Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Round-up of the Big News from the last few days

Round-up of the Big News from the last few days

Tony Kubek won the Ford Frick Award.

Joe Gordon was elected to the Hall of Fame by the Veteran's Committee.

The big news from today is that C.C. Sabathia is close to a deal with the Yankees worth about 160 million over 7 years.

Yesterday, Francisco Rodriguez set the bar low in the closer market, signing with the Mets for 3 years and 37 million, with a vesting option for a 4th year. Jose Valverde is feeling great about himself.

Also, Casey Blake signed a 3 year deal with the Dodgers, and Kerry Wood is reportedly close to signing with the Indians. Jake Peavy talks don't seem to be progressing.

Update: Keith Law, Rob Neyer, Will Carroll and Christina Kahrl have been admitted to the BBWAA. This became a big issue last off-season when Neyer and Law were denied entry, and resulted in Neyer and Tracy Ringolsby butting heads on Baseball Think Factory. It's great to see those two get in after the disappointment of last off-season, and it's also a good sign to see the BBWAA extend membership to Baseball Prospectus writers Kahrl and Carroll.

Posted by Dave Rutt on Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 12:09 PM EST.

Round-up of the Big News from the last few days | 98 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

timpinder - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 12:48 PM EST (#194700) #

Bob Elliot reports that the Jays are interested in trading for Ty Wigginton, "as a third baseman".

If it's true, I wonder if Wigginton would be used in a utility role, primarily as Rolen's backup, or if the Jays would look to then dump Rolen's salary since it has been reported that Ricciardi has had trouble finding anyone interested in Overbay.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/baseball/2008/12/10/7692421-sun.html

jerjapan - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 12:57 PM EST (#194702) #

Wigginton? man, why acquire Bautista then, leaving us without a backup catcher?

Scutaro, McDonald, Bautista, Inglett and Wigginton at least give us a corner on mediocre veteran infielders ...

mathesond - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 02:12 PM EST (#194704) #

Let's get Chris Duncan in here!

92-93 - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 02:26 PM EST (#194707) #

"Let's get Chris Duncan in here!"

That article said they are looking for LHP. I'd give either Carlson or Tallet for him, but not Downs.

TamRa - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 04:21 PM EST (#194713) #

Rosenthal says the Cards offered Ankiel and a prospect to the M's for Putz.

I'd be down with sending Ryan for Ankiel...wonder what the odds would be?

John Northey - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 04:24 PM EST (#194714) #

As to the AJ watch - via the new BBWAA approved site, Baseball Prospectus (no ugly green here) - Atlanta has offered him $80 million over 5 years, finally agreeing to guarantee the 5th year and thus killing the last hope for the Jays as that 5th year was the one way to keep the Jays in the sort of running.

The Jays also seem interested in Jason Bartlett of the Rays, but it is doubtful Tampa will deal within the division.

Pistol - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 04:27 PM EST (#194715) #

Keith Law, Rob Neyer, Will Carroll and Christina Kahrl have been admitted to the BBWAA

Interesting. I seem to remember Law saying he had no interest in being a member at some point(s). I wonder if he changed his mind or isn't going to accept it.

Pistol - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 04:29 PM EST (#194716) #

Well, straight to the source on that one.

christaylor - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 05:26 PM EST (#194718) #

There was a rumor about Putz + Morrow (too much) or Roland-Smith (too little) for Prince Fielder. If the Brewers are considering that, I'm sure the Jays can meet or exceed either offer.

Lefty - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 05:27 PM EST (#194719) #

Tony Kubek eh?

Well I guess I grew up on Kubek and Fergie Oliver among others so its kind of nice to see the recognition. But I take it the recognition is more for his NBC work than his contribtuions to BlueJays baseball on CBC. Anyway I liked Kubek's style and missed him when he left. I note past award winners are in on the judging. Maybe Tony can help out a fellow BlueJay braodcaster to get his due.

As I recall Tony really loved describing Tony Fernandez's fielding exploits.

Jdog - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 05:40 PM EST (#194720) #

Any chance Adam Loewen gets taken in the rule V draft. Brian Dopirak?

TamRa - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 05:47 PM EST (#194721) #

The Jays also seem interested in Jason Bartlett of the Rays, but it is doubtful Tampa will deal within the division.

If I were dealing for a TB shortstop I believe I'd be looking at Ben Zobrist, not Bartlett. Assuming of course Zobrist is a decent fielder which I don't know.

I don't want Bartlett in any case.

Gwyn - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 07:04 PM EST (#194725) #

As to the AJ watch ... Atlanta has offered him $80 million over 5 years.

I just caught the end of SportsCentre and as they were signing off they said they'd just heard the Yankees have matched the five years in an offer to A.J, they didn't have any information as to how much money was offered. No word either on where the information was from.

ayjackson - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 09:07 PM EST (#194728) #

I would find it odd that Dopirik and Loewen would be eligible for the Rule V draft since they were free agents just a few months ago (before signing with the Jays).

zeppelinkm - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 09:15 PM EST (#194729) #

I believe that Loewen is eligable to be taken, but it would be a pretty big committment to give to a guy who has never faced MLB pitching to put him on the 40 man for the entire reason. It might be a chance a weak team can afford to take though if they believe the upside is there, but I just can't see how it would work out. He needs to develop and practice and play as much as possible if he's going to amount to something and I'm not sure if learning against MLB pitchers is the best approach to take or commit too.

Mike Green - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 10:33 PM EST (#194734) #

It was a welcome small step for the BBWAA to admit Keith Law, Will Carroll, Rob Neyer and Christina Kahrl. Next up: Jay Jaffe, Dan Rosenhek, Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman, Steve Treder, Rich Lederer, Nate Silver, Craig Burley...

They don't need to kick anyone out if they add enough of the other type. Accentuate the positive.

John Northey - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 10:55 PM EST (#194735) #

So, how long until the Batter's Box crew gets BBWAA cred? :)

Yes, that is a joke.

Mick Doherty - Wednesday, December 10 2008 @ 11:24 PM EST (#194739) #

Yes, that is a joke.

I disagree. There are at least three Bauxites who I think could lay legitimate claim to a BBWAA card, if there was a legitimate standard way to evaluate blogcentric work.

Hell, if you want to talk volume, II've probably written as much as a guy like Neyer in the past year. The differences? (1) most of his writing is for juried/edited worldwide publications like ESPN.com and (2) he has written elventy-teen books in the past three or four years. These are not insignificant differences, of course, and when coupled with the fact that he's both got source access and he's, well, frankly, a much better writer than I am, and there you go.

But still, blogosphere BBWAA membership is coming, Not for me, and probably not for another 15-20 years, but it's coming.

timpinder - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 12:08 AM EST (#194744) #

Mets get J.J. Putz:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/blog/2008/12/mets_get_putz_in_12player_deal.html

The Mets really aren't taking any chances with their bullpen this year, after it cost them two appearances in the playoffs.

Petey Baseball - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 12:56 AM EST (#194747) #

Jordan Bastian also has a pretty good interview with Cito at the winter meetings. They plan to use Lind primarily as the DH and keep Snider in left (pretty much expected there). Interesting to note that he believes Hill could play shortstop and Inglett second, but Ricciardi is throwing a wet blanket on that. Michael Barrett on a minor league deal looks like it will probably get done, according to Bastian as well.

Gotta say I'd rather have Scoot playing short than Aaron Hill, and Hill playing second more than Inglett. In regards to the lack of a leadoff hitter, Cito used Scutaro often in the leadoff spot in '08 and its pretty expected that's who would hit first if the Jays maintain the status quo. I've also gotta say I like Ty Wiggington much better than Jose Batista as a backup infielder, but I am not sure if he is a free agent or is still property of the Pirates. If he could be had for something cheap, it might be worth it.

If the Jays came out of the winter with Pavano, Barrett and Wiggington, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Especially since our friend A.J. is about to make 90 million over five years, which is aboslutely insane.

TamRa - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:22 AM EST (#194750) #

I wonder if that's a new denial from JP on Hill-at-SS or a recycling of previous comments?

and I wonder if, when they get to ST, Cito doesn't work him there some and try to change JP's mind?

I have seen a couple of mentions that Wigginton may yet be non-tendered for what that's worth - also at least one reporter wrote that he's mediocre at 2B and pretty bad at 3B.
I can't see how you'd have him and Baustista on the same roster though, they play pretty much the same role.

TamRa - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:25 AM EST (#194751) #

It's good news for the Ryan market (if Ryan is even available) that the Mets soaked up two of the potential options out there.

Glevin - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:44 AM EST (#194753) #

The Rays made another very good move by picking up Matt Joyce for Edwin Jackson. Jackson wasn't going to be anything more than a long man for them and Joyce had a 116 OPS+ as a rookie while playing good defense. It makes them a better team.

TamRa - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 03:17 AM EST (#194756) #

Joyce just seems to be a better Gabe Gross though. His platoon split last year isn't great (Albeit they gave him almost no shot against LH). Not that losing Jackson is going to hurt them at all but I would have thought in a market that is so over-valuing pitching they could have done better. Maybe not.

Still, I'm not more worried about the Rays now that Joyce is in the fold. It's a marginal move. (I say that knowing I said similar things about Hinske and Aybar and etc last year - somehow these things have a way of working out better on the field than they do on paper...for other teams.)

Wildrose - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 08:46 AM EST (#194757) #

Tom Tango is running a dear Abby type thread over at Fangraphs about the statistics used on their site. For those intimidated by numbers ( me included), it's a fairly straight forward discussion.

Also as Mike said the other day, we now have UZR at fangraphs. Any questions about a players fielding ability can be partially answered by just scrolling down to the fielding section. As a word of caution I would not make any hard and fast conclusions unless a player has at least a 1000 innings at a particular position.

SK in NJ - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 08:59 AM EST (#194758) #

The Yankees have traded Melky Cabrera for Mike Cameron. Good deal for the Yanks. They are not playing around.

If the Jays give anyone a big contract this year (like Furcal) it would be foolish. It's looking more likely that 2009 will be a fight for 4th place so might as well tank it this season and build for 2010 when presumably Marcum, McGowan, and Janssen will all be ready to go (best case scenario) and guys like Cecil will be knocking on the door.

timpinder - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 09:03 AM EST (#194759) #

Regarding Cito's comments, I know it makes sense to use Snider in LF and Lind as the DH because of their defensive abilities, but is anybody else concerned about Lind's performance at DH?

Lind 2008:
.781 OPS in LF
.627 OPS at DH

Small sample size? How common is it for players to hit better when playing a position vs. designated hitter? Giambi struggled with it for years.

Ideally Overbay gets moved and Lind takes over as the starting 1B, freeing up payroll for a legitimate DH, but from the sounds of things nobody wants Overbay.

Wildrose - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 09:12 AM EST (#194760) #

Small sample size? How common is it for players to hit better when playing a position vs. designated hitter? Giambi struggled with it for years.

Good point. It's a huge issue especially for younger players used to being in the field on a constant basis. A young player like Lind/Snider can generally loose 20-25 % of their offensive output if used solely in the D.H. slot. Most teams try to rotate players through the D.H. spot to try to mitigate this problem.

greenfrog - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 10:02 AM EST (#194763) #

According to mlbtraderumors.com, the Yankees are still in on AJ and Teixeira.

So the Yankees can afford CC, AJ, Teixeira, and Cameron? Nope, no level playing field issues here. The Jays apparently can't afford one decent frontline player. This doesn't bode well for the Jays' future in the AL East. Why don't we just send them Halladay for Joba and a prospect and get it over with?

Ryan Day - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 10:13 AM EST (#194765) #

Ideally Overbay gets moved and Lind takes over as the starting 1B, freeing up payroll for a legitimate DH, but from the sounds of things nobody wants Overbay.

I'd say ideally, Overbay recovers his pre-2007 form, making him at least as good an option as the DHs on the market, and probably for less money. Bradley's made of glass, and Giambi is 37 and has had health problems, too.

Though I do like the idea of Ty Wigginton, who's strong against lefties, around for platooning, and probably another good RH bat to support Lind.

Glevin - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 10:28 AM EST (#194767) #

"Still, I'm not more worried about the Rays now that Joyce is in the fold. It's a marginal move. (I say that knowing I said similar things about Hinske and Aybar and etc last year - somehow these things have a way of working out better on the field than they do on paper...for other teams.)"

I don't think it's a marginal move. Joyce was a much better hitter than Gross or Hinske last year as a 23-year old rookie who plays a solid OF. The trade also saves them something like $2.5 million and allows them to non-tender Gross which would save them another $3 million. The savings could easily allow Tampa to make a play for Bradley, Ibanez, or Giambi.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 11:39 AM EST (#194772) #

Why don't we just send them Halladay for Joba and a prospect and get it over with?

Honestly? Not sure the Yankees make that deal. I guess it depends on how you're defining "prospect," e.g., do you mean "Phil Hughes" or "minor league maybe-someday Joe Shlabotnik"?

Mike Green - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 11:45 AM EST (#194773) #

C'mon, Mick, Shlabotnick has a good arm and his Mom makes the best knishes I have ever tasted. On a related note, the Globe and Mail had an item today on the Jamaican bobsled team and its captain named, I kid you not, Hannukkah Jones.

ayjackson - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 11:46 AM EST (#194774) #

I don't think Joba will cut it as a starter. I think if the Yankees get another FA starter, they'll put him in the pen.

braden - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 11:46 AM EST (#194775) #

Joe Shlabotnik

Come on, he can't hit righties worth a damn. If he ever makes it, he'd have to platoon with a Jon Terfudwink.

greenfrog - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 12:29 PM EST (#194777) #

"I guess it depends on how you're defining "prospect," e.g., do you mean "Phil Hughes" or "minor league maybe-someday Joe Shlabotnik"?"

I was being a bit facetious, but you're right - the Yankees might well be disinclined to give up Hughes and Joba for Halladay (especially if they sign Burnett). Cashman might want to allow the talented kids to fill out the rotation behind CC, AJ and Wang.

Other clubs would seem to be a better match. Texas has tons of great prospects and look like a contender in 2010 or 2011. Halladay would anchor their rotation and provide a role model for the next generation of pitching talent (much as he has done for the young Toronto pitchers).

Jdog - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 12:30 PM EST (#194778) #

FYI:
Anthony Hatch and Ryan Klosterman were both taken in the AAA portion of the rule V draft while the Jays selected Cody Haether.

greenfrog - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 01:12 PM EST (#194780) #

I was thinking...if Rogers just slashed $15M off the Jays' payroll, how likely is the company to spend millions on a new GM + president? Ironically, the economic downturn might help prolong JP's tenure (even as having no money to spend all but ensures the Jays will never make the playoffs on his watch).

TamRa - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 01:18 PM EST (#194781) #

I can't get the BA page to load and the MiLB page only has the major league portion.

Where can I find the entire Rule 5 draft?

ayjackson - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 01:22 PM EST (#194782) #

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/rule_5.jsp

ayjackson - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 01:23 PM EST (#194783) #

Sorry WillRain, misread your question.

TamRa - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 01:25 PM EST (#194784) #

So the Yankees can afford CC, AJ, Teixeira, and Cameron? Nope, no level playing field issues here. The Jays apparently can't afford one decent frontline player. This doesn't bode well for the Jays' future in the AL East. Why don't we just send them Halladay for Joba and a prospect and get it over with?

Well, the report now is that the Cameron deal is off at the moment, but your point remains since it's said that the Yankees have interest in Lowe still, even if they do sign AJ.

In what world should it be allowed for a team to even try to sign the three best available starters, to say nothing of flirting with the best hitter too?

What can one say that hasn't already been said though?

Jdog - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 01:33 PM EST (#194785) #

Where can I find the entire Rule 5 draft?

Well I was listening to it on mlb.com, they might have the video archived, but im sure the results are posted somewhere by now. The Jays also took a pitcher with a weird name in the AAA portion of the draft.

ayjackson - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 01:44 PM EST (#194786) #

The Jays have signed Matt Clement to a minor league deal.

Ron - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 01:54 PM EST (#194788) #

In what world should it be allowed for a team to even try to sign the three best available starters, to say nothing of flirting with the best hitter too?

What can one say that hasn't already been said though?

In a world with no soft/hard salary cap. For a league that clearly has at least a big 2 tier system when it comes to free agents, MLB has an amazing amount of parody. Almost every team in baseball has made the playoffs at least once in the past 10 years. It's about this time every year that numerous fans grumble about how baseball needs a salary cap to even the playing field. While most Jays fans don't want to hear this, the fact is a strong Yankees and Red Sox team is good for baseball in general. While these teams spend like crazy, they drive interest to the league. A casual fan is more likely to watch the Yankees or Red Sox in the playoffs than the Jays or Pirates.

I applaud Yankess ownership for their willingness to spend to try to win the World Series each year. Many fans wish their owner(s) would do the same.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:07 PM EST (#194790) #

an amazing amount of parody.

Well, you clearly mean "oarity," but ironically, "parody" works pretty well there, too!

ayjackson - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:10 PM EST (#194791) #

oarity as in row, row, row your boat?

lexomatic - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:11 PM EST (#194792) #

jdog, the results are here
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/rule_5.jsp

Pistol - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:14 PM EST (#194793) #

Here's the Rule 5 picks. The Jays got a couple of minor leaguers, and I believe they had previously claimed Haerther before.

So long Ryan Klosterman. He was the only Jay taken. I thought he had a chance to be a good utility player a couple years ago, but he seemed to fizzle out.

whiterasta80 - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:20 PM EST (#194796) #

Ron, no argument with you whatsoever regarding the parity in baseball. There's enough "second tier" teams, particularly in the national league that anyone can qualify for the playoffs there.

The Jays are an entirely different entity though since the two "tier one" teams are within their division. Now I'm not crying about having to compete with them so much as I'm crying about everyone else not having to compete with them. If you had 2 divisions (AL, NL) and took the top 4 seeds with everyone playing each other an equal number of times then I'd be perfectly fine with it. I'd argue also that the Jays would have made the playoffs at least once since 1993 given that format.

iains - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:21 PM EST (#194797) #

Anthony Hatch was taken just before Klosterman, so it's two the Jays lost.

Ron - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:21 PM EST (#194799) #

Well, you clearly mean "oarity," but ironically, "parody" works pretty well there, too!

Ha Ha. I even double checked everything before I posted.

ayjackson - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:21 PM EST (#194800) #

The Jays lost Anthony Hatch the pick before Klosterman. He looked to be a good mid round pick-up at one time, but seems to have hit his ceiling somewhere between A+ and AA.

greenfrog - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:21 PM EST (#194801) #

Here is the number of times AL East teams have made the playoffs in the last 15 years:

Yankees: 14
Red Sox: 8
Orioles: 2
Rays: 1
Jays: 0

There might be a reasonable amount of parity elsewhere in baseball (I'm not sure), but not in the AL East. The trend doesn't look good to me either. It's not as though New York and Boston - which are in the midst of acquiring baseball's best free agents - are teetering on the brink of disaster.

John Northey - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:29 PM EST (#194805) #

The DHing of Lind idea probably comes to Cito from his earlier run as both hitting coach and manager. DHing kids included Fred McGriff (1987-130 OPS+ vs 140+ for the next 7 years), Cecil Fielder (86-88-OPS+ of 45-133-100 in very limited playing time, under 200 PA's per year, total of 477 over those 3 years), and John Olerud (1990-117 OPS+ vs 115 the following year at 1B), and Carlos Delgado (1996-112 OPS+ vs 127+ every year but 2007 since then).

All 4 over their total DH time hit for a decent OPS+ and while they did better later on in the field it didn't kill any of their Hall of Very Good careers.

FYI in the two stats HOF voters seem to care about...
Fielder: 319 HR, 1313 H
Olerud: 255 HR, 2239 H
McGriff: 493 HR, 2490 H
Delgado: 469 HR, 2010 H

Delgado and McGriff are the only ones with any HOF shot really, but Fielder and Olerud certainly had solid careers. I suspect Cito thinks DH allows the kids to get their feet wet and not focus on anything but hitting the blinking ball. When a guy is defensively challenged it probably makes sense to let them focus on one thing only. While Olerud had solid defense pretty much from day one he skipped the minors so DH'ing probably helped his focus too. It is interesting to note none of them stayed at DH long outside of Fielder who was dumped to Japan after being platooned for 2 years (86 was very limited playing time). So DH as a rookie or to get your footing solidified then off to first base. Worked for those 4, maybe it will for Lind too.

TamRa - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:34 PM EST (#194808) #

Now I'm not crying about having to compete with them so much as I'm crying about everyone else not having to compete with them. If you had 2 divisions (AL, NL) and took the top 4 seeds with everyone playing each other an equal number of times then I'd be perfectly fine with it. I'd argue also that the Jays would have made the playoffs at least once since 1993 given that format.

Bingo.

TamRa - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:39 PM EST (#194810) #

The Jays got a couple of minor leaguers, and I believe they had previously claimed Haerther before.

This page:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/rule_5.jsp

Has Shinske taken by Syracuse, but calls it Toronto...was he in fact taken by Las Vegas? Or Syracuse?

Ron - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 02:57 PM EST (#194813) #

There�s no doubt the Jays play in the toughest division in baseball right now but when people talk about how the Jays have a tough hill to climb because of the Red Sox and Yankees, these people always forgot to mention how the Jays had to opportunity to beat up on 2 bottom feeders each year (the Rays are obviously no longer a bottom feeder). There is little correlation between being a free spender and winning (i.e. 08 Mariners). There is a correlation between having a smart front office/good scouts/ combined with spending and winning (i.e. Red Sox). I believe the reason for the Jays lack of success since they last won the World Series is their own fault and not because they play the Yankees and Red Sox more than almost every other team in baseball. Who is the best international signing the Jays have made in the last decade? Gus Chacin? The Jays play in one of the biggest markets in MLB yet they don�t act like it. The payroll has been middling and the Jays dip lightly in the international free agent market. The Jays have also refused to go over slot in the draft and to make matters worse, they artificially limit themselves by not willing to take a Scott Boras client or a HS pitcher in the 1st round. The Jays problems are mostly self inflicted.

TamRa - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 03:21 PM EST (#194815) #

these people always forgot to mention how the Jays had to opportunity to beat up on 2 bottom feeders each year

That's because every division has bottom feeders but not ever division has the Yanks and Red Sox.

greenfrog - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 03:41 PM EST (#194816) #

"There is little correlation between being a free spender and winning (i.e. 08 Mariners). There is a correlation between having a smart front office/good scouts/ combined with spending and winning (i.e. Red Sox). I believe the reason for the Jays lack of success since they last won the World Series is their own fault and not because they play the Yankees and Red Sox more than almost every other team in baseball....The Jays problems are mostly self inflicted."

I respectfully disagree with this analysis. I don't think you can have it both ways (ie, that front office brains, not payroll, is what matters, but also that the Jays don't spend enough to win). IMO the extra payroll gives the AL East giants a ton of flexibility--to acquire free agents (and make some expensive mistakes), spend more on the draft, establish a presence in international markets, make deadline deals (by acquiring expensive talent without having to give up much talent), spend more on coaching and management, etc.

Yes, front office savvy matters. But money clearly matters too. Especially in the AL East, where you have two behemoths to contend with (further reducing the chance of sneaking past them). Cherry-picking an example like the '08 Mariners doesn't really prove anything.

zeppelinkm - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 09:41 PM EST (#194836) #

Money DEFINITELY matters. One of the strongest correlations in all of baseball with making the playoffs is, I'm sure, payroll salary.

I grabbed my data from:
http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/salaries (for 2008 salaries)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070403/ai_n18786024 (for 2007)
http://www.baseballchronology.com/Baseball/Years/2006/Payroll.asp (all other years)

I only went back to 2003, which gives us 48 playoff teams. I'm sorry to teams that made the 1 game playoff, but for simplifcation purposes, I just took the 8 teams each year that played a full round.

28/48 teams that made the playoffs were in the top 10 (ie, 1 - 10).
13/48 teams that made the playoffs were in the middle ten (11-20)
7/48 teams that made the playoffs were in the bottom ten (21-30)

So in terms of payroll ranking roughly 60% of the playoff appearences were made by teams who had a payroll in the top 10 that year.

The average rank of a playoff team's payroll over this period is 10

If we break it down into top half and bottom half, we get:

36/48 teams that made the playoffs were in the top half
12/48 teams that made the playoffs were in the bottom half

75% of the teams that made the playoffs were in the top half.

With the exception of 2006, each year 5/8 teams have been in the top 10 for payroll. Only 3 out of the entire 48 teams that made the playoffs were ranked in the bottom 15% (TBR in 2008, A-Dbacks in 2007, and the Marlin's in 2003).

This is nothing we didn't already know. As a rule of thumb, spending money = winning. It's black and white. The quality of everything else - your front office staff, scouting department etc, influences the frequency and the height of your successes (and limits the lows), but by and large, if you spend money, you will win more then those who don't.

TamRa - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 10:58 PM EST (#194839) #

Compare that to the totals for the AL East above over the last 15 years. I can't take time to look it up now, but I believe you'll find that the two Orioles teams which made the playoffs were top 5 payroll teams, so from our division, all but one playoff spot in the last 15 years have gone to teams in the top five in payroll.

The Rays might want to take heed - if they keep their payroll down in the 60 and under territory, they might as well understand they won't see a whole lot of years like 2008.

zeppelinkm - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 11:22 PM EST (#194840) #

It's even better then that, Will.

The 1996 and 1997 playoff making Orioles had the 2nd highest payroll in MLB both seasons. And of course we all know that the 92/93 teams for the Jays had the highest payroll in all of MLB.

Money matters.

greenfrog - Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 11:39 PM EST (#194841) #

Yup, and the last time the Jays made the playoffs, they were a big-spending club. It would be interesting to compare team payroll versus on-field performance in the AL East over, say, the last 20 or 30 years. Some people cite the Rays as an example of parity, but they're more of an outlier (thanks, Malcolm Gladwell): their success was built on an impressive string of last-place finishes (and some inspired front-office management in the last few years).

As a Jays fan, I find all this depressing. If the trend continues, I think MLB will have to act eventually. But baseball is pretty conservative, so it could be a lonely wait.

Glevin - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 01:53 AM EST (#194843) #

"This is nothing we didn't already know. As a rule of thumb, spending money = winning. It's black and white."

Your stats clearly show that it is not black and white. Spending money makes it a lot more likely to win but A) You can still win without spending money and B) Spending a lot of money does not guarantee anything. There is nothing new in this. If the Jays want to compete, they have to build in a certain way. They don't have the same luxury that the Yankees have, but that means they have to be smarter. The World Series last year the 13th largest payroll lost to the 29th. In 2007, the #2 team beat the #27 team. In 2006, the #11 team beat the #14 team. So, of the last 6 teams to make it to the World Series, only one was in the top ten of payrolls. It's harder to win with a lower payroll, but it's even harder to win with bad management.

TamRa - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 05:00 AM EST (#194845) #

The World Series last year the 13th largest payroll lost to the 29th. In 2007, the #2 team beat the #27 team. In 2006, the #11 team beat the #14 team. So, of the last 6 teams to make it to the World Series, only one was in the top ten of payrolls.

Citing examples form the world Series in order to disprove assertions made about making the playoffs doesn't really prove anything.

I think most any of us would agree that once you get in the playoffs money is a much less important - almost unimportant - factor in getting to the Series. That's not what's at issue.

TamRa - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 05:42 AM EST (#194846) #

Still doing some research but here's one finding-

Since the inception of the wild card, 10 of those 14 years the wild card has come out of the AL East. In those 10 years, 20 playoff spots over 14 years, 18 of those teams were in the top 8 major league payrolls, 14 of those 18 teams were either #1 or #2

Of the 24 AL playoiff spots which came out of the AL East during this period, 18 of those teams were in the top 2, and only 2 were outside the top 8 (The Rays and the Red Sox at #19 in the first wild card year)

So that's 14 years between non-top-8 teams making the playoffs from the AL East.

Glevin - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 08:43 AM EST (#194848) #

"Citing examples form the world Series in order to disprove assertions made about making the playoffs doesn't really prove anything."

The general assertion is that you cannot win without spending a tonne of money. It isn't true. Money helps a lot and makes you able to make mistakes, but it doesn't make you win nor does not having money make you lose. You just have to be smarter. (i.e. almost never spending money on closers.). Yeah, it's harder for the Jays in the AL East, but I so sick of the whining about it. If the Jays had a good team that every year competed seriously for a playoff spot, fans would be happy. The Jays really are never in the playoff hunt despite having a budget that should enable them to be. If the Jays want to compete they have to build a strong system. The ill-planned attemptat trying to win by signing guys like Ryan and Burnett and trading for Glaus and Overbay was never going to work in this division. The current Jays plan of....well...treading water and hoping to strike lightning is also not going to work.

jerjapan - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 12:31 PM EST (#194861) #

If the Jays want to compete they have to build a strong system. The ill-planned attemptat trying to win by signing guys like Ryan and Burnett and trading for Glaus and Overbay was never going to work in this division. The current Jays plan of....well...treading water and hoping to strike lightning is also not going to work.

Bingo. Past debates on the Box have kind of missed this point ... Riccardi may or may not have a plan, he may or may not be a poor / decent / good GM, but he is NOT the right GM for this particular job - he hasn't been able to seriously restock the farm system for a variety of reasons outlined by many posters - the unwillingness to go over slot or deal with Boras clients in the draft, his overlooking international free agents, and his unwillingness to trade star players for prospects. He'd be a great GM for the Yanks, or the Red Sox ... I'd rather have someone with the Billy Beane skill set ... willing to make unpopular deals in the short term to keep the team GENUINELY competetive from year to year.

Frank Markotich - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 01:06 PM EST (#194866) #

Criticizing Ricciardi for not going over slot in the draft is misguided - that's not his call, but rather ownership's.

The Jays under Rogers/ Godfrey have always played along with Bud on these issues. And you can't make the argument that they could save the money in regular payroll and apply the difference to going over slot in the draft. As long as he team's upper management wants to be in Bud's good graces, there will be no going over slot.

In this case, it's like blaming the gas station attendant because you don't like the prices. Complain to Rogers.

Ryan Day - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 02:26 PM EST (#194867) #

I'd rather have someone with the Billy Beane skill set ... willing to make unpopular deals in the short term to keep the team GENUINELY competetive from year to year.

I think Billy Beane's a pretty smart guy, but the A's have been under .500 the last two years. They made the playoffs in 2006 with 93 wins - the fewest of any playoff team in the AL. In 2005 they were 7 games out of first place, in 2004 a game out of first place and nowhere near the wild card. Many of the key players on the excellent A's teams from 01-03 were there before Beane took over (Tejada, Chavez, Giambi, Hudson).

And he seems to miss your other qualifications for being a good GM: He doesn't go over slot in the draft, and hasn't taken a high school player in the first round since Bonderman in 2001 - and, if the story is true, he didn't even want to do that. The A's don't have a significant international scouting presence that I'm aware of.

He's made some good deals, but also some lousy ones - he got nothing for Tim Hudson, the return for Rich Harden wasn't very impressive, and he signed Eric Chavez to a big long-term deal while letting Miguel Tejada walk away.

I'm not convinced Beane is so good that he could keep the Jays, or anyone else, genuinely competitive with the Red Sox and Yankees from year to year.

TamRa - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 03:13 PM EST (#194869) #

The general assertion is that you cannot win without spending a tonne of money. It isn't true.

The assertion isn't that "you cannot win" the assertion is that it is much more difficult to make the playoffs

Money helps a lot and makes you able to make mistakes, but it doesn't make you win nor does not having money make you lose. You just have to be smarter. (i.e. almost never spending money on closers.).

Being smarter doesn't make you more able to - for instance - scout international players, money does. Being smarter might keep you from making expensive mistakes (albeit EVERY team does) but being rich gives you a better chace to deal with unforseeable circumstances like injury.

Yeah, it's harder for the Jays in the AL East, but I so sick of the whining about it.

So? Being sick of a thing doesn't make it not so. As an American, I'm sick of the endless song and dance about how much of a screw up GWB is....doesn't mean that he's not a screw up just because I don't like hearing it.

If the Jays had a good team that every year competed seriously for a playoff spot, fans would be happy. The Jays really are never in the playoff hunt despite having a budget that should enable them to be. If the Jays want to compete they have to build a strong system. The ill-planned attemptat trying to win by signing guys like Ryan and Burnett and trading for Glaus and Overbay was never going to work in this division. The current Jays plan of....well...treading water and hoping to strike lightning is also not going to work.

What then, do you think will work? The Wonderful Rays model? The model that has worked exactly ONE TIME in fifteen years? In point of fact, what the Jays did with Ryan and AJ and Glaus and etc works FAR more often - even (Especially!) in the AL East - than what the Rays did. It didn't work FOR US in the very BRIEF window in which we have tried it not a little because from 2004 to 2007 the Yanks and Red sox were 1-2 in payroll.

How long have the Jays been trying to "spend their way to the playoffs"?

Three years.

THREE LOUSY STINKING YEARS

(this time around, not talking about the Ash years)

and in those three years here's the comparitive payrolls of the Jays, Red Sox, and Yankees- (rounded)
2006: 72 - 120 - 195
2007: 82 - 143 - 190
2008: 98 - 134 - 209

And yet, after only three years we can somehow conclude that such a methodology has no chance of working....yet the methodology that fluked it's way into the playoff one time in 14 years is the model to emulate?

Again, just to restate the case. The claim is NOT money means playoffs every time. If for no other reason than the fact that the competition can spend money too...the case is that money greatly increases the odds of making the playoffs and your competition spending way more money - even if you are spending a reasonable amount - greatly decreases your chances.

As in all sports, there IS an element of chance which can occasionally produce abberant outcomes - i.e. your 2008 Tampa Bay Rays - but that doesn't change the probabilities. YES being smart is a big factor, no one is disputing that. Being smart puts you in a position to take advantage of that occasional chance when the dice go against the big spenders (i.e. your Rays and Twins in 2008)

Wildrose - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 03:17 PM EST (#194870) #

and, if the story is true, he didn't even want to do that. The A's don't have a significant international scouting presence that I'm aware of.

Actually lately the A's have been very active internationally.

The Oakland A�s � low-revenue Oakland, immortalized in the book �Moneyball,� about winning with a scrimp-and-save payroll � signed a 16-year-old named Michel Inoa on Wednesday. Along with his $4.25 million bonus, Inoa got an Anglicized name, Michael, and a ticket to the Dominican Summer League, where he can add weight to his lithe 6-foot-7 frame, throw his 94-mph fastball, unleash his polished breaking ball and work on his changeup.

I believe this breaks all records for a Latin signing. Personally I wouldn't bet against Beane, this is a transition period for the A's and they appear to be set fairly well for the future, both immediate with Holliday, and for the long term with a good young stable of players.

Wildrose - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 03:20 PM EST (#194871) #

More on Inoa.

The A�s stepped up and pushed the bidding past the $4 million barrier that no other team was willing to cross, and that proved to be enough to close the deal.

Ryan Day - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 03:23 PM EST (#194872) #

That's a fair point, though the Jays have also increased their Latin America scouting efforts lately - Gustavo Pierre, Fuenmayor, Sierra, among others. Pierre and Fuenmayor both got big bucks.

Ron - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 03:26 PM EST (#194873) #

That's because every division has bottom feeders but not ever division has the Yanks and Red Sox.

Here is the average win total of the AL East in the past 10 years:

Yankees: 96
Red Sox: 91.9
Blue Jays: 81.4
O�s: 71.2
Rays: 67.9

The Yankees, Red Sox, O's and Ray's taken together have averaged 81.75 wins the past 10 years. The Halo's and A's are hovering near the 90 win mark in the AL West the past decade (90.2 A's/Halo's 87.3).

So basically the Jays have faced 2 really good teams in the division and 2 rotten one's.

Yes, front office savvy matters. But money clearly matters too. Especially in the AL East, where you have two behemoths to contend with (further reducing the chance of sneaking past them). Cherry-picking an example like the '08 Mariners doesn't really prove anything.

If you think I'm cherry picking by just mentioning the 08 Mariners, than what about the 08 Tigers who had one of the biggest payrolls in MLB and were awful. Just in case you think 2 teams is still cherry picking, what about the 07 White Sox, 07 Dodgers, 07 Mariners, and 07 O's? All of those teams had massive payrolls and missed the playoffs. Some of these clubs even finished below .500

Just because you have a high payroll, it doesn't mean you're going to be a winning ballclub. Heck the Rays had one of the lowest payrolls this past season and they were better than both the Red Sox and Yankees. The A's in the past decade have generally had low payrolls clubs while still being able to make the playoffs a couple of times.

The facts clearly show you don't need to have one of the biggest payrolls in MLB to make the playoffs just like how a big payroll doesn't mean you will automatically make the playoffs.

I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but the Jays ownership/front office has to be willing to be more aggressive in the international market and in the draft. When you look at the money free agents get, draft and international bonuses are peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

TamRa - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 04:28 PM EST (#194874) #

I'm looking over the wins per position in the standings for all divisions but it'll take some time.

In the mean time let me just reply that no one disputes that big spending teams miss the playoffs - often that's because another big spending team beat them out but also sometimes it's because money doesn't trump stupidity.

No one is arguing that you can be a fool with money (i.e. the 2008 mariners) and still make the playoffs.

The discussion is about the effect money has on the ODDS of making the playoffs - about changing the LIKELIHOOD that a team can make the playoffs.

Look, a poorly run team is going to miss the playoffs almost always, no matter how much money they spend - that proves nothing about the effect of money on competent teams.

A team that spends a lot in a division where other teams spend a lot recives a decreased return (against the odds) for their spending - that's self evident....and none of that is at issue.

what is at issue is the ration of teams among playoff teams who are top spenders.

And more specifically, as it applies to the Jays, what is going on in the AL East. When one of your competitors outspends you by $50 million and the other by $100 million, you being smart alone CANNOT overcome that unless your opponant is a moron. Which Cashman isn't great but he's not a moron and Epstien is damned good.

If we were competing with Bavesi here then yeah, okay, screw money - we can outsmart him. But that's not the case.

John Northey - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 04:54 PM EST (#194875) #

Big problem for the Jays? They are in a division with two smart teams which have tons of cash. A deadly combo. The Red Sox, without a doubt, have the smartest front office and mega bucks. The Yankees have a good GM by almost any measure and enough cash to have the Jays roster plus A-Rod plus Jeter plus CC and still have tons of cash left over.

The Rays finally won more than 70 games, but despite the youth and hot prospects are they a flash in the pan ala Detroit or will they stay up there?

The Orioles are a basket case. I feel for their fans as at least we can hope for lighting in a bottle (ie: if all goes right the Jays are in the playoffs) but for the Orioles it is more, if all goes well they might climb to 3rd...maybe.

For the Jays to win they need to keep having drafts where they get guys like Snider in the first round and guys like Litsch in the 20's (he was a 24th round pick in 2004). They need a bit of luck/skill in development - namely having the Purcey's of the world harness their talent rather than go wild - and they need some cash to keep the best around (the Rios/Hill deals were good ideas as were the Wells/Hinske ones years ago). They also need some luck - to have things gel in a year when either the Yanks or Sox are having an off year.

Thinking about it I'd say the smartest spot to blow the cash would be on getting top flight trainers & coaches for the minor leaguers. Get whoever is drafted to perform as well as possible as quick as possible and you can shift a 2nd round pick into the equivalent of a first rounder. Poor training/coaching and that 1st rounder becomes a 3rd rounder.

timpinder - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 06:17 PM EST (#194882) #

The Yankees certainly have tons of cash, but I'm not sure that they've been "smart" with it. Just off the top of my head, you have Pavano, Wright, Posada, Giambi, Damon and Matsui. Those are the most recent I can think of and they all look like bad contracts right now. I don't think that their drafting has been better than average of late either. You've definitely got a case for Boston, but the Yankees are average at best, in my opinion. They just fix their mistakes by spending more money, and that is what's turning me into a bitter fan!

TamRa - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 09:07 PM EST (#194889) #

The Yankees have a good GM by almost any measure

You need a new yardstick. Yours appears to be broken.

John Northey - Friday, December 12 2008 @ 10:58 PM EST (#194891) #

Some feel the Yanks GM isn't good but... since Carter 'touched them all' the Yankees have either won the east or got the wild card every last season except for 2008. In fact form 1998 to 2006 they won the division 9 times in a row. That is quite simply an amazing achievement during which Cashman has been their GM (1998 to today). Their lowest win total (87) is just one below the Jays high water mark since 1993 (88). Yes, he had tons of cash. Yes, Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, and Rivera were there when he took over. So were Dwight Gooden, Tim Raines, Wade Boggs, Darryl Strawberry, Homer Bush, Pete Incaviglia, and various others who have since retired.

I don't care how much money a team has, the Yankees have done a lot of good moves in order to stay at the top. MLB history is buried in teams who blew a lot without anywhere near that level of success. The only teams to compare them to are the Yankees of the 50's and Atlanta in the 90's. That is a very exclusive group. The Jays of 1983-1993 stayed over 500 every year with an ownership that was more than willing to blow money and a GM who has been sainted by many fans mixed with Bobby Cox managing at the start and Cito at the end (I try to forget Jimy Williams) yet they 'only' won the division 5 times never reaching 100 wins with a low water mark of 86 wins twice followed by a 4 year sub-500 stretch.

Sorry, as much as I like Yankee bashing I have to admit the guy running the Yanks for the past decade has done a very good job.

TamRa - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 12:16 AM EST (#194892) #

The Majors have had the current divisional alignment for 11 years. Here's the average wins at each place in the standings over those 11 years:

ALE
1. 98.5
2. 91.8
3. 83.2
4. 72.8
5. 64.5

ALC
1. 93.5
2. 85.8
3. 79.5
4. 70.5
5. 61.7

ALW
1. 96.6
2. 90.2
3. 78.3
4. 70.6

NLE
1. 96.2
2. 86.6
3. 81.1
4. 74.1
5. 67.4

NLC
1. 94.7
2. 88.3
3. 81.7
4. 75.3
5. 70.6
6. 66.6

NLW
1. 92.9
2. 87.2
3. 83.5
4. 75.3
5. 67.6

The AL West kind of screws up comparisons because there's no "middle" team. But other than that, you will notice there are two sucky teams on average in every division. And, on average, there are two teams who win at least 92 games in the AL East and nowhere else.

TamRa - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 12:47 AM EST (#194893) #

Sorry, as much as I like Yankee bashing I have to admit the guy running the Yanks for the past decade has done a very good job.

Check his draft record.

I'm too distracted by other things to look up the transaction history but his record of adding good players is very much a combination of simply being able to pay what no one else could (A-Rod for instance, or CC) and throwing so much against the wall that enough good had to stick to produce results.

I ain't impressed.

I'll give Epstien his props. He's done far more right than wrong and his success is not solely money driven. Casman is a glorified accountant.

TamRa - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 01:00 AM EST (#194894) #

Last thing (probably) I'm doing with the money/wins study tonight:

Over the last 11 years, teams which had a Top 10 payroll finished with an average of 87.7 wins
Teams which were in the middle ten finished with an average of 83.2 wins
Teams in the bottom 10 payrolls (which the Jays were in 4 of those years) had an average win total of 72.1

Teams in the top ten finished with 90 or more wins 48 times in 110 chances and finished with 90 or more losees 11 times
Teams in the bottom 10 finished with ninety or more wins 13 times and ninety or more losses 51 times.

Again, it is clearly POSSIBLE to win on a small budget, but the odds are greatly against you. The only team that has managed to win 90 or more games in consecutive years while being in the bottom 10 in payroll both years is the 2000-2003 Oakland A's.

jerjapan - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 10:42 AM EST (#194901) #

Criticizing Ricciardi for not going over slot in the draft is misguided - that's not his call, but rather ownership's.

In this case, it's like blaming the gas station attendant because you don't like the prices. Complain to Rogers.

Not necessarily. Riccardi has convinced ownership to increase payroll in the past, and most definately, they could TRY it again. Sure, it's pure speculation if it would work, but to me, Riccardi simply does not seem to be the sort of creative GM to go against the grain anyway and try to convince ownership to do something different.

I know that personally when I disagree with something my boss says, I at least talk to her. Sometimes she listens, sometimes she doesn't.

Riccardi's old school (scouts / veterans / free agents / following conventional wisdom) in a division with two teams who are clearly better 'old school' style teams. Riccardi needs his own niche (although his focus on defense certainly does fit with what I'm talking about) - hence my Billy Beane comments earlier. Irregardless of his recent successes or failures, Beane knows the context in which he competes, and frankly, Riccardi doesn't seem to.

Wildrose - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 12:56 PM EST (#194907) #

Irregardless of his recent successes or failures, Beane knows the context in which he competes, and frankly, Riccardi doesn't seem to.

My comment isn't meant as a slight to Ricciardi, who I think in general has done a fairly good job of developing young talent, but I think it's a little too early to put a RIP stake above Beane's grave as commented on yesterday. Sickels released the Oakland A's top 20 list yesterday and I note the A's have 15 players rated as B prospects and above , compared to the Jays who have six. If they follow through and get Furcal and Giambi as rumored ,things could be very interesting by the Bay.

TamRa - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 02:42 PM EST (#194913) #

Regarding the Jays and the slot.

One must remember that the Jays have been recieving equalization payments from Uncle Bud running into the millions of dollars.

This is more than enough incentive to play by Selig's rules in the draft (and re Bonds too for that matter)

That puts the decision making WAY above JP's pay grade.

Impossibles - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 03:54 PM EST (#194916) #

Why does Beane still get credit for being a genius?

Didn't this guy decide to go into full rebuild mode just a year ago, trading away cheap stud pitchers for a mixed bag of marginal prospects, then the next year trades prospect for rental position players? Doesn't seem too logical to me.

christaylor - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 06:58 PM EST (#194920) #

Even if Cashman's record plays out as a glorified accountant (I'm not really on either side of the issue on this one) each team needs a different type of GM - the Yankees clearly need an accountant type, FA signings are part of that job like no other in MLB.

Ron - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 07:03 PM EST (#194921) #

No one is arguing that you can be a fool with money (i.e. the 2008 mariners) and still make the playoffs.

The discussion is about the effect money has on the ODDS of making the playoffs - about changing the LIKELIHOOD that a team can make the playoffs.

Look, a poorly run team is going to miss the playoffs almost always, no matter how much money they spend - that proves nothing about the effect of money on competent teams.

A team that spends a lot in a division where other teams spend a lot recives a decreased return (against the odds) for their spending - that's self evident....and none of that is at issue.

These are the exact points I'm trying to make. Money in itself doesn't mean squat when you have a terrible man in charge like Basavi. But having a large payroll and a smart front office like the Red Sox is a recipe for success. It's going to be an uphill battle for the Jays to topple the Red Sox on a consistent basis going forward because the Red Sox have the better current MLB roster, you could argue they have a better farm system, their front office is smarter, and they have a larger payroll.

Mylegacy - Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 10:19 PM EST (#194926) #

Listen up pilgrims...

Cashman - given the zillions the man has to work with, I give him no more than a B-.
Epstein - almost as rich as Cashman but has made some audacious moves. I like him, A-.
JP - almost as much money as I have, has made some nifty little trades and is FINALLY learning how to draft. B.
Santa Claus - more money than Bill Gates, has a history of getting ME the key things I want! I like him, A+!
All the regulars at DaBox - poorer than church mice, but great friends. I like them all. A++

PS:

An item in the New York Post Sports pages today: "AJ Burnett has just ruptured his glenohumeral joint where it connects to the acromioclavular clavicle acromion in his throwing shoulder when he squeezed the pen he was using to sign his new contract too hard.". Hal Steinbrenner was overheard to remark, "Oh sh*t!"

Pistol - Sunday, December 14 2008 @ 05:18 PM EST (#194934) #

One must remember that the Jays have been recieving equalization payments from Uncle Bud running into the millions of dollars. This is more than enough incentive to play by Selig's rules in the draft (and re Bonds too for that matter)

Are you sure?

I believe the Jays were getting $5 million/year. The cost savings on a player that makes the majors as a contributor is significant. An average starting pitcher on the free agent market gets $10 million/year, and you pay a player about $1 million for his first three years, and still get further savings over the next 3. One good year in the majors and you make up for not getting that $5 million from the commish (and I'm not aware that they have been getting this lately with the dollar where it was the last few years prior to now).

That JP can't communicate this effectively to his superiors (or doesn't realize it himself) is a major failing.

TamRa - Monday, December 15 2008 @ 05:06 AM EST (#194959) #

^^^

I disagree. Bean counters like cost certainty. JP is asking them to forgo a CERTAIN $5 million a year in order to gamble on giving a young player MORE money on the 1 in 4 or less chance that he turns out to be a player who can net that kind of value 3 or 4 years in the future. They are not only gambling against the failure of the player or the failure of player evaluation, but against unpredictible factors like injury.

No accountant type is going to sign off on that.

As for the end of the payments, As far as what I've seen reported, only in 2008 was there no such payment (the currency didn't achieve par until after the 2007 payment was in hand) and they will quite likely resume in 2009.

Pistol - Monday, December 15 2008 @ 11:25 AM EST (#194961) #

Well that may be true. However, that wasn't your argument I was responding to. To repeat:

One must remember that the Jays have been recieving equalization payments from Uncle Bud running into the millions of dollars. This is more than enough incentive to play by Selig's rules in the draft (and re Bonds too for that matter)

To me that's pretty clear that you think it's worth the Jays to toe the line (unless you happen to be that Rogers 'bean counter').

Whether the person that sets the budget buys into the logic or not is an entirely separate matter.

MatO - Monday, December 15 2008 @ 01:33 PM EST (#194962) #

If the Commish were to cancel all future $5M payments and not just one year's worth then that would certainly change the equation.

jerjapan - Monday, December 15 2008 @ 06:26 PM EST (#194971) #

TamRa - Tuesday, December 16 2008 @ 12:15 AM EST (#194986) #

To me that's pretty clear that you think it's worth the Jays to toe the line (unless you happen to be that Rogers 'bean counter').

Whether the person that sets the budget buys into the logic or not is an entirely separate matter

Actually, my point is EXACTLY the oppisite I personally am not at all sure whether it's worth it, I am however VERY convinced that the decision makers for the Jays think it is.

TamRa - Tuesday, December 16 2008 @ 12:18 AM EST (#194987) #

This talk of equalization payments is interesting and something I've never considered before. Does Selig actually punish teams that draft over slot, or sign 'undesirable' players like Bonds? Can anyone point to examples of this?

Officially? NEVER! Perish the thought!!!

But then, "officially" there was never any hint that any team that wanted to shouldn't sign Barry Bonds.

Hands up everyone who thinks any team was ACTUALLY free to do so.

Round-up of the Big News from the last few days | 98 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.