Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Breaking News Teixeira to Bronx

Eight years, $180 million to become the third-highest-paid player on his own team. ESPN.com has the details.

And be sure to read the incredibly amusing announcement on this news from the greatness that is Jamey Newberg, pasted within ...



The girl sitting next to me on the flight just now clearly didn't care, as she ate a footlong Subway, a huge bag of chips, two bags of peanuts, and a large Diet Coke during our 50-minute flight, all while nursing a bakery tin full of who-knows-what, a tin that would have rested comfortably on a regulation NBA rim, that she was using my arm as an arm rest -- rather than, you know, using the arm rest -- so I suspect she doesn't care much that Mark Teixeira has reportedly agreed to terms on an eight-year deal with the Yankees worth between $170-$180 million.

The Angels get a late first and a supplemental first-round pick as compensation, which I'd suggest is worth more than Casey Kotchman and Stephen Marek.

But not anywhere near worth The Five.

More in the next Newberg Report.

Jamey 
Sent from my iPhone...forgive the brevity.
Posted by Mick Doherty on Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 05:14 PM EST.
Teixeira to Bronx | 157 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
John Northey - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 05:45 PM EST (#195135) #
Glurg.  The Yankees sure have the bucks.  According to ESPN they are still working on resigning Pettitte for $10 million.

So, Giambi's 128 OPS+ is replaced by Tex at 151 last year, 150 the year before, 134 career.  Slight improvement I'd say at about the same price (Giambi made $23 million last year according to B-R).

Mussina's 132 ERA+ is replaced by CC's 162 (121 career but 140+ for 3 years in a row) while AJ will replace 20-30 starts of guys well under 100 last year.

NYY Rotation: CC, AJ, Joba, Wang, maybe Pettitte.

Lineup: Posada, Teixeira, Cano, A-Rod, Jeter, Xavier Nady, Damon, Swisher, Matsui.

That defense is ugly, but what an offense and rotation.  This is a good year for the Jays to play the kids I'd say.
[ Reply to This ]
jmoney - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 05:50 PM EST (#195136) #
Hopefully, the Yanks sign Manny too and we can give up hoping on ever competing.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 06:18 PM EST (#195137) #
150 over 128...140 over 132....105 (AJ) over roughly 80 (Rasner and Ponson)...

Upgrades, sure, but I'm not bowing down in worship of a team for the ages - the Red Sox may still be better.

Don't forget, Abreu (120) is out and Nady (career 108, 105 in NY last year) is in. Damon, Jeter, Matsui, Rivera, Petitte (if he signs) and Posada are all going into their age 35 or better year next year, and injury possibilities are all over the field.

As to how I run my team, I take no notice of this. If I was going young I still go young, if I was trying to be competitive, I still try to be competitive.


That said, my general opinion of the Yankees?

Nuke Them From Orbit - It's the only way to be sure.

http://mvn.com/thesouthpaw/

(I'm proud of the graphic, ok?)


[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 06:20 PM EST (#195138) #
So this pushes the Jays pick for Burnett down to a third?
[ Reply to This ]
parrot11 - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 06:20 PM EST (#195139) #
Doesn't change a whole lot. The Jays will be lucky to finish anywhere close to the playoffs for at least the next 3 or 4 years and probably much longer. Hopefully, this organization can finally see the writing on the wall, fire JP and start the rebuilding process, instead of continuing with this charade of competing for a playoff spot.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 06:26 PM EST (#195140) #

jmoney lives at Da Box. And Jay money? Does this live anywhere? Is Jay money even an acceptable currency in the baseball marketplace any more? Or is it like old scrip?

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 06:48 PM EST (#195141) #
Doesn't change a whole lot. The Jays will be lucky to finish anywhere close to the playoffs for at least the next 3 or 4 years and probably much longer. Hopefully, this organization can finally see the writing on the wall, fire JP and start the rebuilding process, instead of continuing with this charade of competing for a playoff spot.

I see this sentiment a lot but I think it's very poorly reasoned.

Okay, so we are to assume that the Yankees and Red Sox are spending so much money and are so good that we can't compete with our pitiful roster.That's the idea, right? That for the next, shall we say 4 years, we're toast so we might as well build towards a window which might exist in 2012-2017...right?

Where to begin in picking that apart:

1. Are the Yankees and Red Sox going to suddenly STOP spending? Or will the Yankees payroll in 2012 be $300 million?

2. Are all our prospects so VERY good that they will be, in their prime, better than whoever the Yankees are spending there $300 million on?

3. Are the prospects we could get from the veterans on our pitiful team going to be that good?

4. What happens if we decide to rebuild and in 2010 the multitude of Yankees players who will be 37 or better all show their age together (to say nothing of the potential for issue with Ortiz, Drew, Lowell, and others in Boston? Gonna suck pretty hard to watch the Rays take advantage of that while we're wishing we still had Doc.

5. How do we know anything at all about the economics of the Jays, Baseball, or Canada in 2012....or before...or after...by what psychic power do we determine what year is the year we can afford to compete and the Yankees can't?

6. How many fans will still be coming to the games if we rebuild for the next three years (again) and without them, how will we afford to keep our rebuilt team together or add the missing parts?

I could go on and on. The insanity of "we'll go in the toliet on purpose and plan on competeing 3 or 4 years from now is bad enough on the surface, but when you figure it's a strategy for competing with the Yankees' cash, it's in a whole different deminision.

The only time a team should ditch all veterans and resign themselves to last place is when ownership insists that the payroll is all that matters. If Rogers came out tomorrow and said we had to get under $50 million, then, yeah, rebuild.

But rebuilding because the Yankees are spending...less money than they spent last year to win 89 games?

I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense.

[ Reply to This ]
Ron - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 07:25 PM EST (#195142) #

Let me congratulate the Yankees ownership for their commitment to winning. Unlike numerous other cheap skate owners, the Yankees have continued to invest in marquee/star player transactions. The Yankees could easily pocket most of their money but they choose to invest in their ballclub.

Also kudos are in order for Scott Boras. The USA is in their worst economic climate since The Great Depressions and he’s still able to get his client, who isn’t even one of the ten best players in baseball, a 180 million dollar contract. If I were heading into free agency, there’s no other agent in baseball I would want more than Scott Boras. His track record speaks for itself.

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 08:12 PM EST (#195143) #
I dunno. If I were a Yankee fan, I think I'd rather that untold wealth be spend on an unparalleled farm system, development staff, overseas baseball academies and the like so that I developed the very best players from within, and signed them so that they would remain with the team their whole career, and only rarely brought in a carpet-bagger to patch over some failing.

It seems to me I'd rather root for life-long Yankees than free agent imports.



[ Reply to This ]
Ron - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 09:17 PM EST (#195144) #
I dunno. If I were a Yankee fan, I think I'd rather that untold wealth be spend on an unparalleled farm system, development staff, overseas baseball academies and the like so that I developed the very best players from within, and signed them so that they would remain with the team their whole career, and only rarely brought in a carpet-bagger to patch over some failing.

It seems to me I'd rather root for life-long Yankees than free agent imports.

I am a Yankees fan and everything you mentioned already exists. The Yankees have a baseball academy in Boca Chica, Dominican Repuiblic. A Yankees group fronted by Brian Cashmen, Randy Levine,  and Jean Afterman went to China in 2007 to explore business and baseball opportunities. Going into last season, the Yankees had one of the top 10 prospects in all of baseball (Phil Hughes). The Yankess have also been aggressive in going after international players such as Wang, Contreras, Soriano ,and Jesus Montero. The key player going to the Pirates in the Nady trade was signed and developed by the Yankees (Tabata). You want some home grown players that have remained in a Yankees uniform? How about 2 future Hall Of Famers in Jeter and Rivera? If 2's not enough, how about Jorge Posada.

The Yankees have it all. They are aggresive in the international market, are willing to go over slot in the draft, are willing to trade players they develop for players from other clubs, and are able to keep internally developed players with long term contracts. The Yankees employ all their resources to win, yes that includes signing a lot of big ticket free agents, and they do it within the framework of the CBA.

It would be all peaches and cream if you could win the World Series where all of your core players were drafted/signed and developed by your favorite club, but this rarely ever happens (the Phillies did a pretty good last season with 3 out of their top 4 guys being home grown talent). The 93 Jays team had a lot of core members that weren't drafted/signed (Morris, Henderson, Molitor, Stewart, etc..) by the Jays and for me, this didn't diminish their accomplishment.
 



[ Reply to This ]
christaylor - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 11:04 PM EST (#195145) #
Sigh. I agree with the sentiment that this really changes nothing for the Jays, but it is a bit hard to swallow. Imagine if the Jays had added (or in AJ's case, retained) the three FA the Yankees have - instantly people are talking about the Jays for the World Series.

Truly, it is only money that is standing between the Jays and a title and the Yankees are tired of being embarrassed.
[ Reply to This ]
parrot11 - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 11:46 PM EST (#195147) #
"Where to begin in picking that apart:

1. Are the Yankees and Red Sox going to suddenly STOP spending? Or will the Yankees payroll in 2012 be $300 million?

2. Are all our prospects so VERY good that they will be, in their prime, better than whoever the Yankees are spending there $300 million on?

3. Are the prospects we could get from the veterans on our pitiful team going to be that good?

4. What happens if we decide to rebuild and in 2010 the multitude of Yankees players who will be 37 or better all show their age together (to say nothing of the potential for issue with Ortiz, Drew, Lowell, and others in Boston? Gonna suck pretty hard to watch the Rays take advantage of that while we're wishing we still had Doc.

5. How do we know anything at all about the economics of the Jays, Baseball, or Canada in 2012....or before...or after...by what psychic power do we determine what year is the year we can afford to compete and the Yankees can't?

6. How many fans will still be coming to the games if we rebuild for the next three years (again) and without them, how will we afford to keep our rebuilt team together or add the missing parts?

I could go on and on. The insanity of "we'll go in the toliet on purpose and plan on competeing 3 or 4 years from now is bad enough on the surface, but when you figure it's a strategy for competing with the Yankees' cash, it's in a whole different deminision.

The only time a team should ditch all veterans and resign themselves to last place is when ownership insists that the payroll is all that matters. If Rogers came out tomorrow and said we had to get under $50 million, then, yeah, rebuild.

But rebuilding because the Yankees are spending...less money than they spent last year to win 89 games?

I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense."


I hardly think that you've picked anything apart. In fact, you're viewing this from the wrong direction. It has much more to do (or at least equal) with the Jays than it has to do with the Yankees and Red Sox.

1. Nowhere did I suggest that the Yankees or Red Sox were going to stop spending money. This is about three factors, 2 of which the Jays have control over (although that's not the case atm): 1) the strength of the team, 2) the capacity to improve, 3) the strengths and capacities to improve of the other teams in the division. Frankly speaking the Jays don't have close to a good enough team nor do they have the capacity to dramatically improve either via their farm system or free agency/trades (due to hamstringing themselves financially). And the distance that they have to catch up is significant.

The Leafs have played ostrich for close to 40 years (their MO was try to squeak in and catch lightning in a bottle) and I can tell you that that strategy does not work. Fans might not need to face the realities of their situation, but teams certainly should.

And let me be clear on this, I've never said that it was impossible to realistically compete with the Yankees and Red Sox. The Jays just need a much better team to do so.

2. Currently they're not, but that entirely the point of rebuilding. It's to accumulate resources (esp elite caliber talent) so that eventually they will. Blowing up this team will help in that regard, as with being patient drafting and developing prospects, and good baseball decision-making. In retrospect, probably the worst thing that could have happened to the Jays was that they had much earlier success than they had anticipated and consequently thought that they were a lot closer than they actually were.

3. I think that the Jays could get some value for a number of these players. When I proposed blowing up the team a lot of these players had more value. But, I would start dealing players whose value are high (e.g. Halladay) and others at appropriate times (e.g. Downs and Ryan at the trade deadline). Put it this way, the only player that I would be opposed to dealing is Snider. Everyone else is fair game for the right price. Plus, "tanking" for a few seasons isn't necessarily a bad thing as it allows a team access to the Pedro Alvarez's and David Price's of the draft.

4. Sure, that could happen. But, what the team should be aiming for is a sustainable model that can reasonably be able to expect to succeed at some regularity. Besides the likelihood that all 3 teams collapse at the same time are fairly slim. This more about building the Jays than hoping for theoretical situations to happen.

5. Like I said before this is about building the Jays properly so that they can compete with the Yankees regardless of what they try to do. Who knows what the economics will be like, but that worry probably goes out the window if a team is rebuilding as the expenses are minimized to a large degree.

6. This organization was willing to rebuild when they hired JP in 2001. So, I don't see why the big fear in 2009. Fans will come back when the team starts to win. That's kind of the montra of Toronto. There will still be that core that will be loyal to the team regardless and the attendence drop would probably be offset by the drop in the payroll.

Trying to implement the same failed strategy time after time expecting a different result... Now that's INSANITY!
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 11:54 PM EST (#195148) #
Implementing the same strategy that built the 4th best team in 2008 has more possibilities though.

the fundamental difference I have with the "blow it up" crowd is the (false, IMO) conception that the current team is not a good one.
As long as we proceed from such divergent starting places, we are bound to arrive at different conclusions.


[ Reply to This ]
timpinder - Tuesday, December 23 2008 @ 11:58 PM EST (#195149) #

Minor transaction that may be of interest to Jays' fans is that Gustavo Chacin has signed a minor league contract with the Nationals.  I wonder if they'll market a cologne for him in Syracuse.

[ Reply to This ]
Jays2010 - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 12:00 AM EST (#195150) #

The Yankees can spend whatever they want and the Jays can play their kids...that is fine. By far the most frustrating thing about being a Blue Jays fan is the fact that having a top 10 team in baseball isn't good enough to have a legitimate sniff of the playoffs. Last year was proof of that and if (hopefully) we keep Halladay we should have a pretty promising window from 2010-2014. And it means nothing because we may very will still be the 3rd or 4th best team in the division. Let's collectively blame the format of MLB before beheading JP...

[ Reply to This ]
Ron - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 12:45 AM EST (#195151) #
From Jordan Bastian's latest article at mlb.com

"We won't be in on anyone who's going to cost any money," Ricciardi said. "No, we're done," Ricciardi said. "We won't be spending any money."

The article goes on to mention they are still trying to sign Michael Barrett to a minor league deal. I imagine Matt Clement and maybe Michael Barrett weren't the big free agent splashes Doc was looking for.

Even with this said, I'm looking forward to seeing the kids get a chance to play. If you're a young pitcher looking for playing time, there's no better organization than the Jays.

[ Reply to This ]
Mylegacy - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 12:59 AM EST (#195152) #
Time for a dose of REALITY girls...

You're depressed? I'm a Hamilton Tiger Cat fan have been since I was 5 years old (I'm 62 now)...when I was an impressionable kid the Cats made it to the playoffs 11 years in a row!!!!! Since then - not so much. Also since then - over 30 years ago I moved to BC, not a lot of Ti-Cat news here everyday in the local rags - I'm still a Ti-Cat fan!

Oskee wee wee, Oskee waa waa, Come on Ti-Cats, Eat em raw raw!!!!

The Jays are MY team - jump ship if you want - BUT I'm here for the duration - till death do us part - you know the routine. We had a window of 07/08/09 for reasons we all know it didn't work. As the famous Chinese philosopher once said - "Sometimes shit happens."

As far as, "watching the kids..." in 09 we'll see Snider, Cecil after May and Arencibia by June. 09's success will ride on the broad shoulders and powerful(?) arms of Purcey, Richmond and Janssen. 2010 should see Cooper and Mills but for the "kiddy corps" to arrive you're looking at late 2011-IM(H)O.

Now - lets play ball. Is it April yet?

[ Reply to This ]
christaylor - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 03:40 AM EST (#195153) #
Well, Mylegacy, you'll have to admit the psychology of Ti-cats fan is on a different scale than a Jays fan. Since I started my graduate work at McMaster this has been apparent. The Ti-cats are clearly *very* important to Hamiltonians, though, for the life of me, I can't figure out why... even after hearing them do the chant at a game.

The nickname of "Never Win" stadium for Ivor Wynne stadium does have to be one of the great stadium nicknames in sports though...

I think we'll be surprised at how well the 2009 Jays do... playing the Yankees will be tough, but I'd be the Sox and Rays will do worse than they did last year. How much worse will directly correlate with how well the Jays do, I'd be. The Jays will have to catch lighting in a bottle from at least one starter - my bets would either McGowan has to come back healthy and raring to go or Purcey has to step up mightily.

Lastly, I doubt JP is done... he's going to pull off something before pitchers and catchers report. How many of us though a deal for Scutaro and Rolen was coming last year. Sure, that's not on the order of CC/Teixera but I think we'll see at least one move to match those.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 09:17 AM EST (#195154) #
Keith Law: "The Blue Jays are in an unenviable position now, staring up at three clearly superior teams despite having a roster that would contend in just about every other division. It may now make sense to explore trading core players like Vernon Wells and even Roy Halladay, although the latter's no-trade clause may limit the return."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3790592&name=law_keith
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 09:50 AM EST (#195155) #
Well said Mylegacy.  I also intend to be a Jays fan for life (I'm now 39).  The excitement of 85 when they first made the playoffs was amazing - a team made up of home grown mixed with cast offs and a couple of guys gained through trades went out and won 99 games beating out the Yankees on the final Saturday of the regular season.  I prefer to forget game 7 of the ALCS (I have a Jays World Series pennant for 1985 - pre printed for the inevitable which never happened).

Watching the kids come up and make something of themselves is always fun.  From a young Dave Stieb to Tony Fernandez to Junior Felix (I thought he'd be a star, didn't know he was actual a geezer but his inside the park grand slam to beat the Red Sox was great fun to watch) to John Olerud to Carlos Delgado to Roy Halladay we've seen a lot of good and not so good guys make it.  Sometimes it is frustrating (1994-2008) sometimes it drives you crazy (1987 and the rest of the Jimy Williams years) but it is always fun. 

In 2009 we'll see kid catchers, kid pitchers and continue to see Wells/Rios/Hill through 2014.  Hopefully Halladay signs an extention next winter and Snider makes it.  With luck we could have a very good team in the 2010-2014 window.  Without we'll get what we've had since about '98 - namely a good team that, if it gets the right breaks, can make the playoffs.

I'm not one for blowing up teams.  One never knows when things will go wrong for the guys ahead of you - the Yankees hitters could get old fast, the Red Sox could decline more, the Rays could suffer the plexiglass effect (climb fast, hit glass, fall back, climb again to try to break through).  Good to have a team that has key parts (ace starter, ace closer, vets who you know what to expect from) so "all" we need is a few kids having great starts to make it work.
[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 10:28 AM EST (#195156) #
"the fundamental difference I have with the "blow it up" crowd is the (false, IMO) conception that the current team is not a good one."

The Jays number 2 starter is Jesse Litsch and their best hitter is Vernon Wells. That's not a team that's going to contend in most divisions. At this point, I would be surprised if the Jays reach .500 as they are so clearly outclassed in offense and pitching by 3 different teams in the division. (and I believe Tampa will sign Bradley or Burrell to play DH to further improve themselves). This is not a core that is ever going to contend. Just look at the difference in the rosters. These teams have talent. Not "maybe he can develop into a decent player" kind of talent, but the all-star hitters and pitchers kind. The Jays really have no choice but to try to rebuild. If not, it's going to be a long long time before the Jays are interesting again.
[ Reply to This ]
Ryan Day - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 10:53 AM EST (#195157) #
Last year, the Jays would have contended in the AL Central, and NL East and West. The only major piece they're missing - particularly from Cito's Team, which went 51-37 (.580) - is Burnett.

They're obviously not as good as the Yankees or Red Sox, unless one of those teams is absolutely plagued by bad luck. Probably not as good as Tampa, either (Tampa's better, but is more susceptible to bad luck.) But of course, I really don't expect the Yankees or Red Sox to get stupid or poor any time soon, and I don't see any appeal in following Tampa's model of  Sucking to Success.

So I suppose we should all just give up now.
[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 10:58 AM EST (#195158) #
Mench signed in Japan for $1.8MM.

How are the Jays supposed to compete with the dollars thrown around by the Hanshin Tigers??

[ Reply to This ]
jerjapan - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 01:07 PM EST (#195160) #

The Jays are in the AL east.  Doesn't matter if they'd be a contender elsewhere, or that the economic situation for our division is unfair.  I don't have numbers but I believe they will be facing one of the toughest schedules of any major league team next year, and have three teams that are generally considered by most baseball cognizati ahead of them in their division. 

Will they contend?  Every year someone gets lucky and overachieves - there are reasons to think it could be the Jays.

Do they have a more challenging situation than pretty much any other team in baseball?  I'd say yes - name a team with more difficult circumstances (beyond their control of course ... the Pirates and Royals have some challenges for sure)!

Do they have to blow everything up to position themselves better for contention?  Absolutely not.  There's a false argument floating around the Box that harkens back to George W.  'you're either with us (optimists) or against us (blow it up, terrorist!)'. 

You could easily try and contend and then SELL HIGH at the trade deadline if you are out of it.  If the sell high deal is not available, don't do it.  But every year some GM proves it's possible.  This is what JP has failed to do repeatedly. 

Prove it, you say?  Many oft-repeated rumours floated around trade deadlines past had the Jays acquiring Aybar and Santana for Wells, or Howard for Lilly.  Yes, hindsight is 20-20 and these were rumours - but nobody on the box is doubting the veracity of the Rios for Linecum proposals of last year ... these were amongst the more credible rumours circulating, and certainly Wells was desired by a number of teams.  Had this deal have been made, we'd have had the depth to trade Burnett at the deadline (and yes, we KNEW he wasn't going to resign, and we KNEW that he may bring little back in draft picks - check countless posts from July), wouldn't have resigned Johnny Mac, and would have tons of cash this off season to pick up the bargains that are likely to materialize (again, according to many respected pundits). 

In other posts, I've repeatedly pointed to deals that HAVE brought talent back in this situation (Linebrink to the Brewers in 2007 springs to mind as a deal similar to one we could have made).  Sure they don't all work out ... but just because some don't doesn't mean that it's a poor stragety - some will. 

JP, for whatever reason, won't agressively cut bait on a challenging season  and move to improve his teams chances short and long term, and this is his greatest failing, and the reason the Jays will likely not contend again next year.

Reasonably good GM?  maybe.  but not for this team, in this division.  Don't forget - those of us saying this for the past three years have been proven right, while the optimists?  not so much.  we've won nothing, failed to aggressively improve our future or present situation with a heavy contractual burden for aging players and a minor league system that, while improving through the draft, could be even better with a few lower-placed finishes and some vets for prospects trades. 

We 'fire JP' types don't hate the Jays - I've loved this team since my grandfather took me to a game at the Ex over twenty years ago!  I would say that we are more realistic then the optimists though ;)

Merry Christmas to everyone on the Box - I've disagreed with pretty much everyone on here at some point, but it's a lively, entertaining and informative forum, and shows the true passion of Jays fans! 

And here's hoping I'm totally wrong about everything I just wrote about our chances and JP! 

[ Reply to This ]
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 01:28 PM EST (#195161) #
jerjapan, kudos on a well-written, well-thought-out and definitively self-aware post.  As a point of order, I disagree with about half the things you wrote, but think you are on target with the other half. That sounds about right!
[ Reply to This ]
Mylegacy - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 03:03 PM EST (#195164) #
Now for some GOOD NEWS!!

After the 09 season the "MIRACLE JAYS of 09" will be the talk of the town! Led by a resurgent veteran core of Scott Rolen (finished fourth in the MVP voting), Lyle Overbay (over 25 homers in his best ever season), Vernon Wells (back to his 30 homer, 100 rbi form), and the suddenly wonderful Alex Rios who hit 314, with 32 homers and 122 rbi's to lead the team in all three categories. If that wasn't enough two youngsters Adam Lind and Travis Snider each had a season for the ages. Adam's 27 homers and Travis' 31 homers helped power this impressive offense to second place and a Wild Card berth.

However, they couldn't have done it without the leadership of Roy Halladay. In late May just as Dustin McGowan returned from his shoulder injury Roy went on a career best 18 win run to go 25 and 6, Roy's best run ever and the best season in Blue Jays history! McGowan fully healthy, Purcey finding his "control and command." Litsch proving 08 was no fluke and Super Rook Brett Cecil rounded out a Jay's rotation that shocked the circuit and Major League Base Ball.

On the Farm the break out of three FANTASTIC bats bodes well for the future! David Cooper, Adam Loewen and Eric Thames all slugged over 25 homers and showed that in Toronto the future looks decidedly BLUE - and THAT'S a GOOD THING!!

[ Reply to This ]
zeppelinkm - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 03:38 PM EST (#195165) #
Mylegacy: I think your post will be what plays through my mind when I'm going to sleep this Christmas evening.  All of those things happening would certainly be considered a miracle but none of them on their own are ridiculous, which is what I really like.  What a great post! Go Jays Go!
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 03:53 PM EST (#195166) #

Now for some GOOD NEWS!!

Looks like Rog has started dipping into the egg nog.

 

[ Reply to This ]
Dewey - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 04:28 PM EST (#195167) #
Well, unfortunately, I have many things to boggle at in jerjapan's post (I'll start with a tiny one:  I don't think there's such a word as “cognizati”;  cognoscenti maybe?).

But there are a great many flaws in argument throughout.  I'll focus on a few:

“If the sell high deal is not available, don't do it.  But every year some GM proves it's possible.  This is what JP has failed to do repeatedly. “    Maybe JP 'failed' to make such a trade because it wasn't workable for the Jays, even though it might have been do-able for another team, whose circumstances were quite different.

You cite “Many oft-repeated rumours”  but then really focus on only one as being a 'credible' possibility (the Rios for Linecum proposals).   Nonetheless, you continue to say these (as if there were several trades that were “credible rumours”, not merely the Rios/Lincecum one.  Then you proceed fantastically (ie., in a fantasizing mode) to surmise what might have been “Had this deal ... been made” ... Then this could have happened, and then that, and then something else:  it's all mere conjecture based on a might have been.

Saying that “countless posts from July” argued that AJ wouldn't be back doesn't, of course,  guarantee that that would be the case, and that we would have been left with lots of money to “ pick up the “bargains that are likely to materialize (again, according to many respected pundits).”  Well, “bargains” don't often “materialize”; nor do “respected pundits” prove to be right as often as they are dead wrong.

Just because some other team, operating under a host of different assumptions perhaps, and certainly under different circumstances, was able to conclude what seems a satisfactory trade does not mean that such an opportunity was open to the Jays.  We simply do not know.

“JP, for whatever reason, won't agressively cut bait . . .”   Again, you don't know what the circumstances were; you don't know *why* he didn't do it, but seem to infer that it's just some sort of defect JP suffers from. 

And the assertion that “those of us saying this for the past three years have been proven right” is nonsense.  Nothing whatsoever has been “proven”  You simply do not have the specific and particular information necessary to come to a sound judgement about whether JP will or won't “aggressively cut bait”.  You can assert whatever you like, as often as you like; but that “proves”  nothing at all—except that that is your opinion.  Unlike Mick, I'm afraid I don't find this post to be very well thought out or very well written.  Sorry.
[ Reply to This ]
Olerud363 - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 04:38 PM EST (#195168) #

If all this happened the Blue Jays would win about 130 games.    They don't need super star efforts, they need to prevent disasters.  The problem is that there are so many spots where disasters could happen, Overbay Rolen could be injured and horrible, Hill might not come back strong, Shortstop could be a continuing problem, Litsh could implode, Jansen may not recover, McGowan may not recover etc. etc. etc. 

I think the blue jays have a shot at second if the following happens, and only one AL east team goes high 90s...

- Halladay staying healthy at 2006/2007 level

- Lind and Snider being solid contributers (Hinske 2002 level)

- Rios, Wells, healthy and hitting at career levels (.280 25 homers or so)

- one of Rolen/Overbay healthy

- Hill recovers and returns to 2007 level 

- McGowan returns in May at 2007 form.

- one of Jansen, Litsh gives us a solid Brad Radke type control pitcher season.

- one of Purcey/Cecil gives a Ted Lilly type season.

 

 

 

[ Reply to This ]
Olerud363 - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 04:41 PM EST (#195169) #

by the way...  every year I do reasonable predictions like this and think we have a shot...  The problem is some of the conservative predictions come true, but some disasters happen and there are no superstar performances.  

Others have said that is JPs problem, he doesn't draft/trade for superstar potential, and when the inevitable disasters occur, there are no superstar performances to compensate.  

[ Reply to This ]
jmoney - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 05:25 PM EST (#195170) #
I may of made a negative post, but I'm not gonna stop watching the Jays.

Just kind of sucks watching the Yanks sign everything including A.J.

In the meantime, our GM says he's not spending any money, and I'm not even sure Rogers wants the Jays. Kind of a downer if you ask me.

[ Reply to This ]
Dave Till - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 07:06 PM EST (#195172) #
So the Jays don't want to spend any money, and their owners possibly want to sell the team? It's like the Interbrew era all over again. Is Gord Ash available to return to his old job, perchance?

As for the Yankees: it'll be interesting to see whether their rate of free agent acquisition can remain greater than their rate of aging. They could still finish third, despite all this.

[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 08:02 PM EST (#195175) #

   In this holiday season, I'm grateful for the gift of Bauxites such as WillRain and MyLegacy who keep hope alive.   Otherwise we would be stuck with the hopelessness of people such as Glevin who flatly declare that the Jays offence "will be terrible" (previous thread) and that the Jays will not even be "interesting" for a long long time (this thread).   I don't see how anyone can proclaim with 100-per-cent certainty that the Jays offence "will" be terrible and the Jays "will not" be interesting for a "long long time."  (To be fair, Glevin said the Jays might be interesting if they "rebuild" -- presumably this means that the Jays must trade Halladay, dump Rolen and Overbay, trade or dump every other veteran and go entirely with kids. That ain't gonna happen, so Glevin is basically telling us that the Jays "will not" be interesting for many years to come.)   Unless he has a crystal ball, such flat statements of certainty are simplistic bar-room opinions, not the nuanced analysis that Batters Box usually provides.  It's easy to predict that the Jays have only a slim chance of making the playoffs -- call it a 10 per cent chance or whatever -- but please don't call it a zero-per-cent chance.  Anything can happen in baseball, and I'm not prepared to stop watching the Jays for the next three or four seasons because there is only a 10 per cent chance of making the playoffs.  As long as that slim chance is alive, nobody is going to persuade me to stop watching.

    Which brings us to the word "interesting."   Glevin seems to misunderstand the word.  The Jays might not be interesting to him.  Fine.  He's entitled to be bored by anything. Go ahead, please be bored.  But don't tell us that the team will not be "interesting" to others.   I'm always fascinated by how a season unfolds, even if the Jays ultimately fail.  There are dozens of intriguing stories on the 2009 Jays.  The rise of Travis Snider and Adam Lind and Alex Rios.  The comebacks of Aaron Hill and Casey Janssen and Dustin McGowan and Scott Rolen.  What about Purcey -- is he for real?  What about the great pitching prospects on the farm?  Hell, I'm even interested in whether Joe Inglett can duplicate his 2008 season and give us a solid second-baseman so that Hill can switch to shortstop.  Please don't tell me that the Jays will not be "interesting" to me and others, even if they're not interesting to you.

[ Reply to This ]
zeppelinkm - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 08:18 PM EST (#195176) #

While Glevin and WillRain clearly represent both ends of the spectrum, I don't think either are unreasonable in how they present their arguments. While Glevin might not have flushed out his reasoning in this thread or the last one, I think he's gone into more detail in some of the previous threads as this debate has carried on over many weeks. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he means interesting along the lines of fighting for a playoff spot, not about the actual storylines that playout throughout a season. 

Personally I am a glass is half full kind of guy. I hope for the best, but accept the reality of what happens if it isn't the best. I also thank god that Roy Halladay is a Blue Jay because with him, at the very least, this team is immensely watchable 20% of the time.

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 09:34 PM EST (#195180) #
I don't think it is quite the Interbrew era yet, with one year of belt tightening.  In truth a hands off owner is preferable to a hands on one as it worked great in the Labatt era (2 WS wins plus another 3 division titles) and has been a major headache in Baltimore for 10 years now (fun at first, but so are rollercoasters - if you stayed on one for 2 minutes you have a blast, 2 hours and you would be sick of it, 20 hours and you are ready to jump).

And please, no Gord Ash. I like having Jay prospects grow up here rather than in Texas or somewhere else.
[ Reply to This ]
Mylegacy - Wednesday, December 24 2008 @ 11:26 PM EST (#195181) #
Aaron Hill (right handed hitter) - in my mind he starts with Inglett (left handed hitter) in a platoon at second. IF Hill's the full time 2nd baseman it'll be because he's earned it in Spring Training.

Twas the night before Christmas and all though the house not a creature was stirring except Mylegacy...

Merry Christmas All!

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 03:06 AM EST (#195182) #
The Jays number 2 starter is Jesse Litsch and their best hitter is Vernon Wells.

As far as you know right now.

This is not a core that is ever going to contend.

There's a hundred pronouncemnts like that every spring that are proven false by fall.

it's going to be a long long time before the Jays are interesting again.

I  find a lot "interesting" about THIS roster. But then, I can find an interest in a team that doesn't make the playoffs. For instance, Doc's great season was interesting, Carlson's come-from-nowhere season was interesting, seeing Purcey get his shot was interesting, watching rolen play 3B was interesting, rooting for "Super Joe" was interesting, seeing Lind dominate the league for over a month was interesting, watching Snider arrive was interesting.

And in the future, watching Snider, Cecil, JPA, Campbell, Emaus, Mills, Romero, Lowen, and etc add their talents to this team over the next 2-3 years will be quite interesting. Watching Rios perhaps finally become the superstar many predict, watching Hill grow at 2B, watching to see if Rolen rediscovers his form, watching League harness his potential....all stuff I can't WAIT to see. And all stuff I can enjoy even in the absence of a much-longed-for playoff spot.

And, if it comes down to it, all will be much more interesting on an 80-something win team than on a 60-something win team.

Look, I can't swear to you the Jays will be neck and neck with Boston and NY (I don't think the gap with TB is NEARLY as large as many of you seem to) - anyone would be a fool to say that. BUT I can list off for you a couple of dozen perfectly reasonable things that could easily happen - could easily ALL happen - which would give the Jays a chance to contend. The same sort of stuff that happened in the AL Central last season. Nine months ago Glavin the Twins fan would have assumed the Twins were not going to be interesting in a division with Detroit and Cleveland. Glavin the Marlins fan would have been resigned to battling Washington for last place. Glavin the mariners fans would have been planning his October around his wild-card winning team...

And all of them would have been wrong.


[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 03:27 AM EST (#195183) #
Prove it, you say?  Many oft-repeated rumours floated around trade deadlines past had the Jays acquiring Aybar and Santana for Wells, or Howard for Lilly. [
The latter strongly denied, the former would not make us a better team.

 Yes, hindsight is 20-20 and these were rumours - but nobody on the box is doubting the veracity of the Rios for Linecum proposals of last year ... these were amongst the more credible rumours circulating, and certainly Wells was desired by a number of teams.  Had this deal have been made, we'd have had the depth to trade Burnett at the deadline (and yes, we KNEW he wasn't going to resign, and we KNEW that he may bring little back in draft picks - check countless posts from July), wouldn't have resigned Johnny Mac, and would have tons of cash this off season to pick up the bargains that are likely to materialize (again, according to many respected pundits).

Umm...no, not really. First, Wells and McDonald combine for $11.9 million in 2009. Second, if Wells wasn't here Rios would be in CF, possibly Snider would be looking at RF - and we'd have to spend the money saved from Wells to replace Wells Bat.

In fact, last year we would have been noteable worse since an already weak offensive team would have been short the best bat in 2008, the SS offense and defense would be a wash, and Santana would not have provided enough contribution to overcome some disaster like having Wilkerson in RF every day.

You can argue that deal saves us the $100 million plus that Wells will make down the line but we wouldn't be better in 2009.

JP, for whatever reason, won't agressively cut bait on a challenging season  and move to improve his teams chances short and long term, and this is his greatest failing,

I don't disagree with this but...

...the reason the Jays will likely not contend again next year.

This seems an overstatement,

those of us saying this for the past three years have been proven right, while the optimists?  not so much.

And which of you, exactly, predicted in the spring of 2007 that Vernon Wells was going to turn in an 89 OPS? Which of you predicted Overbay would get hit by a pitch? Which of you predicted Aaron Hill would get knocked out for the season by Eckstien's elbow, or that Marcum would be lost to TJ? Which of you projected that the Jays would be historically bad w/RISP as of may 1...not just below average, legendarily bad? That kind of crowing proves nothing at all.

If the team goes out and plays all year in reasonable health and just simply isn't that good, then yeah, ok, the "realists" were right. but the 2008 Blue Jays WERE good, and the 2007 team never had a chance with those injuries.

I'm not impressed with the psychic ability of my fellow posters in this regard.

with a heavy contractual burden for aging players

Cliched hyperbole. There is only one burdensom contract on this team and he just turned 30. The contractual obligation for other "agining players" (assuming here you do not mean to dis Doc's deal) Adds up to a paltry $37 million spread over seven players.
That's NOTHING in terms of being a "burden" to team building.

Feel free to argue whether or not we'd be better off to deal them - I happen to agree that barring a surprise run the jays should market the hell out of at least Ryan and Overbay in July and look for a taker for Wells.

But that valid point can be made with a valid argument.

Merry Christmas to everyone on the Box - I've disagreed with pretty much everyone on here at some point, but it's a lively, entertaining and informative forum, and shows the true passion of Jays fans!

Can't debate that!

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 04:15 AM EST (#195184) #
Here's my Christmas gift early crystal ball...prob the basis of a more elaborate blog post tomorrow but at least a preview tonight. Before i start let me firmly agree that there are WAY more land minds in the field before us this year than last year. The margin for error (and bad luck) is exceedingly thin - still Let me show you what is possible:

Wells - .316 - .355 - ..537 - .892
Rios -- .308 - .343 - ..533 - .876

Lofty? In both cases that's how they hit under Cito in 2008.

Overbay - .291 - .384 - .481 - .865
Bautista - .250 - .339 - .546 - .885

Interesting? Platoon splits from 2009 - Overtista is a 1B who hits like Joey Votto did last year...all you need is butter to teach him to field 1B - how hard can that be?

Rolen - .285 - .375 - .514 - .889
Rolen - .298 - .350 - .532 - .882

Seem similar? The top line is his career averages minus the two "shoulder years" when he was well below average.
The second line is what he did after coming off the DL last year. Just 27 games, sure, but still. Tat's remarkably similar.

Aaron Hill - .291 - .333 - ..459 - .792

We all know that Scutero and Barajas aren't hitters so I'll not discuss them, but out of the seven guys in our lineup who CAN hit, what you see above you is what CAN happen with five of them. Throw in an .800 from Lind (he hit .792 from his recall until the end of the year, albit in a highly inconsistant manner) and something similar from Snider....

And that is NOT a weak offensive team.

Listch as as good as the #3 on most any of the playoff teams, Doc is Do, and the pen is the pen.

Now, but you say, that leaves three spots in the rotation you haven't mentioned.

Well, marcum and McGoean and Richmond combined for 19 starts after Cito tok over, the same as Doc and AJ had over that span and their combined ERA was 4.68...do we have a pitcher in line who can pitch that well?I'm sure Purcey can at least. But can Richmond or Romero or Cecil or Janssen?
Purcey and Parrish combined for a 4.95 - again, not that tough to match.
That leaves AJ's spot, where he dominated after Cito took over.

I won't tell you that a healthy Mcgowan or a stepped up Purcey is a real great shot to do that (though it could happen) but can they get close enough that the improved offense could maintain the same winning pace that Cito had in 2008 (which was a pace for 94 wins)?

I certainly think so.

If the team hits like IT CAN as illustrated above... it'd be a noteably better hitting tewam than in 2008

If Doc, Litsch, and the pen don't regress...and...
If two out of our pack of candidates can match 4.68 and 4.95...

Then it can match the pitching Cito had while winning at a 94 win pace.

That leaves only someone to step up and be a good enough #2 (McGowan, Purcey, Clement? someone not yet here?) in order for this to be a team just as good or better than last year. This is the one "miracle" we need...the rest of this stuff is perfectly reasonable.

Marry Christmas!





[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 09:22 AM EST (#195185) #
"And that is NOT a weak offensive team."

Not if everyone has their career years which you predict they will. However, things don't generally all go right for teams. In fact they never do. Considering this was one of the worst offenses in the league last year which has not been improved, it seems highly unlikely that these guys, most of whom are past their peak, are all going suddenly improve dramatically. You can argue that the Nationals will win the WS in the way you do-If Millidge and Zimmerman become superstars, etc...the problem is that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays don't need the "ifs". Bad things happen and those teams can afford that whereas the Jays need all good things. The Jays don't have a good leadoff hitter, a good second place hitter, a good third place hitter, or a good cleanup hitter. They have one awesome starter and then a bunch of "who knows?" afterwards.

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he means interesting along the lines of fighting for a playoff spot, not about the actual storylines that playout throughout a season. "

Of course. Watching individual players improve is always nice, but it only becomes really interesting when the team is either A) contending B) rebuilding smartly. Sort of treading water in fourth place is just about the least engaging a team can be. And yes, every team has interesting aspects no matter what, but ultimately, fans want more than one prospect developing every couple of years. You still want to be in the race in May.

" There is only one burdensom contract on this team and he just turned 30. The contractual obligation for other "agining players" (assuming here you do not mean to dis Doc's deal) Adds up to a paltry $37 million spread over seven players."

Wells is going to make about 20 million, Ryan about 12, and Rolen about the same. That's 44 million for 3 players. That's over half the team's payroll for 3 players, none of whom is a star.

"This is not a core that is ever going to contend.

There's a hundred pronouncemnts like that every spring that are proven false by fall."

Hundreds? There are really only a few teams each year that surprise (Rays, Marlins) and dissapoint (Tigers) each year. Of all the playoff teams in baseball, really only Tampa was a big surprise. None of the worst teams surprised me at all. (They may have surprised a few blinded Mariners fans though). One of the things I like about baseball is that talent matters a lot. You can't play some defensive system where a mediore team can win. Thus, it is the most predictable of sports. Not in team standings (that's the NBA) but in how individual players do. If a player entering his age 28 year has had OPS+ of 120, 122, and 111 (Rios) the previous 3 years, his OPS+ this year will most likely be around 115-125. Expecting a season where it's 140 or a season where it's 90 is very unlikely. It is true that some players dissapoint and some excel more than expected, but overall, the vast majority of players do roughly what is expected of them. You can talk about Rios being a dissapointment, but he really was only a few 2Bs turning into HRs and a few walks away from being where he had been the couple of years before. If you look at the Jays from last year, who was much worse than should have been expected? Really nobody. However, they did have a few pitchers who were much better than should have been expected.


"BUT I can list off for you a couple of dozen perfectly reasonable things that could easily happen - could easily ALL happen - which would give the Jays a chance to contend."

I'd love to see that. Will Teixera, C.C. Sabathia, Pedroia, Youkilis, and Longoria all found to secretly be Al-Qaeda members?




 

[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 12:06 PM EST (#195188) #
To recap, the Yanks have replaced Giambi/Abreu with Teixeira/Swisher and Mussina/Pettitte with Sabathia/Burnett.  They're not as far ahead of last year as one might think. Their players to watch remain Cano, Hughes, Wang and Kennedy, and I think that you'd say that they are in contention but not necessarily the favourite in the AL East.

They remain defensively weak down the middle of the diamond, and that is going to hurt them.

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 01:58 PM EST (#195189) #
I think the Yankees' pitching will be better, although with the risk of pitching injuries, you never know. Superficially, Sabathia/Burnett simply replaces Pettitte/Mussina, but you have to remember that CC and AJ are a lot closer to their prime (and Mussina had something of a career year for a 39-year-old, arguably his best season in 5 or 6 years). In any case, the Yankees should benefit from a healthier Wang (who made only 15 starts in 2008), Joba and Hughes.

Teixeira looks like a big upgrade over Giambi. Tex is in his prime and has had an OPS+ of 151 and 150 over the last two seasons (Giambi, who is 37, had equivalent stats of 128 and 108). Tex is apparently a far better defensive first baseman as well.

I agree that the up-the-middle defense is a big question mark, though. The Yankees look very good overall, but they aren't a complete team. Not yet, anyway. They're probably already angling for a CF or C pickup at the deadline.

On balance, I think where these moves benefit the Yankees is in long-term competitiveness. They've replaced players aged 39, 37, and 36 with an arguably better trio aged 28, 28 and 31.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 02:04 PM EST (#195191) #
Not if everyone has their career years which you predict they will.

That's not what I predicted.
(not that these are predictions but I take your meaning)


Wells has had a better year, maybe two, than what I suggested

Rolen's numbers were dead on what he's been doing his whole career outside of 2 years which are obviously and accountably off the curve.

Hill is only ask to do what he's already done

Overbay and Bautista are only ask to do exactly what they did last year in a year that most Jays fans found dissapointing.

I acknowledged the two kids were "ifs"

That leaves Rios. I'm asking for a career year from ONE of the veteran hitters.

However, things don't generally all go right for teams.

No...just for teams who make playoffs and win championships. No, that's not to say that everything went right for the Rays last year, but everything is already not going right for the Jays in '09 (McGowan and Marcum for starters)

Wells is going to make about 20 million, Ryan about 12, and Rolen about the same

See? Here I find myself debating reality with a person who can't be troubled to LOOK UP player's salaries before he grumbles about them.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/toronto-blue-jays_05.html

Hundreds? There are really only a few teams each year that surprise (Rays, Marlins) and dissapoint (Tigers) each year.

Yes but if you read any BBS you will see not only multiple predictions concerning each team, but also all sort of predictions about players ("Santana will run away with the NL Cy Young" and the like)

You can talk about Rios being a dissapointment, but he really was only a few 2Bs turning into HRs and a few walks away from being where he had been the couple of years before.

Which, if you trouble yourself to do the math, is pretty much EXACTLY what my projection for him entails (ino time now but I can illustrate this later) - to be precise, what i showed above is simply what he did under Cito last year which pro-rates to 60 coubles and 24 HR.....so if you say he loses two double for every extra homer, then that's 44 doubles and 32 homers and everyone loves him)

I'd love to see that.

When I get home after while I'll be happy to.

[ Reply to This ]
jerjapan - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 04:42 PM EST (#195193) #
I don't think there's such a word as “cognizati”;  cognoscenti maybe?).
Yup, that's the one.  But I certainly hope we aren't proofreading each other's posts on the Box now?  I do that for a living already ...
But there are a great many flaws in argument throughout.  I'll focus on a few:

“If the sell high deal is not available, don't do it.  But every year some GM proves it's possible.  This is what JP has failed to do repeatedly. “    Maybe JP 'failed' to make such a trade because it wasn't workable for the Jays, even though it might have been do-able for another team, whose circumstances were quite different.
  I think it's generally accepted that past performance is the best indicator of future performance in baseball.  Other GMs have succeeded in selling high.  JP has not done this much, and not in the 'we're a longshot at the break, let's upgrade' style that I'm advocating.  As I tell my students, I'm not interested in excuses, only in results.
You cite “Many oft-repeated rumours”  but then really focus on only one as being a 'credible' possibility (the Rios for Linecum proposals).   Nonetheless, you continue to say these (as if there were several trades that were “credible rumours”, not merely the Rios/Lincecum one.  Then you proceed fantastically (ie., in a fantasizing mode) to surmise what might have been “Had this deal ... been made” ... Then this could have happened, and then that, and then something else:  it's all mere conjecture based on a might have been.

I can't see how this refutes my argument when I stated it myself in my post.  I threw out a few examples just to illustrate the point that good deals have been discussed for the Jays.  I don't mean that ANY of these deals were on the table for sure.  But deals happen all the time in baseball.  Because we don't know the specifics of each one, we can't discuss trading in general terms?  Nonsense. 


Saying that “countless posts from July” argued that AJ wouldn't be back doesn't, of course,  guarantee that that would be the case, and that we would have been left with lots of money to “ pick up the “bargains that are likely to materialize (again, according to many respected pundits).” 

I was sure AJ wouldn't come back, as were many, and we stated it publically.  We were correct about that.  I am also frequently incorrect about things.  What's your point here?  Don't bother speculating at all?  That's the fun of armchair GMing. 

Furthermore, many analysts of this off season are saying that mid-level free agents (Fuentes pops to mind) may not get the big deals they were hoping for given the economic climate - there's an article up on ESPN about this now.  Check back with me in four months and we'll see who's right. 


And the assertion that “those of us saying this for the past three years have been proven right” is nonsense.  Nothing whatsoever has been “proven” 

Well, I love baseball and can find good and bad years enjoyable to follow.  But my basic assertion here was that JP wasn't doing a good enough job to get us into the playoffs.  Sure, the odds are against him.  But, unless I missed a season, we haven't been to the playoffs (or even meaningful September ball) under JP.  Perhaps my phrasing was misguided, but the point remains valid.

Back to the eggnog!

[ Reply to This ]
vw_fan17 - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 05:14 PM EST (#195194) #
jerjapan - all those trades you listed (ESPECIALLY Rios for Lincecum) were never confirmed as being available.

Just because JP called the Giants and said "Hey, I hear you want an outfielder - Rios is really good - would you give us Lincecum", you simply CANNOT claim that JP turned that deal down and thus is a bad GM.

He TRIED to steal one from Sabean, but didn't make it. I don't think any of the other deals were ever "on the table" either. You can't go by the fact that there were "Rumours" about certain trades. No matter how many posts were made.

If you want to do that, you could claim that the Leafs GMs had failed to pull the trigger on a thousand superstars for Leafs dreck - just read the Leafs forums and their deluded (myself included at times :-) dreams. Or, to put it another way - if Brian Cashman calls up and says "how about Halladay for Hideki Matsui" and the rumour gets out and then a thousand Yankee fans ask for the Head of Brian Cashman, because he "didn't make that trade", when it was JP all along who said no..

Deals that were CLEARLY on the table, you can criticize. Rumours? Only it you don't want to be taken seriously, IMHO.

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 05:42 PM EST (#195196) #
Indeed.

Overbay and Frasor for Ibanez anyone?

That one has been reported on both ends as set on our end and pulled out of by Seattle. that would be twom more 2009 draft picks, plus something like $8+ million in out hands right now in order to add to the team.

Who know how many other attemts exist that we don't know about? 10? 3? 0?

No one can say.

One thing I can say is that lookinh over July deals on Retrosheet the great majority of them didn't bring the selling team any important players.


[ Reply to This ]
SK in NJ - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 07:03 PM EST (#195197) #
The year will be "interesting" if only to see the young players, and I imagine we'll be seeing everyone (Snider, JPA, Cecil, Romero, Mills, Campbell, Jeroloman, etc) get some MLB experience this year. However, with 1993 being the last meaningful year in this team's existence, I am tired of "interesting" years. This team will never be bad enough to snag a David Price in the draft, nor will they be good enough (as presently constructed) to challenge for the division crown. It's spinning wheels going no where. That's the frustrating part.

Sure, we can all hope for a season where EVERYTHING goes right. I'd argue we had one of those last year with the pitching being as dominant as it was. The offense was just so terrible that it wasted the pitching performances. Those are highly unlikely seasons, and without Marcum and McGowan (who too many people are presuming will be healthy in May), it's a long shot at best.

With that said, no one expected McGowan/Marcum/Janssen to break out in 2007, so maybe there is hope for the next  wave of youngsters (Cecil, Purcey, Romero, Mills), but it's not something I am going to place as anything more than a best case scenario, and those rarely happen. At this point, outside of doing a real rebuild, the team should just try to develop talent for 2010 and try to use the current roster as effeciently as possible to increase the value of some of the players (i.e. platoon Overbay with Bautista, give Rolen more rest, etc).
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 09:29 PM EST (#195198) #
Here's another nugget for you.

Mark Texeria and Nick Swisher combined for an OPS of .856 in 2008.

Jason Giambi and Bobby Abreu combined for an OPS of .848



[ Reply to This ]
ComebyDeanChance - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 10:20 PM EST (#195199) #
Here's another nugget for you. Mark Texeria and Nick Swisher combined for an OPS of .856 in 2008. Jason Giambi and Bobby Abreu combined for an OPS of .848

Not sure that really qualifies as a 'nugget', except maybe of pyrite. Mark Teixeira's OPS last year was .962. Neither Giambi nor Abreu approached that. Both Giambi and Abreu were starters last year, while it's unlikely that Swisher will have a starting job with the Yanks. Comparing him off the bench to the Yanks last year, I'd say he's quite an upgrade on Shelly Duncan.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 11:17 PM EST (#195200) #
Ah, well and good, but Texeria still can't replace two hitters in the lineup. Who else do you count? (BTW, if Swisher were a bench player he'd replace Betimit, not Duncan)

Also, the reports are that the Yanks are trying to deal someone so it'll either be Swisher, or Swisher will be in the lineup (and no, I really don't think Swisher is that bad - in fact, if the price were right I wouldn't mind trading for him)

Still, two exit, two arrive. The details might be fuzzy but it's still at least indicitive of the players who left anyway.


[ Reply to This ]
zeppelinkm - Thursday, December 25 2008 @ 11:32 PM EST (#195201) #
Swisher's OPS last year was probably an anomaly. His LD%/K%/BB% numbers were relatively in line with his career stats and his IsoP was virtually identical to the year before (.191 versus .193).  He should be closer to an .840 OPS then another .742 OPS.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 01:47 AM EST (#195203) #
Swisher is on the bench? I would think that right now the OF would be Damon in LF, Swisher in CF, and Nady in RF with Matsui at DH. Are you guys saying Melky is the CF and Swisher is on the bench? If I were Cashman I would give Towers a call and see if Peavy would waive the NTC to join Sabathia/Burnett - say a package of Cabrera, Hughes, Kennedy, Jackson or something along those lines, with enough ML ready talent to help the Padres now and a top prospect for the future.
[ Reply to This ]
Mick Doherty - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 02:41 AM EST (#195204) #
Cabrera has clearly fallen out of favour in Da Bronx, as the Pinstripes agreed to trade him to Milwuakee for the 62-year -old strikeout machine (admittedly still defensively sound with a little pop)  named Mike Cameron. Glad that deal fell through!
[ Reply to This ]
jerjapan - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 11:50 AM EST (#195205) #

VW_fan re: the oft-rumoured deals I cited earlier in my post that JP is the wrong GM for the Jays:

I acknowledge (in both posts) that it's pure speculation and argue that it's simply for the sake of illustrating my arugment.  I SAY THIS IN BOTH POSTS.  And yet, with straw-man zeal, certain optimists insist on tearing down the ideas of anyone who critiques the Jays chances.  I love the diversity of opinion on the Box (and many of the optimists are exemplary contributers) but am saddened by cheap, groupthink orthodoxy.   Some rumours are accepted by the Box (eg. Rios-Linecum was proposed and NO I never suggested it was taken seriously by Sabean - read my first post - I use it as an example of a rumour accepted by the Box as plausible, not as one I say was likely to happen) while others (the various perumutations of the rumoured Wells deal) are not.  Has anyone challenged WillRain for raising the rumoured Ibanez deal? 

I offer no concrete evidence, simply the opinion of others, because no concrete evidence exists!  I know the Howard-Lilly deal didn't happen, believe WillRain when he says it was strongly denied, and that no pundit is perfect, but Gammons is pretty good,  let me quote him: 

When, for instance, the Phillies called about a Ryan Howard-Ted Lilly deal, Ricciardi said he won't trade Lilly. Still, stories keep cropping up. "I'm not trading Lilly," says the Blue Jays GM.

But likely I'm barking up the wrong tree here.  Better proof of the Jays current dim chances (an indirect indictment of JP, I acknowledge) would be the opinion of plausible pundits TODAY - for example, Christina Kahrl, my personal favourite writer at the exceptional Baseball Prospectus answers my query of several days ago thusly:

jerjapan (Toronto): Merry Christmas Christina! What should the Blue Jays wish for under the Christmas tree?

Christina Kahrl: Three starting pitchers? Dave Stieb circa 1981 to step out of the wayback machine? Global warming to swallow up Boston and New York and St. Petersburg? Realignment?

Note the dim view she holds of our chances - a view held by the entire Prospectus crew, as far as I can tell. 

Other evidence that suggest JP could make deadline deals - examples of good ones made by other GMs.  Yes Dewey, I know, we don't know the Jays unique circumstances, but again, the axiom behind that counter-argument is we can't speculate at all, which I stronly dispute!

In reverse chronological order, some random trades that allowed teams to upgrade (and sure, the more recent deals may or may not pan out, time will tell) their minor-leagues at fair or little cost:

  • The Indians deal Blake to the Dodgers for prospects
  • The Pirates deal high on Nady and Marte for a package of prospects from the Yanks
  • Phils get Joe Blanton from the As for prospects
  • San Diego trades Linebrink to Milwaukee for prospects
  • TORONTO trades Hillenbrand and Chulk to San Fran for Accardo
  • and just this off season the Braves traded prospects to the White Sox for Vasquez while the Mets got Putz for a 'quantity over quality' package from the Ms

I'm not saying the Jays can't win in 2009 - several esteemed posters have made excellent cases for their chances in this thread alone.   I'm simply saying that I doubt JP is the creative GM needed for this team to win in this division - especially with the way this offseason is unfolding.  I don't think this means I 'don't want to be taken seriously' or that my post is 'not well thought out or very well written'.  Isn't the point of a forum like this to debate, disagree and discuss? 

[ Reply to This ]
jerjapan - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 12:03 PM EST (#195206) #

And which of you, exactly, predicted in the spring of 2007 that Vernon Wells was going to turn in an 89 OPS? Which of you predicted Overbay would get hit by a pitch? Which of you predicted Aaron Hill would get knocked out for the season by Eckstien's elbow, or that Marcum would be lost to TJ? Which of you projected that the Jays would be historically bad w/RISP as of may 1...not just below average, legendarily bad? That kind of crowing proves nothing at all.

Will, I don't actually mean to sound like I'm 'crowing' here.  Simply, I'm trying to (crudely) point out that some of the critics of JP have been correct on some things - he does have a bit of a Teflon 'you can't critique the man till you walk a mile in his mocassins' quality with some here on the Box (not to accuse you of this). 

I did predict that the Wells and Overbay contracts would be diminished by a regression from what I think will be career highs, and that AJ wouldn't resign.  I also predicted that the Burnett deal would suck and that the Jays would regret selling cheap on Hillenbrand for Accardo, so my psychic abilities are debatable.

Again, my point with JP remains - my mantra is 'results, not excuses'.  JP has few to brag about, regardless of his difficult situation.

Can you tell I'm a teacher on holidays?  Again, I'd like to say I enjoy the diversity of opinions here on the box, and the high standards demanded of posters - almost as much as I enjoy forcefully disagreeing with those who disagree with me ;) 

[ Reply to This ]
Dewey - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 12:32 PM EST (#195207) #
jerjapan:

Your “argument” seems to go as follows:

1.the Jays haven't been in the playoffs in the past seven seasons
2.J.P. has been the GM for the past seven seasons
3.Therefore JP is the cause of this situation

The conclusion is not logical; it doesn't 'follow'.  There might be a dozen reasons, both inside and outside the Jays' organization, for this situation.  So your “point” is not a point.  And it certainly isn't logically “valid”. 

The issue here is perhaps one of tone.  Speculation is indeed enjoyable, but not when it's a  pronouncement, something presented as a certitude.  If the manner comes across as too aggressively assertive, that's not quite “speculation” is it?

(Ms. Kharl doesn't mention replacing JP, does she?)  And yeah, I do wish you'd “proofread” your posts:  they're full of slips that undermine the force of your views.
[ Reply to This ]
christaylor - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 01:40 PM EST (#195208) #
Citing the baseballprospectus crew's views on the Jays doesn't strengthen your argument. I've found them consistently mis-informed about the Jays. Joe Sheehan's GM for a day was a recent example, another would be to look at how they viewed the 2008 Jays in the BP 2008 annual.

[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 02:06 PM EST (#195209) #
"Again, my point with JP remains - my mantra is 'results, not excuses'. JP has few to brag about, regardless of his difficult situation."

I'm really sorry that most of us don't agree with you, and I think, as Dewey points out, you are missing a key point. There's a massive difference between thinking there are things that JP does wrong (every GM makes mistakes) and thinking that that GM MUST be fired.

The FACTS are that JP has increased attendance every single year of his tenure, and that he has assembled a pitching staff that has led baseball in ERA over the last 2 years. The first fact keeps management happy with him, and the 2nd part should keep fans happy with him - having such good pitching is not something to be undersold. For the most part under his watch the Jays have fielded competitive, interesting teams to follow, and that's really all you can ask when you are up against two behemoths that really have no limit to their spending. And before you bring up the Rays, let's get that out of the way - 10 years of never winnings 70 games is simply not acceptable. If you actually evaluate JP in proper context, he is going a decent job, and certainly not one that he MUST be fired for - this is not a case of incompetence, like Toronto fans recently experienced with JFJ.
[ Reply to This ]
jerjapan - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 05:20 PM EST (#195210) #

I do wish you'd “proofread” your posts:  they're full of slips that undermine the force of your views.

Dewey, I do actually do proofread my posts.  I self-depricate a bit, but self-deprecation is just that, and certainly an attempt to address the issue of 'tone' that you mention.  As are my frequent acknowledgements of the very valid arguments constructed by people I don't agree with.  But the Box wouldn't be nearly as interesting if everyone agreed with each other, would it? 

As for your summation of my arguments, in general, you're correct ... I have a sense that the leader must be responsible for his actions and for those under him - I take the same approach myself in the classroom when something doesn't go well, or if my students misbehave in an assembly, etc - clearly, it's not all my fault, nor JPs.  But I do feel JP holds a great deal of responsibity for the past seven years without late-season meaningful ball - along with PLENTY of bad luck and an unfair schedule. 

But to simplify my arguments to that point only is a tad unfair.  I called myself a 'fire JP' type in one post, but I don't actually say we should fire JP right at the moment anywhere - I've been convinced by the Box on that issue for a while now.  I know he's got plenty of challenges, and I think he's improving as a GM - the last few drafts are proof.  As 92-93 points out, he's done a great job with the pitching and attendance - although I worry that's not sustainable if Jays fans, like many previously on this thread, become convinced that we are doomed to finish third at best for the forseeable future.  And I agree with Christaylor to a point on the BP crew - they certainly undervalued the Jays most of last year (especially there defensive acumen) - although in the last few months they had them as one of the top teams in the game. 

But I, like many, think this season should be his last shot to show that he recognizes his team's challenges and gets creative in his responses - or fields a winner. (and no, I'm not talking about 10 years of losing, ala TB - but certainly not the status quo approach he's favoured thus far when things go awry).  I'm certainly not the only poster who's growing tired of being out of the hunt by August.  I know it's not the same as the Ticats, but I'm also a Leafs and Raps fan, and that can't be good for the psyche these days ...  

Thanks for the debates, and once again, I hope I'm completely wrong with my predictions!   

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 05:45 PM EST (#195211) #
Note the dim view she holds of our chances - a view held by the entire Prospectus crew, as far as I can tell.

That's always been my impression too. A fact which gave me great satisfaction when I noticed that constant Jays/JP critic Joe Shehan is the one who had to confess recently that the Jays were the 4th best team in baseball in 2008.

Other evidence that suggest JP could make deadline deals - examples of good ones made by other GMs.

How about examples of bad ones made by other GM's?
For every deal where someone got a nice return, there are 3 or 4 where you never hear from the acquired prospects. It's sort of like the Draft, a high precentage of prospects just don't work out. that's not an argument against ever deal for prospects of course, just an argument against fans making assumptions about the "what might have been" seneario.

Will, I don't actually mean to sound like I'm 'crowing' here.  Simply, I'm trying to (crudely) point out that some of the critics of JP have been correct on some things - he does have a bit of a Teflon 'you can't critique the man till you walk a mile in his mocassins' quality with some here on the Box (not to accuse you of this).

Well, I understood what you were saying in the broad sense - but a broad decleration in general terms is a very easy prediction to make. But the counter-point I was making is that the REASON the Jays fullfilled the pessimistic predictions was because wholly UNpredictible things happened to them. If these things hadn't happened, the gloomy predictions would have failed.
The point of all this is that for virtually any team, the SAFE prediction is "they won't make it" both because so few teams make it, and because so VERY many things can happen to screw up an otherwise successful season. so there is very little wisdom contained in the decleration "The Jays are not good enough to win a championship/make the playoffs" - that's the house bet. For every team.

I did predict that the Wells and Overbay contracts would be diminished by a regression from what I think will be career highs,

Here's a good example. Wells hasn't really regressed in any significant way. He was injured. On the other hand, Overbay is at the point in his career where the great majority of 1B DO regress, that's not a surprising prediction - even so, injuries have played a part for him, too.

More impressive would have been a prediction an uninjured young player simply turns out not to be as good as we think. Adam Lind, for instance. I don't mind giving credit where it's due when someone recognizes some reality that runs counter to the conventional wisdom. I hope the day comes when I can crow that I was the one most vocally saying Scott Rolen could still hit like he did in 2006.
But over the last two seasons, a HUGE precentage of that which has kept the Jays out of the playoffs has been that which no one could have confidently predicted, and no GM should be expected to have a complete contengincy plan for. That, in itself, doesn't prove that there are not valid reasons to criticize JP or, concievably, even fire him.

It simply demonstrates that, IMO, saying "only results matter" is far too superficial a metric.

Again, my point with JP remains - my mantra is 'results, not excuses'.  JP has few to brag about, regardless of his difficult situation.

And this is the eternal great divide among Jays fans. And since it is fundamentally a matter of opinion, neither side can claim the other is logically flawed. For some of us, on your side of the fence, either you are in the playoffs or not - Bam. Simple analysis, obvious answer - fire him and move on.
For those on my side of the fence, that sort of binary reasoning doesn't satisfy. We are perfectly willing to concede that there may be a case against retaining JP (I think all of us are) but we are also unwilling to ignore mitigating circumstances, measurable accomplishments, and context.

The difficulty is - without a common frame of referance, the two sides can never finally agree even on how to approch the question, let alone what the answer should be.

I actually do appreciate your approch to the debate because, unlike the anti-JP crowd one commonly encounters, you DO seem open to having your point challanged (a worthy goal for all of us) and that alone is enough for an enjoyable debate - but they are out there. PSD, for instance, is loaded with them and every other Jays message board I've discovered (save here and this is not a conventional message board) - "they" being stubborn, unreasonable, set in stone, "JP IS SUCH AN IDIOT WHY HAS HE NOT BEEN FIRED AAAAARGH!!!!" crowd.

I think perhaps sometimes it's easy to let previous experiencies trying to reason with that blind rage color what gets said to you, just because you happen to be in the "only Results matter" camp.
However unfairly.



[ Reply to This ]
Dewey - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 08:05 PM EST (#195213) #
Again, my point with JP remains - my mantra is 'results, not excuses'.  [jerjapan]

And this [what exactly?] is the eternal great divide among Jays fans. And since it is fundamentally a matter of opinion, neither side can claim the other is logically flawed.   [Will Rain]


Not to be too picky, Will Rain, but the three lines below [jerjapan's argument] constitute what in formal logic is known as a syllogism—a badly flawed one.

1.the Jays haven't been in the playoffs in the past seven seasons
2.J.P. has been the GM for the past seven seasons
3.Therefore JP is the cause of this situation

 So one can, in fact, make the claim that this argument is “logically flawed”.
[ Reply to This ]
zeppelinkm - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 09:22 PM EST (#195215) #

I'm not rereading this thread so if someone wants to stuff a definitiive quote down my throat be my guest, but the feeling I always got from jerjapan was not that JP is the cause of the situation but the one with the greatest ability to change the situation. And obviously, what we can all agree on (maybe?) is that jerjapan does not agree with how JP is going about trying to change the situation.

Trying to simplify his argument down as much as you have Dewey, I think, takes away too much from it. Especially when the man himself has come out and said you've misinterpreted his POV in your summary. 

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 10:05 PM EST (#195216) #
 So one can, in fact, make the claim that this argument is “logically flawed”.

Well, yes, in that syllogism (which is a valid construct) you can certainly do so. What I was trying to say was that the analytical types Like me could not say it was illogical to be satisfied with only results as your benchmark, and vice cersa.

you are certainly right in your comment.

I'm just saying that his having the opinion that "only results matter" is just that - opinion - and as such is hard to declare that "wrong"


[ Reply to This ]
Dewey - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 10:21 PM EST (#195217) #
My last remarks in this thread:  I'm neither a 'supporter' of JP nor someone who thinks that JP should be fired for the Jays' failure to make the playoffs.   But I am a supporter of sound argumentation, based upon accurate, verifiable evidence, not merely firmly-held opinion.  Such argumentation is, of course, usually very hard to come by.  I'm sorry if  I've unfairly “simplified” anyone's argument (I don't believe I have; nor, I hope, have I misinterpreted jerjapan's POV.)  I'm trying hard not to make this personal:  I certainly have no reason to do so.  I just think we should make more effort not to let ourselves dwindle down into just another crowd of on-line shouters and table-thumpers.  Here's to continued good arguments, and good argumentation.
[ Reply to This ]
SheldonL - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 10:45 PM EST (#195219) #
Swisher had an off year last year and no doubt he'll be batting leadoff or 2nd in front of Tex and A-Rod so he'll be around 100 walks no doubt and maybe the protection he receives will lead to him hitting 30+ homers and higher than his customary .265
So Tex and Swish is a serious upgrade from Abreu and Giambi. Pettitte is crap and so is Mussina (I don't know where he pulled 2008 and 2006 out of!) so Burnett and Sabathia are a major upgrade! People don't give Burnett credit but he's a pretty damn good pitcher. Definitely an ace on most staffs... definitely a top 25 pitcher! I dare someone to create a list of 25 pitchers better than Burnett!

In other news, SanFran signs Randy Johnson who if healthy and if Zito bounces back, gives SanFran the inside edge to the NL West.
[ Reply to This ]
Mick Doherty - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 11:36 PM EST (#195220) #
Pettitte is crap
Wow, I  presume you're speaking hyperbolically and focused only on his '08 performance, or at least I hope so. There isn't a team in MLB that wouldn't take a LHSP who can win 14 games in 200+ IP with and ERA+ of 98 ... though admittedly, for $14M, there are only  maybe three who WOULD take that.

I defend Pettitte only because he has been a favorite of mine since he came up in '95 and then won 20+ for NYY at the age of 24 the next season.. I think there is a very good argument that both Pettitte AND Mussina deserve to earn plaques in Cooperstown. To be clear, I don't think either actually WILL get in,  but you're talking about a couple of guys who have combined for 485 big league wins ....

[ Reply to This ]
Mick Doherty - Friday, December 26 2008 @ 11:53 PM EST (#195221) #
I dare someone to create a list of 25 pitchers better than Burnett!

Okay, off the top of my head, and only couting SP, not RP ...
Tim Lincecum, Cole Hamels, Johan Santana, Edinson Volquez, Danny Haren, Roy Oswalt, Hiroki Kuroda, Brandon Webb, Matt Cain, Bronson Arroyo, Derek Lowe, CC Sabathia, Ben Sheets, Jake Peavy, Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Mark Buehrle ...

Wait, that's only 18, chosen at random and unscientifically. Given I am almost certain to have missed someone(s), here are 12 more who make me at least stop and think "who would I rather have ...?" about Burnett:
 
Jon Lester, Ervin Santana, James Shields, Ted Lilly, Adam Wainwright, Javier Vazquez, Zack Greinke, John Danks, Matt Garza, Justin Verlander, John Lackey, C.M. Wang.

And apologies to one not included, solely for illegal ageist reasons on my part ... Randy Johnson.

Keep in mind, I'm a NYY fan, so I hope I'm wrong and Burnett wins the next five straight Cy Young Awards (or shares them with Sabathia). But I think saying he's definitely Top 25 is a real reach.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, December 27 2008 @ 02:06 AM EST (#195222) #
But I am a supporter of sound argumentation, based upon accurate, verifiable evidence, not merely firmly-held opinion.  Such argumentation is, of course, usually very hard to come by.

A man after my own heart!

Swisher had an off year last year and no doubt he'll be batting leadoff or 2nd in front of Tex and A-Rod so he'll be around 100 walks no doubt and maybe the protection he receives will lead to him hitting 30+ homers and higher than his customary .265

Sir, with all due respect, are you at all familiar with the Yankees? there's not one chance in 100,000 that Damon/Jeter aren't hitting 1/2 in NY next year. Nay, not 1 in a million if all are healthy.


So Tex and Swish is a serious upgrade from Abreu and Giambi.

If you are basing that claim on the assumption Swish will be hitting at the top of the order you've got a problem. The last people who told me I was wrong to compare those two pairs told me Swisher wouldn't even be starting lol - I didn't believe them either but they have a much better claim than you do.

 Pettitte is crap and so is Mussina (I don't know where he pulled 2008 and 2006 out of!) so Burnett and Sabathia are a major upgrade! People don't give Burnett credit but he's a pretty damn good pitcher. Definitely an ace on most staffs... definitely a top 25 pitcher! I dare someone to create a list of 25 pitchers better than Burnett!

I am one of the folks who loves AJ, I give him all the credit in the world - but a pitcher wins no games and strikes out no batters while on the DL.

As for 25, just spitballing here....

Lincecum
Johnson
Haren
Webb
Peavy
Zambrano
Harden
Sabathia
Oswalt
Santana
Hamels
Hudson
Lackey
Bedard (when healthy)
Halladay

That many I think are prety much a given....I'm sure some would argue for at least 10 others - For instance, Kazmir, Sheilds, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Lester, Grienke, Lee, Hernandez, Cain, Billingsley - but I could agree to the notion that on talent he's a top 20 guy.

Still, the point that's being made is not that Tex/Swisher/CC/AJ isn't an upgrade on Giambi/Abreu/Mussina/Petitte -  the point is that the addition of those players doesn't occur in a vacuum...and wherever Mussina got that year or anything else of that sort of excuse making doesn't metter. The did what they did in 2008. And in 2008 all 4 were quality players, three of them well above average, and the team won 89 games. that matters.

Now, if you take that upgrade from the new players, and you add a full year of Wang at his normal level and Posada playing strong and Cano bouncing back and so forth....yeah...they can be damned good...but there's enough question marks to make them anything but a lock.

[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Saturday, December 27 2008 @ 10:06 AM EST (#195227) #
In other news, SanFran signs Randy Johnson who if healthy and if Zito bounces back, gives SanFran the inside edge to the NL West.

Have you seen their lineup? Fred Lewis led the team in OPS last. When Bengie Molina is your main power source, you are not going to win any division in baseball. Arizona and LA are clearly better than SF at this point.


"People don't give Burnett credit but he's a pretty damn good pitcher. Definitely an ace on most staffs... definitely a top 25 pitcher!"

Burnett's ERA would have put him 4th on TB, 4th on Boston, tied for second on NY, second on Baltimore, 4th on the White Sox, fifth on the Twins, 3rd on the Indians,  3rd on the Royals, second on the Tigers, 4th on the Angles, second on the A's, and second on Seattle.. He would have been the best pitcher on his team only on Texas. And A.J. was putting up these numbers with the league's best defense behind him. Burnett has become one of the most overrated pitchers in baseball because he strikes out a lot of guys and has some dominant games. His career average ERA+ is 111. Time Wakefield last year was at 112. He has never had a season where he was better than a 122 ERA+. Marcum last year had a better ERA+ than A.J. has ever had. Derek Lowe's career average is the same as Burnett's career year. Burnett has had 5 straight years between 105-119 in his ERA+ so he has settled in to being a consistantly good pitcher who is injury prone. He's not a great pitcher and has never been a great pitcher and at 32 is not going to suddenly become a great pitcher. It was wise of the Jays to let him go, but horrible luck that he signed with Yankees and getting a 3rd round pick instead of a first rounder.

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Saturday, December 27 2008 @ 10:25 AM EST (#195228) #
"Burnett has become one of the most overrated pitchers in baseball"

I agree that AJ has been often been overrated, and he definitely benefitted from the Jays' infield D. But I thought he matured last year. He was consistently good for a long stretch (2.86 ERA in the second half), and seemed better able to maintain his composure throughout his starts. This is pure speculation, but I could see him being very good in 2009. Not 2.86 ERA good, but a solid addition to the Yankees' rotation.

Whether he can stay healthy for the next five years is another question altogether.
[ Reply to This ]
SK in NJ - Saturday, December 27 2008 @ 10:50 AM EST (#195229) #
I wonder if Unit going to the Giants will make Sanchez expendable in Sabean's eyes. It's not like the Jays have excess offense to trade anyway, but he's the type of pitcher I would love to plug into the Jays rotation. Cheap, young, strikes out of a ton of hitters, and under control for 4-5 more years.

[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 12:36 AM EST (#195236) #
Sanchez for Lind seems to have the foundations of a good trade for both teams - Lind is unlikely to have a position once Cooper makes it to the bigs and the Giants have Lincecum/Cain/Zito for awhile with Bumgarner/Alderson joining them in a couple of years.
[ Reply to This ]
ayjackson - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 01:43 AM EST (#195237) #
Jonathan Sanchez for Adam Lind may be a fair trade, but Sanchez is exactly what the Jays don't need - a back of the rotation starter for 2009 - and Lind is pretty much what they do need - LF/DH offense.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 02:03 AM EST (#195238) #
Guys with 11.9 K/9s in the minors don't project as back-end starters. Sanchez's ceiling is pretty high, enough that I'd think the Jays would have to add to Lind to get him.
[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 10:44 AM EST (#195242) #
"Jonathan Sanchez for Adam Lind may be a fair trade, but Sanchez is exactly what the Jays don't need - a back of the rotation starter for 2009 - and Lind is pretty much what they do need - LF/DH offense."

Yes, but the Jays have to think long term and if Sanchez is going to be a better player than Lind, the trade would be a good one. I'd make the deal, as Lind's defense makes it pretty unlikely he'll ever be n above average player at his position and Sanchez has the chance to be a very good starter. Short term sideways moves is a lot of what got the Jays into their current mess.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 10:47 AM EST (#195243) #
I can't see Lind-for-Sanchez. Talented young pitching is at a premium these days. I think Sabean can do better.
[ Reply to This ]
SK in NJ - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 11:39 AM EST (#195245) #
I'd do Lind for Sanchez in a second (as long as Sanchez is healthy). Both are below average players to this point, but based on long-term potential, I'd take the left-handed starter who strikes out a ton of batters and has bigger upside.

I don't know if the Giants would do it though.

[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 11:48 AM EST (#195246) #
Interesting article on the Red Sox scouting.
[ Reply to This ]
ayjackson - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 11:55 AM EST (#195247) #
I think maybe we're overrating Sanchez a bit here.  Lind is younger, was a higher draft pick, was consistently higher rated as a prospect and has had a better MLB career than Sanchez.  Sanchez has been pretty unimpressive in the NL West to date,  If we want to move Lind, we should move him for something we can use, not a pitcher who will be competing with Litsch, Purcey, Richmond, Mills, Romero, Cecil, Janssen, Bullington for two spots in the rotation in 2010.
[ Reply to This ]
Nick Holmes - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 03:49 PM EST (#195248) #
Pistol, do you mean this?
[ Reply to This ]
Nick Holmes - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 03:51 PM EST (#195249) #
...um this:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2008/12/28/search_party/?page=full
weird script trouble for me today, not just here.

[ Reply to This ]
vw_fan17 - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 06:53 PM EST (#195250) #
jerjapan, first you say:

You could easily try and contend and then SELL HIGH at the trade deadline if you are out of it.  If the sell high deal is not available, don't do it.  But every year some GM proves it's possible.  This is what JP has failed to do repeatedly. 

Prove it, you say?  Many oft-repeated rumours floated around trade deadlines past had the Jays acquiring Aybar and Santana for Wells, or Howard for Lilly.  Yes, hindsight is 20-20 and these were rumours - but nobody on the box is doubting the veracity of the Rios for Linecum proposals of last year ...

THEN you say:
Some rumours are accepted by the Box (eg. Rios-Linecum was proposed and NO I never suggested it was taken seriously by Sabean - read my first post - I use it as an example of a rumour accepted by the Box as plausible, not as one I say was likely to happen) while others (the various perumutations of the rumoured Wells deal) are not.

So, if I understood you correctly, all you REALLY said was "Everyone agrees JP proposed the Rios-Lincecum deal to the Giants"? That's IT? ALL you're saying is that yes, most people agree JP MADE THE OFFER??? Or are you saying there was a legitimate chance of it happening. If the latter, then my post was totally valid. If the former, then I'll take back what I said and instead say: your argument says NOTHING about JP or the Jays need to do ANYTHING different. How the heck are you faulting him for making an offer that wasn't accepted? That's what you appear to be doing.

[ Reply to This ]
clark - Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 10:23 PM EST (#195251) #

Having read all this once, I would have to say that Jerjapan is absolutely reasonable, willing to recognize other points or view, and his comments come from a desire to debate and enjoy rather than to criticize. 

People are piling on right now and using "clever" spot quoting to try and make him look bad.  Grow up.  That is not the spirit of this website, even as a casual user I understand that.  The beauty of this place is that is incredibly insightful, maintains a remarkably high standard of conversation, and does not allow the petty, insulting and  argumentative type of comments that dominate most internet sport sites. 

[ Reply to This ]
SheldonL - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 01:26 AM EST (#195252) #
A.J. Burnett has averaged 28 starts a year for each of the last 4 years and an ERA of 3.80. How does one label him as injury prone when he falls short of a full season's worth of starts by just 4.
That's a top 25 pitcher to me.

I'd like to discuss some of the names thrown out there as better/on par with Burnett:

Tim Hudson - has had a fantastic career with a major hiccup of a season in 2006. He's due to come back in 2010 after TJ surgery at the age of 35. I'm sure he's going to be just fine but he doesn't quite have the value of a younger A.J. Burnett.

Ervin Santana - young with tons of potential and last year was a sign of how good he can be. But he is still relatively unproven; Burnett has never posted an ERA of below 4.07 in a full season.

Ted Lilly - he has posted an ERA below 4.00 just once in his career. He has all the talent in the world but he hasn't quite had the consistency of Mr. Burnett which is why he should be ranked below him.

Adam wainwright - similar comments as Ervin Santana: Burnett's age and consistency trumps Wainwright's youth. Signs show however that in a couple of years, he may in fact be just as good as Burnett.

Javier Vazquez - has posted an ERA under 4.42 just once in the past 5 years! I can't believe that Mick would dare list him as a top 25 pitcher.

Chien-Ming Wang - is definitely a solid pitcher who uses his defence to pitch high numbers of innings and very good ERA's; but I would not rank him among the top 25 pitchers in the game. He's a very good number 3 pitcher.

Edinson Volquez - has had one magical season in which he struggled mightily in the second half... to the tune of a 4.6 ERA and a 1.46 WHIP in his last 13 starts.

Hiroki kuroda - pitched very well in his first season in the bigs but his one season by no means trumps what Burnett has done in his lengthy career.

Bronson Arroyo - I can't believe he was mentioned in this discussion considering that he's only had one really good season in his career! In 3 of the past 4 seasons, he's been hit hard and posted fairly bad peripherals (i.e. WHIP)

Cliff Lee - had had two very good seasons and three HORRIBLE ones in the last 5 years! Hmm, I'm not sure if I would grant a guy access to the upper echelon of pitchers just because he hoodwinked us all into giving him the Cy Young.

Randy Johnson - is phenomenal! When healthy, he's out-of-this-world good! I would grant that he's on par with Burnett, but personally, I'm thinking that his age doesn't really lend confidence in his future performances. (ASIDE: in the NL West you don't need hitting to win just a really good staff. With Cain and Lincecum leading the way, a return to form by Zito, a healthy year by the Big Unit and league average innings from the number 5 pitcher are really enough)

Rich Harden - is the best pitcher on the planet in terms of stuff and his experimentation on the mound. But 38 starts in the past 3 seasons marks him as a big injury concern. I really hope that he puts it together (him being Canadian and all!)

Scott Kazmir - he's probably the most similar to Burnett in terms of number of innings/starts accumulated in the past 4 years. They're also both strikeout pitchers with very good ERA's. If it came to a trade, I would pick Kazmir despite his having one year lesser than Burnett in his contract just because he's about to hit his prime and he's a lot cheaper.

My top 25 in no particular order:
Johan Santana
Halladay
Lincecum
Sabathia
Peavy
Sheets
Burnett
Billingsley
Hamels
Webb
Lowe
Haren
Roy Oswalt
Shields
Lackey
Cain
Zambrano
Beckett
Smoltz
Harang
Carpenter
Kazmir

The guys below have to scrap it out to deserve the final 3 spots

Meche
Felix Hernandez
Chris Young
Bedard
Verlander
Guthrie
[ Reply to This ]
zeppelinkm - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 08:22 AM EST (#195253) #

Without question I'd take Grienke and Hernandez (Felix), over Burnett. With a little consideration, I'd rather have Liriano too.

The problem with Burnett is not only his age but his style of pitching - he's a power pitcher. He has a history of pitching well when motivated by contracts. I wonder about him in NY - has he turned a corner? Will he regress without having Doc by his side every day of the week? Where does AJ rank of NY's priority list? I'd say Sabathia is higher up the list, and probably Wang and Hughes too, as they are home grown players who are younger and cheaper.

[ Reply to This ]
zeppelinkm - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 08:26 AM EST (#195254) #
I'd also replace Lowe with Guthrie on that list. Age is a relevant factor.  Burnett I think is the best of #2 starters, but I don't think he's an ace which a top 25 pitcher should be. He's at the very top of the list of the guys right after the Tier 1 guys. Although really there are your Tier A1 (Halladay, Santana, Webb, Sabathia, Oswalt) and then your Tier 1 guys.  
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 09:07 AM EST (#195255) #
Red Sox have signed Penny, for $5M (plus $3M in incentives). Too bad - Penny would have been a good low-risk addition to the Jays. If he's healthy, he's probably a solid #3 starter in the AL East.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 09:49 AM EST (#195257) #
Wow, Sox spending $5-$8 million for their #5 starter (maybe, might be their 6th).  Their current rotation is, I think, Lester-DiceK-Beckett-Wakefield with Penny vs Masterson & Buchholz for that 5th slot.  Not to mention any others in their system like Michael Bowden.

Sigh.  I miss the early 90's when the Jays were the evil empire buying up talented guys for the back end of the rotation and the Yankees were fighting for last place (sub-500 from 1989-1992) while the Sox looked hopeless (1987-1997 they were under 90 wins every year, 5 times sub-500).
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 10:31 AM EST (#195259) #
Penny threw 208 innings and had an ERA+ of 151 in 2007, so it's a potentially high-reward signing. That ERA+ would have been better than every Sox starter last year except Matsuzaka (159). In the previous three seasons, Penny's ERA+ totals were 104, 105, 130.

He could be a #6 or #3 or anywhere in between. Or he could spend most of the year on the DL. But it's a worthy gamble in the ultra-competitive AL East.

[ Reply to This ]
SheldonL - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 11:09 AM EST (#195260) #
Yuck, I was hoping for us to sign Penny too!
Boston however gave him a better deal that we could ever have hoped J.P to present. Personally, I wouldn't have given that much guaranteed money but still he's a very good acquisition!
Hmmm, I'm thinking that with Boston being this good and the Yankees likely to be very good too and T-Bay to also be very good(especially with Crawford and Upton likely to have much better years), maybe the Jays can sneak into the race here. I mean, what are the odds of all 3 teams winning 95 games as they are expected to on paper. Maybe the intra-division competitiveness with make winning 90 games extremely hard.
So maybe if the Jays keep plugging away....
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 11:24 AM EST (#195261) #
Just be thankful we aren't Orioles fans.  That must really, really suck to look up at 3 teams with 90+ potential and another who won 86 last year.  Just 2 guys in Baltimore had 200+ AB's who were under 30 - Adam Jones who had an OPS+ of 85 in CF at 22 (good potential) and Nick Markakis with a 134 at 24 in RF.  Nice pair there.  However all but one pitcher with 4+ starts (10 guys) had ERA+'s sub 100 (Guthrie at 125 was the lone exception).  Of the 6 with 10+ starts Guthrie was the only one over 90 with 2 guys in the 60's (!).  Ick.

So, things could be a lot worse.  For comparison, of the 8 guys who started for the Jays only one was lower than 98 for ERA+, Purcey at 77.  3rd worst was AJ Burnett at 105.

[ Reply to This ]
VBF - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 11:26 AM EST (#195262) #
Jeff Blair hints that the Blue Jays could be up for sale after the season.

What do you get for a city that has a football team that can't make the playoffs in an eight-team league, an NHL team that's rebuilding, an NBA team that doesn't know what it is and a baseball team that important people in the game's head office suspect will be put up for sale this year?

Now there's more reason as to why Rogers is decreasing payroll and reported that Rogers Centre made a profit this year.



[ Reply to This ]
SK in NJ - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 12:18 PM EST (#195265) #

I think it is clear that JP is going to do nothing.

The Jays have $82 million on the books for 8 players in 2010 (Halladay, Ryan, Downs, Wells, Rios, Hill, Rolen, and Overbay). Then $40 million for 3 players in 2011 (Wells, Rios, Hill). I can't picture a scenario where the Jays keep Halladay at market value ($20+ million annually), replace all the departing FA's adequately (Ryan, Downs, Rolen, Overbay, etc) and be able to compete in the AL East unless the payroll skyrockets in 2011-beyond. Just a terrible situation, made worse by Ricciardi's backloaded contracts and the Rolen trade (keeping Glaus in 2008 and letting him opt out would have saved $22 million in 2009 and 2010).

If the Jays are not going to do anything except sit on their hands, it's going to be a long ride to no where. Pick a direction and stick with it. Either increase payroll dramatically to win while Halladay is under contract or start trading off players in an attempt to build around the Snider a few years from now. I hate sitting on the fence. It's pointless and aggravating.

[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 12:34 PM EST (#195266) #
A.J. Burnett has averaged 28 starts a year for each of the last 4 years and an ERA of 3.80. How does one label him as injury prone when he falls short of a full season's worth of starts by just 4.

Since when is 32 starts a full year?  Heck, Burnett made 34 this year.  That's the minimum number you should be using for a 'top 25' pitcher.

And if one wants to cherry pick they could also say Burnett hasn't made more than 25 starts in 4 of the last 6 years.
[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 01:06 PM EST (#195267) #

Well, let's have a look at age, career ERA+, and career high ERA+

My top 25 in no particular order:
Johan Santana-30, 144, 182
Halladay- 32, 131, 184
Lincecum-25, 139, 167
Sabathia-28, 121, 162
Peavy-28, 121, 171
Sheets-30, 116, 132
Burnett- 32, 111,122
Billingsley-24, 132, 138
Hamels-25, 133, 145
Webb-30, 143, 165
Lowe-36, 122, 177
Haren-28, 118, 138
Roy Oswalt-31, 139, 169
Shields-27, 114, 125
Lackey-30, 117, 151
Cain-24, 118, 122
Zambrano-28, 128, 160
Beckett-29, 116, 145
Smoltz-42, 127, 149
Harang-31, 105, 125
Carpenter-34, 112, 149
Kazmir-25, 124, 142

So, of the "top 25" Burnett is tied for 4th oldest, has the second worst career ERA plus, and is tied for the worst career high era+. (with a 24 year old). In other words, Burnett belongs nowhere near this list.

Here are just a few more pitchers who are ahead of Burnett:

Dice-K-28, 126, 159
Lester-25, 123, 144
Volquez-25, 104, 140
Hudson-34, 126, 164
Harden-27, 136, 206
Guthrie-29, 117, 125
Verlander-26, 110, 126
Buehrle-29, 122, 144
Jer. Weaver-26, 122, 178
Liriano-25, 138, 207
Danks-24, 110, 138

And there are plenty more...It is amazing to me how overrated Burnett continues to be. He's a guy who has never been one of the best pitchers in the league, is 32, and has missed a lot of time due to injury over his career. His career high year in ERA+ is the same as Jared Weaver or Mark Buerlhe's career average. There are so many pitchers in baseball who are younger, better, or both.

"Scott Kazmir - he's probably the most similar to Burnett in terms of number of innings/starts accumulated in the past 4 years. They're also both strikeout pitchers with very good ERA's."

Yes, well except Kazmir is 7 years younger and much better. Kazmir's career average ERA+ is better than Burnett's career best. KAzmir has had three straight seasons better than any season Burnett has ever had.
[ Reply to This ]
parrot11 - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 01:24 PM EST (#195269) #
"Just be thankful we aren't Orioles fans"

I wouldn't worry about it if I were them. It wouldn't surprise me in the very least if they made the playoffs before the Jays do.
[ Reply to This ]
SheldonL - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 01:37 PM EST (#195270) #
Pistol, I would argue that you are the one who is cherry picking here. Halladay has pitched 34 or more just twice in his career. Johan Santana has done it only twice as well. Webb and Sabathia have done it 3 times. I think 34 starts is a little absurd to expect. A lot has to go right like days off (i.e. scheduling). Divide 162 by 5 and you get 32.

Just 9 pitchers pitched 34 starts and had ERA's under 4.00. Only 5 would be considered top 25 pitchers (Sabathia, Cain, Lowe, Webb, Santana).
Only 11 the year before, and 7 the year before that.

I guess I have to break it down year by year to prove to you guys that Burnett is not injury prone.
2001 - he makes it to the big leagues permanently in early May and doesn't miss a start to pitch 27 games that year.
2002 - he missed about a month from mid-August to mid-September. He still made 29 starts (204 IP with 203 K's, ERA 3.30, WHIP 1.19)
2003 - he makes four starts and tears elbow requiring TJ surgery.
2004 - He comes back in June and dosn't miss a beat! He doesn't miss a start and starts 19 games to the tune of a K per inning, 3.68 ERA and 1.17 WHP.
2005 - He makes 32 starts, pitches 209 IP, K's 198,ERA of 3.44, 1.26 WHIP.
TORONTO YEARS
2006 - Gibby skips his turn in the rotation to start the year and after two starts, Burnett complains of soreness in his elbow. J.P says something to the tun of him being soft/it's scar tissue that one needs to pitch through. He misses 2 months because in the first year of a huge contract it's only prudent to take precautions. When he comes back, he makes 19 starts out of 20 scheduled starts. ERA of 3.98, WHIP 1.30
2007 - makes all his starts until in mid June he misses two weeks. He makes a start June 28th and complains thereafter so Gibby sits him for two more weeks. Then he doesn't miss a turn for the rest of the season. In 25 starts, 3.74 ERA, 1.19 WHIP.
2008 - We all know about last year when he led the AL is K's and pitched in a career high 221 IP.

So really, he's had TJ surgery which is excusable. He misses 2 months in the first year of Jays contract because of ZERO structural damage which we can justly call prudence. And two years ago, he really missed about a month (the june 28th start divides in into two two-week periods).

I don't understand how, aside from TJ surgery, his missing a month in 2002, two months in 2006, and a month in 2007 renders him an injury prone player! (total for career excluding TJ surgery: 4 months)

Halladay who has about the same service time as Burnett has missed 2 months in 2004, 2 and a half months in 2005, 3 weeks in 2007. Career total: just over 5 months.
But it would be just as ridiculous to call him injury prone!
[ Reply to This ]
zeppelinkm - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 02:41 PM EST (#195271) #

Here you go:

18-Dec-08 Signed as a free agent by the New York Yankees to a five-year contract. 05-Nov-08 Filed for free agency. 25-Sep-07 Missed 1 game (personal reasons). 24-Sep-07 Personal reasons, day-to-day. 12-Aug-07 Missed 35 games (right shoulder injury). 01-Jul-07 Right shoulder injury, 15-day DL (retroactive to June 29). 28-Jun-07 Missed 13 games (right shoulder injury). 19-Jun-07 Right shoulder injury, 15-day DL (retroactive to June 13th). 13-Jun-07 Right shoulder injury, day-to-day. 22-Jun-06 Missed 69 games (right elbow injury). 29-May-06 Transferred from the 15-day DL to the 60-day DL (right elbow injury). 22-Apr-06 Right elbow injury, 15-day DL. 15-Apr-06 Missed 10 games (elbow injury). 01-Apr-06 Elbow injury, 15-day DL. 06-Dec-05 Signed as a free agent by the Toronto Blue Jays to a five-year contract. 27-Oct-05 Filed for free agency. 31-May-05 Missed 9 games (elbow injury). 23-May-05 Elbow injury, day-to-day. 17-Jan-05 Re-signed by the Florida Marlins to a one-year contract. 03-Oct-04 Missed 19 game (elbow injury). 19-Sep-04 Elbow injury, day-to-day. 03-Jun-04 Missed 53 games (elbow surgery). 12-May-04 Transferred from the 15-day DL to the 60-day DL (elbow surgery). 03-Apr-04 Elbow surgery, 15-day DL. 28-Mar-04 Elbow surgery, sidelined indefinitely. 20-Dec-03 Re-signed by the Florida Marlins to a one-year contract. 19-Nov-03 Activated from the 60-day DL (right elbow inflammation). 25-Oct-03 Missed 16 playoff and 139 regular season games (right elbow inflammation). 26-Apr-03 Right elbow inflammation, 15-day DL. 09-Apr-03 Missed 8 games (right elbow inflammation). 29-Mar-03 Right elbow inflammation, 15-day DL (retroactive to March 21). 14-Sep-02 Missed 24 games (right elbow injury). 19-Aug-02 Right elbow injury, 15-day DL. 06-May-02 Transferred from the 15-day DL to the 60-day DL (right elbow inflammation). 07-May-01 Missed 29 games (broken right foot). 24-Apr-01 Sent on rehabilitation assignment to Brevard County (A). 31-Mar-01 Broken right foot, 15-day DL (retroactive to March 23).

JUST for comparisons sake, although I feel ridiculous making this comparison anyways.,

31-May-07 Missed 18 games (appendicitis). 11-May-07 Appendicitis, 15-day DL. 22-Apr-06 Missed 9 games (forearm injury). 11-Apr-06 Forearm injury, day-to-day. 16-Mar-06 Signed by the Toronto Blue Jays to a three-year contract extension. 02-Oct-05 Missed 76 games to the end of the season (left leg injury). 09-Jul-05 Left leg injury, 15-day DL (left leg injury). 21-Sep-04 Missed 61 games (right shoulder injury). 20-Jul-04 Right shoulder injury, 15-day DL (retroactive to July 17th). 12-Jun-04 Missed 14 games (right shoulder injury). 03-Jun-04 Right shoulder injury, 15-day DL (retroactive to May 28th). 01-Jun-04 Right shoulder injury, day-to-day.

AJ Burnett is injury prone. It is plain and simple. There are very, very, few players who would have a list as long as he does. The nature of Doc's injuries is the other big difference. He had his appendix removed. He was hit in the shin with a line drive. Not your typical injuries...

[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 02:43 PM EST (#195272) #
I think 34 starts is a little absurd to expect.

Burnett made 34 starts *this* year!  That's the minimum for a full season from a starter, particularly if you're saying he's a 'top 25' pitcher.  It's not like he was pitching the entire second half on three days rest.  He took a normal turn all season and ended up with 34 starts.  Those final two starts aren't extra credit.

I don't necessarily disagree that you should expect a pitcher to be making 34 starts a year, year in and year out, but you can't say that if someone makes 25 starts that they only missed 7 starts in a season (unless they're a 5th starter).  They'll have missed at least 9 starts.  Said another way, if a pitcher makes 32 starts and then misses the final 3 weeks of the season you're not going to say they pitched a full season.

Any decent pitcher who doesn't miss a start is going to get no fewer than 34 starts in a year.  For one, dividing 162 by 5 is 32, and leaves 2 games left over.  I'd want a 'top 25' pitcher going then if I had one, but maybe you don't.  Plus, with days off in April you normally don't need a 5th starter often, if at all, unless you're babying your pitchers by giving them an extra day of rest.  You can also skip over the bottom of the rotation for Burnett on the days over the All Star break since he's never in that game.

Just curious SheldonL - over his current 5 year contract, how many starts and innings do you expect Burnett to make?
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 02:56 PM EST (#195273) #
"Their current rotation is, I think, Lester-DiceK-Beckett-Wakefield with Penny vs Masterson & Buchholz for that 5th slot."

Slot Penny in the #4 - if he's healthy he's a guarantee to be in the rotation. The Sox will probably see how Buchholz looks in spring before deciding whether to keep him in AAA and let Wakefield start or to give him the pressure-free #5 spot and use Wakefield in long relief out of the pen. Masterson seems like a lock to be their primary RH reliever. And therein lies the beauty of Tim Wakefield on a 4m deal.
[ Reply to This ]
zeppelinkm - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 03:05 PM EST (#195274) #

If we just stopped drawing some lines for a minute trying to define what constitutes a full season of starts and what doesn't, let's just go with this.

In the 8 seasons AJ Burnett has been a MLB pitcher for the duration of the season, he has made over 30 starts twice (Age 24 on).  In Roy Halladay's 7 full MLB seasons (Age 25 on) he has only started under 30 games twice (5 times over 30 starts). Johan Santana has made either 33 or 34 starts every season he's been a full time pitcher. Brandon Webb has started between 33 - 35 games every year since his rookie season.  CC Sabathia has started under 30 games only once in his career.

It is fairly ridiculous to try and argue that AJ Burnett IS NOT injury prone. Look at his career stats!

 

[ Reply to This ]
SK in NJ - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 03:57 PM EST (#195275) #

From Rotoworld:
ESPN is reporting that the Blue Jays have signed Michael Barrett to a minor league contract. This could work out quite well if Barrett is healthy. Barrett is a better hitter versus lefties than first baseman Lyle Overbay or the Jays' current options at DH, so the Jays could have both he and Rod Barajas in the lineup a couple of times per week if they choose.

Take that, Cashman!

[ Reply to This ]
zeppelinkm - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 04:06 PM EST (#195277) #
Sheldon you need to do a little bit better with your research. Your post above says that Burnett made it to the big leagues to stay in May of 01' and didn't miss a start and he started 27 games that year. This is blatently wrong. He was injured and missed the start of the season as my injury log above shows.

Also, how in fair-arguments sake can you discredit one of the most damning of all injuries, Tommy John surgery? How can you just say this is excusable and doesn't count? He missed essentially an entire season! And then some of the next one. And it's that very fact, that he's had tommy john surgery, that makes all these little elbow twangs and bruises and fluid build-up all the more worrisome.
[ Reply to This ]
Ron - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 04:10 PM EST (#195278) #
Let me just say I'm glad Curtis Thigpen will now be in a battle .......... for the backup Catcher position at AA where he belongs.



[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 04:20 PM EST (#195279) #
Barrett is a better hitter versus lefties than first baseman Lyle Overbay or the Jays' current options at DH, so the Jays could have both he and Rod Barajas in the lineup a couple of times per week if they choose.

Wow, the Jays could put out two bad hitting catchers when facing LHPs!  Maybe they could put Thigpen at 1B too and get three Cs in the lineup.

Barrett threw out 6 of 49 basestealers last year so he'll at least be able to replace Zaun's 'ability' to throw out runners.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 04:26 PM EST (#195280) #
Well, as long as it is a minor league contract I can live with Barrett in the system.

Barrett's OPS+...
2008: 58
2007: 68
2006: 121
2005: 110
2004: 108

If we get lucky he recovers under the magic of Cito and we have a great backup. If not we get 56 OPS+ Curtis Thigpen (lifetime over 131 PA's) or one of the rookies (Jeroloman or Arencibia).
[ Reply to This ]
ayjackson - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 04:43 PM EST (#195281) #

Clearly we're done now, at least on offense:

  1. Marco Scutaro, SS
  2. Adam Lind, DH
  3. Alex Rios, RF
  4. Vernon Wells, CF
  5. Lyle Overbay, 1B
  6. Scott Rolen, 3B
  7. Travis Snider, LF
  8. Aaron Hill, 2B
  9. Rod Barajas, C

Bench:  Joe Inglett (2B/OF), Jose Bautista (3B/1B), John McDonald (SS), Michael Barrett (C)

Our staff requires departures as of today:

  1. Roy Halladay, SP
  2. Jesse Litsch, SP
  3. David Purcey, SP
  4. Scott Richmond, SP
  5. Casey Janssen, SP
  6. BJ Ryan, CL
  7. Scott Downs, RP
  8. Jesse Carlson, RP
  9. Brandon League, RP
  10. Jeremy Accardo, RP
  11. Brian Tallet, RP
  12. Jason Frasor, RP
  13. Brian Wolfe, RP
  14. Shawn Camp, RP

That's two relievers too many, for those scoring at home.  Also in the mix, Dustin McGowan (when able to come off the DL), Davis Romero, Brian Bullington and Ricky Romero.

[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 04:44 PM EST (#195282) #
Solid pickup. We really needed a backup C so that JP doesn't have the impulse to rush Arencibia. (And so we weren't subjected to Jason Phillips version 2.0)

The tricky thing will be finding him playing time, because Barajas changes from year to year hitting either RHP or LHP much better.
[ Reply to This ]
VBF - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 07:56 PM EST (#195284) #
He has a 900+ OPS against lefties in the past three seasons so if he can (or has?) learned defense at first base, he can sub for Overbay or ,<insert DH>, and split time with Barajas.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 07:58 PM EST (#195285) #
AYJ,

That lineup would make sense with the personnel on hand, but does it really make sense to start the season with Snider in left-field?  If salaries are going to be an issue for the foreseeable future, you've got to really pay attention to service time/readiness issues.  This team might next have a realistic chance of winning in 2015, and it would be nice if Snider were in Toronto at that time.  To put it another way, I'd rather have Snider in Toronto in 2015 than in 2009.  I appreciate that you can do a long-term deal, but the team's position in the negotiation is affected by major league service time at the time of the negotiation.

Surely, there is a DH out there, who the team can sign for 2009 and 2010, to leave Lind in left and Snider in Syracuse.

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 09:13 PM EST (#195286) #
2015?!?!?  Jeez, just kill all enthusiasm why don't you? :P

By 2011/2012 any prospect in the current system who is a potential all-star (such as Arencibia, Fuenmayor, Jackson, Snider, Cooper and a slew of pitchers) should be here.  All contracts outside of Wells, Rios, and Hill will be finished.  Tons of space there for the Jays to fit in a free agent and/or resign key players (Halladay). 

Now, you can say that the Yankees will be killer, the Sox also, that the Rays should be solid and the Orioles finally starting to fight for 500.  However, that is the point the Jays need to be seeing results from all of JP's picks to date.  We should see a team with an extremely deep pitching staff and good young players at CA/SS/3B/1B/LF while 'vets' Wells, Rios, Hill, and Lind are the rocks in the lineup.  If the Jays aren't at 90+ wins then they need to find a GM who is the best in the biz and up payroll to top 5 level.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 10:25 PM EST (#195287) #
My point, John, was that 2009 looks like a building year, while 2015 (when Snider will be 27) might not be.

[ Reply to This ]
ayjackson - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 11:06 PM EST (#195288) #
MG, my comment was tongue in cheek.  I just wanted to point out that potentially, we now have a full roster signed for the season.  It may end up being our roster, but it isn't "clear".  I'm wondering if Alou or Kapler interest JP at all.  They provide additional support for Lind/Overbay/Snider against lefties and would presumably be cheapish.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 11:10 PM EST (#195289) #
Well, 6 years from now oil could be $250 a barrel and the Canadian dollar up to $1.25 US (you read it here first!). 

Yes, I'd love for Snider to be here as long as possible, but to be worried about getting an extra year from him 6 years down the road would be a major mistake for JP to be making today.  You've already had him up for over a month this year, thus to prevent  him from being a free agent in the 2014/2015 offseason you'd have to keep him in AAA for over a month in 2009.  If he isn't ready yet, it won't be hard (see Lind for an example of that).  If he is ready then it would be a mistake to slow his progress just in hopes the team will be better in 2015 than in 2009.  Imagine if Tampa Bay was in a tighter race this year and those games they left Longoria in the minors for (in order to gain that extra year) ended up costing them the playoffs?  It could have happened quite easily.  Now, will the Jays make the playoffs in 2009?  Doubtful, but possible.  In 2015?  Who knows as most of the team will be very different by then (Wells, Rios, and Hill's contracts will be over by then and Halladay could easily be retired). 

The best move would be to look at signing Snider to a long term deal, if the Jays really feel he is likely to be a star.  If they want to see more first, then let him play 2009 in the majors and do a Wells/Hinkse deal in the offseason or wait another year and do a Rios/Hill type deal instead.  If Snider is a top talent the Jays will have lots of time to sign him and the cost spread of that extra year, while worth considering, isn't enough to justify holding back at this point.

[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Monday, December 29 2008 @ 11:56 PM EST (#195290) #
"Surely, there is a DH out there, who the team can sign for 2009 and 2010, to leave Lind in left and Snider in Syracuse."

This would be a perfect time for the Jays to try to find their Carlos Pena. Ryan Shealy would be available in a deal for not much as KC is simply not interested in him. Chris Dickerson might be available from Cinci for not much if they sign Hairston, What about Branyan or MacPherson? Dan Johnson might have been a good risk but he went to Japan. Mike Hessman has never had a shot in the majors.The point is that this open roster space on a team that is going nowhere should be used to try to strike gold or at least silver.
[ Reply to This ]
SheldonL - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 12:19 AM EST (#195291) #
Pistol, I think that Burnett will average 30 starts a year for a total of 150 over the length of the deal. He'll average 190 IP for a total of 950 IP over the 5 years. I think that he'll also post a sub 4.00 ERA over the life of the contract.
Since we're predicting here, he's also going to take home a Cy Young!

zeppelink, my mistake, I had no idea that he suffered a stress fracture in his foot in spring training and that he had broken the foot earlier in his minor league career and a broken hand apparently.
But I still stand my statement that he made it to the bigs in May of 2001. He wasn't handed the job by default. He certainly didn't pitch enough to warrant a guaranteed roster spot in 2000.

Yes, a torn elbow collateral ligament is a serious injury but given what this generation of pitchers have done as youngsters (i.e. playing shortstop on non-pitching days, throwing curveballs as young as 12, etc.), there's no surprise that a growing number of pitchers do the surgery at some point in their careers. That being said, you must allow that almost every pitcher is susceptible to TJ surgery. Almost every team has multiple survivors. We have 3 at last count (Marcum, Ryan, McGowan). My point is that when you look at Burnett's career from the moment he made it to the big leagues for good(i.e. MAY 2001) until now, he's missed as much time as Halladay aside from the TJ rehab (and by no means am I saying that Halladay is injury-prone as clearly stated in the previous post!). So in that context, Burnett's minor league injuries and the time he's missed in Toronto in 2006-07 is really nothing.
For example, does anyone really claim Chris Carpenter to be injury prone?

Pistol, I can't believe that you still hold 34 starts as a full season for a pitcher! I mean, only a handful ever reach that many in one season. The overwhelming average for starting pitchers is 32. And by the way the average for Burnett was not 25 but 28 which is a big difference!
[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 01:05 AM EST (#195292) #
" For example, does anyone really claim Chris Carpenter to be injury prone?"

Yes
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 02:02 AM EST (#195293) #
"To put it another way, I'd rather have Snider in Toronto in 2015 than in 2009."

I'd rather have him here both years if he deserves the playing time, and to not have to worry about future repercussions by playing him today. How do I solve this? I point to Longoria's deal, remind his agent he doesn't play top notch D at 3B, and throw a similar 6/16 deal at him with a few club options. Give the kid security today and secure your team for the future, with the risk that at worst you have a sunk cost of around 6m in 2014.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike D - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 11:22 AM EST (#195294) #

I agree with Mike Green in theory, but I think that ship sailed when Snider got unexpectedly called up last year and performed well.  You can maintain the fiction of "the kid needs development time" if you never bring the player up and never give the player a chance to make the club...but now I really don't think you can.

It's the same thing with Luke Schenn on the Leafs.  Obviously, for any number of reasons it might have been beneficial to keep Snider in the minors and Schenn in junior hockey, but the only way to do that is to tell the young player well before the season -- and in no uncertain terms -- that he had no opportunity to make the big club at that time and would therefore be putting in more development time. 

But if you give a player a trial run in the majors -- and that player proves that he belongs -- you just can't put a manifestly less deserving player on the roster for the obvious purpose of deferring a young star's salary increases and free agency triggers.  It makes perfect sense for armchair GMs but it doesn't work in the real world.  Players want meritocracy and fairness.  It's a necessary component of management's accountability to its players.

Unless you add a LF/DH substantially likely to outperform Snider in 2009, I think you have no choice but to leave him with the big club. 

[ Reply to This ]
SK in NJ - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 11:48 AM EST (#195295) #

Unless Snider is represented by Scott Boras, I don't see any reason why he wouldn't sign a long-term extension during his arbitration or pre-arbitration years, assuming he's happy with the situation. If Snider has a breakout year or shows star talent after his 2nd year (for example), then offer him a six year extension. He'd be foolish to say no given the uncertainty with health, the economy, performance, etc.

If Snider was a Boras guy, then yes, hide him for service time reasons since Boras guys (especially the good ones) rarely if ever sign long-term extensions to forgo free agency.

I personally don't think Snider is ready, but if he starts the year in the Majors, then I'm not going to worry about 2015. I am going to worry about his development.

[ Reply to This ]
ayjackson - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 01:14 PM EST (#195296) #
I agree largely with Mike D and SK/NJ.  I'll just add that if Snider starts the year in the Majors and performs well, I could care less about 2015.  If he struggles, you send him down and protect 2015 that way.  Right now, Joe Inglett becomes his replacement in LF, I wouldn't mind Alou or Kapler in the picture to protect against Snider's failure, but that would involve the cutting of Bautista or JMac, and I'm not sure JP will do that.  If JP finds some money for a safe upgrade, he'll do that, but I don't think he'll cut one of those two for a 42 year-old or a one-year wonder.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 01:17 PM EST (#195297) #
I agree with Mike Green in theory, but I think that ship sailed when Snider got unexpectedly called up last year and performed well.  You can maintain the fiction of "the kid needs development time" if you never bring the player up and never give the player a chance to make the club...but now I really don't think you can.

In my view, 73 at-bats in September with an OPS+ of 112 (for an outfielder) and 23 strikeouts in 24 games doesn't preclude a return to triple A.  It would obviously be better to have an older player around.  If I am wrong and those 73 at-bats determine Snider's career course, Ricciardi made a large error in calling him up. 
[ Reply to This ]
ayjackson - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 01:50 PM EST (#195300) #
I don't see how 73 ABs would decide a career course.  Nobody's going to decide what to do with Snider's entire career based on 73 AB's.  He'll be contiunually evaluated throughout his career and that is what will determine its course.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 02:18 PM EST (#195302) #
While 73 AB's isn't enough to say 'Snider should be up forever' it is enough to suggest he has a clue about hitting ML pitching.  I suspect the Jays would like to have a solid hitter to allow them to shift Snider to AAA for the first 1/2 of the season at least but...
  1. The cost of said quality hitter is probably a few million
  2. The budget is shot for 2009
  3. Any quality hitter won't be happy if they are benched for a kid mid way through the season - they'll expect to be the DH/LF for the whole season which could lead to a 'Frank Thomas II' situation
  4. Ideally you push Snider in the spring but quality hitters, again, would be a mess to release given the budget if Snider keeps pushing hard
The key now is for the Jays to both compete as well as possible in difficult times (limited budget, 3 teams in the division expected to win 90+) and develop the kids for 2010-2014.  That 5 year window is the period that the Jays have to focus on as that is the period they have Wells/Rios/Hill signed for and that they may be able to resign Halladay for plus have McGowan/Marcum/Litsch/Lind/Snider all under control (some for the full period, some for the first half).  2010 will be as tight as 2009, but 2011 has budget room and I suspect 2010/2011 offseason will be the free agent chase down period along with 2011/2012.  By then the suspects and prospects will have sorted themselves out (Cooper/Jackson/JPA/Cecil/etc.) and while some may not be in the majors the Jays should know if they will be.  2012-2014 will be the highly competitive period - when Tampa Bay has to pay the piper for their kids today in arbitration and the Yankees are carrying very old players at key positions (Jeter & ARod will be in decline phase, both past 35, but unable to be shifted/benched and moving Jeter off SS will be next to impossible no matter how tiny his range gets).  Yes, the Yanks will keep signing guys and the Sox will too, but I see that window as the Jays next big one and getting Snider going now will maximize the odds of him becoming an All-Star by then.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike D - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 02:36 PM EST (#195303) #

In my view, 73 at-bats in September with an OPS+ of 112 (for an outfielder) and 23 strikeouts in 24 games doesn't preclude a return to triple A.  It would obviously be better to have an older player around.  If I am wrong and those 73 at-bats determine Snider's career course, Ricciardi made a large error in calling him up. 

Maybe he did make a large error, Mike.  Maybe he should have never called him up and told him that he needed X months or years of additional seasoning in Syracuse.  It would have been a perfectly understandable approach.

My point is not that Snider is forever immune from demotion based on 73 at-bats, but that, objectively and subjectively, he was not overmatched.  More importantly, he gave the impression that the Jays do not have better in-house options for LF in 2009.  Because of this impression, I don't think you can enter the season without Snider on the club unless you acquire somebody that can reasonably be expected to outperform him in 2009.  Kapler or another Shannon Stewart type would not cut it.  Bradley or Manny would, but they aren't coming.

Otherwise, everybody in the clubhouse would believe that management was denying a young player the opportunity he deserved in order to stiff him financially.  That would not be good.

[ Reply to This ]
Ron - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 02:43 PM EST (#195304) #
The MLB network launches on Jan 1st and I can't find any info as to what channel it will appear on or if it's being carried at all in Canada. In terms of television, it's extremely hard to find baseball coverage in Canada outside of Jays games. I wish ESPN was legally allowed in Canada so I could watch Baseball Tonight. I know MLB Network will have the same type of show each weeknight.


[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 03:21 PM EST (#195305) #
What about Branyan or MacPherson?

Banyan has singed with Seattle (for a song) and would have been a good choice. The marlins have made no noise about MacPhearson but he'd be a good choice if you could pry him lose. Another good choice - Josh Phelps - signed with the Giants.

One of my favorite choices is the Kila from KC.

Other choices include -
Jim Edmunds - but you'd need a platoon partner
Chad Tracy - again, weak v. LHP
Nelson Cruz - you have to wonder why the Rangers would let him go
Daniel Murphy - another favorite if the Mets would give him up for Tallett....
Nick Johnson - higher contract...keep him healthy by DHing him?
Chris Duncan - another guy who can't touch a LFP
Wily Mo Pena - over-loaded Nats OF as bodies to spare.
Austin Kearns - Nats would have to eat a lot of the $8 mil he's set to make in 2009
Hank Blalock - same thinking as Johnson. Rangers could use pitching (on the major league level)
Max Ramirez - as a DH if not a catcher?
Ryan Garko - if the Indians wanted either LaPorta or Martinez at 1B

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 03:41 PM EST (#195306) #
Forgot to mention Mosies Alou, who intruiges me even at his age, and there's another couple guys -

Josh Whitesell was a 1B in AAA for the D'backs. He appears on no prospect lists, and he's 27 next season and he plays in the PCL.

that said, he had a .937 OPS in the Eastern League in 2007 and a .993 in the PCL in 2008.

I can't imagine he'd cost much of anything to acquire given the D'Backs have no obvious place for him in the majors.

Across the diamond from him is Jamie D'Antona, who hit even better than Whitesell did last year.


[ Reply to This ]
Rich - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 03:42 PM EST (#195308) #
You seem to take issue with this, but you never explain why:

1.the Jays haven't been in the playoffs in the past seven seasons
2.J.P. has been the GM for the past seven seasons
3.Therefore JP is the cause of this situation

As Bill Parcells likes to say, you are what you are.  Since JP was hired the team is 570-489 and has finished an average of 17.5 games out of first place.  He's had to compete with the richest clubs in the game, but he also inherited some premium talent in Halladay, Wells, and Rios.  He's clearly not a terrible GM, but he's not a great one either and it will take a great one to overtake the Sox, Yankees, and Rays.  Not once during JP's tenure have the Jays seriously contended for a playoff spot.  He's made some very good moves and some big mistakes as well.  I think his record is a very fair reflection of his time with the Jays.  If he's not responsible for the fact that the Jays have been unable to compete seriously for even a single season then please tell me just who IS?
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 03:53 PM EST (#195309) #
Sure, Mike D.  Lou Gehrig came up in September at age 20 and shot out the lights (OPS+ of 219), but didn't get a shot until 2 years later.  Can JP find the new Wally Pipp to give Snider some development time?
[ Reply to This ]
J Ges - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 04:43 PM EST (#195310) #
The Jays signed Mike Maroth.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 05:45 PM EST (#195312) #
Per Sportsnet

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2008/12/30/jays_signings_maroth/

The Jays signed to minor league contracts and invited to ST Mike maroth and Raul Chavez.

I expect more from Bullington than Maroth, he probably won't even make the AAA roster.

Chavez seems destined to be the veteran presence behind the plate in AAA (let's hope he doesn't give Jeroloman hitting tips)

In the same article it mentions the Jays hold an option on Barrett for 2010 -  this is good news, IMO.


[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 06:09 PM EST (#195313) #
He's clearly not a terrible GM, but he's not a great one either and it will take a great one to overtake the Sox, Yankees, and Rays.

That's easy to say, harder to find. It's not like you can pop out the Rolodex and find all the numbers of unemployed "great" GMs.

Besides, define "great" - not too long ago, Dave Dombrowski was considered "great" - yet the Tigers were in last place last year and have, aside from Porcello, almost nothing in the minors. Some consider Terry Ryan "great" but if you closely examine his player personnel moves - drafting and trading - he was a very very ordinary GM. His teams sucked for the first seven years of his tenure and the important players on the good teams were in large majority players he inherited. Ron Gaurdenhire likely deserves the "great" title, not Ryan.

If he's not responsible for the fact that the Jays have been unable to compete seriously for even a single season then please tell me just who IS?

Honestly? It's mostly random chance during the window that the Jays were even trying to be competitive (which is no more than the last 3 seasons, more likely 2)

[ Reply to This ]
cascando - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 06:58 PM EST (#195314) #
The Tigers don't have much in their system because they traded six prospects for Miguel Cabrera. I'd say that's a pretty decent consolation prize for decreased depth in the minors. They also traded two excellent prospects, Jair Jurrjens and Gorkys Hernandez, for Edgar Renteria. And while that move didn't pay off, it's a risk they were able to take precisely because Dombrowski had built an excellent system.

But the thing that impresses me most about Dombrowski, and a skill our GM in Toronto could use a little more of frankly, is his willingness to take responsibility for a team that came up short. This is what he said after the season (reported on BA):

"I thought we had a club that would compete to win a championship, and it's apparent we were significantly off on that, which is my responsibility. I'm embarrassed that you have a very large payroll and you don't do well. Now what we need to do is go out and try to fix it."

I don't recall hearing any such thing from JP after the Jays tanked in 2004 (a worse team than Dombrowski's 2008 Tigers) or when they disappointed in 2007. You don't hear Dombrowski blaming injuries (they had a lot of them) or random chance, or complaining about the strength of his division.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 07:15 PM EST (#195315) #
The Tigers don't have much in their system because they traded six prospects for Miguel Cabrera. I'd say that's a pretty decent consolation prize for decreased depth in the minors.

And yet, they are still in last place in a relatively weaker division.

They also traded two excellent prospects, Jair Jurrjens and Gorkys Hernandez, for Edgar Renteria. And while that move didn't pay off, it's a risk they were able to take precisely because Dombrowski had built an excellent system.

And it's a move that many would be excoriating JP for about every three hours if he had made it.

But the thing that impresses me most about Dombrowski, and a skill our GM in Toronto could use a little more of frankly, is his willingness to take responsibility for a team that came up short. This is what he said after the season (reported on BA):

"I thought we had a club that would compete to win a championship, and it's apparent we were significantly off on that, which is my responsibility. I'm embarrassed that you have a very large payroll and you don't do well. Now what we need to do is go out and try to fix it."

I'm sure he's a swell guy. I thought the context of my post was being a "great GM" though.


I don't recall hearing any such thing from JP after the Jays tanked in 2004 (a worse team than Dombrowski's 2008 Tigers)

You mean the team that was never expected to contend? why would someone applogize for the fact that a stripped down team that had no illusions of competing, didn't compete?

or when they disappointed in 2007. You don't hear Dombrowski blaming injuries (they had a lot of them) or random chance, or complaining about the strength of his division.

A. The division isn't strong
B. Richardi never cited random chance
C. Feel free to list the significant injuries in Detroit in 2008 that are a patch on those in Toronto in 207.

In any case, one doesn't become a "great" GM by saying the right things. We are often reminded by JP's critics that it's only results that matter. Based on the results displayed by the 2008 Tigers Dombrowski must not be a "great" GM.

The irony here is that I'm NOT trying to bash Dombrowski - I like him and I like his work. I'm trying to point to the illogic of the refrain "We need a GREAT GM"

So does every other team.

[ Reply to This ]
christaylor - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 07:37 PM EST (#195316) #
This is bang on with respect to Snider, I believe. Players are people and a liable all the foibles as the rest of us. A player can make all the right noises about doing what is best for the team, yet still carry the resentment about the lack of meritocracy... I present the example of Josh Fields 2008. He clearly did enough in 2007 to play his way on to the White Sox and didn't get a single shot in 2008. If Snider is banished to the minors in 2009, without struggle, it'd be understandable for him to carry his resentment and not develop.
[ Reply to This ]
jerjapan - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 07:54 PM EST (#195319) #
I actually do appreciate your approch to the debate because, unlike the anti-JP crowd one commonly encounters, you DO seem open to having your point challanged (a worthy goal for all of us) and that alone is enough for an enjoyable debate - but they are out there. PSD, for instance, is loaded with them and every other Jays message board I've discovered (save here and this is not a conventional message board) - "they" being stubborn, unreasonable, set in stone, "JP IS SUCH AN IDIOT WHY HAS HE NOT BEEN FIRED AAAAARGH!!!!" crowd.

Thanks Will (and the other posters who supported my comments) ... I've been out of town and just revisited this thread now. 

And we agree completely on one of your ideas - the level of discourse here compared to many other sites is fantastic - I generally don't even bother posting unless I'm prepared to bring my 'A' game and try and keep up with the quality of the commentary found here. 
[ Reply to This ]
cascando - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 09:52 PM EST (#195324) #

Based on the results displayed by the 2008 Tigers Dombrowski must not be a "great" GM.
The irony here is that I'm NOT trying to bash Dombrowski - I like him and I like his work. I'm trying to point to the illogic of the refrain "We need a GREAT GM".

If that were indeed your objective, you'd be better off making arguments that aren't totally divorced of context, such as, "aside from Porcello, the Tigers have almost nothing in the minors." Dombrowski built a top-notch minor league system., which is largely why they have Miguel Cabrera aboard. I would trust him completely to rebuild it again.

Likewise, while Dombrowski's Tigers disappointed in 2008, they won 95 games and made the playoffs only 2 years prior.  That, in a division with three teams that won more than 90 games.  When was the last time 3 AL East teams won 90 games?


"Feel free to list the significant injuries in Detroit in 2008 that are a patch on those in Toronto in 2007."

Bonderman missed 2/3 of the season, Zumaya spent most of the season on the DL, Carlos Guillen missed almost 50 games, Granderson, Renteria and Polanco missed about 20 each, Todd Jones hit the DL twice, Fernando Rodney was out for a large part of the season, Sheffield torn a tendon in his hand and had oblique trouble--he missed over a month, Ordonez was on the DL and missed a couple weeks, Inge, Willis (twice), Thomas, Bautista and Tata were on the DL, Marcus Thames missed lots of time, Cabrera played through back trouble, ... I could go on.

Maybe you just don't follow the Tigers, or maybe the fact that their GM doesn't gripe about injuries could lead you to believe they didn't have any.


"I'm sure he's a swell guy. I thought the context of my post was being a "great GM" though" ...We are often reminded by JP's critics that it's only results that matter.

Frankly, I don't have any interest in re-litigating arguments you may have had with other posters in other places about Ricciardi's worthiness as a GM.  I'll just say that in my opinion, part of managing is creating a winning organizational culture, for which accountability is pre-requisite. To me, Dombrowski's comments recognize that, while blaming a lost season on injuries or the spending of a divisional opponent fails to do so.

[ Reply to This ]
Dewey - Tuesday, December 30 2008 @ 10:25 PM EST (#195325) #
O.K., I said I'd made my last post in this thread.  I lied.  (Rich, [I assume you're addressing me] I take issue with the cited 'syllogism' because, as I explained, it's false.  3 doesn't follow logically from 1 and 2.)

I don't know what Parcells means here.  (Sounds about as deep as “It is what it is.”)  As Will Rain said, no single person is responsible for the Jays' standing.  There are so many contingent factors 'responsible'  that we probably couldn't list them all (that is, of the ones we even know about).  This (“tell me just who IS”) is the sort of comment that really puzzles me.  Many Bauxites seem to think the game on the field is little more than a simulacrum of some video game; and that all the bits and pieces can be assembled and moved about as easily as in some fantasy league or board game.  Baseball is a vast industry, a  billion dollar business, involving thousands of people; and decisions get made by groups of them, all the way up the hierarchy.  And the decisions made are no doubt often the result of other factors than the talent of the player(s) involved. 
[ Reply to This ]
vw_fan17 - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 01:00 AM EST (#195326) #
Likewise, while Dombrowski's Tigers disappointed in 2008, they won 95 games and made the playoffs only 2 years prior.  That, in a division with three teams that won more than 90 games.  When was the last time 3 AL East teams won 90 games?

Hmm. Italics doesn't seem to be working for some reason... Anyhoo..

When I check the standings at ESPN.com for 2006, the White Sox (3rd place in the Central) won 89 games, not 90. That makes the answer to your question: 2008. With the Jays in 4th at 86, and the Orioles with 68. The other two teams in the Central that year had 76 and 60 wins (Cleveland and KC). Somehow, I don't think this is as supportive of your argument you thought it was...
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 01:45 AM EST (#195327) #
Dombrowski built a top-notch minor league system., which is largely why they have Miguel Cabrera aboard. I would trust him completely to rebuild it again./quote

That's the second time that's been said, but the fact is, the Tigers traded six minor leaguers in that deal but only two of them were premium prospects and both of those were only Tigers because the Tigers sucked hard enough to have top 10 draft choices. If trading two premium prospects and 4 mid-range guys and having a virtually empty farm system thereafter qualifies as a "top notch system" then apparently the Jays have a Top Notch system, because they could trade six players and still have more than one good one left.

Bonderman missed 2/3 of the season, Zumaya spent most of the season on the DL, Carlos Guillen missed almost 50 games, Granderson, Renteria and Polanco missed about 20 each, Todd Jones hit the DL twice, Fernando Rodney was out for a large part of the season, Sheffield torn a tendon in his hand and had oblique trouble--he missed over a month, Ordonez was on the DL and missed a couple weeks, Inge, Willis (twice), Thomas, Bautista and Tata were on the DL, Marcus Thames missed lots of time, Cabrera played through back trouble, ... I could go on. /quote

Can't argue on Bonderman, Zumaya wasn't counted on in the first lace, missing 20 games is the sort of thing that happens routinely and isn't on the same scale as what I was referring to. Sheffield was n important loss, Willis would have been if he wasn't sucking so very hard even before the DL, most of the rest you mentioned were role players and Cabrera had a fine year, what little production he lost wasn't the cause of their failure.
So yeah, two major injuries and one mid range one.

Hell, the Jays in 2008 had that. Hill missed more time than Sheffield, Wells missed more than Guillen, McGowan and Marcum combined for as many lost starts as Bonderman.

Thing is, I DO give DD a break because of injuries - it's irrelevant to me whether or not DD TALKS ABOUT the injuries, they existed nonetheless.

And if JP's critics consider the difference in JP and DD being great is the fact that both had injuries and DD choses not to talk about them, then let's put that out there and debate THAT.

All I'm looking for is consistancy - if DD is "great" because he built a fine team but it was hampered by injuries, then the same can be said of JP - if JP is NOT "great"  because he could not overcome injuries, then neither is DD.

Frankly, I don't have any interest in re-litigating arguments you may have had with other posters in other places about Ricciardi's worthiness as a GM/quote

And now it's my turn to remind you of context. I have more trouble with this - on all boards including this one - than any other point. People fail to read posts in the context of the point to which they were replying.

My comments were specifically directed to the claim that the Jays, to compete in this division, needed a "great" GM. To that point I asked for a definition of "great" and citing DD as an oft noted example.

All my remarks about the Tigers are in the context of THAT point. And it was a point being discussed in THIS thread, not elsewhere. The assertion is that by the standards used by many Jays fans, here and elsewhere, to judge JP, DD would fail to pass the test (other than having better control of his words).

But the larger point is not whether or not DD is better than JP - the point is that saying "We must have a great GM" is a comment essentially empty of content. It's like saying "We must draft the best player available in the first round next year" - even if you have the #1 pick you may well NOT do that.

If JP's performance merits firing, then fire him, if not, then don't. But holding him to a standard almost no GM ever achives is kind of immature, IMO.


[ Reply to This ]
cascando - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 01:53 AM EST (#195328) #
In 2006, Minnesota won 96 games, Detroit won 95 and Chicago won 90 (according to bbref and mlb.com). I was mistaken to say that three teams won more than 90 games.

In 2008, only 2 AL East teams won 90 games. The Yankees were in 3rd with 89.

I believe the answer to the question, "when was the last time 3 AL East teams won 90 games?" is 1987 (Detroit--98, Toronto--96, Milwaukee--91).
[ Reply to This ]
cascando - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 02:19 AM EST (#195329) #
"Missing 20 games is the sort of thing that happens routinely and isn't on the same scale as what I was referring to"

I'm certain you'd feel differently if it were the Jays that suffered the same fate.

Here's a list of positions where the Tigers had starters that missed at least 20 games: C, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, CF, DH, #2 starter, #5 starter, closer, primary set-up man.

That leaves RF (Ordonez--15 day DL in July) and 1B (Cabrera) And this is ignoring a significant portion of the supporting cast. Hardly a routine set of injuries.





[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 10:26 AM EST (#195332) #
Good ol' Dombrowski, who could've been GM here.  He started with Detroit a year after JP started here.  Lets check a couple of simple stats...
Wins 2003-2008...
Detroit:43-72-71-95-88-74 = 443
Toronto: 86-67-80-87-83-86 = 489

But lets give the big D a break as that 43 win team really wasn't all his.
04-08: DET: 400 wins, TOR: 403
Lets be really kind and make it just the last 3 years though (catching their WS team)
05-08: DET: 257, TOR: 256

So, basically JP's problem is he spread out the wins these last 3 years rather than having a sweet bump at the start.  Also of note: the Jays runs for/against should've resulted in 93 wins this past season (the Tigers 95 win season matched runs for/against perfectly).  If that happened the Jays still would've missed the playoffs as it took 95 wins to make it.

What about payroll.  After all, Detroit is not as big a city as Toronto nor do they have the potential TV revenues Toronto has.
Tigers: 49, 46, 69, 83, 95, 137
Jays: 51, 50, 45, 72, 82, 98

So, outside of 03 (the horrid team) and 04 (the year from heck) the Tigers have outspent the Jays by $11 million to $39 million a year.  Or if you prefer the cost of keeping Lilly to the cost of A-Rod plus Lilly.

Comparing the Tigers to the Jays we see that the Jays have had as many if not more wins unless you cut it down to just the two years Detroit maxed its wins despite DD having a lot more cash to blow. 

As to minor league systems, checking a simple list of top 100 prospects from Baseball America before the 2008 season...
Top 20: Jays 1 (Snider) Tigers 0
21-40: Jays 0, Tigers 1 (Porcello)
41-100: 0 each (1 was ranked 93rd who was part of a trade made earlier by the Tigers)

Not exactly a wonderful result for either organization. One high level prospect each and that was it.

So, who is the better GM?  Hard to say from these results.  DD had a year where everything went right and got into the World Series so I guess he'd win thanks to that but coming in last in 2008 wasn't promising, especially with a crazy payroll.
[ Reply to This ]
Rich - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 10:49 AM EST (#195334) #
You make some interesting points John, but you've ignored the biggest one of all - DD built a team that won a pennant.  JP's teams haven't even sniffed a wild-card berth.  Not once.  And DD built another team that won a World Series.  It's true that JP's teams have been more consistently decent but I think most fans would live with a bit more volatility if it included some playoff years - I know I sure would.

WillRain, Ricciardi has had the final say on all baseball matters for 7 years.  Ultimately he deserves the credit or blame for the team's results since he acquires the players and hires the coaching and staff.  Being in the AL East is a disadvantage the Jays can do nothing about except to try and get the very best person possible to run the organization.  JP is a decent GM but he's clearly overmatched by his division competition.  The Parcells quote means that you're record tells you how good you are - it doesn't require subjective debate.  Quite clearly you think a perennial 85 win team is good enough and if that keeps you happy as a fan that's your perogrative.  It's also the perogative of other fans to insists on a team that truly strives for excellence and doesn't settle with merely being good, especially when your club is in a division with the true heavyweights of the sport. 

[ Reply to This ]
Rich - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 10:51 AM EST (#195335) #
Sorry John, my mistake.  You didn't ignore DD's World Series, but you highly underrate it.  That is ultimately why a GM gets hired - to win a championship (or more than one).  Dombrowski has done it twice and JP has never been close.  I think it's impossible to overstate the importance of this when comparing the two.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 05:06 PM EST (#195343) #
Cascando:

I'm certain you'd feel differently if it were the Jays that suffered the same fate.

I'm certain you are mistaken. Zaun missed that much time a couple of times in the past few years, Tallett spent that much time on the DL last year I think, Rolen did, Wells did twice, Burnett did in '07 - not ALL are irrelevancies, but most are.Rolen's issue was how he was hampered while he was actually playing, as was Wells in 2007, and Overbay since the hand was hurt, more so than games missed.

I'm open to the argument that guillen - just to pull out a name for an example - did not preform as well while he was out there because of the injury, I confess I do not follow the tigers closely enough to contest that. but i'm not busted up by three weeks on the DL for the great majority of players. the only exceptions being if the margin between my team and the team in the playoffs is so small that that minor injury may have turned it.

But again, I'm happy to concede the tigers had injuries, if you want me to agree they are as great as the injuries we had in 2007 then fine. It still doesn't change the fact that the difference in the evaluation of the two cases (besides the fact that we won more games with our busted up team than they did with there's) is that people are having an emotional reaction to one GM stating reality and the other one "not making excuses"

It has nothing to do with being a good team, or a good GM, objectively...it's just who's WORDS make you feel better.

Rich:

WillRain, Ricciardi has had the final say on all baseball matters for 7 years.  Ultimately he deserves the credit or blame for the team's results since he acquires the players and hires the coaching and staff. 

Obviously. But that doesn't mean that all the factors which can affect a team's success are in the control of any human being. Sometimes, stuff happens.

Being in the AL East is a disadvantage the Jays can do nothing about except to try and get the very best person possible to run the organization.

Obviously. But it's also foolish to note make note of the realities and the circumstances. To take it out of a discussion of the Jays which might seem self serving - the Rays can "man up" and say "we have to play in the AL East so we must face that challenge" but if they ignore the fact that the Yankees pay FIVE TIMES for their roster what the Rays pay for theirs they are not facing reality. and an ownership group that doesn't take that into account when evaluating his GM is a moron.

Now, he may STILL find good reason to fire his GM, or he may STILL feel like there's a Tony LaCava sitting there that he has more faith in - but he can't simply turn a blind eye to the competitive disadvantage.

 JP is a decent GM but he's clearly overmatched by his division competition. 

So far.

What that assertion fails to demonstrate is that (a) anyone else could have done better given the same circumstances; or (b) the reasons the Jays have come up short are all things any man could have prevented. for example:
Is it JP's fault Vernon crashed into that wall? is it JP's fault that pitch hit Overbay on the hand? Is it JP's fault that line drive hit doc's leg or that his appendix blew up?

Yes, you can argue JP acquired Glaus, and then Rolen, knowing the injury issues - but what was the alternative? Hinske? Hillenbrand? On balance those moves worked.

The point is that yes, you can point at specific moves and say "he failed here" - you can do that with every GM and there's no such thing as a GM who always gets it right. The point is that there is an arguable and undefinable gray area between that which you can definately lay at his feet, that which you can definately not, and the effect those two had proprtional to the win column.

And that's before you get into plain old dumb luck. So saying JP is "overmatched" really is nothing but opinion - it's not remotely quantifiable. to win a division or a wild card in major league baseball takes a huge number of variables falling in your favor, and to have that accomplishment screwed up takes a relatively small number of those factors falling against you. Many Fans apparently think that building a winning team is like writing a computer program - write the correct code, get the right results.

But it doesn't wark that way.

The Parcells quote means that you're record tells you how good you are - it doesn't require subjective debate. 

So Parcells is wrong. it's a cliche.

Quite clearly you think a perennial 85 win team is good enough and if that keeps you happy as a fan that's your perogrative.

Why do people say "quite clearly" about another persons opinion? On the contrary, I don't think it's "good enough", but I do think it is an accomplishment and it's a sound platform for which success may be attained.

What's more likely to happen, year over year:
A perennial 85 game winner makes the right tweaks and gets the right breaks and wins the division with 95 wins or more?
or
A perennial 70 game winner manages to make all the right moves to suddenly vault to the top of the division?

If I'm gonna gamble, I'll take the former.

No, if you want to know what I think "quite clearly" - what I think is that the difference in 70 wins and 95 wins is a failure GM (if it happens regularly) and the difference in an 85 win and 95 win team is most often a collection of random negatives which outweigh the positives....injuries, off years, odd breaks, poor managment, prospects which didn't develop, unexpected success on rival teams, and etc. Certainly bad (and good) GM decesions go into that mix too.

In other words, the difference in 85 wins and 95 wins in the majors isn't very damned much, in terms of what has to go wrong over the course of a season. That's less than two games a month that go wrong. Less than twice a month that your best hitter inexplicably waves at a fat pitch and leaves the winning run on base, less than twice a month that your untouchable closer gets torched for 4 ninth inning runs or your Ace pitcher somehow gives up five runs or your gold glove shortstop lets a weak grounder dribble between his legs to score the winning run, or fails to turn the double play that would have ended that big ralley. less than twice a month that you have to thrwo a scrub starter because one of the fronjt five tweaked his ankle feilding a grounder or you have a Thigen at the plate instead of a Zaun because of an injury.

Out of all those things and a hundred more - if two of them happen every month you win 12 less games than you did otherwise, if ONE happens it's the difference in 87 wins and 93 (and enough for the discontent fan to say "we didn't even sniff the playoffs"

You know how teams have a year like Tampa did last year - while we have years like we did while having essentially the same probability of winning?

Those breaks - of the sort I described - fell in the favor of the team that won 97 and against the team that won 86.

Simple.
Dumb.
Luck.

That's what I think quite clearly - I think that a mature person has to be philosophical about the fact that the odds are always against you, that winning a playoff spot is the exception, not the rule.

Now, that doesn't mean I can't and won't cal any GM on a bad move. I remember being outraged over the Lopez deal. I can certainly say that I think Ash screwed up on the Loaiza deal, or the Green deal, or the Clemens deal...i can sit here and ask "Where were we when the White sox were essentially giving away Nick Swisher?"

But the simple fact of the matter is that by a number of different evaluations, the Jays have beenone of the better teams in the league for three years now, and one of the very best in 2008. Is that "good enough"? No, but it's a foundation which deserves to be recognized and not dismissed out of hand.

 It's also the perogative of other fans to insists on a team that truly strives for excellence and doesn't settle with merely being good, especially when your club is in a division with the true heavyweights of the sport.

And what makes you think that the team "settled for" 86 wins in 2008? Ownership? Maybe, they tend to consider profit as the bottom line. But you are going to tell me JP is content to win 85 games? That Cito (or Gibbons) was just fine with an average team? that ANY player on the team isn't really interested in the playoffs or winning a ring?

that there is a single coach, trainer, flippin ticket taker, who doesn't desire above all else to be a part of October baseball?

Please.
What kind of ego does it take for a FAN to assume THEY want a championship more than the people on their team do?



(I do go on, don't I?)

[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 05:55 PM EST (#195345) #
"So, who is the better GM?  Hard to say from these results."

Well, it always will be if you cherry pick your stats. When Dombrowski took over, the Tigers were terrible. Absolutely awful. When J.P. took over, the team had a lot of good talent in place. D.D. has had to remake an entire organization, J.P. hasn't.   Also, DD has made some great moves. He traded Jeff Weaver for Bonderman and Carlos Pena. He got Carlos Guillen for nothing. He got Galaragga for nothing. He got Polanco for Urbina. What was the best trade J.P. has made? Getting Accardo? Also, you are being disengenous about the prospect difference. Dombrowski built up a good system which allowed him to get Cabrera. (Andrew Miller and Maybin are two top prospects). In fact, the core of the Tigers team now, Granderson, Cabrera, and Verlander all come from D.D's drafting.  Who is the best player the Jays have from Ricciardi's drafts so far? Aaron Hill?

Dombrowski is hardly a god, he has made a number of bad moves, but he's done a lot of very good things in what was a horrible situation. Ricciardi has not made one single great move in seven years. He has not acquired a key cornerstone player for very little. He has not made a single great signing. He has no yet drafted a single player who is a cornerstone type player in the majors.


"Also of note: the Jays runs for/against should've resulted in 93 wins this past season"

I can't begin to say how much I hate this. People act as if Pythagorean W/L is definitive. It isn't for many reasons. I'll point again to two of these reasons.
1) There are situations where giving up runs does not matter. If  a team's 7th reliever has an ERA of 6.52, it might not matter at all as he might not pitch in a single game of importance all year and having a good pitcher versus a bad pitcher in those spots could mean the difference of winning 7-1 and winning 7-2.
2) September callups. Check September 28th. The last game of the year, the Jays played all their normal players. They pitched Litsch 7 innings followed by Carleson and League at one inning each. Baltimore who they were playing used Guthrie for 4 innings and then followed him with a bunch of call-ups. Afredo Simon and Bo McRory gave up 7 runs in 2.67 innings. These are guys who combined for 20 IP all year. Now, if Baltimore had used say, Matt Albers and Chad Bradford instead or the Jays had thrown some AAA guys in there, it would have undoubtedly changed the outcome of the scpre and the Jays pythagorean record would have been worse. On the same Sunday, Tampa started James Shields for only one inning. They then followed him with Mitch Talbot who gave up five runs. If it were a regular game, Shields would have gone something like 7 innings and not one. If it were a regular game, Jason Jaso wouldn't have had the start, Carlos Pena would have played, etc...So, the fact that just on one day two managers played things differently in meaningless games probably meant about 5-10 run advantage for the Jays over the Rays. Pythogrean records treat all runs as equal when in fact not all runs are.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 07:46 PM EST (#195346) #
I find it funny how no one has mentioned (outside of me) that Dombrowski, since 2005, had $11+ million MORE than JP to spend each and every year, maxing out at $39 million more last year to come in last place in a weaker division (the Jays would've been just 3 games out, before factoring in the extra games vs also rans rather than the Yankees/Red Sox/Rays).

Given that much more money I suspect JP could've kept Lilly and/or signed Meche like he was publicly trying to do in 2007.  Or he could've kept Delgado a Jay quite easily from 2005 on.  Or signed a free agent hitter for that stretch to add to the offence.  Or ...

Any of those moves could've added 5-10 wins in a given year (depending on who was replaced and/or traded).  To rate DD as above JP you have to factor that in or there is no honesty in the evaluation.  Imagine another $39 million this year - does anyone doubt with that much more another 9 wins couldn't have been added to this team thus making the playoffs? 

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 04:44 AM EST (#195350) #
Well, it always will be if you cherry pick your stats. When Dombrowski took over, the Tigers were terrible. Absolutely awful. When J.P. took over, the team had a lot of good talent in place. D.D. has had to remake an entire organization, J.P. hasn't.

The 2001 Jays featured one significant player - Roy Halladay - who is still with the team in a semi-proninant role (105 IP) and 96 at bats from young Vernon Wells.

Brandon Inge had 189 at bats for the Tigers. Everyone else on both teams has turned over - or were you including the minors?
Future important jays inherited by JP include Hudson, Rios, Johnson, McGowan and League (depending on how you define important)

DD inherited Weaver, Raeblo (part of the Cabrera deal) and Cody Ross (traded away for a nobody) so JP had a better time of it there.
But he was hardly swiming in talent either - Seven players, only three of which could be called star level, is hardly an organzation in good shape.

Also, DD has made some great moves. He traded Jeff Weaver for Bonderman and Carlos Pena. He got Carlos Guillen for nothing. He got Galaragga for nothing. He got Polanco for Urbina. What was the best trade J.P. has made? Getting Accardo?

Hard to give DD credit for getting Pena given he also released him without getting a lot of good out of him, donchathink?
And Bonderman hasn't been better as a Tiger than Weaver was as a Tiger.  Beyond that deal, he didn't make a single notable acquisition for over 2 years.

Among Starters on that World Series team, he:
Inherited 4
drafted 3
traded for 5
claimed on waivers 2
signed as a FA 4
Drafted Rule 5 -1

and if I note )as you did when you count Cbrera as a result of his drafting) how he got Bonderman than I ought to be listing him as "inherited" too.

What good deals has JP made?
The Accardo deal is certainly a good one.
So was getting Glaus
So was getting Overbay (look at what those traded did for the Brewers)
So was getting Scutero
So was getting Lilly
So was getting Tallet
So was getting Gaudin (albeit later nullified by a bad deal)
So was getting Speier

The list of good talent above cost us Hudson, Bautista, Hillenbrand, Bush, Gross, and Hendrickson (and a bunch of minor league scrubs) - and Hudson is the only real talent in the bunch.

that trade record, quite frankly, shames Dombrowski's

Also, you are being disengenous about the prospect difference. Dombrowski built up a good system which allowed him to get Cabrera. (Andrew Miller and Maybin are two top prospects). In fact, the core of the Tigers team now, Granderson, Cabrera, and Verlander all come from D.D's drafting.  Who is the best player the Jays have from Ricciardi's drafts so far? Aaron Hill?

On the 2009 Tigers, as the project now, there is ONE member of the starting nine and ONE member of the rotation which were drafted by DD.

On the 2009 Jays, as they project on January 1,  there are 3 members of the starting nine drafted by JP, and as many as 3 or 4 starters - definately 3 if you count Marcum.

People trash JP for drafting Russ Adams in 2002, but DD drafted Scott Moore in the top 10 of that draft - how's that pick working out?

2002-2006 he drafted Granderson, Zumaya, Verlander (second overall pick, he'd better have gotten that one right), Maybin, Miller (sixth overall and not proven yet anymore than Maybin is) and Matt Joyce (who's so good he just got dealt for Ediwn jackson of all people)

So in five drafts (the two most recent ought not be held against any GM) he's put a grand total of six guys in the majors (not counting cup-of-coffee scrubs already come and gone.

And three of those six were top 10 first round picks.
In the same periond of time JP has put seven regular players in the majors, eight if you count Snider.  And none of those eight were top 10 picks.

And while it's true DD traded two of those six players for Cabrera and Willis, he's left with one of the worst farm systems in the majors so it's not like there's a boatload of potential major leaguers coming through the pipeline.

I'm sorry, you can't blame an empty system on ONE trade that cost you two premium prospects.

Dombrowski is hardly a god, he has made a number of bad moves, but he's done a lot of very good things in what was a horrible situation.

Mostly, as John notes, spend money.

Ricciardi has not made one single great move in seven years. He has not acquired a key cornerstone player for very little. He has not made a single great signing. He has no yet drafted a single player who is a cornerstone type player in the majors.

Cornerston player for very little? Where did DD do this? Do you call Polonco and Guillen cornerstones?
Then so are Overbay and Lilly

Great signing? What's DD's great signing? Ordonez I assume? AJ was every bit as good a signing as Ordonez was, and for less money. Or by "great" do you mean high return on a smaller amount of money? Who would that be, in dombrowski's case? Only guy I can think of is Kenny Rogers - and I'd say our return on Frank Catalanotto, or Scott downs, or any number of others would compare.

Drafted a cornerstone type player? What do you think of that Snider kid? If you tip your hat to maybin you got to recognize.

Or do you mean already a cornerstone in the majors? Again, where's DD's? Verlander? The guy with the 110 career ERA+ who'se best years aren't noticably better than marcum or Litsch? Or Granderson? Granderson's a heck of a ballplayer but a cornerstone? I don't think most would say so.

Pythogrean records treat all runs as equal when in fact not all runs are.

No, I rather assume that the assumption is such examples as you cite even out. Your cherry picking games to make the point is an obvious reason why you can't treat runs as unequal because it then becomes a long subjective never-ending debate about the importance of a given run in a given situation. One cherry traded for another.

The folks who are widely regarded as some of the best in-depth analysists out there right now - and folks who sem pre-disposedto disliking the JP jays....concluded the Jays were the 4th best team in baseball last year.

I assume the factors you note have occured to them.





[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 11:07 AM EST (#195351) #
Thought I'd check the Sickels ratings...
Pre-2008...
Tigers: B+ Porcello, B- Larish & Worth, C+ 9, C 8
Blue Jays: B+ Snider, Cecil, B- Aherns, C+ 7, C 10

2009... no Tiger rating yet
Blue Jays: A- Snider, B+ Cecil, B Cooper, B- JPA, Jackson, Mills, C+ 7, C 7

Mid season report card for Tigers concluded with 'not an impressive system' so I doubt they improved as much as the Jays did.

Now, pre the trades in 2007 we get...
Tigers: A- Maybin, Miller, B- 5 guys, C+ 7, C 6
Jays: A- Lind Snider, B RRomero, B- Thigpen, C+ 11 guys, C 5 guys

So before the Tigers dumped players they had the same number of A- prospects as the Jays, 1 fewer B, 4 more B-, 4 fewer C+.  Fairly even systems pre DD trading guys, fairly even after, while the Jays probably are ahead right now.
[ Reply to This ]
Rich - Friday, January 02 2009 @ 02:09 PM EST (#195367) #
WillRain, Parcells is only wrong in the non-reality based community.  In sports we keep score so we can measure exactly how successful teams are.  In 7 years JP has had decent, but never great teams.  He has never come close to making the playoffs, let alone winning a championship.  In baseball this is how most fans define success.  Clearly all front offices have to contend with factors outside of their control - if you wish to simply attribute the results of the JP Blue Jays to luck then are you also attributing to luck the results of the other 29 MLB teams, or is it merely the Jays that have their fate determined by the gods season after season?

How exactly do you propose a fan evaluate the performance of their team's management if not by won-loss record and playoff achievement?  How also do you feel that 7 years is an inadequate time frame to do so?  What time frame is acceptable, or does JP simply keep the job until he's ready to move on with his life?  If I read you correctly,  your view seems to be that JP has done everything he can reasonably do and if he can't beat his very wealthy opposition that's simply due to luck and circumstance.  And if Jays fans dare to hope for more or think someone else deserves their 7-year kick at the can then they're just being doom merchants.

The Dombrowski comparison is illustrative because he has managed to make the playoffs and win a pennant and JP hasn't.  Yes the former had some advantages in doing so but I don't believe the flag flying at Comerica Park has any asterisks sewn on it.  I also never said the fans care more than JP - you are putting words in my mouth. I said it seems clear to many Jays' fans that JP has done his best and hasn't been able to succeed in building a true contender - ostensibly the thing he has been hired and retained year after year to achieve.


[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Friday, January 02 2009 @ 03:08 PM EST (#195374) #
WillRain, Parcells is only wrong in the non-reality based community.  In sports we keep score so we can measure exactly how successful teams are.

We keep score because we need winners and losers or the efforts are wasted.

 In 7 years JP has had decent, but never great teams.  He has never come close to making the playoffs, let alone winning a championship.  In baseball this is how most fans define success. 

Most fans are pretty shallow, in my experience. No implications about present company intended.

Clearly all front offices have to contend with factors outside of their control - if you wish to simply attribute the results of the JP Blue Jays to luck then are you also attributing to luck the results of the other 29 MLB teams, or is it merely the Jays that have their fate determined by the gods season after season?

Oh heck no. First, let me be clear - luck and circumstances (circumstance being injury and what happens to other teams primarily), But that said - and filing all that under "lucky" and "unlucky" just for the sake of this point:

Tampa Bay got quite lucky, Cleveland, Detroit and to a lesser extent Seattle also got unlucky. Oakland got lucky for over half the season, Minnesota got somewhat lucky (mainly in that Cleveland and Detroit got unlucky) and that's just in the AL.
And just 2008.

Damn straight every team has luck (good and bad) injuries, and circumstances beyond their control to contend with. If the didn't, we could just give the trophy to the Yankees every year because if these factors were not in play, Bill Bavasi could win it with $200 million plus in hand.

How exactly do you propose a fan evaluate the performance of their team's management if not by won-loss record and playoff achievement? 

It's more complicated, I'll grant you. But I try to look at the quality of given moves on their own merit. Drafiting Adams was a mistake, on it's own terms. Drafting Hill  or Snider was not, again, independent of team performance. The Overbay deal was a good trade, period. Whatever Overbay suffers from a broken hand. Go right down the list.

Second, I look at circumstances. Can a GM be expected to pull a rabbit out of his....hat...when a stray pitch break a kep player's hand or a line drive breaks your ace pitcher's leg? Stuff happens. to every team. And that stuff has a real and obvious impact on the w/l record.

I don't consider myself a genius and it's pretty easy for me to look at a team and say "if X and Y had been different they would have won more/less." Judging a team by wins is like judging a pitcher by wins, or judging a hitter by RBI. It might give you a very crude picture but it's not very insightful.

How also do you feel that 7 years is an inadequate time frame to do so? 

Again - for just one example - I remind you that Terry Ryan was, by all the measures applied to JP (save the loose tongue issue) a disaster as the Twins GM -  then they ran off a string of playoff apperances. there are other examples. Seven years is the blink of an eye in baseball when it takes you 4 years to even get your best prospects through the minors. As i said earlier, there are vastly more factos that can go wrong in any individual season that would cause a team to fail to make the playoffs than can be listed. Even the best teams have to have a LOT go right to do so.

What time frame is acceptable, or does JP simply keep the job until he's ready to move on with his life?

Well, in my personal opinion, I'd suggest that if a team is focused and trying to win (as opposed to rebuilding or dumping payroll) for five years or more then you can start to question managment. but more to the point, I think you can fire a guy much sooner than that if the quality of his work is obviously lacking. I could envision a scenerio where a GM makes 80% of his moves in a very smart fashion for 10 years and doesn't make it for factors beyond his control (I'm NOT saying JP is that good!) and I can envision a scenerio where a GM bungles repeatedly for 4 years and it's clear he needs to go and I can envision a scenerio in which a sloppy weak minded GM still has enough luck one year for his team to someone find themselves in the post season (Dan O'Dowd for instance)  or at least win enough games to create the illusion of progress (the 2007 mariners come to mind)

so, again, saying "you have X number of years and you are out" is, IMO, simplistic.

  If I read you correctly,  your view seems to be that JP has done everything he can reasonably do and if he can't beat his very wealthy opposition that's simply due to luck and circumstance.

I would NOT argue he has done EVERYTHING he could have because no GM ever does and that's an unrealistic standard. I WOULD argue that the only thing that has kept the Jays from 90+ wins and SERIOUS September contention the last two years has been circumstantial events mostly beyond his control.

I would further argue that not contending in the first four years here is not germaine to the conversation since they were not even trying the first three and barely trying the 4th. (not referring to the players here)

That does NOT mean I can list for you easily a dozen things in the last two years that I think JP did wrong. Any or all of which may have produced better results. but it is very theoretical to say "JP should have traded for Kotsay (to make up a name) instead of sticking with Wilkerson and if he had we'd have made the playoffs"
On the other hand, it's is very rational to say "if Wells had played every day and hit at the same pace.." or "If Hill/Marcum/McGowan hadn't gotten hurt..."

 And if Jays fans dare to hope for more or think someone else deserves their 7-year kick at the can then they're just being doom merchants.

Ishould certainly hope that you hope for more - I do! and I am certainly open to the idea that JP could be replaced (on another board I refused to vote to fire him or keep him because I can make a good argument for either - especially with LaCava sitting right there)
If you REALLY pay attention to what I write, you would realize that I'm NOT arguing in favor of JP - I'm debunking poor reasoning concerning the team, JP, and the nature of making the playoffs in MLB. Do you want JP fired? GREAT! Now make a logical and rational argument for WHY he needs to be fired, not just emotional foot stomping because you've had to wait too long for a playoff apperance. Tell me JP needs to be fired because he's aleinated to many with his big mouth...tell me he needs to be fired because he won't cut bait on a mediocre season in July, tell me he needs to be fired because he'd let Brad Wilkerson get that many at bats in 2008 or that he'd ever even consider signing Royce Clayton...

But DON'T tell me things that simply are not true like "he can't draft well" or "he could hve signed AJ without the opt-out"

If you make a poor argument - hell if you make a poor argument about something I don't even give a damn about - I am incapeable of not challaging it. It's in my DNA.

The Dombrowski comparison is illustrative because he has managed to make the playoffs and win a pennant and JP hasn't. 

It is indeed illustrative - of just how shallow that kind of analysis is.

Yes the former had some advantages in doing so but I don't believe the flag flying at Comerica Park has any asterisks sewn on it.  I also never said the fans care more than JP - you are putting words in my mouth. I said it seems clear to many Jays' fans that JP has done his best and hasn't been able to succeed in building a true contender - ostensibly the thing he has been hired and retained year after year to achieve.

So the 4th best team in the majors means nothing at all to you?  That's not a "contender" simply because two other teams in your division win even more?

Or hell, forget the deeper statistics - the Jays had the 11th best record in baseball last year. And that's with two of their best starters missing significant time and their 2B out most of the year and various other things out of anyone's control.

Or, for another view, from the time Cito took over to the end of the season, the jays had the sixth best record in baseball. but if the simple rule is "make the playoffs or else" then none of that matters.

You are welcome to that opinion - I disagree.
[ Reply to This ]
robertdudek - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 01:22 PM EST (#195600) #
Can someone please explain something to me?

Red Sox, Yankees and Rays were better than the Jays last year. Arguably all of them have improved their teams. The Blue Jays' main off-season move was the subtraction of AJ Burnett.

Without any fanspeak, and without the old "anything can happen" routine, where is there any basis for optimism about this team?

[ Reply to This ]
Ryan Day - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 02:31 PM EST (#195607) #
The Jays were 51-37 (.580) under Cito, with essentially the same team that will be taking the field in 09 aside from Burnett. A bit of luck with health and young players, and things could be looking pretty good.

At the very least, Roy Halladay's still on the team, guaranteeing a good game every five days or so.

Besides, who says you need a "basis" for optimism? You can just be optimistic. If you need cold hard logic for everything, I don't see why you'd bother with something as pointless as baseball.
[ Reply to This ]
Teixeira to Bronx | 157 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.