1. A. J. Burnett looked like a somewhat different pitcher in the second half of 2006. Which Yogi-ism is more appropriate to the situation- "half of baseball is 90% mental" or "it's never over until it's over"? What can we expect from him?

Magpie- He's feeling good and strong, and for the first time in his career there's another guy on the staff who can function as a guide and role model. I think Halladay's focus and ethic will rub off on Burnett, and he'll do all kinds of things people have been expecting him to do for years. Some new career highs are coming...

Mike Green- I agree. Less throwing and more pitching means better results for A.J. For some pitchers, turning 30 is a good thing.

Gerry- I am still not sold on AJ Burnett being a dominant pitcher. It is encouraging to see him working on a change-up but too often he tries to blow a fastball by the hitters. Until I see him pitching rather than throwing I see him as a good, not great, pitcher. The potential is there though.

Leigh- In Burnett's career, spanning 989.3 innings, he has compiled ratios of 7.9 K/9, 2.1 K/BB, and 0.7 HR/9. In 2006, his first season in the American League and in a hitter's ballpark, he pitched 135.3 innings with ratios of 7.8 K/9, 3.0 K/BB, and 0.9 HR/9.

Let those facts dispel the rumours that Burnett is not an "ace", that he was merely a product of his environment in the NL, and that he has yet to "put it all together". He has logged nearly 1,000 elite-level innings before the age of 30. Insofar as the definition of "ace" is one of the top thirty starting pitchers in the Major Leagues, he is assuredly an ace and not particularly close the cusp.

MatthewE- I think he'll miss a few starts with arm complaints, have one big losing streak, and finish up something like 13-10.

Thomas- If he stays healthy it will be a good year for AJ. If he doesn't it will be a long year for the Blue Jays.

Dave Till- I became more and more impressed with Burnett as the season went on. I think he's going to have a good year.

#2JBrumfield- Not that I can quantify this but I think with Doc's influence and Arnsberg's tutelage, A.J. will have a breakout year to the tune of 15-16 wins with an ERA of 3.75 to 3.90.

2. Speaking of which, how will Gustavo Chacin's off-field problems affect his pitching?

Pistol- I don't think it will have any impact. If he doesn't pitch well I think it'll be because he simply isn't pitching well.
What I found interesting is that this happened the night before he was set to start.

Dave Till- I doubt that Gus's off-field problems will affect his pitching. But he wasn't pitching well in 2006, so he might crash and burn anyway.

Gerry- I noted last year that Gus was fine the first couple of times through the order but started to struggle on his third time around. If Gus can get through the first few innings with only a couple of base runners he is set for 5 or 6 innings. If he allows several base runners the hitters will see him for the third time in the fourth inning and he will be gone early. Although the Jays have him as a #3, he really is a #5.

Leigh-I'm much more concerned about Chacin's on-field problems than any off-field problems. In 2005, Chacin pitched 203 innings at rates of 5.4 K/9, 1.7 K/BB and 0.9 HR/9. In 2006, his 87.3 innings produced rates of 4.8 K/9, 1.2 K/BB and 2.0 HR/9. His one admirable ratio from 2005, his home runs allowed, went all crappy in 2006. The window for capitalizing on his 13-9 record, 3.72 ERA season in the trade market is likely gone, leaving Gus' optimum role as something of an upgrade over Brian Tallet as the backup LOOGY/Swing Man. I sincerely hope that this gloomy paragraph comes back to make me look like a jack-ass in seven months, but I am not hopeful.

Mike Green- One never knows. For some, entanglement with the law hardly registers on the radar; for others, it's a wake-up call or alternatively a blow to self-image and confidence. We shall see.

Magpie- They won't have an impact. What's more likely to have an impact are all those cutters he throws, on his elbow. I think he'll be effective, but I don't think he'll start 25 games.

MatthewE- I don't care to address the off-field stuff. None of my business. But I believe Chacin will be removed from the rotation before May is over, for good. He may still have a career, but I think we've seen the last of him as a regular starter, simply because he's not that good.

#2JBrumfield - I don't think the off-field stuff matters either. I never tried the cologne but I'm a Chacin man. He just finds a way to win and you can't discount 22 wins over the last 2 seasons.


3. Is it reasonable to expect an ERA of about 5 out of the contenders for the #4, #5, #6 and #7 slots in the rotation (Ohka, Towers, Thomson(?), Zambrano, Marcum, Downs, Janssen)? Is that likely to be enough?

Mike Green- If Marcum and Janssen work 260-280 innings in the rotation, I think that the #4/#5/#6/#7 slots will do somewhat better than 5.00. Otherwise, it will be a little worse, I expect. The difference could end up being quite important depending on what else happens with the club.

MatthewE- 5.00? Somebody can do better than that. Actually, I think the rotation is going to be okay. One way or another.

There are basically three scenarios for how the Toronto rotation is going to perform:

a) (least desirable) The Jays are unable, due to injuries and poor performances, to find five guys out of Halladay, Burnett, Chacin, Thomson, Ohka, Zambrano, Towers, McGowan, Marcum, Janssen, Taubenheim and Downs who can pitch respectably every five days.

b) (next least desirable) The Jays manage to fill out the back of the rotation with some combination of Thomson, Ohka, Zambrano and Towers. They pitch respectably, in line with the rest of what they've done in their careers.

c) (most desirable) Because of injuries or poor performances by some or all of Thomson, Ohka, Zambrano and Towers, the Jays are forced to try some or all of McGowan, Marcum and Janssen in the rotation, and McGowan, Marcum and/or Janssen put it all together and have a great year.

It's true that the good is the enemy of the bad, but it's also the enemy of the great. I have a hard time seeing how the Jays are going to win this division unless case c) happens.

Thomas- Perhaps optimistically, I'm going to say the Jays #3-4-5 beat that. I see one of Towers, Chacin and Okha performing quite miserably. A high ERA through mid-May and quickly getting into the organization's bad books. He won't be Towers '06 bad, but one of them will be out of the rotation by the end of May. If we're lucky and avoid injuries, you might get 2 of them to stick.

I'm optimistic on Towers and I agree with the consensus that Chacin is a very weak #3 starter. I think the two who stick should pitch to about a 4.50 -4.75 ERA with a lot of 5.2 innings, 3 runs-type starts. I think the bullpen will be taxed at times early in the season, making it especially important to have some combination of long-men like Marcum, Zambrano, Tallet and Janssen there. Although I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Janssen assume a middle-relief role. So if two of those three stick, we'll need one of Zambrano, Marcum, Janssen and whomever else to slot into the rotation at a slightly better than a 5.00 ERA. To me the problem will be less the avoidance of runs and more the accumulation of innings. However, if we keep guys back there capable of doing 2.2 innings a couple of times a week we might get through it okay.

Dave Till- An ERA of about 5 or a little under is reasonable for at least one or two of these guys - but not in April, when the roof is closed and the balls are a-flyin' out. There will be a lot of 12-10 games in the early going, and any evaluation of the newbies needs to keep park effects in mind.

Gerry- I believe in Towers, the question is does Josh? If Towers has a good April, as stated above, then I think he will be OK through the year. I think the Jays might settle for a 5.00 ERA right now from those 3 spots. With their offense they should be able to win more of those games than they lose and and then clean up with Doc and to a lesser extent AJ on the mound.

Magpie- Sure. Ohka and Towers are a couple of pretty determined guys. Ohka is pitching for his next contract, and Towers is pitching to save his career (and has done considerably better than that before anyway.) One of them probably won't make it through the season in the rotation, and Towers probably has the least amount of rope to work with - he needs to make it through April with an ERA below 5.00 and at least a couple of wins. Whatever happens, the next man into the fray will be Zambrano, and that will happen when either Ohka's shoulder or Chacin's elbow or Towers' ERA demands it.

Pistol- I think it's better than 50/50 that it will happen. I'd be thrilled if the Jays could get 400 innings and a 5.00 ERA out of the #4 & #5 starting spots. They would be carrying their weight. Whether that's enough depends on Halladay and Burnett staying healthy.

#2JBrumfield - I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that type of performance. I like the addition of Ohka and Towers can't possibly be any worse than his 9.11 ERA as a starter last season, can he? I think Zambrano will help provided he's not being pushed too hard after his TJ surgery but a nice surprise like a McGowan or Purcey would help.

4. It seems as though spring training performance was a key factor in the decisions made about the last spots in the rotation? Is that a good idea?

Dave Till- Well, it's either that or consult the Magic 8 Ball. Spring training isn't an accurate measurement of ability, but there isn't any other way to do it. As long as the Jays can keep some emergency reserve starters in Syracuse, they'll be able to find five guys who aren't awful.

Pistol- To a certain degree yes. If John Thomson can't get through 3 innings without getting shelled then it's probably not a good idea to start him. On the other hand if sending Accardo to the minors based on 6+ ERA when he's pitching well (his numbers appear 'hit unlucky') then I don't think it's good idea.

Gerry- This spring training it is appropriate for the spring to determine the starters. You have pitchers returning from injury and off-seasons plus a guy like Casey Janssen with reportedly a new pitch. So yes.

Magpie- I have no problem with it so long as by "performance" we're talking about more than the actual results - how the guy is throwing, what his command is, how his arm is responding.

MatthewE- Probably not. But what else is there to go on, especially with the three new guys?

Mike Green- Throwing well in spring training should rightly be an important factor in these decisions. It would be wise to incorporate an objective element, as well as the subjective.

#2JBrumfield - I try not to get too excited about the first couple of weeks of spring training because, to borrow a line from "Major League", some of these guys will be bagging groceries in a few weeks (green rookies, quadruple A players, has-beens, never weres, etc). It's still a small sample size but unless you extend spring training by another month, what else can you do?

5. Last year, opponent base thieves stole often and were caught rarely. Was it primarily the responsibility of the pitchers or the catchers? Is there any reason for hope of improvement here?

Magpie- A combination of the two - the Jays' catchers don't much resemble Pudge Rodriguez, which means they need help from the pitchers. They don't get very much. I don't care a whole lot, though.

Pistol- I think how Benji Molina does in SF might be the most telling on who's responsible. I know the team has talked about improving in this area, but seeing is believing for me.

Dave Till- I don't care much about stolen bases. The Jays aren't going to win by preventing stolen bases. The Jays are going to win by scoring a whack of runs, thus offsetting the occasional extra run or two from opposition rabbits.

Mike Green- A bit of both. Gustavo Chacin's pattern over the previous 2 years was unusual. He controlled the running game exceptionally well in 2005, picking off 5 while thieves went 8-18, but struck out in 2006, picking off nobody while thieves were a perfect 5-0. Anyways, Zaun's arm is a little below average and Phillips' is pretty terrible, so we can expect to see opposition runners moving a lot. Curtis Thigpen will probably make an appearance by mid-season, and that will help some.

#2JBrumfield- Unless Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, and Maury Wills all come out of retirement and join Boston and/or New York, I'm not that concerned. The AL is more of a slugger's league than a runner's league anyway.

6. Royce Clayton for John McDonald with the glove- an improvement, a wash or a loss?

Magpie- Clayton will be an improvement, especially with Johnny Mac coming in for the eighth and ninth innings after Stairs pinch-hits for Clayton. McDonald wore down with excessive usage last season- by September his defense was positively erratic. It was shocking to see.

MatthewE- I think it's a wash. I'm not enthusiastic about Clayton at all.

Mike Green- The Royce Clayton of 10 years ago would be a significant defensive upgrade on McDonald. The statistics say that he's now quite a bit below average defensively.

Dave Till- Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

#2JBrumfield - I don't think Clayton can be any worse. I guess that's about as positive as I can be. What's Tony Fernandez doing these days? Mike Bordick?

7. Which pitcher is most likely to surprise in the bullpen? Who are you most worried about?

Leigh- Jeremy Accardo is my happy bullpen surprise.

Pistol- Maybe it's not considered a surprise, but I think Frasor will be in the 3.50 ERA/1.25 WHIP area this year.

I'm not particularly worried about anyone in the sense that if they pitch poorly they'll be quickly be placed on the Syracuse shuttle. Having said that I don't think Tallet is going to be one of the top 7 relievers in the organization.

Gerry- I am worried about the bullpen. BJ Ryan had a great season last year and it would not be unusual to see his ERA increase a little in 2007. League is not set coming into 2007, Accardo continues to struggle, Tallet should probably be in AAA. But bullpens, and relievers, often bounce around from good years to bad and back again. I am nervous about the collection we have, a mix of control lefties (other than Ryan) and hard-throwers who haven't mastered their command. Marcum is the exception to that generalisation.

Magpie- Most likely to surprise is Francisco Rosario. He's got the arm, and he'll probably start out in low leverage situations. He won't have quite the same game pressures, and he won't have the pressure of his own situation that he would have faced last season - any young player, called up in mid-season to pitch in the major leagues for the first time, must always feel a great deal of pressure to prove that he ought to stay. He must always be very aware that just as he was suddenly called up in mid-season, he can be sent down just as quickly while someone else gets a shot.

I worry about Scott Downs and, to a lesser degree about Brian Tallet. I'm not completely convinced that they're really as good as they were last season. I'm not worried as much about Tallet because he's the seventh guy in the pen, it simply doesn't matter as much. Downs has a larger role in this pen.

Mike Green-Same as Magpie. I am optimistic about Francisco Rosario and worried about Brian Tallet.

MatthewE- Right now I think we have to be most worried about League, don't we? For a pleasant surprise, I'll say, oh, Accardo. Why not?

Dave Till- Predicting bullpen performance is impossible. I think Tallet has been doing it with mirrors, though.

#2JBrumfield - I'm going to go with Accardo, he's got a bit more of a track record to go on than Rosario at this point even if it is all in the NL before his arrival.

8. Are you comfortable with the idea of Jason Frasor in a high leverage role, if Brandon League is unavailable due to injury?

Thomas-I'd be happier with League assuming the role (or with Frasor teaming with League). However, it's clear that Frasor is, right now, the best option in the Jays bullpen. I'm curious to see Janssen in a relief role, but that's a side point. I'd be more happier with a Scot Shields or Justin Duchscherer-type setup guy, but I think Frasor will be fine in the role. While a lights-out 8th inning guy would be nice, I'm comfortable with Frasor and he shouldn't be the team's biggest concer.

Gerry- Frasor did have an off year last year and has remade himself into a fastball slider pitcher from a fastball curveball pitcher. He should allow fewer home runs but his success depends on how good the slider is. If it is good he can easily be the eighth inning guy.

Mike Green- FREE JASON FRASOR was not just an empty slogan. He is a fine pitcher. Ideally, he'd set up when League was unavailable after a two inning stint.

Dave Till- He's done it before, so he's not likely to melt into a puddle of goo under pressure.

MatthewE- I'm comfortable trying it; he's a decent pitcher and he's pitched well under pressure before. Then again he might get his clock cleaned; that's happened too.

Magpie- Frasor should be fine. He had a rough patch early last season, he bounced back. He seems a safer bet than anybody in the pen not named Ryan.

Leigh- Leverage, a stat tracked by Baseball Prospectus and defined on their site as the "change in the probability of winning the game from scoring (or allowing) one additional run in the current game situation divided by the change in probability from scoring (or allowing) one run at the start of the game" is a good measure of the trust that a manager has been putting in a reliever.

This table lists Jays' relievers (minimum 30 relief innings pitched) in order of leverage in each of the past three seasons. Keep in mind that leverage is a rate stat, so the quantity of innings - once the 30 relief innings threshold is past - is irrelevant.

As you can see, Frasor has been afforded a decreasing level of trust over the past three seasons, bottoming out at sub-LOOGY leverage in 2006. Using Frasor as a high-leverage setup man may prove difficult for Gibby, though Frasor is clearly qualified for the job.

#2JBrumfield - His performance at the end of the year makes me confident Frasor will be fine. He's got the track record for success and from what I understand, he's scrapped the curveball which he seemed to hang too often last year. I'd be more comfortable with Justin Speier but that was a lot of money the Angels forked out for him so I can't blame J.P. for not matching that.

9. Saving the best for last, Roy Halladay's BBRef top 10 comparables include Matt Morris, Tim Hudson and Mike Mussina. Is Halladay likely to be as good as Mussina was in his 30s?

Gerry- Doc has a large reportoire of pitches and can survive anything, except injury. All those breaking pitches do take a toll on his arm and he has been a workhorse when healthy. I am not that worried, although that might be hope.

MatthewE- No, I don't think so. I don't like the way Halladay's strikeout numbers are dropping, and I wouldn't be surprised if he only had a couple of good years left in him.

Leigh- As if one citation of a BP stat followed by a crude table was not enough, here are the "stuff" ratings for Halladay, Mussina, Hudson and Morris in their age 24 - 29 seasons. Stuff is defined at BP as a "rough indicator of the pitcher's overall dominance, based on normalized strikeout rates, walk rates, home run rates, runs allowed, and innings per game. "10" is league average, while "0" is roughly replacement level."

For fun, I have included three other pitchers on Halladay's comp list, Bartolo Colon, Pat Hentgen and Kevin Millwood. For even more fun, I have also included A.J. Burnett.

Halladay and Mussina are in another league than the rest of the comps. Halladay out-pitched Mussina in the 24 to 26 age range, but Mussina was better in his late twenties. Halladay and Mussina are in another league than the rest of the comps. Halladay pitching as well as Mussina into his thirties is a fairly optimistic scenario, but one that I am willing to endorse.
Dave Till- The BP people are worried about Halladay's declining strikeout rate. I'm not. He's the man, and he will likely continue to be the man. (Of course, since pitching is an unnatural motion, any pitcher is one bad curveball away from extinction at any time.)

Mike Green- "Likely" isn't the word that I would choose. He certainly could be as good as Mussina has been, and maybe a little better, but the arm is a mysterious thing.

Magpie- I sure hope so.

#2JBrumfield - He's a better human being than Mussina, does that count for anything? I think Doc's got a lot left in the tank and he's pitching smarter too. By cutting down on his cutter, he's saving his bullets for the season.

10. The Jays allowed 754 runs in 2006. How many in 2007?

Magpie- A slight, but real, improvement - I am determined to be an Optimist this spring - so we'll go with 737.

Mike Green- I'm going to be an optimist, too. The pitching staff is going to beaten about pretty good in April and May, but it won't be such a bad thing, as it will force some decisions that will end up benefiting the club. There's nothing like strong pitching down the stretch. 740 runs allowed.

Gerry- I see more runs scoring this year, say 787.

Pistol- I'll go with 750, although it really could be anywhere between 700-850 - there's a lot of potential variability here with injuries and ineffectiveness.

Dave Till- "Answer hazy, ask again later."

#2JBrumfield - As a whole, I think the rotation will be better but the bullpen's a little iffy with League out of action. I'll go with 745.

Later today, the Roster returns with their win predictions and "season in a sentence or two" summaries.