1. I got nothin' here. Or else it would be, you know, in the story above!
2. Horrify: Jays Sign Bonds, Eye Sosa Most: Halladay to Yankees (hey, I'm a Yankee fan. Can you blame me?)
   
3. Joe Girardi, by May 10, as the overpriced Yanks, and remember, I'm a fan, manage only the third-best record in the big leagues to start the season, which sticks them in a third-place tie with the Red Sox in the AL East.
   
4. I wrote the Teixeira poll. You really want me writing the next one?
5. Never hand me an open mike. However, if the discussion here is slow, I'll be back!
   
6. Jackie Robinson. No kidding. You could look it up. (Somebody want to decode that?)

Mick ... check #1 ...Francisco Cordero ? ... perhaps Rodriguez ?

      Answer to #6 ... just give a little whistle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qobsp; 

Why, jgadfly, whatever are you talking about? I would never make such a silly mistake! (Good catch!)

Can you tell I live in North Texas and my NL team is the Reds? Francisco Closer = Cordero in my head!

Burrell to the Rays is interesting. Lefties like Purcey were able to destroy the Rays last year, but now they can plug a big RH bat with power in the middle of the lineup, which should help. At a modest price and no long-term committment to boot. Very good move for the Rays.

It sucks that the Jays had to cut payroll now. If they could have kept the payroll at near $100M (like 2008), they may have gotten some bargains this off-season. A lot of good talent left out there. Oh well.

One headline that I would be intrigued to see is "Brandon League wins rotation spot in '09". I have no idea if he'd be able to handle the workload or if his repetoire is cut out for it, but a groundball pitcher who can throw in the mid-90's is very intriguing, plus we have depth in the pen to cover the loss.

If the Jays are in fact for sale, perhaps this explains the Operation Shutdown in the chequebook department.

Of course, the ripple effect of a sub-.500 season could be an Operation Shutdown in the fans-showing-up-at-games department.

I'd still love to hear an official, BS-free version of why the money offered to Burnett could not be spent elsewhere. While I have no doubt that Ricciardi didn't for a minute believe that Burnett would accept the team's offer, the existence of such an offer certainly gave the appearance that there was cash to spend.

...or signing a closer to a five year deal when your bullpen is clearly your strength...

Sorry jerjapan, I kinda disagree with this part of your post.  I mean this is clearly a "20-20 hindsight" comment!  The Jays' bullpen was by no means a "strength" at the time of the BJ signing.  I strongly believe that the BJ signing MADE the pen a strength.  IIRC, much of the talk of the Jays bullpen woes before the arrival of Ryan, were that the guys weren't put in their "proper" situations.  By getting Ryan they were able to move everybody back an inning into their "proper" slots.  Thus making the Jays relievers more comfortable (i.e. successful).  In addition to Ryan, the Jays stopped toying with Downs and made him exclusively a reliever.  These events along with some nice cheap acquisitions by JP have made the bullpen a strength.

I believe with the percieved weakness in the rotation, the need for BJ Ryan magnifies in 2009, because instead of the Jays' pen going innings 7, 8, 9 like the recent seasons.  It's a strong probability that in April, May & June the Jays' pen will be called on all to frequently in innings 6 & beyond (and gosh maybe even the 5th at times!)

To me the point that some are seeing and some are missing is the risk-reward with these long-term contracts.

The key point is there is no obligation to make these longer term deals with players like Overbay and Wells as they are fundamentally very replaceable. (and as has been pointed out above, were so at the time of the deal). The downside risk was FAR greater than the upside (downside: injury/ under performance/ opportunity cost of contract money used elsewhere. Upside; outperformance)

If you are going to give up flexability you have to be sure that the potential return is worth it

a) the player is not easily replaceable at the price - INCLUDING SPENDING $ AT OTHER POSITIONS

b) there is a good chance the player will out-perform that contract

c) you have factored INJURY RISK into the equation

So in exchange for giving up the ability to cut and run on someone like Overbay (which in a sport where injuries are commonplace, is a valuable one), you have to be sure that there is a good chance he will CONSIDERABLY outperform the contract.

Is a 29 year old 1B after a career year likely to do so, with no real history of stardom. Not really.

Was VW a good bet on a, b and c above when we had Rios waiting and could have taken 2 picks and his money and spent it elsewhere? Not really/

Was Doc with a history of true excellence, an incredible work ethic and a good injury history likely to do so. YES YES YES.

it's why paying for true excellence not readily available is worth it and why giving mid-long term contracts for anything else isn't for a team WITH OUR PAYROLL and our competition.

Now some will come back and say - it's market price, it's market price. well we shouldn't and are not in the market that BOS and NYY are in. We are in a market where nimbleness and flexibility is worth more than overpaying for replaceable talent. This flexibility means you can adapt to changing economic circumstances.

And I say it is encumbent on the GM to consider this when handing out long term Contracts - to be really really sure befroe you do that you are paying for someone who may outperform the deal $ amount and could not be repalced internally.

If the Dodgers get Manny cheaply because no other team is getting involved...well, that's just frustrating

I imagine that Ramirez will cave and accept a 2/45 deal, perhaps with an option for a third year. He has to save face and better the 2/40 that he opted out of in his Boston contract. I think he'd "retire" before accepting a lesser offer, perhaps doing the Sundin thing and returning mid-season.

I'm not sure what you meant by cheap for Ramirez, but the $20M-per ballpark sounds way too rich for a Jays' team that doesn't even seem willing to kick the tires on Giambi and his ilk.

And I say it is encumbent on the GM to consider this when handing out long term Contracts - to be really really sure befroe you do that you are paying for someone who may outperform the deal $ amount and could not be repalced internally.

A failing of Ricciardi's, as I see it through a myriad of conceded filters, is that he doles out contracts on the heels of atypically good seasons with the idea that those seasons represent the players' true and predictable level of ability (Wells, Overbay, Thomas).

As Brito points out, that doesn't leave room for the player to outperform the contract. On the contrary, all the player can realistically be expected to do is to underperform the contract, unless market conditions are such that what once looked like a lot of money is no longer the case. To some degree, the Burnett contract went that path. In Seattle, the Beltre 5/65 contract went that path as well, even with Beltre never having come close to matching his contract year in LA.

He might, but what's the chance he'll be outperforming that?

That was a bad contract from the start. Hafner, healthiest he'd been in his career, took a serious nosedive at age 30. For that he was rewarded with a contract meant to replicate his age 27-29 seasons. By a GM who should know better.

In general, insofar as GMs are typically paying for past performance (and usually for post-peak players), FA contracts will rarely be outperforned. In fact, a good FA contract is one that sees the player even just perform at a level commensurate with his pay. And even those are the exceptions.

But if you are going to offer long-term money, the upside shouldn't be to just get what you paid for, given the strong downside risk of getting far less than what you paid for. There should at least be an upside chance of the player outperforming the contract.

I'm not arguing against the Jays signing Ramirez, or Burrell, or Giambi, or Dunn (hah!). I don't care how much the team spends -- it's not my money. I don't care how much the players make -- they deserve their share of the pie; savings on the player expense front will not maigcally trickle into my pocket.

This is a simple equation for me. I will be wasting far too much time in front of my idiot box during the summer of '09. I'd like to be entertained.  Having Manny Ramirez in LF rather than Dave Berg increases this possibility.

• 5 years for a closer was a bit silly, especially at a record price (at the time). 
• Thomas getting 2 years wasn't bad, but the price was and the playing time bit was if JP knew that Thomas would fight any bench time.  Given Thomas fought DHing at times in Chicago (especially if healthy) I'd say he was known to be a bit ego driven.  At the time of his signing I'd say one solid year was a lock as he wanted 500 HR and was very close.  Two years was not unreasonable to hope for but a pure DH at his price was a bit much.
• Like many I think Wells was more a Godfrey than a JP decision
• I felt Overbay wasn't a bad deal, he looked likely to be a league average player or slightly above with strong defense which, at the time, appeared to be a $8-10 million a year player. 
  
• I think most here agree Downs was a good deal, although I'm not a fan of 3 year deals for relievers (2 years max imo)
• John McDonald seemed odd at the time - 2 years at $1.9 mil per year for a pure defense guy. 
  
• Scutaro also seemed odd, 2 years at just shy of $1.5 per year but it looks better now
  
• Hill & Rios both looked darn good at the time and without the head injury would both still look good today I suspect
• Rolen was a shift from Glaus, adding one more year of contract

...or signing a closer to a five year deal when your bullpen is clearly your strength...

Sorry jerjapan, I kinda disagree with this part of your post.  I mean this is clearly a "20-20 hindsight" comment! 

Fishercat, after reading your comment I realized I was going by memory and went back to the Cube to check out the 2005 pitching stats, which weren't quite as clearly in my favour as I recall ... I'll agree that Ryan in year one of the contract was GREAT and the defined roles certainly made the pen much better in 2006 ... but I'd still argue that the pen was the last place the 2005 Jays should've been spending ... Speir was in top form as a setup man, Frasor had one of his best seasons, Schoenweiss was a solid leftie specialist, and Walker and Chulk were solid middle inning guys.  Downs was emerging, Leauge was knocking on the door and the only pitcher who was really out of place was the closer, Miguel Batista.  Admitedly, some of these guys regressed badly and the pen wasn't great the next year, and certainly would've looked much worse without Ryan, but the 2005 Jays were a sub 500 team that needed lots of help everywhere.

Essentially, I'd argue like other posters have that top closer money is only justifiable for top contenders.  If Ryan was to put the Jays over the top, maybe (but, as per John Northey, not for five years!).  JP and others have proven that you can find serious bullpen value off the scrapheap.   

And these concerns don't even raise the whole issue of modern bullpen usage, with defined 'closers' pitching the 9th. 

I'd want a couple good spare outfielders on the roster to cover the inevitable DL stints and day-to-day strains

Pie figures to rank no higher than 5th on the OF depth chart behind Soriano, Bradley, Fukudome and Johnson. And that's not even counting Hoffpauir, who is, admittedly, an old young player but one who impressed in a brief audition.

I'd guess that Chicago might be at the end of their rope with Pie. Bye bye Felix Pie. Chevies, levees, and all that.

Frank Thomas is the best example of Ricciardi.  He could have been signed for next to nothing several years ago and Ricciardi passed.  Then Thomas has a great year with Oakland and Ricciardi then decides to throw him big money for two years (when really no one else other than Oakland was looking for a DH in that range, and I think Oakland was at considering 1 year with an option).  That's classic 'buy high, sell low' right there.

Everything I've read indicates that Thomas was offered a 2 year deal by the A's so JP upped the ante with an option year.

Signing Overbay's extension was, to me, a clear sign that Ricciardi isn't going to be good enough GM to compete in the AL East. 

Respectfully, Pistol, I don't see that sentiment in your comment on the Overbay extension thread back in 2007 (below).

I think the market is clearly above $7 million for a player like Overbay (2006 version).

Nomar is pretty much a first baseman only and he got 2 years, $18.5 million after having an OPS+ of 120 this year (Overbay was 123 this year).  And Nomar's is far from durable which would be a further point in Overbay's favor.

Hillenbrand is a lesser player and got $6.5 million this year. 

Aubrey Huff got 3 years and $20 million and he hasn't played as well as Overbay recently.

At this point, the only way to get value out of Overbay is to platoon him with Bautista. Overbay's OPS against RHP in 2008 was .865, so clearly he hasn't lost that part of his game (.857, .839, .949, .676, and .865 respectively against RHP since 2004). No other team is going to want a sub-.800 OPS 1B in his 30's with $14 million left on his contract, so forget dealing him and just try to maximize whatever strengths he has (defense and hitting RHP).

That's the problem with Overbay and Rolen. Both are damn near impossible to move, but they are not blocking anyone and they both present average to above average production. Move them if an opportunity to get out of their contracts presents itself (highly unlikely in this market) but they aren't killing the Jays. This appears to be one of those situations where playing them for the next two years might be the best way to go.