Time to get a new all-everything, what-is-there-to-talk-about? thread started up. There is apparently no huge breaking news in the world of the 90-foot baselines right now ... What, are you psyched about Trot Nixon heading to Cleveland? Cliff Floyd possibly landing in Wrigley? Chase Utley getting a gazillion dollars from the Phillies? Have a comment on the loss of one of the sport's good guys, Vern Ruhle?
What's going on out there?
According to Dayn Perry, JP Riccardi is the 20th best GM in baseball. Full Dayn Perry-approved rankings here.
I'm not sure if JP ran over Perry's dog last season but the last part of his comment seems awfully personal in nature:
"Last season, the Jays finished higher than third place for the first time 1993. He's made the organization more efficient, but the farm system has foundered badly under him, mostly because of his college-heavy drafts. Ricciardi's social skills and media savvy also leave much to be desired."
The top three GMs are apparently:
Just one memory of Vern "Golden" Ruhle ...
In 1975, the Tigers were terrible-- 57-102 and they weren't really even THAT good (althlugh to be fair, they exactly matched their Pythagoreean W-L) ... for that motley crew, the young (24) Ruhle was 11-12 and to my then-nine-year-old brain, that made him a future Hall of Famer who would obviously have many 20-win seasons for the soon-to-be-rejuvenated (or so I thought) Tigers. The Tigers released him a few weeks into '77 and he went on to record 42 more of the 67 career W's he accumulated. Okay, and 59 losses. So I was WAY wrong, But hey, I was nine!
As far as I can tell, Perry hates the Blue Jays and Riccardi (not necessarily in that order). He's a die hard Red Sox fan who tries to act like he's an impartial baseball analyst. One of the worst writers out there - he should be writing for the Boston Herald or something like that...not FoxSports. He's just not very smart, period.
And believe it or not, Perry didn't run over my dog. He's (by far) my least favourite sports journalist.
"Last season, the Jays finished higher than third place for the first time 1993. He's made the organization more efficient, but the farm system has foundered badly under him, mostly because of his college-heavy drafts. Ricciardi's social skills and media savvy also leave much to be desired."
Which part of that isn't accurate?
Some mid-day Jays tidbits to chew on:
1. The Bucs will not sign Ohka. The competition for the Jays is now narrowed down to the Nats and the Mets. There is indication that Ohka might sign a one-year deal in hopes of a FA money pile at the end of the season. There also seems to be a bit of journalistic sour-grapes at the end of the article.
2. I haven't seen this on Da Box yet, but the Cleveland Plain Dealer brought up the fact that the Indians "would love to work a trade for McDonald, drafted, signed and developed by them, to be their backup shortstop". With Olmedo and Smith in the fold now, would JP be interested in unloading our Minister of Defense?
Which part of that isn't accurate?
Riccardi's drafts, in hindsight, leave something to be desired but it isn't a direct result of going for college players of high school players (if Russ Adams worked out as a half decent infielder JP's drafts would have been reasonably defensible.)
Then the last sentence of Perry's analysis is impossible for anyone to quantify and smacks of petty personal politics. That is unless you know that there are a bunch of GMs out there who just won't deal with JP because of his "social skills" and/or "media savvy." That's sour grapes. Plus, because the Toronto media (who have ragged on JP quite a bit) haven't resorted to insulting Riccardi's character like that I'm given even more reason to believe that Perry is pushing his own very personal agenda.
One of the worst writers out there - he should be writing for the Boston Herald or something like that...not FoxSports
Give Perry a break, he's just trying to get a job writing for Fox News ;-)
He's just not very smart, period.
Give Perry a break, he's just trying to get a job writing for Fox News ;-)
Sportswriters are a matter of taste, to be sure. And while one might well disagree with Dayn Perry's opinions, or take offense to his cocksure positions on various issues, suggesting he's not very smart is, well, silly. If you're going to make such a claim, then you should be prepared to defend it with more than just an assertion.
As for the joking Fox News remark, clearly you haven't read enough of Perry to know that his politics lie at the other end of the political spectrum.
How would one defend the assertion that someone isn't very smart. IQ test? Random examples of ill-conceived quotes? I don't think that can be done. Surely some opinion is allowed in this forum.
I can't imagine that my remarks could be interpreted to suggest that I feel that opinion not be allowed. Opinion should be more than allowed in this forum, it should be encouraged. Without opinion, this forum doesn't exist.
But opinion only carries weight if it is defended. To claim that someone's "just not very smart, period" isn't an especially compelling argument. Now, should I care one way or another that someone holds this view about Dayn Perry? No, not really. But to hear why someone holds this view would be far more interesting.
Nasty Mastny for McDonald.
Even with the Tribe stocking up on bullpen veterans, I still think they expect Mastny to be a meaningful contribution to the bullpen. Not that they wouldn't listen, but I think they view him worth more than a veteran no-hit shortstop who is arguably losing step or two on the defensive side of his game.
But if you could get Mastny for McDonald, that'd be one heck of a deal.
Having hindsight is nice and all, but would it not have been nice to get someone like Maybin (instead of Romero) or Phil Hughes (instead of Purcey) or Hamels (instead of Russ Adams)?
And it would have been nice to draft Albert Pujols while everyone was passing on him for 12 rounds. There's no question Hamels turned out better than Adams, but do you really want to spend your first-round pick on a high school pitcher who already has an injury history? There's taking risks, and then there's being insane. You seem to be writing off Romero after one bad month at AA, but Hamels hardly even threw a pitch for nearly two years - just 16 innings in 2004 and 35 in 2005; it wouldn't have been terribly pessimistic to consider him a bust a year and a half ago. And while Adams has fallen apart, pretty much everyone - even BA - projected him as a good defensive second baseman and leadoff hitter.
As far as Romero goes, he just turned 22 and had one good month and one bad month at AA - that's way too early to write him off. Purcey, admittedly, is on his make it or break it season now, but he's exactly the sort of high-risk, high-ceiling player people think Ricciardi should draft more often; if you're going to take risks, you're going to lose some of the time.
Why the dislike for Stoneman Jim?
He was in a position the past few seasons where he really could have made the Angels the prohibitive favorite in the West for seasons to come and he seems to me to have fumbled that opportunity very badly.
I think that the Angels are, and have been the prohibitive favourite in the West. I do agree though, that Stoneman has dropped the ball in improving the offense. He seems to be too deep in certain postitions (1B, SS, SP) and hasn't transferred this depth into improved quality at other positions. And then there's Gary Matthews Jr.
If Stoneman went hard after Crawford, Baldelli, Jones or Wells for CF, parting with some of his depth (Kotchman, Mathis, Santana, Adenhart, Aybar), the Angels would be in a much stronger position right now. And if he had the 20/20 hindsight some bauxites demand of JP Ricciardi, he could have dealt MacPherson and Rivera for a handsome return.
Everybody keeps posting the same article from the Washington Post, but let's be a little cautious here. It doesn't say that Ohka "will" sign with the Jays, and it doesn't contain any sources or any supportive evidence -- it's nothing more than a brief throwaway sentence in a long article on other subjects. The exact quote is that Ohka is "most likely headed to Toronto" which is far from a definitive statement. Of course it might still happen, but the silence from the Toronto press corps is another cautionary note. Let's wait until it happens.
And if it does happen, I'd support it. There's no guarantee he'd be a success in Toronto -- it's definitely a risky move -- but the team desperately needs all the pitching depth it can muster. I'd put this down as a move for depth, similar to the Thomson move. The team needs as many of these as it can grab -- along with all the internal candidates -- in the hopes that 5 of the 10 candidates will make the grade.
I have a different analysis of the psychology of Josh Towers (which is inherently a very speculative exercise anyway). Last year, he seemed to allow each failure to put greater pressure on himself, so that he ended up trying too hard to be too perfect. He was painfully aware of how his poor performances were hurting the team, and this kept weighing on him, adding a psychological stres that kept nagging at him and preventing him from relaxing and concentrating on each pitch. (I think he even admitted this in some of his interviews last year.) Ideally he shrugs all of this aside in 2007 and starts fresh, without any worries about the past. But there is a definite danger that his disastrous 2006 will continue to nag at him, continuing to put greater pressure on him to be perfect in 2007. In other words, it doesn't necessarily give him extra motivation this year, it could instead give him additional pressure and mental burdens. He needs to relax and throw strikes and let the hitters hit the pitches, as they did in 2005, but I fear that again he will be struggling to be perfect. It's a real conundrum. The Josh Towers of 2005 would be the 3rd man that the starting rotation so desperately needs in 2007, but he has to clear his head and start fresh, without agonizing over the catastrophes of last year.
Changing tacks a bit here, but I took the liberty of weighting John Sickels prospect grades (as posted on his freely available and highly entertaining blog)
The results were somewhat predictable. The Jays ranked 23rd. The Rays, Sox, Yankees and Orioles ranked 1,4,11 and 20, respectively.
The Rockies, D'backs and Twins rounded out the top 5.
The Nationals and White Sox tied for 29th.
I applied a linear weighting with an A receiving 6 points down to zero for a C. I'm not sure how Mr. Sickels weights the grades, but his book is almost ready for shipping it appears, if you want to find out for yourselves.
I'd go for Ohka over Towers if I was in charge of the Jays, especially if he is cheap.
2006 - Towers = 8.42 ERA in majors, 4.00 in AAA
2006 - Ohka = 4.82 ERA in majors, worst for him since 2001
I'd love for Towers to succeed as he is the type that is fun to cheer but he is a high HR, low K pitcher and guys like that can collapse easily.
Lifetime...
Towers K/9=4.52 HR/9=1.51 BB/9=1.45 WHIP=1.38
Ohka K/9=5.13 HR/9=1.07 BB/9=2.49 WHIP=1.38
Yup, according to Baseball Cube they have the same WHIP.
Now, Ohka is in the NL so that could cover some of the K/9 and HR/9 but he is still ahead and Towers last year looked like he hit the limit. Control pitchers can collapse very quickly and do have shorter careers as a rule (I forget the exact study, perhaps a Bill James one, but do remember the results).
If I'm JP and I have a few million left over, plus other teams have shown no interest in doing a reasonable trade then Ohka makes a lot of sense for more depth and to allow Towers to spend at least part of the season in AAA to show he can pitch better than the other options (both Vermilyea and McGowan were close in AAA IP and ERA while Taubenheim had that nice looking 2.85 AAA ERA and a 4.89 ML ERA).
To me Taubenheim would be a prime candidate for #6, along with Marcum and Janssen before Towers, McGowan and the rest get a shot. Ohka allows AAA to have a solid roation of Taubenheim/Marcum/Janssen/Towers/McGowan and Rosario, Banks, Vermilyea, Purcey among others there as well. Heck, Ohka might make the Jays feel safer doing a Chacin trade in an effort to up the #3 slot (Chacin with a few prospects for a guy who is really a #1 or #2 elsewhere, a team with a weak rotation beyond #1 or no backups should injury occur and no real shot at the playoffs in '07). Hmm... Florida had 4 very solid starters in '06 followed by starters with ERA+ of 89/66/76/59/45 so some depth would be good for them. Perhaps a mixture of Chacin and 2 or 3 of the AAA crew for Willis? Doubt it would happen, but fun to speculate.
Bart Simpson exclaims "Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!" while playing baseball with Milhouse"
To which Millhouse responds, "And I'm Esteban Yan of the Tampa Bay Devilrays!".
Classic.
Always fun to see the prospect rankings, but never forget that the Brewers in the late 80's early 90's were the darlings of most and still have just the 1981 and 1982 playoffs to show for it. Heck, they have been 500 or worse since 1993, when most of those propsects should've been hitting their stride in the majors.
Another good example is the Expos - tons of great prospects but after a good '96 they never won more than 83 (when the GM was trading everything in an attempt to give Montreal one last playoff run before running off to Washington).
It is better to be near the top of these lists than the bottom, but the top does not lock in any wins.
Cano Switches Number "Just in Case"
Excuse me, I think I'm going to throw up.
Wow, a lot of love for Dayton Moore. In the land o' Rob and Rany, the glass half-empty and half-full boys debate the latest goings on in KC.
Sheldon, I don't agree with your comps of Pierre and Crawford for Gathright. Pierre was a regular at age 23 and Crawford at 21. He's miles away from Crawford and even while closer in talent to Pierre, he'll be 26 this season and has only one season's worth of cumulative AB behind him. He doesn't figure to be a starter this season, or any season soon I'd imagine. I think he'll continue to tease GM's with his speed, but he's a cipher with the stick. I'd imagine by 30 he'll be flipping burgers.
if you compare his '06 season to Ted Lilly's, there's not much of a difference
While the raw numbers may look similar, context is required. Toronto is a hitter's park. Seattle is a pitcher's park. Ted Lilly's ERA+ was 109. Gil Meche's was 97.
Not to quibble over semantics, or come across as pedantic (as I've been accused of by another poster), but you use the term stellar pretty liberally, describing both Ted Lilly's and Mark Gruzielanek's seasons as such. While it's entirely your prerogative to engage in hyperbole, I'm just not in agreement with that particularly adjective being used in these instances.
