Good move. The guy's hit lefties this year, considerably boosts organizational depth at the position and is still young enough to round out his game. Depending upon whom the PTBNL is, this is nicely done, JP.
Huh. That came out of nowhere.
Jose Bautista: 27 years old, bats and throws right, lifetime 240/328/397 89 OPS+, 242/325/404 93 OPS+ this season. A semi regular for 3 seasons after being shuffled between 4 ML teams in 2004 - his rookie season at 23. The Jays are his third AL East team (Baltimore and Tampa in '04). Lifetime has played 275 games at third, 133 in the outfield (mainly CF/RF) plus 3 games at second base.
I guess this is to cover for Rolen for the rest of this season while Scutaro and Inglett share second and Eckstein gets benched.
Wonder who is going down or being released to open a slot on the 25 man roster? Probably Mench going back to AAA although I'd dump Wilkerson myself.
Jose Bautista: 27 years old, bats and throws right, lifetime 240/328/397 89 OPS+, 242/325/404 93 OPS+ this season. A semi regular for 3 seasons after being shuffled between 4 ML teams in 2004 - his rookie season at 23. The Jays are his third AL East team (Baltimore and Tampa in '04). Lifetime has played 275 games at third, 133 in the outfield (mainly CF/RF) plus 3 games at second base.
I guess this is to cover for Rolen for the rest of this season while Scutaro and Inglett share second and Eckstein gets benched.
Wonder who is going down or being released to open a slot on the 25 man roster? Probably Mench going back to AAA although I'd dump Wilkerson myself.
It's about freaking time, now they can axe Mench. With a .253/.363/.547 line vs. LHP this year (and a career .257/.360/.453 vs. them), Bautista hopefully has made BigHead expendable.
What comes to my mind is straight to Syracuse and up to Toronto on September 1
The offensive junkpile grows higher. This move adds crap to crap in the infield. Hector Luna v.2.1. If this is what Ricciardi gets accolades for, he's playing a pretty soft crowd.
His transaction history is a bit odd. In December 2003, the Orioles take him in the Rule V draft.
The following June, 2004, the Rays claim him from the O's off waivers. Does this mean Bautista was offered back to the Pirates and they declined to take him back? The guy is purchased and traded twice in the next 60 days.
He's slugging under .400 career. He strikes out twice as often as we walks. He's not impervious to grounding into double plays.
How do you get at all excited about this player? You know who was at least as good even at his worst here? Fella named Hinske.
The following June, 2004, the Rays claim him from the O's off waivers. Does this mean Bautista was offered back to the Pirates and they declined to take him back? The guy is purchased and traded twice in the next 60 days.
He's slugging under .400 career. He strikes out twice as often as we walks. He's not impervious to grounding into double plays.
How do you get at all excited about this player? You know who was at least as good even at his worst here? Fella named Hinske.
Although big difference between the two would have to be salary. Guess the game is all about the money.
It's about freaking time....
That the Jays did what? Acquire Pirates cast-offs?
For comparison's sake, Bautista's career MLB line is .328/.397. Luna's is .324/.388.
That the Jays did what? Acquire Pirates cast-offs?
For comparison's sake, Bautista's career MLB line is .328/.397. Luna's is .324/.388.
Nothing special. My intial guess is that this is the precursor to an Eckstien deal.
I'm not going to say "great move" but if he was acquired without the loss of a player we'll need in the future, then adding an insurance policy against Rolen's future is not something to sneer at either.
He's better than Luna, heck he's a bit better than Scutero, so I no more understand the "another crap player" reaction than i do the "great move" reaction.
I'm not going to say "great move" but if he was acquired without the loss of a player we'll need in the future, then adding an insurance policy against Rolen's future is not something to sneer at either.
He's better than Luna, heck he's a bit better than Scutero, so I no more understand the "another crap player" reaction than i do the "great move" reaction.
Excited? I just don't want to continue hitting lefties at a ridiculous .677 OPS clip. Guys like Andy Pettitte used to be beaten around by the Jays only last year. Bautista can help with that.
I'll miss Mench, though. He did have the unlikely game-winning hit in that Oakland game I went to.
Bautista can serve as a good bat against LHP and has experience at all three outfield positions as well as the hot corner. He's cheap and so long as the PTBNL isn't someone truly special, I think it's a low-risk transaction.
Scutaro has performed better against RHP this season (314/336) and could form a decent platoon at 3B with Bautista if Rolen needs to be shut down for the season.
Of note, did anyone else receive an email from the Toronto Blue Jays offering 4 free tickets in the 200s for the first week of September?
Scutaro has performed better against RHP this season (314/336) and could form a decent platoon at 3B with Bautista if Rolen needs to be shut down for the season.
Of note, did anyone else receive an email from the Toronto Blue Jays offering 4 free tickets in the 200s for the first week of September?
The saddest part is he is now our leader in home runs this year. He has 12, Stairs has 11. Pathetic.
Sensible. In 2009, I think Inglett/Bautista will be a much better third base plan B than Inglett/Scutaro, unless Bautista's a butcher with the glove. Better for Inglett's platoon partner to have Big Splits than no splits. I take it Bautista is probably out of options - if that's the case, that's sort of annoying - but he looks like a very useful bench player. Especially if he can play a good left field.
FWIW, Eckstein's line against lefties this season: .389/.469.
If the team didn't give up anything more than a sub-marginal prospect this move doesn't hurt. However, if JP gave up more than Trevor Lawhorn v.2 then it becomes a different matter.
If the team didn't give up anything more than a sub-marginal prospect this move doesn't hurt. However, if JP gave up more than Trevor Lawhorn v.2 then it becomes a different matter.
Eckstein can still DH agaisnt lefties while Bautista is playing 3rd.
In 2009, I think Inglett/Bautista will be a much better third base plan B than Inglett/Scutaro,
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced JP thinks that's the case. And, if he does, why did he sign Scutaro to a 2-year contract?
Also, if we're writing Bautista into the 2009 plans somehow, that leaves the team with Rolen, Hill, Scutaro, McDonald, Inglett and Bautista. I agree it's sensible to have a plan B for 3B given Rolen's injury history (and Hill's questionable status), but it leaves the Jays with 6 infielders for three positions. Counting two of those as bench players, that's still a player too many. Two, if the team needs to acquire a real starting shortstop.
More options isn't a bad thing, but better ones would be preferrable. Of course, that's for the offseason and in the meantime Bautista at no real price doesn't hurt, but too often it seems like there's no real plan to this infield.
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced JP thinks that's the case. And, if he does, why did he sign Scutaro to a 2-year contract?
Also, if we're writing Bautista into the 2009 plans somehow, that leaves the team with Rolen, Hill, Scutaro, McDonald, Inglett and Bautista. I agree it's sensible to have a plan B for 3B given Rolen's injury history (and Hill's questionable status), but it leaves the Jays with 6 infielders for three positions. Counting two of those as bench players, that's still a player too many. Two, if the team needs to acquire a real starting shortstop.
More options isn't a bad thing, but better ones would be preferrable. Of course, that's for the offseason and in the meantime Bautista at no real price doesn't hurt, but too often it seems like there's no real plan to this infield.
Plans are overrated.
If the plan was Hinske and we stuck with the plan, we would have never gotten Glaus.
You can't plan for Glaus feet not being able to stay in the game, you can't plan for a shoulder certified to be in perfect condition not perfroming well, you can't plan for a guy getting concussed.
Admittedly SS has been a mess most years but saying "there's no plan" isn't saying much.
If the plan was Hinske and we stuck with the plan, we would have never gotten Glaus.
You can't plan for Glaus feet not being able to stay in the game, you can't plan for a shoulder certified to be in perfect condition not perfroming well, you can't plan for a guy getting concussed.
Admittedly SS has been a mess most years but saying "there's no plan" isn't saying much.
Hey, don't forget about Campbell. He's the better option that needs to have playing time open up for him at some point.
If the plan was Hinske and we stuck with the plan, we would have never gotten Glaus.
You forgot Mr. Koskie and Mr. Hillenbrand. And the Hinske plan was made after just one good season. Doesn't sound like much planing to me.
you can't plan for a shoulder certified to be in perfect condition not perfroming well
You can at least be a bit skeptical, given the 3yr deal.
You forgot Mr. Koskie and Mr. Hillenbrand. And the Hinske plan was made after just one good season. Doesn't sound like much planing to me.
you can't plan for a shoulder certified to be in perfect condition not perfroming well
You can at least be a bit skeptical, given the 3yr deal.
I understand Koskie, but I wasn't talking about him. And you can't argue with a straight face that Rolen being perfectly healthy this season was more than a best-case scenario. That's like Jim Bowden standing there in July and saying, "Well, I didn't expect Nick Johnson to get hurt....."
Catches me as another 'super sub'. Inglett, Scutaro and now Bautista. 3 players who are fairly similar, all able to play LF and 3B while Scutaro and Inglett can play 2B, Scutaro SS, and Bautista CF. Not a bad idea for the bench really.
So, for 2009 we're seeing...
CA: Barajas/Diaz (or some other backup)
1B: Overbay
2B: Hill (assuming he recovers)
3B: Rolen
SS: McDonald
LF: Lind
CF: Wells
RF: Rios
DH: Stairs
UT: Scutaro/Inglett/Bautista
That's it. Full roster of 13 (sorry, the 12 man pitching staff isn't going away no matter how much we'd like it to). 3 backups can cover every position except catcher who all hit between an 85 and 95 OPS+ most likely (more on the low end). If Hill is hurt going into 2009 still then an open slot for a pure RH hitter to mix in with Stairs. If Snider is ready at some point he takes over DH while Stairs is released. Scutaro and Bautista get some playing time giving days off to Stairs/Snider and Lind vs the odd LHP while they also get some time at third for Rolen. Inglett gets in when Hill takes a day off. Not a bad setup actually.
If an injury hits then odds are we'll see a callup from AAA to play everyday. Campbell and Snider being the obvious first call ups.
So, for 2009 we're seeing...
CA: Barajas/Diaz (or some other backup)
1B: Overbay
2B: Hill (assuming he recovers)
3B: Rolen
SS: McDonald
LF: Lind
CF: Wells
RF: Rios
DH: Stairs
UT: Scutaro/Inglett/Bautista
That's it. Full roster of 13 (sorry, the 12 man pitching staff isn't going away no matter how much we'd like it to). 3 backups can cover every position except catcher who all hit between an 85 and 95 OPS+ most likely (more on the low end). If Hill is hurt going into 2009 still then an open slot for a pure RH hitter to mix in with Stairs. If Snider is ready at some point he takes over DH while Stairs is released. Scutaro and Bautista get some playing time giving days off to Stairs/Snider and Lind vs the odd LHP while they also get some time at third for Rolen. Inglett gets in when Hill takes a day off. Not a bad setup actually.
If an injury hits then odds are we'll see a callup from AAA to play everyday. Campbell and Snider being the obvious first call ups.
I agree -- I made the Koskie comment to stress your point about the "no plan for the infield". Or better, revolving door at 3B (and every guy is the man for the future) and the black hole at SS (especially after Adams didn't work out). I guess the right side is fine; no complaints about the plans at 2B and 1B, even if things didn't work out perfectly.
Plans are overrated.
They certainly are around here. Everybody's favourite Prussian, Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke, once said something along the lines of "no plan survives contact with the enemy".
John, if the Jays take this same team into 2009 minus Burnett Eckstein and Zaun, I have the payroll at around only 77m. I'm expecting at least one offensive upgrade, if not two.
You forgot Mr. Koskie and Mr. Hillenbrand. And the Hinske plan was made
after just one good season. Doesn't sound like much planing to me.
Hinske was signed one winter after the GM arrived, do you think he should have "had a plan" BEFORE he got hired? Or before he had seen Hinske play?
conversely if he had waited until Hinske panned out before signing him, would that flexibility not have been exactly what you are describing as NOT having a plan? (since we would have been taking a wait and see approch)
As for Koskie, I didn't forget him, I took it as self evident that acquiring a 3B with SIX straight years of 110 or better OPS+ was a good upgrade on a player with two years of steady decline to a point well bellow average.
The fact Koskie had the worst year of his career after he arrived (albeit still better than Hinske's last year at 3B for the Jays) is a matter of hindsight. From the perspective of "having a plan" I don't see how anyone can complain about such an upgrade when the deal was signed.
Hillenbrand is irrelvant since he was never the full time 3B.
Going from Koskie to Glaus is, again, a clear and obvious upgrade. and given that Glaus was not available to us at the time Koskie was brought in one cannot say that the later availability of Glaus would have any bearing on acquiring Koskie.
So, which had you rather have had? A GM who, when Arizona came calling with Glaus, said "No thanks, I have a PLAN which involves Koskie and I'm sticking with the PLAN" or one who took advantage of an unexpected opportunity?
So, to restate my original point:
Stick with the original plan = Hinske right through until free agancy
Stick with the second plan = Koskie here and not Glaus
Flexibility instead of something a fan can identify as a plan = steadily improving talent at 3B.
Plans are over-rated if they do not have flexibility.
If they do have flexibility, a fan like you or me will never know there was a plan.
Hinske was signed one winter after the GM arrived, do you think he should have "had a plan" BEFORE he got hired? Or before he had seen Hinske play?
conversely if he had waited until Hinske panned out before signing him, would that flexibility not have been exactly what you are describing as NOT having a plan? (since we would have been taking a wait and see approch)
As for Koskie, I didn't forget him, I took it as self evident that acquiring a 3B with SIX straight years of 110 or better OPS+ was a good upgrade on a player with two years of steady decline to a point well bellow average.
The fact Koskie had the worst year of his career after he arrived (albeit still better than Hinske's last year at 3B for the Jays) is a matter of hindsight. From the perspective of "having a plan" I don't see how anyone can complain about such an upgrade when the deal was signed.
Hillenbrand is irrelvant since he was never the full time 3B.
Going from Koskie to Glaus is, again, a clear and obvious upgrade. and given that Glaus was not available to us at the time Koskie was brought in one cannot say that the later availability of Glaus would have any bearing on acquiring Koskie.
So, which had you rather have had? A GM who, when Arizona came calling with Glaus, said "No thanks, I have a PLAN which involves Koskie and I'm sticking with the PLAN" or one who took advantage of an unexpected opportunity?
So, to restate my original point:
Stick with the original plan = Hinske right through until free agancy
Stick with the second plan = Koskie here and not Glaus
Flexibility instead of something a fan can identify as a plan = steadily improving talent at 3B.
Plans are over-rated if they do not have flexibility.
If they do have flexibility, a fan like you or me will never know there was a plan.
As for Koskie, I didn't forget him,
I think there's a tiny bit of confusion, as my comment about Koskie addressed you bringing him up in the first place, but then Moe responded, thinking I had been addressing his comment about Koskie.
I think there's a tiny bit of confusion, as my comment about Koskie addressed you bringing him up in the first place, but then Moe responded, thinking I had been addressing his comment about Koskie.
Russ Adams as PTBNL? I bet he beats Reed Johnson's numbers this season or next if he plays everyday.
I just wonder if he'll get a clean shot in Pittsburgh. they have an established incumbent everywhere.
I'd like to see him go to a team where there's going to be an opening (is Adam Kenedy a FA? I'll bet Russ could outpreform him at this point)
I'd like to see him go to a team where there's going to be an opening (is Adam Kenedy a FA? I'll bet Russ could outpreform him at this point)
Re Adams:I bet he beats Reed Johnson's numbers this season or next if he plays everyday.
It's unlikely to come up, but I'll take that bet. A career .750 OPS AAA guy (and he's been consistent at all levels) versus a career .760 OPS major league guy. I like my chances.
It's unlikely to come up, but I'll take that bet. A career .750 OPS AAA guy (and he's been consistent at all levels) versus a career .760 OPS major league guy. I like my chances.
If such a bet happened, I hope the person picking Adams gets favourable odds... just for the reason you say, but then again it could depend on how their respective teams decide to use them.
If Adams ends up in the NL with someone to spell him against LHP and someone repeats the stupidity of the Jays circa 2006 and Johnson plays everyday. I could see that bet working out. In fact, in such a circumstance as described above, odds wouldn't even be necessary, I'd take the even-money bet with Johnson aging and Adams in his prime.
If Adams ends up in the NL with someone to spell him against LHP and someone repeats the stupidity of the Jays circa 2006 and Johnson plays everyday. I could see that bet working out. In fact, in such a circumstance as described above, odds wouldn't even be necessary, I'd take the even-money bet with Johnson aging and Adams in his prime.
"CA: Barajas/Diaz (or some other backup)
1B: Overbay
2B: Hill (assuming he recovers)
3B: Rolen
SS: McDonald
LF: Lind
CF: Wells
RF: Rios
DH: Stairs
UT: Scutaro/Inglett/Bautista"
Ugh...I expect Snider to pass Stairs at some point, but that's still a very unimpressive team even if they do manage to upgrade somewhere. (And expecting either Hill or Rolen to be healthy might be dicey. Bautista is a not bad pickup, but it's a very minor one.
1B: Overbay
2B: Hill (assuming he recovers)
3B: Rolen
SS: McDonald
LF: Lind
CF: Wells
RF: Rios
DH: Stairs
UT: Scutaro/Inglett/Bautista"
Ugh...I expect Snider to pass Stairs at some point, but that's still a very unimpressive team even if they do manage to upgrade somewhere. (And expecting either Hill or Rolen to be healthy might be dicey. Bautista is a not bad pickup, but it's a very minor one.
Sometimes you plan and sometimes you just stumble into things. I'm sure Pat Gillick didn't plan on having Rance Mulliniks and Garth Iorg platoon at third base for a number of years.
Eckstein can still DH agaisnt lefties while Bautista is playing 3rd.
This is kind of depressing.
Everybody's favourite Prussian, Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke
I have to object here, and go with this Otto von Bismarck. The man did unify Germany, after all.
Bautista's defensive numbers at third base, as per Rally, are very poor.
UT: Scutaro/Inglett/Bautista
That's a weak bench. Carrying three backup infielders isn't a good idea, especially when the starting shortstop in that secnario is John McDonald.
This is where many get caught. Benches are not regulars. Scutaro/Inglett/Bautista should be in the 85-95 range for OPS+. The 1993 Jays, viewed as a power team, had Darnell Coles (85 OPS+) and Randy Knorr (98 OPS+ as the backup catcher) as the only bench guys with over 50 AB's and and OPS+ over 61 (B-R lists Henderson as a bench but he was the everyday LF while Darrin Jackson was gone early in the year). Alfredo Griffen hit for a 28 OPS+ over 95 AB's for that team too - Yikes! In 1992 you remove Jeff Kent (traded mid-season for David Cone) and just one guy gets over 80 for OPS+ with 30+ AB's (Derek Bell at 87 - guys at Stats Inc didn't believe me when I said Cito wouldn't play him everyday). In 1985, the year the Jays won 99 games, the bench had two guys over 76 for OPS+ - Garth Iorg (platooned at 3B, never above 81 any other time in his career) and Cecil Fielder (135 OPS+ as a rookie called up July 20th then platooned with both Upshaw and Oliver). Now, 1987 had 3 very good guys on the bench in Mulliniks (127), Leach (105) and Fielder (133) which makes it all the more odd that Upshaw (87), Iorg (44), and Gruber (77) played so much (Fielder & Mulliniks should've taken a lot of time from those 3). Of course, that misallocation was due to Jimy Williams and the less said about 1987 & Jimy the better.
What I'm trying to point out is bench strength is not as vital as many think it is. At least, not the guys in the majors. You should have AAA rookies who are ready to come up should an injury occur, and we have that in Snider and maybe Campbell with lots of guys behind the plate (Diaz, Thigpen, Jeroloman, Arencibia). JP needs to keep building that minor league pipeline so we have backups for a lot more positions, and ideally a slugger or two who could do the Cecil Fielder thing (that was sweet to watch back then - followed by the frustration of the Jimy years and seeing Fielder at 3B and 2B...that was as ugly as it sounds). Scutaro/Inglett have shown themselves to be useful in a platoon at 2B, or to fill in for a couple of weeks during a DL stint. I suspect Bautista is the same. None seem to complain about being guys #11-13 on the bench either (#10 is the backup catcher) but want to be in there. Ideal bench guys imo.
What I'm trying to point out is bench strength is not as vital as many think it is. At least, not the guys in the majors. You should have AAA rookies who are ready to come up should an injury occur, and we have that in Snider and maybe Campbell with lots of guys behind the plate (Diaz, Thigpen, Jeroloman, Arencibia). JP needs to keep building that minor league pipeline so we have backups for a lot more positions, and ideally a slugger or two who could do the Cecil Fielder thing (that was sweet to watch back then - followed by the frustration of the Jimy years and seeing Fielder at 3B and 2B...that was as ugly as it sounds). Scutaro/Inglett have shown themselves to be useful in a platoon at 2B, or to fill in for a couple of weeks during a DL stint. I suspect Bautista is the same. None seem to complain about being guys #11-13 on the bench either (#10 is the backup catcher) but want to be in there. Ideal bench guys imo.
He's better than Luna, heck he's a bit better than Scutero, so I no more understand the "another crap player" reaction than i do the "great move" reaction.
Then give it time, Will.
Then give it time, Will.