Everything considered, a near-.500 mark coming out of April is probably acceptable. On the one hand, the team lost its third baseman and #5 hitter, its left fielder and leadoff man, and its closer in the space of about a week. Not many teams could breeze through that, and the Jays have at least not collapsed, as the Yankees seem to have done already.

On the other hand, April's schedule was not that tough -- the Tigers and Yankees played a lot weaker in reality than they looked on paper coming into the season -- and there were about five games in there that the Jays really could have won. Gibbons' bullpen management and Ricciardi's horrible bench can probably account for about half of those. (Where would this team be if Matt Stairs had had to play left field instead of Adam Lind?) The club was dealt a mediocre hand in April, but management underplayed it anyway.

There's no point bellyaching about the bench anymore, though -- what's done is done, and the only change likely to come soon will be of the 25th-man variety. For better or worse, the 2007 Jays will be a team of about 7 or 8 Grade-A players backed up by a whole lot of Cs and Ds elsewhere.

I'm not greatly fussed about Towers' demotion, though I think the team is fooling itself if it thinks Zambrano is the answer to any question worth asking. I said before the season that the team will have to mix-and-match its available starters and go with the hot hand whenever possible. Whether Ricciardi and Gibbons can actually pull that off will be the key to the season.I wouldn't have pulled the plug on Towers this quickly -- not with that K rate -- but it's abundantly clear that Ricciardi and especially Gibbons have no confidence in Towers anymore, so this was inevitable. I don't see Josh finishing the year with the Jays, and I don't see them getting much in return for him if stays in long relief. Magpie is probably right that the Jays will waste a few starts on Zambrano and Thomson before giving Janssen the opportunity, but I'd go with Casey right now. His current K rate is an extreme aberration -- it was 6.75/9 in Syrcause last year and 7.89/9 for his minor-league career; he will strike out more batters.

The Jays are going to send three position players to the All-Star Game this season -- Wells, Rios and Hill. By the end of May (hopefully much sooner), Hill will be leading off and the lineup will really start clicking with a Hill-Overbay-Wells-Thomas-Glaus-Rios combo (the less said about the bottom third of the order, the better).

One last thing -- very quietly, the Jays are 11-2 in SB-CS, fifth in the league in stolen base percentage. Nice start.

Magpie, when you wake up from your dream...the truth about Towers will return to you and you'll realize his problem is, and always will be, his stuff is just TOO close to being slaughtered. Every pitch...if it misses by 2.54 centimeters (1 inch to us oldies)...BANG, to the moon. Towers is a GREAT 4th or 5th starter on a contending AAA team, or the Royals (maybe). The time has come to move on...Janssen and or McGowan MUST be in the starting rotation by mid-May for us to have a chance.

If League had been League and Ryan had been Ryan...sigh...NO QUESTION...we'd be eye ball to eye ball with Boston, and more than likely they'd be looking up at us.

Mike...you are right about Hill. This guy is going to grow up and become Molitor.

He's going to get on base 38% of the time in his prime

Hill may well become Mr. 38%, I won't argue that. But to do so, he will have to fight the same inclination he shares with Wells and Lind: swinging at chest high fastballs. While Wells does occasionally park one of those over the left field fence (though perhaps not frequently enough to warrant chasing those pitches), that can't be part of Hill's game. Once he limits his strike zone to a nice tight little square, he'll be takin' care of business.

Is Hill's future as the team's leadoff hitter? I would imagine so, though I expect a couple of factors are preventing that transition from taking place right at the moment: (a) Reed Johnson is still considered the leadoff hitter and Rios merely a placeholder, to eventually return to the more appropriate role of table clearer rather than table setter, (b) Hill is succeeding where he is, and perhaps Gibbons is reluctant to want to mess with something that's working.

Some other random comments (knowing I run the risk of looking like Steve Simmons):

* Jason Smith's abysmal strike zone judgement is growing very tiresome. His one offensive skill is isolated slugging, and if he isn't doing anything on that front, there's not much he brings to the table.

* Vernon Wells' 298/368/543 has seemed awfully quiet, almost certainly a function of the particular games I have seen. His OPS is virtually identical to last year's.

* Adam Lind's most impressive single stat to me has been his 7 walks to go with his 48 AB. He's definitely not going to the plate looking for walks, but he's taking them when they're being offered. It's nice to see that discipline so early. In a world where Hill is the team's leadoff hitter, Lind as it's #2 man looks fine to me.

* Both Overbay and Thomas look awkward at the plate. I don't know that I've ever seen either lunge so much at pitches.

* What happens when Zambrano's turn on the carrousel comes to an end? Do we just trade him for Kazimir? Would anyone be foolish enough to do that? I imagine that Magpie is right, and that Thomson is next in line. I am getting the feeling that Janssen and Marcum will only get their chances once all the veterans have had their turns.

* Funny that Gustavo Chacin's capital from the 2005 season has earned him so much lattitude, while Towers' hasn't. To me, the whole lot of the back-end starters are pick-your-poison types, so if the organization sees something to favour one over another, then who am I to judge? I don't know that I could slot any one of them ahead of any of the others at this point.

* The Shaun Marcum fan club might consist of just two people (Mike G and myself), but I remain optimistic. Those hanging breaking balls have been a disaster, but those 17 K in 12 innings must portend good things. No? I will concede that Marcum's 2007 is looking eerily like Brad Lidge's 2006, so maybe you can strike out 1.5 men per inning and still not be effective.

    Jordan, your proposed lineup would put Adam Lind in the bottom third of the lineup.  But then you add, dismissively: "the less said about the bottom third of the order, the better."   Why such a sweeping dismissal of Adam Lind?  You don't like the guy?

    Also, you seem to be claiming that one-quarter of the Jays losses can be attributed to "the horrible bench".    Can you identify the three losses that you blame on the "horrible bench"?  And I assume that everybody else on the team, including Thomas and Overbay, played wonderfully in those three losses, but their heroic efforts were sabotaged by an error by Matt Stairs or Jason Smith, is that correct?

The Shaun Marcum fan club might consist of just two people (Mike G and myself

Three. I've liked Marcum all the way through the minors and have generally placed him above Janssen. He may well be more valuable to the team as a reliever right now, but he'll contribute more than gopher balls to this team soon enough. That emergency save against the Tigers showed me a lot.

My error on Lind -- I counted Johnson out of the lineup and forgot to reinsert Lind in his place. But I still think Hill and Overbay should bat 1-2. Much as I like him, it's asking a lot of Lind to maintain a .357 OBP all season. When the pitchers start adjusting, he's going to go through the same desert that Hill went through after his hot start.

Much as as I'd love to spend the morning going through the box scores for April to identify the losses attributable to Matt Stairs' inability to play the field or Jason Smith's 567 OPS in 17 games, I'll take a pass. But if you'd like to make the case that the bench has been expertly assembled and hasn't damaged the team's winning percentage, go right ahead.

After reviewing post-game comments on this site for the first month, I would like to set out some basic general principles I'm sure we can all agree on to eliminate unnecessary repetition for the balance of the season.

Important Note: the following only apply after a loss.

1. Any opposing batter who hits a home run should have been intentionally walked instead.

2. Any relief pitcher who allows a run should never have been in the game at that point.

3. If the infield was playing in and a ground ball gets through, they should have been playing back for the double play.

4 (a) JP Ricciardi should be fired for the poor roster construction which led to this loss.

4 (b) John Gibbons should be fired for the inept managing which led to this loss.

In the future, posters can simply quote the appropriate number rather than going on for several paragraphs. This will not only save valuable time, but the reduction in typing required will mitigate the risk of painful repetitive strain injury.

   If someone wants to claim that half of the 5 worst losses were due to the "horrible bench", I think the burden of proof is on him to find some evidence to support the claim.   The Box is supposed to be the place for empirical evidence, rather than sweeping generalizations.   I'd like to see evidence of even a single game this year where the box-score would put the blame on the bench for the loss.  I thought if you're going to make the sweeping generalization, you would have had at least one game in mind.  But apparently not.

     It's pretty difficult for any GM to "expertly assemble"  the perfect bench, because baseball is an imperfect world.  There are hundreds of real-world factors that prevent any GM from assembling the ideal bench.  I haven't seen anyone provide evidence that the ideal bench could have been easily assembled in the off-season.  The only name that is constantly mentioned is Eric Hinske, but there's no evidence that Hinske is easily available at a cheap price.  A year ago, most people wanted to dump Hinske and his huge salary, but now apparently some people think that Hinske could have single-handedly prevented half of those 5 frustrating losses.

    As for Jason Smith -- his low number is easily outweighed by John McDonald's .600 slugging average.   You can't cherry-pick the worst player on the bench and pretend that the entire bench is hitting as poorly as him.  That's not a fair argument.  If you're condemning the entire bench, you've got to consider everyone on the bench, not just one player.  When you said "horrible bench", did you actually just mean "horrible Jason Smith"?  And can several losses be blamed on Jason Smith?   Personally I think we need to have higher expectations of the $10-million hitters, not the $500,000 role players.

"Much as I like him, it's asking a lot of Lind to maintain a .357 OBP all season. When the pitchers start adjusting, he's going to go through the same desert that Hill went through after his hot start."

It is certainly possible that will happen, but hardly a given. Entering his fourth year of professional baseball, Lind has shown the remarkable ability to adjust almost seemlessly to each level. Beginning this season, he has yet to post a batting average less than .310 and his worst OBP is .357. I realize it is still a small sample size, but in 121 Major League plate appearences spanning his two callups, he has now drawn 12 walks and is getting on base at a .388 clip.

Of course, he will have his slumps as all hitters eventually do, but given his track record (minors and majors) I think a .360+ OBP is a prefectly reasonable expectation of him this year.

Jordan writes, " But I still think Hill and Overbay should bat 1-2. " Someone else mentioned Lyle lunging at the ball. A much smarter baseball observer than myself told me that Overbay's two-hole obligation to hit behind the runner has him trying to pull too much and it's messed up his swing. That sounds right to me, and I think he should hit third or lower down (as in 2006) depending on the pitcher.

Whatever John Towers' future might be, his recent past--ever since he disappointed those who gave him the big contract--has been full of leash-jerks. I hope he kills in the pen.

Finally, any time the Rangers want to run the directionally impaired Sosa out in right (or any other) field, is good times by me.

Finally, any time the Rangers want to run the directionally impaired Sosa out in right (or any other) field, is good times by me.

Hear hear!

The Box is supposed to be the place for empirical evidence, rather than sweeping generalizations.   I'd like to see evidence of even a single game this year where the box-score would put the blame on the bench for the loss.  I thought if you're going to make the sweeping generalization, you would have had at least one game in mind.  But apparently not.

Exactly one: Matt Stairs' inability to play even a decent outfield contributed substantially to Josh Towers' first loss of the season April 10 against Tampa; an adequate outfielder would have made plays that staunched the bleeding and kept him in the game. But then, I'm sure you'll say that the regulars made errors of their own and that the bench is just fine -- oh wait, you already said it.

But whatever. I freely concede I have no interest in parsing a month of boxscores to continue this conversation, so if you want your climbdown from the "half the losses" statement, here it is. Not that that changes in any way the bench's suckitude. But as I said in my original post, there's no point continuing to complain about the bench, so this is all I'll say on the subject henceforth.

By the way, if you want to know what "The Box is supposed to be the place for," it's this: when you question someone's assertions around here, you do it congenially and you put in the effort to produce some "empirical evidence" of your own, as Rob did in his post above. Please don't give me lectures on what this site is about.

Stairs' career OPS is about 100 points higher than Langerhans'.  In both 2005 and 2006 Stairs was better in HR, RBI, AVE and OPS, and so far this year, Langerhans is hitting .068 and slugging .098.  He is not a good hitter.  With 3 excellent defensive outfielders (Wells, Rios and Johnson), the Jays' needed a bat more than a glove for their 4th outfielder.  Stairs is clearly the superior hitter.

I'm surprised at all the complaining about the Jays bench.   

My personal take on what steps the club should take as it goes forward from 12-12, assuming that JP strongly prefers not to add a bat or a bullpen arm via trading pitching prospects (which I would definitely look into, since Thomas and maybe Burnett are only here for this season and next).

1.  Cut Smith loose and replace him on the roster with someone capable of supplying average outfield defence.

2.  Strictly limit the use of Stairs to (a) pinch-hitting for the shortstop and (b) infrequently spelling Thomas and Overbay.

3.  Stretch out Downs, permitting him to face intervening righthanded hitters between lefties in an inning.

Of the five soul-crushing frittered-away wins (this club really should be 15-9, at least), I don't blame Gibby for three of them -- for the Detroit and Tampa Bay losses, the right guy was on the mound but his arm didn't cooperate, and for the Texas loss, the right guy was on the mound and had an uncharacteristically poor outing.  I do believe that Gibbons managed the bullpen very poorly in the Boston and Baltimore losses.

I really believe that the team and roster should be managed carefully (and in a non-defeatist way) through the Johnson and Ryan injuries, because with the Yankees currently in disarray and the Red Sox enjoying what will be their most healthy period of the season, this division actually might be winnable this season.

Gibby said on the morning show that Towers was removed from the rotation because the team simply wasn't winning ballgames when he was pitching.  Strikeout ration and other stats be damned.

This is why Chacin gets some leeway methinks; because even with his less than impressive stats the team seems to win more that it's fair share of ballgames when Gus is on the mound.

Owen, I wanna' make sure I've got the jist of your above comments, so I've taken the liberty of paraphrasing them...

After writing a longwinded first effort, last evening, that was (apparently) lacking in a reasonable amount of "pithy,"... you proceeded through the numbers 3 - 4 - 5 revolving doors where (also apparently) it is impossible to disagree with almost all disparaging comments...except when juicy McSteriods made Aaron "Robertoed" back to the dugout.

O...K... I guess that is why Yogi always said, "99 and a half % of this game is half mental."

Owen, I think you're gonna' fit in here just "swell." 

To be sure, we've had our fair share of soul-crushing losses early on.  But the bottom line is, every team has a number of those each year.  That's the beauty (and curse) of baseball. You simply don't win every game you "should".

You're generally right, of course, but it's unfortunately not been a "fair share."  The Jays' bullpen has lost five games, and each time they were entrusted with an eighth- or ninth-inning lead (or multiple leads).  The Jays have only won two games off opposing relievers, and both of those wins were in tie games in which Halladay pitched (in other words, it wasn't at all far-fetched to win them).  They are 0-5 in the "soul-crushing" category.  Even if you allow for two such losses per month, that would make the Jays one game back instead of four.

I still believe that Stairs was seen primarily as cheap DH insurance, good to start the 25-30 games that Thomas wouldn't, and less as someone who would actually take the field.  I can't believe his role as 4th outfielder was much more than nominal, with Lind to eventually assume the role for real after a stint in AAA.

With Johnson hurt, everything has changed, of course, and roles and time tables have been altered accordingly.

Until Johnson returns, the team can certainly use a real outfielder, preferably a RH bat who can serve as a defensive caddy for Lind and sometimes platoon mate when Lind needs a rest. Whether that new player (have I just described the 2005 version of Reed Johnson?) should supplant Stairs or Smith, I'm not entirely sure (at the start of the year, the case seemed stronger for MacDonald being the odd man, rather than the LH Smith, but his Splendid Splinter imitation and his history with the organization have likely bought him the edge).

Based on talent alone, I'd say that Stairs easily trumps Smith. But there are factors in Smith's favour. Basically, Glaus is proving much wobblier than Thomas, so it is the former who needs the backup more than the latter (this surely has to be a surprise given the recent health records of the two men in question). Further, Smith was a rule 5 pickup and can't be sent to AAA whereas Stairs can.

I actually did some research into soul-crushing games thus far this season after Saturday's loss.  Only Seattle has not played in a soul-crusher this season (meaning a game in which one of the teams had an eighth- or ninth-inning lead and lost the game).

Of the other clubs...

Boston is 3-0.  Milwaukee, Texas and the Dodgers are 2-0.  Minnesota is 1-0.

Arizona and the Mets are 3-1.  Washington, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, San Francisco and the Angels are 1-1.

Atlanta and the White Sox are 3-2.  Pittsburgh, Houston, Baltimore, Oakland, Cleveland and the Yankees are 2-2.  Kansas City, San Diego and Cincinnati are 1-2.

Florida is 1-3.

Colorado and Detroit (!) are 3-4.  Philadelphia, generally considered the most snakebitten team, are 1-4.

And then there's Toronto at 0-5.  Not only is that statistically unlucky, those odds are magnified because the bullpen has generally pitched well for the Jays this season.

Lastly, what does everyone think about Burnett?

Nuke LaLoosh. He needs to breathe with his eyes or wear Susan Sarandon's garter belt or something. The machinery is great but could use a CPU upgrade.

    Jordan, I'm sorry that you think my verbal defence of the bench was lacking in congeniality. It wasn't intended to be uncongenial and I apologize if it appeared to be so -- but at the same time I didn't think it was congenial for you to say that four members of the Jays are "horrible" -- especially when one of them has a .600 slugging average.

   Your latest conclusion is that Stairs "contributed" to one defeat with his poor fielding.  I can agree with that, but I think a lot of players have contributed to the 12 defeats and some of the bench players have contributed to the 12 victories too.

They just announced on the television broadcast that Chacin has been placed on the 15 Day DL.

They don't know who will be called up yet, but speculate that either McGowan or Towers can take the rotation spot.

Matt Michael from the Syracuse Post-Standard spoke with McGowan after the Chiefs game tonight and McGowan confirmed to Matt that he will be starting Thursday in Cleveland.  Look for confirmation shortly on Matt's blog.

This is tough for an atheist to admit...but...there is a god! Not only will McG get the call...but he replaces Chacin, who is, in my opinion, the weakest of the 3 - 4 - 5 guys. In earlier threads I've speculated that if the Jays are to seriously contend Janssen and McG would be in the rotation before mid-May. One down, one to go.

As Fred Flintstone would so eruditely exclaim, "AH DUBBA DUBBA DOO!" 

I've been a big MKGowan supporter, and I'm really looking forward to seeing him pitch on Thursday.  Like MyLegacy, I've also stated on numerous occasions that if the Jays were to make the playoffs this year they'd need a break-out performance from MKGowan.  Now he'll get a chance early in the season.  MKGowan's TJ surgery is behind him, he's discovered and is controlling his diabetes, and this may finally be his time.  I just hope the promotion isn't too soon.  I see what actionjackson is saying, some more time in AAA probably would have been better for MKGowan, but the Jays were going to have a tough time contending with another three months of Chacin, Ohka, Towers and/or Zambrano.

I haven't been this nervous or excited about the return or debut of a pitcher since Halladay came back from the minors in 2001 to face the Red Sox.  I'll have my fingers crossed.

   Interesting that the Jays went for McGowan, rather than Janssen, as the replacement for Chacin.  Is it possible that the Jays might perceive Janssen long-term as a reliever, rather than a starter?   If they see him as a starter, it seems odd that they keep passing up the chance to put him into the rotation to replace Towers or Chacin.

    On another subject -- I'm doubtful that John Thomson will play much of a role this year for the Jays.  I could be wrong, but Ricciardi seemed very down on Thomson in the final week of training camp -- even before his injury -- and made it clear that Thomson wasn't going to crack the rotation.   He seemed clearly to be inferior to Ohka and Towers in JP's mind at that point.  His rehab in the minors now might just be a favor to the guy, to give him a chance to catch on elsewhere when he has recovered from the injury.  Unless he is now making an unexpected comeback that has changed JP's mind.

Can we have both Halladay and Santana?

Halladay is attributing his increased strikeout rate to improved command of his curveball.
http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/209099

More bad news:

Brandon League may need surgery on his shoulder

Once again, I think the Jays have blown it with regards to their young pitchers.  McGowan should NOT have been called up at this point.  While he was pitching well right now, he needs to sustain his performance and control a little more before being fed to the wolves. The easier solution would have been moving Towers back into the rotation and calling up a long reliever (i.e. Geremi Gonzalez).

I certainly hope Dustin proves me wrong, but I think this is the wrong decision.

I think McGowan is the way to go. Yes, you could replace Chacin with Towers, Marcum, Janssen, Gonzalez, or whoever, but only Janssen would offer real improvement (and the Jays would rather keep him in the bullpen, which is understandable even if I disagree).  McGowan might get knocked around, but he also might - just might - finally turn it on and do what people have been hoping for for the last few years.

It's a gamble, but the payoff could be big. And the Jays are owed a bit of good luck for this season.

As Fred Flintstone would so eruditely exclaim, "AH DUBBA DUBBA DOO!" 

My word, have you ever watched the Flinstones before?

Adam Lind is now a 330/392/563 hitter in the major leagues.

(in 33 games, making it almost completely meaningless, but still: Neato.)

There is a clear preference in the box for Marcum of Janssen

Who has two thumbs and thinks that Janssen is a much better prospect.  This guy.

I'd take Janssen over Marcum as a starter.  Janssen's 6'3" and Marcum is a generous 6' 0".  It seems to me that Janssen's frame is more suited to starting than Marcum's.  I think Marcum would have more value in the bullpen though, and his K9 rate has been better than Janssen's in both the minors and majors.

I noticed this also accompanied a slight loss in velocity (or the gun at the RC is slow) as I was observing Doc throwing 89-92 where he usually hits 91-94.

At the game last night, Doc did mix in the occasional 92 and 93 MPH fastball so it was good to see he can still amp it up a little when he needs to.  It was good to see him go the distance and having the extra off day with the Yankees rainout last week didn't hurt either.  He had to work a little to get out of the first but he was just dealin' the rest of the night.  He even inspired Matt Stairs to make a nice running catch in the later innings.  Another positive was winning without Vernon Wells.

or the gun at the RC is slow

Assuming that SportsNet is simply conveying the results from the RC gun, I'd argue that it seems fast, not slow. Brandon McCarthy hit 100 mph and it went totally unremarked upon. I'm wondering if what I imagine to be a fast gun has engendered a blase attitude among the comtentators.

The gun at the RC is certainly slow relative to the (utterly wonky) Sportsnet gun. Last night it had Doc's sinker consistently at 90-92, and that might be a bit slow. What we really need though is a weight gun...Roy's two-seamer must be among the all-time heaviest...he must have thrown 70 of them, and the only one hit may have been Wilkerson's excuse-me double. We were right behind the plate, and I don't remember seeing more than a couple of pitches above the belt. The tweaked curve is awesome and the delivery looks the same as the sinker to my mildly educated eye.

One of Roy's most underrated weapons is pace. 'Work fast, throw strikes, change speeds'...was that Weaver? Very few batters are as ready to swing as Doc is ready to deliver...in truth, mostly they're to unprepared to call time and step out. Such a great performer...Burnett need look no further for a model (performative language, that.)