Is John McDonald really $1.5 million better than Rey Olmedo? Is Aaron Hill so bad at short they the Jays would rather forfeit any chance of offence from the position? Are there really no options on the trade market that could be explored before offering this deal to McDonald in November or December?

I like Johnny Mac, and he is pretty great with the glove, but this deal is unneccessary and suggests the Jays aren't even going to try and address one of their glaring weaknesses. It's true that it's not so much money he couldn't be a bench player, but I certainly don't have a good feeling about it.

Unfortunately, finding a new SS doesn't appear to be high priority.

Why should it be.  Finding .800+ OPS out of LF, CF and 1B should be a bigger priority.  And maybe a .750 out of catcher.  There's just not a lot of options out there at short.  If Royce can get $1.5m then MacDonald deserves $2m.

People seem to think you need an allstar at each position to get to the playoffs.  It's easily projectable that with the current lineup, we can get average to above average offensive production from the 1 thru 8 spots in the lineup.  Adding a weak hitting, but fine defensive SS to that mix would still lead to an above average offense.  Given an above average defense, above average bullpen and above average starting rotation, playoff contention is a reasonable goal.

You could still try to upgrade the position, but with what appears to be on the market, it's a good move to re-up MacDonald, lest we be stuck signing Royce again in the Spring.  I wouldn't want to give up too much to acquire on in a trade either.  Maybe a cheaper, young one who can groom alongside MacDonald, but I'd be comfortable with the skills that Olmedo brings too.

Why should it be.  Finding .800+ OPS out of LF, CF and 1B should be a bigger priority.  And maybe a .750 out of catcher.  There's just not a lot of options out there at short. 

The Jays can reasonably expect Wells and Overbay to bounce back. LF shouldn't be a problem - if Johnson can't come back, Lind08 should be an improvement, and you can always keep Matt Stairs around. And they already have a .750 out of catcher - Zaun's at .741, and Thigpen/Diaz should ensure we stay away from the likes of Jason Phillips.

But what are the odds of John McDonald suddenly getting his OBP over even .300?

If Royce can get $1.5m then MacDonald deserves $2m.

If either deserves that, then Alex Rodriguez is looking horribly underpaid.

Is Aaron Hill so bad at short they the Jays would rather forfeit any chance of offence from the position?

J.P said on the radio the other day that he had an honest discussion with Hill about moving to short and Hill said that he would rather stay at 2nd and that's the end of that.

For only $800,000 more, Ricciardi could have bought a very nice Honus Wagner baseball card.

Very interesting, but it can't be that linear, can it?

I've seen this studied, but I can't recall where. While there are diminishing returns at the extremes, as you've illustrated, it's linear-like enough to be treated as linear for the non-extremes.

This general idea - that it is okay to punt a position offensively because of strength in other lineup slots - is very popular but a little counter-intuitive.  How does the hitting ability of the third baseman affect the advisability of having a no-hit shortstop... aren't these largely insular? 

Irrespective of the positions they play, if you have eight hitters with an OPS+ of 100 or greater (say averaging 110) and one hitter with an OPS+ of 70, you have a good hitting club and should perhaps look elsewhere to improve your team - especially when you're getting phenomenal defence out of that ninth hitter.  If there's a chance to improve that weak hitter, then take it - but be wary of the cost.  There is no free agent worth much (except Arod) and trades carry a cost.

As I mentioned earlier, if the Jays take a stab at another team's SS prospect (Arias, Callaspo), that might be worthwhile.  MacDonald remains a good signing though in this scenario.  I would like to see a little more of Olmedo.

And while Wells, Overbay, and LF should improve, we have to consider the depth at 3B, should injuries/suspensions be on the horizon.  Right now, a young 3Bman is my priority.

Also, some better balance inthe lineup would be nice.  This year, we through out Wells, Glaus, Thomas and Hill in a row on many occasions.  They are four pull hitters who wait through 30 days of slumping before trying to take an outside pitch the other way or up the middle. 

At $2 million a year (or just over 2% of the annual payroll), I think he is a great addition. His versatility and D skillz make him easily worth that.

Signing McDonald for 2 years seems a bit unnecessary. Are there teams out there that are going to sign McDonald for 2 years and/or give him a better oppurtunity than the Jays will? I can't image that there are. Is McDonald so good that the Jays should want to sign him for 2 years? No. He's 33 in a couple weeks and at that age you generally only get worse.

There were two questions asked here. 1. Would any team sign McDonald for two years. 2 . Should McDonald be signed for two years? While there is no way to resolve this question, I think that it is very possible (perhaps not likely, but very possible) that McDonald would get two years on the market this offseason. I think his reputation with the glove, which has only been enhanced by his fantastic year, combined with the weakness of the free agent market at short would allow McDonald to get a two year contract, or at least one year plus an option.

Now, that isn't to say the Jays should have signed McDonald for two years. I think it's an overpay. It's not an amount that will put a serious dent in the Blue Jays budget and it's not an amount that will force them to hand McDonald the starting job out of spring training, so I'm not up in arms over this. But, it is a mistake and if it's a signal that the hunt for next year's starting shortstop is over than I am up in arms over it. 

McDonald has been fantastic with the glove this year. He has a very stong case for the AL Gold Glove. I'd vote him without much hesitation. But, he's not been this good in the past and I wouldn't want to bet on him being this good for the next two years. And McDonald's hitting combined with McDonald's 2005 defence isn't worth $1.9 million.

Of course I'm not wrong Leigh and I'm not "just saying stuff."  If you have eight hitters with an OPS+ of 100 or more over a full season and one with an OPS+ of 60-70, you're going have an above average (defined as OPS+ of 100) offense.  I'm not attaching any subjective qualities to "good hitting club", so don't do it for me, I'm just using OPS.

I think there's a point at which most teams have to say "Okay, we can't do any better." Most teams have got a black hole or two - the Tigers have a first baseman slugging under .400, and the Angels thought it was a good idea to sign Shea Hillenbrand. Even the Yankees seemed to give up on getting an .800 OPS out of first base. Obviously you should try to get the most out of every position, but at some point you have to decide where your upgrade priorities lie.

That said, September 2007 is entirely too early to give up on finding a shortstop for 2008.

who is the cure-all solution at short stop that everyone is demanding?  the only idea that seems to generate alot of discussion on here is moving Hill to short and trading/signing a second baseman-which causes two problems; Hill's defence at short and the cost of acquiring this mystery 2nd baseman.  sure, i'd love to have a Jeter or Tejada at short.  but again, is it not easier to improve offence at LF and 1B than acquiring a SS who can hit and field???  maybe it is time for a Overbay/young pitcher trade or a Johnson or Lind/young pitcher for a power bat???  i think Overbay will bounce back, but I don't have much faith in having Johnson as a permenant LF if this team expects to contend.

i don't think the current team is good enough to contend next year.  this team is too slow, has too may right-handed batters, and will have way too much $$$ tied up in the wrong players (Glaus, Thomas, Wells).  i honestly believe that the only solution is sacrificing one or more of the young pitchers to acquire a left fielder who is either a switch hitter or bats left and has above average speed (and who would fit nicely into the lead-off position) and a starting catcher. 

Good point about the Yankees, Ryan.  The Yankees have been able to justify a low OPS out of the position whose OPS is probably the highest on average across the league.  They can justify because they are above average at each other infield position, CF and probably average or better in the corners of the outfield.  Is 1B a concern for them?  Yes.  However (were they budget constrained) they'd be better off addressing pitching issues first.

Our problem is that we have an offensive sinkhole at shortstop.  Fortunately, he's been great defensively, he can bunt, he's one of the few players on the team that is able to produce adrenaline during a game, and shortstop is a low OPS position on average (granted, not that low) across the league.  Maybe I'm biased by growing up with Chris Speier as my team's shortstop, but I'm comfortable with what John MacDonald brings to the table for the time being - especially given there are few attractive alternatives. Trades are not easy to pull off, especially when you don't have an inhouse alternative signed through 2009.

You said that if you have a good hitting club, you ought to seek upgrades at  other spots rather than upgrades to weak-spots in the hitting - but you never said why that is.

Ah, I see your point - fair enough.  However, I said that perhaps you might want to address other areas first and I think I also said that you could improve that weak hitter if the opportunity presented itself.  I think in some cases this would be intuitive, but you're right, I don't know the value of improving offense versus other areas, given poor offense, average offense, good offense, etc.

the ayjackson "probably should"  rationale

First of all, it's the ayjackson 'should perhaps' rationale.

As an aside: do the Jays really have a good-hitting club?  I don't think that they can expect it.  In fact, based on Mike Green's point about pythagorean ratios rather than differential and the ayjackson "probably should" rationale, wouldn't it make more sense for the Jays to add to their hitting (their weakness) rather than to their pitching (their strength)?

You could argue that pitching overperformed and offense underperformed this year and that improvements should be made to their pitching to mitigate this regression (negative).  Of course, I don't have any impirical evidence for you, Leigh, that a dollar of improvements to the Jays pitching would have a a bigger impact on runs surrendered than a dollar of improvements to the hitting.

Sigh - that's about all I can say about this signing.  As I have said before, I don't have a problem with MacDonald as a back-up/utility infielder although I think you end up paying about $1.5 million more per year than is necessary for that role. 

However, I do not understand the blind spot that JP and others who support MacDonald as a starting shortstop have for his historically awful offense.  To repeat something I have said before, if MacDonald's offense was mearly bad you might be able to get away with him as a full time regular - but he's not bad, he's historically awful.  To put some context on this, MacDonald's lifetime OPS+ of 56 is worse than that of Rey Ordonez (60) and Ordonez is the laughing stock of offensively inept SS'.  He's 32 to boot.  Some of JP's blindspots are just mind boggling.

I largely agree with Mike Green on the pitching staff (not sure if the Wolfe omission was by design).  This is my subjective expectations for individual offensive output (OPS) for next year:

• Rios - 875
• Wells - 815
• Lind/Johnson - 775
• Glaus - 815
• Hill - 770
• Overbay - 825
• Zaun/Thigpen - 730
• Olmedo/MacDonald - 600
• Thomas/Stairs - 820

These are reasonable expectations, I believe based on career performance and where each player is on their respective career path.  I think most would be happy with those numbers, aside from the SS hole.  Intuitively, it looks like an above average offense - certainly better than this years'.  There will be games lost, which is why I think depth, particularly at 3B is of utmost importance.

I'd like to see if the Jays could get Mackowiak and a second tier prospect out of the Padres for Josh Towers.  Towers and Mackowiak are in similar boats - Towers can be tendered at about $3m and Mackowiak has a club option at about $3m.  Mackowiak can play infield except SS and outfield and provides a speedy LH bat.

I'd like to see Litsch at Syracuse next year, if the option is the bullpen.  I think he needs to be stretched out and ready to pitch when AJ needs his midseason 'rest'.

Speaking of AJ, I think if he isn't traded this year, he'll opt out next fall and sign near home with the Nationals - as they move into their new digs.  Would you prefer trading for something now, or settle for Washington's first round pick in 2010 and another 'year' of AJ??

And the season just gets that much more depressing...

It's not that I think this is too much money or one year too many -- it's just fine for a veteran good-glove backup. The problem is that I believe JP intends to run McDonald out there as the everyday shortstop for the next two years -- and that he thinks that's okay.

The news that Ricciardi is leaving Hill at 2B is good -- though why he waited till September to have that conversation escapes me -- but signing McDonald for two years just underlines the fact that he's given up altogether on having a competent shortstop. As someone pointed out at Primer, McDonald's offence is so bad that he'd have to field like Ozzie Smith at the top of his game just to be an average shortstop. He's not going to do that.

Under JP, the SS position has gone from Alex Gonzalez to Chris Woodward to Chris Gomez to Russ Adams to Royce Clayton to John McDonald. If you had told me in 2002 that the next five starting shortstops after Gonzalez would all be progressively worse, I would never have believed you.

I wasn’t a big fan of the Thomas signing or the Wells, Doc, and Overbay extensions. And I’m certainly not a fan of this extension. It’s a clueless move by a team that has a clueless management. At age 33 and 34, the chances of McDonald improving at the plate and in the field are very slim. While I would love to believe this extension doesn’t mean McDonald will be the Jays starting SS next season, I’ll believe it when I see it. After all, JP said Royce Clayton wasn’t a lock to be the starting SS this season when the media and fans thought he would be. We all know how that signing turned out. It’s a move like this that reminds me why the Jays haven’t played a meaningful game in September in years.

I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but I actually wouldn’t be opposed to Gord Ash returning as the Jays GM. I just slapped myself for saying that :)

I wasn’t a big fan of the Thomas signing or the Wells, Doc, and Overbay extensions. And I’m certainly not a fan of this extension. It’s a clueless move by a team that has a clueless management.

You were however a big fan of trading Alex Rios and Dustin McGowan for next to nothing, if memory serves correct.

I hate this signing. Sure, it's not a lot of money, but Macdonald's value so easily found. (There are a tonne of players who would be worse defensively and better offensively). Good defensive SS who can't hit a lick are hardly hard to find. I just don't see the Jays offense getting better next year. The Jays should get better production from LF and perhaps CF if Wells rebounds. Overbay will probably rebound some-although he has just been awful this year and willbe a year more past his prime next, but the Jays have gotten so much out of Matt Stairs, that I don't see an overall improvement. (And if you want to count Stairs as a LF, you could switch the opinions on the two positions). Thomas will be 40 and is declining, Glaus is looking broken down and I don't see him suddenly finding new knees, Zaun will be 37, and so on...This is not an offense that can afford  to carry John Macdonald.  (As for the Tigers carrying Casey's poor bat-he's been better than Overbay this year. The Tigers have had 2605 ABs from players with OPS+ over 125 this year, the Jays have had 298.)  

I'm not sure what this says, and I'm quite sure it's not good, but Jack Wilson is out-hitting five of the Jays' starters this year: Overbay, Hill, McDonald, Zaun and Wells. Oh, and sometimes starters Lind/Johnson as well.

   Okay, let me be a complete optimist here, and I'll lay out an optimistic scenario.   At an age when he is supposed to be in decline, McDonald did manage to produce the best season of his career, including his best defensive work and his best OPS+ since 2002 (if you set aside the limited number of games in 2005).   So, what's to say he can't continue to improve next year?  He's already one of the best defensive shortstops in the league, and his offensive abilities have improved, especially if you include the intangible factors such as bunting, clutch hitting and speed on the basepaths.  If he can just improve a little more next year, the Jays might actually have a decent shortstop for the first time in years.  His fielding percentage is already the best in the league this year at his position, even if that's not the ideal metric for measuring his skills.  Given the absence of other alternatives, I think he's worth $1.9-million next year.  And if Ricciardi can find a better option in the offseason, he'd still be worth the money as a back-up.

     Other optimistic thoughts:  I really am convinced that Wells, Overbay, Johnson and Glaus will have better seasons next year.  I just can't see them being as bad as this year again.

     Balanced against all of this are my negative thoughts:  the league might be figuring out how to adjust to Marcum, Accardo and Janssen.   They've been noticeably worse in the past few weeks.  It would be easy to explain it as fatigue, but it could be more than that.  Without those three pitchers in top form, 2008 doesn't look too good. 

I would have traded Alex Rios for Craig Wilson several seasons ago. And I was really down on McGowan last season. I'm glad both players have developed and proved me wrong.

Well said.  I apologize for remembering.  It doesn't happen very often.

 the league might be figuring out how to adjust to Marcum, Accardo and Janssen.   They've been noticeably worse in the past few weeks

Accardo, the last three of four times I've seen him, has completely lost the bite on his splitfinger pitch. It has been floating like a backup slider, with a little downward movement and a change of speeds from the fastball, but a terrible pitch overall. And his fastball isn't good enough on its own. Unless he's injured and unable to throw the pitch properly, I'm not worried long-term with Accardo, but I am glad he's removed from the closer's role for now (Detroit game not withstanding).

Janssen is getting the bad end of the luck right now, whereas he was getting the good side earlier in the year. Hits sometimes fall in, and given his strikeout rate, this means he will sometimes be unable to reliably retire hitters. I'm not as convinced as many that he is suited to a starting role; those 2-3 mph extra he can offer as a reliever as pretty key to a pitcher of his type.

Marcum, I think many would agree, has looked tired. It's been an unexpectedly long year for him, in terms of innings, as I think he should be given maybe 1 or 2 more starts, spread out through the rest of the year (maybe against contenders, so as to play spoiler as best a possible).

The fact that defensive metrics are so variable leads me to the conclusion that they can't be relied upon.  They are useful - all information is - but the best way to analyze defense is to breakdown gamefilm of the player.  I would hope that the Jays have an archive of game film (from the Press Box camera) for all teams in the league, not just their own, for the purpose of evaluating defence.

I often here that John MacDonald has a weak arm and generally I agree.  However he is able to throw across his body quicker, harder and more acurately than anyone I have had the pleasure to watch in years.  In the recent Mariners series, JMac and Betancourt had very similar hits to defend in consecutive inning.  Jmac went into the hole to field a ball and threw across his body on the second stride after fielding it to retire the hitter.  Next inning, Betancourt had a similar play on a ball that was hit about as hard, but not quite as deep into the hole.  He fielded the ball and released the throw after the fourth stride.  The throw had an apex about 6 feet higher than Jmac's in order to make it to first.  The runner was safe.  I can't remember the baserunners, but I think it may have been Betancourt and Wells.  Watching these plays on my PVR really made me a MacDonald believer.

I don't believe he can turn around a 95 mph fastball though.  He should bunt for basehits more.

I agree that the hitting coach should be changed (I would also like to see a new manager, but that's a different issue). Wilner often parries irate callers by saying that hitters, not the hitting coach, have to take responsibility for the Jays' batting woes. I agree, but only up to a point. Surely the hitting coach plays some role in getting and keeping players on track. 

The other day Joe Maddon (the D-Rays manager) said the Jays have the best pitching staff, 1-12, in the AL. Given our position in the standings, what does that say about the Jays' offense - and by extension, the hitting coach? 

They are useful - all information is - but the best way to analyze defense is to breakdown gamefilm of the player. 

I'm thinking that this would still be insufficient. Because he had a very strong arm and, reputedly, was smart at positioning himself, Cal Ripken could play a very deep shortstop. As such, he would get to a great many balls in what appeared to be routine fashion. A shortstop like McDonald, who doesn't have a cannon arm, appears to play a much shallower shortstop. He does get to many balls because of his athletic ability, but how many "spectacular" McDonald plays would have been boring, seemingly routine Ripken plays?

I think that when you simply look at film, without actually counting stuff, you fall victim to the temptress that is the highlight reel. This, I believe, is why there have been issues over the years attempting to reconcile the spectacular plays made by the likes of Griffey, Alomar and Jeter with their less favourable defensive metrics.

The issue of the tradeoff between the seventh reliever and another bench player is interesting, and I have yet to see any kind of serious analysis on it.

On the one hand, with starting pitcher workloads what they are, I don't think you can go with less than six relievers. And it seems to be the case that relievers are less effective in their second inning of a stint, although I don't recall the source ("The Book", maybe?). Plus there's a real advantage to platoon matchups, if the manager will use them (i.e. the Granderson at bat Monday).

But with seven relievers and Frank Thomas, you only have four bench spots. You have to have a catcher and a guy who can play shortstop and an outfielder. There's no room for a Phelps type, where you have two guys who can't play in the field.

I think the answer lies in creative use of callups - have a couple of relievers stashed on some minor league rosters and shuttle them back and forth (on paper, that is; they'll be around the team in body). There is a cost of course, you use up options, but you do that now anyway. Most teams go through a lot of pitchers over the course of a season.

I'm also agreeing that September of 2007 is way too early to be locking into replaceable players.  In the worst case if McDonald leaves as a free agent you field Olmedo who will be a bit less with the glove and a bit more with the bat and making the minimum salary.  As we watch this team possibly stumble to a below .500 finish, what does this move at this time really accomplish?

A guy like Phelps wouldn't be too bad but I'd rather a second Matt Stairs on the roster.  The Jays have a serious need for hitters who can handle righthanded pitching.

The offence against RHP was a concern for me going into 2007 since every "important" hitter save for Overbay and Thomas appeared mediocore at best against RHP pitching.  As it turns out this season, replace mediocore with shockingly bad and it sums up the offensive problems.  The Jays can't hit righties and even Overbay's season against righties has been terrible.

This team will face righthanded pitching for 75% of their plate appearances in 2008.  Even if we assume that Wells, Glaus, Hill, and Overbay improve versus RHP, will it be improvement to a point where they are an above average offensive team against RHP?  More likely it will improve to the point where they're somewhat less than mediocore.  And if the pitching and defence holds up, maybe that's enough.  But I am most certainly not comfortable going with that game plan with little to no effort put forth into alternatives to make this team better overall.

At the very least you have to platoon Reed Johnson as there's really only been one year in his career where he's been good against RHP (I still think he should have been traded after 2006 if a suitable return was out there).  So that's Stairs' likely role next year should Lind start in AAA (which seems to have already been decided).

So what about the other positions?  How are you going to get above average OBP against RHP?  Rios is going to be an everyday player and will post a RHP OBP of around .330-.340, nothing to write home about.  Ditto Wells, Hill, and Glaus...Wells and Hill might actually be significantly below .330.  The aging Zaun will be hard pressed to surpass that too as will a rookie like Thigpen.

I'm seeing 1B, LF, and DH as the only hopes for above average OBP against RHP, assuming Stairs always plays against them and Overbay recovers.  Having the remaining six hitters be mediocore to poor to eegads against RHP just seems like another recipe for a long long season.

Because when we look at the overall offensive numbers, we're also forgetting that 25% of the time the Jays have faced LHP and have been relatively good.  This is boosting the appearance of their offence and taking away attention from the 75% of the time the offence they field is league average at best and likely below average.  They're a .500 team because their team ERA is so good...if the pitching falls back this is going to be an ugly, ugly team to watch.

I honestly don't see how the Jays can realistically expect to win more than 85 games next year, offensive rebounds or not, with the roster as constructed.  If the front office's intention is field the same team at a greater cost (as more backloaded contracts kick in) what really is there for us to look forward to as the hardcore supporters of this team?  The offence goes back to what it "should be" and maybe we even win 88-89 games assuming our young pitching isn't a mirage.  Where are the remaining 5+ games of improvement going to come from to get us to playoff contention?

Macdonald is a very good defensive SS, and that simply is worth retaining. Starting? Of course not. But having around? Sure.

Wait, he's started all season? Dear Lord, no!!