In his unremarkable up-and-down career in the majors since 2002, Smith has played primarily at 2B and SS, but he has also played 24 games at 3B and 7 games at 1B.   And at 6-foot-3, he is a lot taller than Matt Stairs, so he might be serviceable as a back-up to Overbay in an emergency.

I'm not second guessing Ricciardi's decision to unload Hinske last season, but is there a more suitable player to be sitting on Toronto's bench this season? A lefty bat with experience at 1B, 3B, LF, and RF is just what the team needs.

I have to agree about Hinske. If we had known then what we know now - especially in terms of available unspent cash - it would have been quite advisable to keep him.

In point of fact, it would not be at all unwise or embarassing to try to reaquire him (I'm sure the sox won't ask for the moon).

I'm also still hoping that there's a manuver left out there somewhere that gets Clayton out of our starting lineup. One wonders what would happen on the off chance that Adams came to ST and rocked at 2B?

I'd have to go with Tallet over Romero for now...I agree Towers ought to be a better bet to ace out the kids (if for no other reason than that the kids have more to prove at AAA than he does)

Barring a re-aquisition of Hinske, or something similar, I'd throw a ST invite at David Bell before I'd go to camp with nothing behind Glaus and Overbay but Hattig and Smith. Heck, I'd rather try and get Demitri young and risk him butchering 3B for 15 dyas if it came down to it. Not that he's going to sign to be a bench player (and since no one is talking about him maybe he's hurt?)

Anyway, all that said, I suspect that if it indeed comes down to Glaus on the DL for 15 days, you'll see Hill at 3B and Johnny Mac at 2B for the duration.

the fair thing for Hinske was to let him go somewhere where he had a chance of making a meaningful contribution and having a meaningful job.

I guess we disagree here. I see Hinske getting less playing time in Boston in 2007 than he would in Toronto.

He's Boston's 5th outfielder rather than Toronto's 4th (before Lind's inevitable promotion, anyway).

At 1B and 3B, Youkilis and Lowell seem reasonable bets for 150 games each. While Overbay is an excellent bet for 150 games, Glaus is probably less likely so (though he has, admittedly, averaged that for the past two years).

At DH, Ortiz has had a superb health record whereas we all know about Thomas.

I could easily envision Hinske starting between a third and half of the games playing for Toronto in 2007 (30 at DH, 25 at 1B/3B, 15-20 in LF), even without catastrophic injuries.

Usually, because of the way the games are spread out in April, many teams only use four starters. The Jays only have two off days in April which seems lower than usual. (Maybe I am imagining it). I think, like others that Smith is likely to make the team and that Towers is most likely to be the Jays' fifth starter but these are things that will only be decided in March.

I'm not second guessing Ricciardi's decision to unload Hinske last season, but is there a more suitable player to be sitting on Toronto's bench this season? A lefty bat with experience at 1B, 3B, LF, and RF is just what the team needs.

The Hinske trade was terrible when it happened and it still looks horrible right now. The Jays still don't have a legit backup 1B, 3B, and 4th OF. Hinske would have filled all those holes by himself. What makes the trade worse is that the Jays are also paying a part of his salary and he was dealt to a division rival.

Royce Clayton might be pushed to the bench if the Jays can upgrade the SS position through a trade.

Even though Rosario is out of options, if I was in charge, there's no chance in hell I would hand him a MLB job just because of  his situation. He should have to earn his roster spot based on performance just like everybody else.

"The Jays don't need a great bench to win. Look at the Yankees over the last decasde. Last year, they had Miguel Cairo, Bubba Crosby, Andy Phillips, and Craig Wilson get about a year's worth of ABs, and they batted something like .230/.270/.360 (rough eyeballing of their numbers)."

Tha Jays are not the Yankees though. The Yankees have virtual all-stars at 8 of 9 positions so if someone goes down, their offense can handle it. (Although their attachment to Cairo seems rather odd to me anyway). Teams other than the Yankees need to be able to cover injuries some especially in a case, like the Jays, where a couple of very key players (Glaus, Thomas) are very likely to miss time. Still, the Yankees and Boston had better benches than you let on. The Yankees had Melky Cabrera, Craig Wilson, and Bernie Williams on the bench at the end of the year and Boston had Pena and Hinske. Not great benches, but not nothing either. (I found the Stairs signing odd for the Jays bench as they already have Thomas who is purely a DH and to have two roster spots for guys who can't really play the field at all is not going to leave you with much flexability if you are going to carry 12 pitchers.)

Lyle Overbay signed a new contract , according to the Globe and Mail.

4 years/24 million.

Well done, Doublyle.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hinske's contract was a sunk cost, but it wasn't what was dragging the team down.

In retrospect yes, but at the time, nobody can say with 100% confidence that JP Ricciardi didn't  anticipate a payroll jump. With the Hinske dropping, the Jays had bumped their offseason possible expenditure by a few million, which was significant at the time. It would have been money used to retain Zaun or Lilly, or anyone else for that matter.

If Ricciardi knew that he was getting a payroll hike at the trade deadline, I do not believe he would have traded Hinske--especially to the Red Sox. It certainly builds a case for letting management have a long-term rolling payroll.

   I've always admired the rules about civility on Batter's Box.  So perhaps the comment about Keith Law being "a turd" could be withdrawn?  There are ways to disagree with someone without attacking them personally.   Moreover, it seems that the latest Keith Law article is not an example of "bitter vengeance" at all.   If someone wants to criticize an article, he should include an excerpt, so that we can judge it for ourselves.  (We can certainly judge that Keith Law was totally wrong about Vernon Wells, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything.)

   I also think that this site would be stronger if we're not always attacking the mainstream press and high-profile commentators.   Yes, I find that Richard Griffin can be annoying and often wrong, but the mainstream journalists have a lot of personal contact with Jays team members and managers, and they can contribute insights that are worthwhile and shouldn't be automatically rejected. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hinske's contract was a sunk cost

At the time, Hinske had just hit 24 homers with 37 doubles, I believe, and batted .273 when he had stayed above .280 all season. There was a lot of promise in those numbers. Another player also had completed his first full season with 23 homers and 34 doubles with a .275 average. J.P signed took a calculated risk and signed then both to similar 5 year deals at about $15-16 mil.

One turned out to be a shadow of his former self and the other has evolved into a franchise player! Even if you alot $2 mil. a year for Hinske during the duration of his contract(I think one can fairly say his .260 average, 17 homers, 30 doubles, versatility were worth $2mil), Wells was worth significantly more than $4.4 mil a year (32-10=22, 22/5=4.4 aprox).

It was a good calculated risk than panned out in my opinion. I'd like to see more GMs make accords like these. I believe some of the smarter contracts out there belong to Harden, Crawford, Baldelli, and Sizemore to name a few. Now we can add Lyle Overbay to that list. He looks to be a good bet to more than fulfill $6mil a year for the next 4 years!

Now if we can only get Rios under a similar contract....