I have very little concern with most of the above moves.

My concerns about the future of the Jays could be JP's fault or  - more likely - the fault of those above him in the organization. Unless you finish last every year for a decade or so - like TB - you CANNOT build a team using ONLY the draft. To make matters worse JP was trying to build a team not only relying on the draft BUT, only relying on college players in the draft. You need to be active in the latin market and nowadays the Japanese market as well. We cannot afford to pay top dollar for all the free agents you need when you don't bring in much talent at the bottom. If you can't finance the big dollars to compete with the AL East giants then at LEAST supply enough money for us to really grab goodies in the draft, Latin America and Japan. OR, at the very, very least give the team enough money to really ACE the draft. Had JP the resources to ACE the draft I wonder what this organization would look like.

Getting rid of JP is not the answer - unless whomever replaces him is given the resources to get the job done.

Interesting...

TSN is reporting that the Jays are shopping Burnett for a shortstop and the Baltimore Sun is reporting that the O's are interested in Eckstein.

Actually, the reaction to the Johnson move was pretty mixed. A good number of people said that if Johnson was healthy, they would have preferred him. Some, myself included, criticized it strenuously at the time and have been proven right in hindsight.

Anyhow, good summary Anders. I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism of the way Lind has been handled. As for Thomas, I wasn't convinced he was done as a hitter (I don't think), but you're right in that there was a lack of foresight given his vesting option. If the front office believed he was close to losing his talent as a hitter, why was he given a vesting option in the first place? The inclusion of the option to begin with was strange. It's hard to get any clear evidence on this, but I'm not convinced it was necessary to include it in the first place, as were that many other suitors lining up to give Thomas two guaranteed years and $18 million in the first place? However, it's also fair to note that Thomas made a bad situation much worse. I'm not sure it was handled in the best possible manner by publicly announcing Thomas' benching, but it seems that Thomas was unwilling to accept a platoon role and would have created a disruption in the clubhouse.

I'd actually disagree with regards to the Lincecum-Rios move. I think the Jays saw a good young pitcher on a team that had several others, most notably Cain, but which was starved for offence and tried to make a move to acquire him. The Jays strength is absolutely pitching (although it'd be hard to say anyone foresaw Marcum and Litsch pitching this well or that they will pitch this well going forward), but if you can acquire a Lincecum for Rios you absolutely do it every time, regardless of the composition of your MLB team. Given the attrition and injury rate of pitchers 'you can never have too much pitching' isn't far from the truth. If the Jays had successfully traded for Lincecum, they likely would have had Lind starting for most of the year in his place, which probably wouldn't have hurt the offence. Even if it did, the Jays would be in  position to trade AJ Burnett for hitting (or for prospects and deal those or other prospects for hitting) if they wanted, given that they'd have Halladay, Lincecum, Marcum, McGowan and Litsch going forward.

I agree with your larger point that there doesn't seem to be a coherent organizational plan to the Jays front office like you can detect in some other teams, but Lincecum for Rios is much more an example of trying to acquire an elite young talent than a further example of a lack of organization, in my opinion.

Btw, does anyone know why Inglett hasn't played since June 28th?

I suspect it has a lot to do with facing three southpaws in the four games they've played since then, with the other starter being knuckleballer R.A. Dickey.

..have been proven right in hindsight.

Sorry if that comes off egotistical (which it probably does). The Johnson move is my pet peeve of the last few months and likely won't go away for a little while longer. I did think it was wrong at the time, which makes it even more frustrating. Anyhow, I've been wrong on many things before and will be wrong on more things in the future.

A few thoughts:

The Shannon Stewart signing was most likely made when the Jays decided that they would release Frank Thomas if he struggled at the beginning of the season. They didn't want to play Reed Johnson full time in left (after moving Stairs to DH), and they thought Stewart would be the better full-time option as he is the better hitter (or was?). This was clearly a huge mistake, but it wouldn't have been that big of a problem if they had decided to leave Lind up in May.

Armando Benitez really wasn't a bad signing. He had a .64 WHIP and .125 BAA agaisnt right-handed hitters (1.02/.194 career), and if he was used only agaisnt right-handers, he likely would have been the best RH reliever on the team. His usage was the problem (and the fact that he was released after 1 bad outing), not that he was actually signed. It was worth a shot, and he still clearly had his skills intact.

Also, I hardly see how you can fault JP for going after Tim Lincecum. Lincecum has a chance to be one of the best pitchers in the league for a long time (in fact, he is in the middle of a great year with a better FIP than Halladay right now), and if the Jays were able to get him for Alex Rios, it would have been an absolute steal. JP knew that, and Sabean (unfortunately for us) eventually figured it out. It doesn't matter whether the offense would have been hurt, you have to take opportunities like that as a GM.

I still think the biggest mistake this team has made this year was the refusal to sign one of the best hitters in the major leagues (followed closely by continuing to play the worthless Stewart for so long). I felt it should have been done before Spring Training had happened. You could have put him in a platoon with Thomas (thereby limiting Frank's at bats), and also played him in left field a bit. As a result, Stairs could have actually done what he should be doing at this point in his career. Be a bench player/pinch hitter. As far as I'm concerned, there was no excuse to not do it after releasing Frank, but this wasn't on JP, it was on Paul Godfrey.

If Marcum and Litsch hadn't unexpectedly blossomed into good MLB starters, the Jays would likely be sitting in 5-10 games further out of the playoffs right now.  In my opinion those two players off-set any bad luck that may have cost JP a few wins over the years.

This is a results business.  Are the Jays in any better position now then they were 3-4 years ago?  How long do you give JP to improve the team?  In business if you're not improving, you're dying as a company.  JP is not an elite GM, its time to cut him loose and find someone else. 

• JP going away - the Jays would have to pay for JP for 2009 and 2010 which the number crunchers at Rogers would not like
• Replacements and who would choose - odds are it would be decided by Godfrey and odds are Rogers would tell him he has a limited amount to offer.  Thus a new GM rather than a 'proven' one, and another learning curve for us to endure
• The Jays being between 78 and 87 wins 5 out of 6 years, and in 3rd place 4 times with a 2nd and 5th mixed in

For comparisons sake, Papelbon, Lester, Pedroia and Ellsbury were all drafted by the Sox in the same time,

Yes but the Sox had a plethora of 1st and Supplemental round picks in 2003-2006.  Earlier in this thread, you (I think) were hesitant to give JP credit for his 2007 draft, why give Boston credit for their drafts that were due to quantity of picks.  They had roughly 3 times as many top 50 picks as the Jays in those years.  We still got Aaron Hill and Travis Snider in the top 50 out of those years.

Do I think JP is the best GM?  No.  Do I think he is the best option right now for the Jays?  Yes, as the other options have a lot of scary elements (could Godfrey go for one of the GM's who failed elsewhere or for a rookie GM who needs 3 more years to figure out things). 

This would be "the devil you know" argument.

" not a single good young position player, old lineup in general)"

I presume you feel that Rios and Hill are neither  young nor good, but I agree that the lineup is old and most certainly not getting younger at this time.

Cutting Reed Johnson and replacing him with Shannon Stewart was unambiguously the right move.

This is going to be me sounding like a broken record, but......Many people would disagree with that and you can read the original thread to see it wasn't just me arguing against the move. There was no reason Reed should have had the same percentage of his at-bats against RHPs as Stewart has, as going into the season the right-handed part of the platoon was supposed to get the majority of his plate apperances against lefties (as he would split time with Stairs, with Lind in the wings). Arguing that Thomas, Wells and Rios were supposed to get the at-bats against lefties is silly, as there is still a LF who has to bat against lefties. The only reason Stewart got so many at-bats against RHPs was because Thomas was released and the front office refused to call up Lind. Thomas getting released was unknowable when Johnson was released (if JP foresaw this happening in spring training, that is an even harsher indictment of the original signing) and the way they handled Lind has been something we've nearly unanimously criticized.

There is no reason the RH part of the LF platoon should have had so many at-bats against righties. Plus, even given how many they have had, Johnson would still have a higher OPS than Stewart, along with his improved defence. Furthermore, Johnson had been better than Stewart overall in 2005 and 2006, so it was not unreasonable to expect Johnson to be better come 2008, especially given their respective ages and Johnson's injury in 2007.

Replacements and who would choose - odds are it would be decided by Godfrey and odds are Rogers would tell him he has a limited amount to offer.  Thus a new GM rather than a 'proven' one, and another learning curve for us to endure

I think this is a little bit of a red herring. You seem to be arguing that a new GM has to endure a learning curve and while that may be true in a literal sense, it seems to be equated with a period where he will be making suboptimal decisions, and I don't think that's necessarily the case, at all. There's no reason a new GM can't surround himself with a couple of proven baseball people from his old or other organizations to assist with the transition and help the new GM adjust to responsibilities he isn't familiar with. I don't recall Theo Epstein or Josh Byrnes going through any extended learning period and I'm sure there are many other examples of new GMs out there who have done very well during their adjustment period. I don't think it's necessarily true at all that a new GM means the team is necessarily in for a rough or even medicore first 12 or 24 months.

You're also creating a bit of a Catch-22, as you argue that it would be bad to bring it a failed GM, but that a new GM means a learning curve, which seems to be associated with a negative outcome. Well, by definition most of the available GMs will be 'failed GMs', as the talented and succesful ones tend to remain employed (and when they're not they are often heavily sought after and Toronto is not the most appealing destination). If it's probably too risky to get a new GM and an old GM is likely to be a former GM for a reason, of course JP is going to look like the best option.

I'm not arguing either for or against JP being fired, but this isn't a particularly strong argument for him keeping his job.

• Eric Hinske was the Rookie of the Year, and then went phut.
• Russ Adams stalled out at AAA.
• Josh Phelps stalled out at AAA, after originally looking good enough to be on the cover of Baseball Prospectus.
• Adam Lind might stall out.
  

Comparing the average attendance at this stage of the season with that for all of last year is a bit misleading, though. The Yankees haven't been in town at all yet, and the Red Sox have made one visit. Plus if I'm not mistaken, crowds are higher in July and August.

What was the average as of this point in 2007?

I think Ricciardi has done a good job building the pitching staff and expect that to continue. I have not seen any evidence that Ricciardi has a clue about how to build a good offensive team.

Yet if you look at his drafting, his good picks (Hill, Snider, Ahrens, Arencibia, Cooper?) have been hitters and his bad ones (Jackson, Purcey, Romero) have been pitchers.  [Then there's Russ.]

I think coming into this year, he had average to above average hitters at each position (Stairs/Lind, Wells, Rios, Rolen, Eckstein, Hill, Overbay, Zaun, Thomas).  For this to be a good team, it needs that elite slugger like Thomas use to be, or Rios could have been.  I think it is very much luck that turns that average to above average hitting prospect like Rios, Hill or Snider into that elite slugger like Manny, Utley or Bruce.

Way too early to say this about Ahrens, Arencibia and Cooper. And way too early to say that Purcey won't work out. And Cecil looks to me to have more future value than any prospect we have except Snider.

Hill and (most likely) Snider I'd agree are successful picks. But so is a guy by the name of Marcum. I still think Bush will be a decent major leaguer, which counts as a good pick too (besides which we got Overbay for two pitchers JP drafted). And it's not just Adams but also Thigpen that has been a disappointment.

In summation, I don't agree with your characterisation and find that there has been a mixed bag of good and bad picks among high round hitters and pitchers that JP has drafted.

While it's way too early, too make assertions about draft choices, indications to date are that Ahrens, Arencibia, Snider and Hill were good picks, and that Romero and Jackson were not.  The jury's out on Purcey and Adams is a bust.  You were discussing JP's ability to build a team, so I left post-first round picks out of the equation.  Certainly, I believe he's assembled a good player development staff in Lacava, Lalonde and Scott.  Though I would not characterize them as good at recognizing hitting talent over pitching talent or vice versa, and I don't see the evidence to characterize JP that way either.

What would our staff look like without Doc?

I don't follow your logic here.

I believe picks after the first round speaks more directly to the ability of Jon Lalonde.

Without Doc the pitching wouldn't look that great, but there are very few pitching staffs that would look good if you took away their best starting pitcher.

The point is Doc isn't a JP draft pick.  You said JP has a talent for assembling a good pitching staff, yet only Burnett amongst the starters was identified by JP and the rest were identified by Ash or Lalonde.  There were some good bullpen acquisitions by JP, but I'm not sure this is enough evidence to prove your point.

For me, everybody who works for JP is included when I talk about ability to put together a pitching staff.

Fair enough.  I agree thus agree that JP has done a good job of building pitching staffs.  After a couple days of being disagreeable, I shall change my tune.