Matthew E: I'm a lot more concerned about Halladay's reduced strikeout rate than I am about his injury history. Especially given the contract extension. I'm worried that Halladay could just be completely ineffective within three years, and then where are we?

Pistol: Actually, I'm more concerned about Halladay's injuries than his performance. I read somewhere that forearm strains are a sign of future elbow problems. Perhaps it's nothing - he came back from the first forearm strain in one start without much trouble - but when you're as good as Halladay an injury makes a big difference in the quality of the team.

Halladay seems to be pitching to contact and if he needs to go for the Ks he can. I think it's more of a case of trying to be efficient to go deeper into games with low pitch counts. Plus, he was at worst the second best pitcher in the dominant league this year.

Matthew E: That's what they said about Dwight Gooden in '87.

Magpie: I don't really think it's the same situation. Gooden had other issues, of course. But I've always believed that pitchers go through a Change of Life around age 29 - their stuff changes on them a little bit, and they go through a Period of Adjustment. While many fall by the wayside and are never any worth a damn again, many come out the other end as good as ever. Look at Jim Palmer and Tom Seaver after 1974, Clemens after 1993. I almost think Halladay spent 2006 anticipating this inevitable development, and figuring out how he could win without throwing 94 mph fastballs. He did demonstrate, to my satisfaction anyway, that he could reach back and throw the good heater any time he wanted.

Whereas Gooden was a 22 year old phenom who, for no real good reason, revamped his approach to pitching. At age 22! Why? Because Mel Stottlemyre told him to?

Matthew E: I'm cautiously optimistic about Burnett. Yes, I know, on the one hand there's the injury history (I don't want to say that A.J. Burnett gets hurt a lot, but his favourite comedian is D.L. Hughley! Don't forget to tip your waitresses), but he should have a few healthy years ahead of him too.

All other things being equal, I'd like to see Lilly come back. But if he goes somewhere else that's okay too; he's not indispensable or irreplaceable. However, if he *does* go somewhere else, he *does* have to be replaced. A rotation of Halladay, Burnett, Chacin, Marcum and a Plucky Understudy isn't going to get the job done.

I don't believe in Chacin. I don't mind him if you've got three or four better starters that you can rely on, but I'd hate to have him as a mainstay. If it was me, I'd try to trade him before he turns into a pumpkin.

I'm optimistic about Marcum and Towers. Marcum seemed generally competent this year and might turn out to be okay, and Towers has picked himself up off the bottom of the barrel once before and nothing's changed to make me think he can't do it again. But look: Chacin, Marcum, Towers: those are all guys to take a chance on at the end of your rotation. If you've got all three of them in there, you're in some trouble. Ideally you wouldn't even want two.

As for the rest of the peanut gallery, Taubenheim and McGowan and Rosario and Janssen and those other malarkeys, I'll believe in them when they start putting up zeroes in the major leagues and not before. I saw all I ever wanted to see of them this past year. You'd think by the law of averages that *one* of these guys would work out, but the Jays have had this problem before (see also: young pitchers in Toronto 2002-04). Actually, I guess one of them did work out: Brandon League. Unfortunately this doesn't help the rotation. (Marcum is an in-between case and so I exclude him from this paragraph.)

Halladay and Burnett are a good start. After that I'd like to see the Jays add one really good starter. And when I say 'really good', I mean 'better than Lilly'. If they can do that, Chacin and whoever will be fine in the last two slots.

You know who I wouldn't mind seeing Toronto try out in the rotation? Scott Downs. He did a dashed good job in the second half of '05, and struck out more guys than any of their other starters at the time.

Gerry: I think you always have to be concerned about Halladay, Burnett and Chacin injury wise. I think you make sure your bullpen has at least one, or maybe two, possible starters. Also you sign a couple of former major league starters for AAA. You have to have backup given the history of the Jays.

The most difficult part in this is assessing the potential of the Jays prospects. The Jays have a number of pitchers who might be major league ready starters, or might not. This includes Marcum, Janssen, and McGowan. Pitchers like Marcum or Janssen, lets call them control pitchers, are successful at the major league level. The challenge to the GM is deciding whether our control pitchers are good enought to thrive in the major leagues. This is why putting them in the bullpen gives them time to develop in smaller doses.

I think you try and find five starters without these three and have them as backup or guys who win a spot that allows you to trade someone else. My plan for 2006 also includes Josh Towers. Towers was effective in 2005 and will have great motivation coming into 2007. My rotation therefore is Halladay, Burnett, X, Chacin and Towers. Marcum, Janssen, McGowan (if he is not traded), and starters Y and Z are the backups.

X is Ted Lilly if available or more likely a free agent such as Gil Meche, someone the Jays identify early and sign before the big guys (Schmidt and Lilly, etc.) decide where they are going. If Lilly really wants to come back you should see that before free agency starts, once it does start Ted will likely move to another team.

If the Jays are unable to sign a good free agent, such as Lilly or Meche, they need to sign several former major leaguers and start a competition for the fifth spot.

Finally I think you have to say Chacin is real. This was his second season, often the biggest test, and he got by, his arsenal still fools hitters, so I would leave him in the plans.

Thomas:

As for other options, the Jays do need to bring someone in to replace Lilly. They'd need it without the health questions of Burnett, but particularly with those present the team can't afford to have Chacin as the 3rd starter. Trade is one option and it's tough to speculate about that, but if they go the free agent route the pickings are pretty slim.

Vicente Padilla is one of the best choices; he had a 4.50 ERA this year in Texas and has been fairly consistent the last 3 years. However, it's been a few years since he had an ERA under 4 and he's unlikely to give you anything better than what he did this year.

Jeff Suppan would have been an interesting option, but I wonder if his playoff heroics are going to give him a pay boost on the open market that'll exceed his value. Suppan's a pretty solid middle-of-the-rotation guy with a consistent ERA+ of over 100 and he has made more than 30 starts every year since 1999. After that you get names like Tony Armas, Gil Meche, Kip Wells and Adam Eaton who are likely to be paid more than you'd want.

The other option is an injury project, like Mark Mulder, Kerry Wood or Randy Wolf. If the dollars are right I'd love to see the Jays take a chance of one of those guys if they believe they can keep the player healthy and allow him to capture most of his past success. However, with the health issues of the rest of the rotation they can't afford to hope one of these pitchers stay healthy, because if AJ gets hurt and your injury gamble is not fully healthy, we'll get another year of Janssens and Taubenheims, neither of whom I want to write off, but neither of whom I want to see as a rotation mainstay in 2007.

It's pretty slim pickings out there, so for a chance to get Lilly at $7-8 million a year for a few years, I think the Jays should do it.

Dave T: I would want to see Josh Towers have an extended run of success in the minors before giving him another chance. He was not just bad in 2006 - he was legendarily awful, costing the team half a dozen games in the standings all by himself. His stuff has been marginal at the best of times, and I would not be happy to see the Jays open 2007 with him in the rotation. Fool me twice, shame on me.

None of the wannabee starters can be counted on. Marcum is the farthest along and has the best upside - but recall that Justin Miller once threw a two-hit shutout in the majors. Anybody can have one good game, and most of Marcum's starts have been so-so at best. He's ahead of the rest of them, though: Janssen doesn't have major-league stuff, and McGowan and Rosario have no idea where the baseball goes after it leaves their hands.

The Jays need Lilly or a replacement, plus somebody else: Halladay, Burnett, X, Chacin, and X2.

Pistol: I'm not a Chacin believer - I think a 5.00 ERA is about right for him. However, trading him just creates another hole and there's no certainties behind Chacin. You'd have to get something really good in return to trade a cheap starting pitcher and I don't think anyone is going to do that, especially a starter for starter swap. (Tangent - how bad does Young for Eaton look now - it was bad at the time, now it's even worse.)

Thomas: In my books Chacin is fine as a number five guy and acceptable as the team's fourth starter, but you don't want to have him in any of the top three slots in the rotation. I do think his ERA this year was a bit inflated by his first start off the DL, which was a horrendous 5-run, 1-inning performance against Oakland. He also only allowed two unearned runs in 87 innings. However, he's closer to his 2006 performance than his 2005 one.

I agree that a starter-for-starter swap is rare, so maybe JP needs to pull a page from the book of Beane and insert himself into a 3-way. One team gets hitting, trades young pitching, the Jays get that young pitcher and deal Chacin and the third team gets Chacin + something and deals hitting. Ah, the creative trades of my imagination.

Mike G: In the event that a starter is not signed in the off-season, a fall-back position of Halladay, Chacin, Burnett, Downs and Marcum to start the season with Davis Romero and Janssen (or Josh Towers) coming on for July will have to do. That would open up a spot for Brian Tallet in relief.

Towers' career ERA+ is 93. It's not really reasonable to expect him to do better than that, after last season's struggles. That's a #6 or #7 starter in my view.

Bullpen:

Mike G: Gibbons could have done better on two fronts. First, his handling of the early struggling reliever this year (Frasor) was much less adept than his handling of the early struggling reliever last year (Speier). Instead of placing him in a low leverage role temporarily to allow confidence to be regained as he did with Speier last year, he was unwisely shipped out. Secondly, he reverted to reliever roulette. Not quite at the Carlos Tosca level, but uncomfortably close.

B.J. Ryan was used appropriately, within the conventions of the modern bullpen. It is the conventions (the closer comes in for the ninth inning 3 run save, but never in the 7th inning of a tie game with runners on) that are fundamentally unsound.

League is still young, and has had enough change in my opinion. I would leave him in the set-up role. Fortunately, that means very high leverage innings for him. The set-up role should not mean the 8th inning only. There should be no hesitation in bringing him to start the 7th of a tie game, provided that he gets a day off after throwing 2 innings.

Frasor is a solid relief pitcher, and an ideal complement to League. I have no worries at all about his early season struggles.

Accardo should probably start the season in Syracuse. He is really no closer to ready in my view than Rosario or McGowan, and as a 2003 draftee, he's got the option years that they lack. If McGowan gets another option year after a team request arising from his diabetes, Janssen or Accardo could fill the long man role.

I'll deal with the lefties together. Davis Romero and Scott Downs are simply better pitchers than Brian Tallet. Tallet is probably a serviceable 7th reliever for somebody (and on a non-contender, one might opt for Tallet over Downs for financial reasons, but that is not the Jays situation).

Speier is a solid reliever, but the Jays can get by without him. If the money is there, there would be nothing wrong with trading Frasor for value and keeping Speier. You only need one of them, though, to accompany League and Ryan at the front of the bullpen.

Magpie: As for the bullpen - I would assume they'll carry six or seven guys and that Ryan, League, Downs, Frasor, and Rosario are certain to be among them. Which leaves one spot for the loser of the Towers-Marcum battle to serve as long reliever and sixth starter, and one spot for Accardo or Tallet. Accardo obviously has the better arm and more upside – but Tallet pitched quite a bit better than Accardo, and if he keeps doing that, you've got to let him.

Matthew E: I like the 1+ inning appearances, within reason, with Ryan, but I think Gibbons doubted himself about them; didn't he say after the Bradley home run that he'd try not to do that anymore? One thing I'd like to see is someone else picking up the easy save opportunities. Up by three against Kansas City? Let someone else get the S.

If they have to, I guess they can survive without Speier. But I like Speier and I hope they find a way to bring him back.

League’s ideal role is a starter. If he can do it. Assuming he's in the bullpen, I like him okay as a setup guy for now, but in a year or two we may find ourselves wondering why they're paying Ryan all this money when League is better for cheaper.

Named for Hank: Ideally, I'd like to see League win thirty games and win the Cy Young Award. And MVP. And, uh, the Lady Byng or something.

Okay, I'll just stick to talking about things that I'm qualified to discuss. Or at least things I can fake.

Matthew E: I'm glad Schoeneweis is gone. I don't believe in having guys around, especially for a lot of money, who can *just* get lefthanders out.

Bullpens are always fluid from year to year. There are going to be at least two guys playing prominent roles in next year's bullpen who we can't even guess who they are yet, and two guys from this year's bullpen who are going to get shuffled to the back burner. Nature of the game.

Gerry: I didn't have a big issue with Gibby's bullpen usage. I though the usage of Ryan was very good, work him hard when you could, then back off. The only quibbles I would have with Gibby was his love for Tallet early in the season and his love for Accardo late in the year. In the first half of the season Tallet was used in high leverage situations, often the first guy out of the pen to protect a lead. Gibbons eventually backed off on that. Likewise Accardo was inserted as the setup man on arrival before Gibby figured out that he was another Dustin McGowan, great stuff, poor command.

For next year I see the roles as follows:

Closer - Ryan
Setup - League, he has earned it
Lefties - Two of Romero, Tallet and Downs. These three are similar pitchers, more long lefties than LOOGY's. I don't think you need all three
Righties - Speier or another FA
Frasor, not the same guy as early 2006, and still prone to slipping back into old habits, but definitely a keeper
Rosario - I think he can do it

That leaves Accardo with more minor league time and McGowan who will either be back in the minors if the Jays can get an injury year exemption or traded.

Alex Obal: Gibbons' management: I'm willing to give Gibbons a pass on the first-half reliever roulette because he had to be obsessively careful to avoid bad matchups. Maybe he obsessed a bit too much, but still... Chulk against lefties, Schoeneweis against righties, Downs in jams, Walker against anyone… avoiding those nightmares required lots of walks to the mound, and his itchy hook finger for young starters only made things look worse.

This year's pen is different in that there are no specialists and nobody desperately needs to be protected from anybody. Individual matchups are not nearly as great a concern as they were last year. Gibbons' challenge this year is getting the highest-leverage situations to Ryan, League and (if he returns) Speier, while keeping them all rested.

Gibbons' deployment of Ryan last year was about as perfect as it could possibly be in the modern age.

League: I see no reason why League can't have a better 2007 than Joel Zumaya's 2006. He's proven his ability to put up a 6+ strikeout rate with few walks and an astronomical ground ball percentage. What could be more valuable than a guy who does that?

And who's betting against that happening again this year? It's doubtful that League's fantastic peripheral stats were a big fluke. His stuff is flat-out awesome. His sinker runs 4 miles an hour faster than Wang's, and he mixes in a three-digit heater and a splitter. What's not to like? Maybe the walks return – 2006 was a career low in the base on balls department. Other than injury, that is the only remotely reasonable concern about League. If the walks stay in League's rear view mirror, he will dominate. That's all. So make him our Zumaya, the middle-innings ace who comes into close games and powers through the 7th and 8th. Give him the ball when it counts and let the bodies hit the floor.

Frasor: He's back. He might even be better than he was in 2005. For all the nasty stuff people (myself included) said about his knee-jerk demotion, the new and improved fastball-slider Frasor was very effective in the second half.

Incidentally, with the benefit of hindsight, I think getting a short (as in untall) pitcher like Frasor away from his homer-prone 12-6 curveball was a very good forward-thinking move. The bad April served as an airtight excuse to let Frasor develop the power slider in the minors in his last option year. The cost was three months of major-league performance from Frasor last year; the benefit will be a better, more consistent Frasor whose mistakes are less frequent and less damaging.

I believe in Frasor and am fine with him in moderately high-leverage situations. If Speier doesn't come back, Frasor is fine as the third man in the pen.

Accardo struggled in the AL. I'm down with the groupthink that says he could benefit from some time in AAA to work on his command. His stuff was impressive – his fastball, cutter and splangeup all miss big-league bats when he throws them right. Whatever. He'll probably be a player in 2008. If 2008 comes early, bonus. Unless the entire bullpen gets afflicted with the plague there's no pressure on him. Time is on his side.

Brian Tallet and Davis Romero are in similar boats. Barring an early month-long streak of excellence, neither should be allowed within a football field of a game-on-the-line situation before the 14th inning. Both are fine to eat innings, spot start, or face a lefty in the late innings if the incumbent pitcher is dead tired and the situation isn't quite dire enough to call for League or Speier. Whichever one of Tallet and Romero breaks camp with the team should be one of the last two guys in the pen, along with McGowan or Rosario or whichever young starter gets carried as a long man.

Although I'm not convinced he's worth a guaranteed spot on the April roster, I'm a big Brian Tallet fan and believe he has the potential to turn in a couple of good LOOGY seasons before he's done. He's tall, he throws fairly hard, he has a respectable slider and he seems to have a pretty good idea of what he's doing out there. At his best he'll still walk guys, but he'll keep lefties off balance and give lefty pull hitters in particular fits. Think Scott Sauerbeck. I'm rooting for him. It's all about the mutton chops.

What about the other lefty? I don't think anyone would object to having this guy as the fourth or fifth arm in the pen:

7.2 K/9, 3.4 BB/9, 20.3% LD, 54.5% GB, 1.1 HR/9

That's Scott Downs' cumulative 2005-06 line in 171 innings, including his misadventures as a starting pitcher. It doesn't hurt that he's an established lefty with a proven ability to go several innings at a time whose success has nothing to do with how hard he throws, unlike everybody else. Downs provides a sharp change of pace and adds some much-needed variety to the Jays' pen. He's a keeper.

I'm ambivalent as can be about resigning Speier. He's coming off two straight excellent seasons, he can strike righties and lefties out, and as a fan, continuity on the 25-man roster makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The flip side is that he's 33 in November, he'll be expensive as all hell if any of the other 29 GMs has a pulse, he's been homer-lucky given his flyball tendencies over his tenure in Toronto, and the Jays already have League and Frasor ready to step into the top set-up role (with Accardo in line behind them). If the price tag is $3.5 to 4 million a year over two years, I say bite, but I suspect Spy's 173 and 158 ERA+ in 2005 and 2006 will drive his price tag up just a bit. Do the Jays have a strong bullpen without him? Absolutely. Is it worth paying Speier to have a ridiculous bullpen? Might be, particularly if the trade market for late-innings righties favors sellers and a super-deep bullpen puts the Jays in a strong position.

In general, I think the bullpen is the very least of Ricciardi's worries for next year. Even if Speier departs, there are fewer question marks in important roles there than anywhere else.