Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

The Jays signed Brandon League for $640k (minimum is $400k), Jeremy Accardo for $900k, Jason Frasor for $1.45 million, Jose Bautista for $2.4 million. Arbitration figures are being passed along, and a batch of Jays are going to the Classic along with a Canadian team.

The arbitration guys are... Brian Tallet (950k to $1.3 mil), Shawn Camp (700k vs 950k).

Jays potentially going to the Baseball Classic are (all on preliminary rosters)...
Canada: Scott Richmond
USA: Vernon Wells, BJ Ryan
Venezuala: Marco Scutaro
Mexico: Rod Barajas
Puerto Rico: Alex Rios, Orlando Roman
Panama: Manuel Rodriguez

Team Canada's roster is here and yes, Stubby Clapp is playing again.

The Accardo link shows how Papelbon got $6.25 million from Boston in his first year of arbitration elgibility (gives an idea on what closers are worth, although 1st year arbitration is normally a lot lower than market value).

Anything else going on in the world of baseball?

Posted by John Northey on Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 10:39 AM EST.

Winter Blah's | 109 comments | Create New Account

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

Noah - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 11:19 AM EST (#195739) #

anyone else a little bit uneasy with BJ pitching in the classic? With his injury troubles, and sub par-ish season last year it seems as though he would be better off spending his time with Blue Jay trainers in our training camp.

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 11:28 AM EST (#195740) #

Mylegacy - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 12:40 PM EST (#195741) #

"That is not an efficient use of resources."

Normally, I would agree with you BUT with the exception of Roy we'll have Richmond, Purcey, Janssen, Litsch and maybe Cecil and Clement as starters. With that group we need ALL the bullpen we can buy, steal or beg.

This is going to be a year where we fight for fifth, or we get competitive when we get several offensive "career years" from Lind, Rios, Snider, Wells and a partial rebirth (at least) from Rolen and Overbay.

It actually could happen - however, I'm not prepared to gamble my shares in GM or Chrysler.

Mylegacy - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 12:48 PM EST (#195742) #

I just listened to President Obama's speech. Well done.

America is in worse shape now than the Jays are - and the Yanks have "Hope." Makes beating Big Pappy and A Rod look kinda easy in comparison.

I, and I'm sure every Canadian and fellow citizen of the world, wish America the very, very best in the four or (more likely) eight years ahead. I have a feeling you've picked the right guy. Any chance he could replace JP in eight years? OR - better still - Harper this afternoon?

Pistol - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 01:11 PM EST (#195743) #

Presumably Bautista is going to be offered over $2MM (he made $1.8MM last year). I would think that's at least 50% too much for a .240/.325/.400 corner player, particularly when he bats RH.

Timbuck2 - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 02:33 PM EST (#195744) #

Looks like Good old Eckie isn't having any problems getting work...... as a second baseman:

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090115.wspteckstein15/GSStory/GlobeSportsBaseball/home

TamRa - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 03:15 PM EST (#195745) #

Beeston will, according to Blair, remind fans that the 2009 budget will be about $80 million. Of that, nearly $20 million is earmarked for the bullpen (10 for Ryan, 3.75 for Downs, more than 1.25 for Frasor (1.125 in 2008) and then an average of at least .6 for League, Tallet (.64 in 2008), Camp, Janssen, Wolfe and Accardo). That is not an efficient use of resources.

I think that's misleading though, because it's all about Ryan. We pretty much all agree that Ryan is a luxury that is tying up resources better used elsewhere. But beyond him, the "excess" money going to the pen doesn't amount to much. if you trade Tallet and trade or cut Frasor (or had non-tendered him) - the two most obvious candidates to be "overpaid" in our current situation (they aren't, really, just that we have cheaper replacements) then you are still only going to same maybe $2 million.

So really, a more direct way to say it is that it's unwise to be committing $10 million to Ryan at this point.

Which I agree with in the abstract but I also think that since he's already here, you have to factor in the practicality of moving him right now. It's true there is an "opportunity cost" in what else the money could have been spent on, but there's also an opportunity cost in "dumping" an asset which has value. what do we lose in a potential July deal, for instance, by rushing him out of town in a salary dump now.

TamRa - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 03:17 PM EST (#195746) #

Notice this in Blairsy's article:

It seems as though this has been a winter of discontent, at least in the media and to a greater extent the blogosphere. Be that as it may, Beeston said that when he is out and about he finds "a lot of people understand � the economy being what it is."

Yeah, right Jeff.
There are certainly some negative voices writing blogs but i get a LOT more negativism from the Journalists than I do from the bloggers - maybe I'm not reading the right bloggers (or maybe Blair isn't ;)

TamRa - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 03:23 PM EST (#195747) #

Case in point:

Blair:

Reality has really bitten this winter, without a David Eckstein here or a Rod Barajas there to fuel the imagination. (Oh, for the days of a head-scratcher such as Frank Thomas!)

The Blue Jays have signed Mike Maroth, Michael Barrett and the perpetually rehabilitating Matt Clement. (Even the Orioles are signing Japanese pitchers and trading for Felix Pie and getting Nick Markakis signed to a big deal.)

Shoot, the Blue Jays haven't even figured in a decent rumour.

Guess Uncle Jeff was otherwise engaged during the couple of weeks of Furcal discussion.

Who's the negativeist now ?

TamRa - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 03:25 PM EST (#195748) #

Accardo is signed for $900K

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/01/seven-more-avoi.html

TamRa - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 04:27 PM EST (#195751) #

He got $2.4, Frasor got $1.45

so far, it looks like my projected arbitration total is going to be a bit high (my guesses totaled $7.3) but it looks like they will come in at a little less than that)

TamRa - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 04:29 PM EST (#195752) #

"He" being Bautista - forgot to include the quote.

SheldonL - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 07:26 PM EST (#195753) #

I think getting Frasor at $1.4 million is good because he's a quality reliever. I think that $2.4 on Bautista however is a blatant waste of $2.4 million dollars!
I mean, I understand the need for a righty bat off the bench and that our need for insurance at 3B and 1B but really, that's far too much money for a mediocre bat.

If J.P didn't waste his money on Bautista and Johnny Mac at $1.9 million, we could scrounge enough money to make a play at a starter or even just hang on to it to make a dip for a free agent who needs a job due to zero interest (i.e. Orlando Hudson or Ben Sheets)... that's not to say that I think we can sign either of those guys for $4.3 mil but that we can surely scrounge up another $5-6 mil to make a competitive 1 year offer!?

Matthew E - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 07:45 PM EST (#195754) #

This is going to be a year where we fight for fifth

You really think so? I don't think Baltimore's a threat. The Jays would really have to disappoint to finish that far down.

TamRa - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 09:07 PM EST (#195755) #

Let's suppose we're putting together a relatively equivilant group of talent for the least possible money.

We'll say we non-tendered Frasor and Camp and replace them with Wolfe and Hayhurst (since Camp's job is basiclly riding the shuttle anyway)

Let's say we traded Tallet for some minor league guy and replaced him with Davis Romero

Let's say we non-tendered Bautista and are going to sign Rich Arullia to replace him (similar versitility and splits)

Let's leave Accardo and League alone as good values.

Frasor to Wolfe > savings, of about $1 million

Bautista to Aurulla > savings of about $1.5 million (assumes a $900K contract)

Camp to Hayhurt (assume Camp and the Jays meet in the middle) > Savings of $425K

Tallet to Romero (again, assumes they meet in the middle) > savings about $400K

Total savings = about $3.325 million

I submit the assertion that there's nothing remaining on the FA market that this figure would get us that would make a difference (barring a Hinske-esque surprise)

also, remember this - a team can cut a player before opening day (as the did with Johnson) and save 5/6 of their salary.

For instance, the Jays could cut Frasor and Camp on march 25 and be out only $379K for the both combined - that's not a bad price to pay for insurance against the going-arwy of best laid plans. That's a savings of $1.1 million (after you figure in their replacements)

I DO think Bautista is making too much, I just don't think that the difference is anything more than marginal. Still, a strict platoon at 1B woulg get you an .870 OPS 1B who makes $9.4 million.

that's not terrible.

92-93 - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 10:56 PM EST (#195756) #

"I submit the assertion that there's nothing remaining on the FA market that this figure would get us that would make a difference"

And therefore JP is justified in wasting millions of dollars that could be much better spent on prospect development? You can't run a team on a tight budget and blow millions each year on the edges.

TamRa - Tuesday, January 20 2009 @ 11:55 PM EST (#195757) #

No, I wouldn't say so...but i'd be more inclined to complain after the season played out and those guy proved to be useless.

what looks like waste on Batista now might look like good planning of Rolen's arm falls off in May, and so forth. Given our insane depth of similar guys for the bullpen, i'm not AT ALL convinced all of these guys will break camp with the Jays when they go north. i'd wait AT LEAST until opening day before I started griping about it.

That said, I would agree with the proposition that there is the potential for waste here.

But most folks who complain about it probably aren't sharp enough to consider whether or not the wasted money might, for instance, make the difference in signing a draft pick or something.

Instant gratification and all that.

TamRa - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 12:02 AM EST (#195758) #

I should follow that up by saying that IF Cito platoons JB with Overbay and they turn in an OPS combined in the neighborhood of .860 or better, I'll mark down that $2.4 million as well spent. It will all depend on how he is used whether he's going to be the source of "wasted money"

On the pitchers, II think Tallet has enough trade value that he's worth keeping and I don't think anyone's sweating league and Accardo.

i don't think there's ANY scenerio in which I'll be happy about Camp given our depth.

And I can make a case either way on Frasor. But at most, it looks to me like there's only about $1.5 being "wasted" among the pitchers.
And yeah, I'm sure there's some place else to spend that...but in the overall scheme of things, I don't think it's possible to run a major league team and not have some wasted money.

Hell, we're wasting a million dollars (or more) on McDonald next year too (which I also don't approve of). It's regretable, and I don't like it much, but I just can't get excited about it.

92-93 - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 12:20 AM EST (#195759) #

"but i'd be more inclined to complain after the season played out and those guy proved to be useless."

Okay, here you go - Victor Zambrano, Tomokazu Ohka, and John Thomson probably cost the team around 3m. And it's not about the players being useless - it's whether the marginal difference is worth wasting millions on for a team that won 86 games last year and has subsequently lost its #2 and #3 starters. I'd rather a couple of Fuenmayor signings than wasting millions on our 6th and 7th relievers that are never used.

TamRa - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 12:54 AM EST (#195760) #

Good points of course. I wonder if there's an explaination for this in the way teams budget. i recall reading an excerpt from, I think, Moneyball, where there was a specific referance to how much money the A's had budgeted for the draft and how they, therefore, were taking Jeremy Brown who should have been takne somewhere after the 120th round in the first round because of money.

I wonder if the teams budget is fixed at "$X for major league payroll, $Y for the draft, $Z for international and undrafted player signings" and saving on X doesn't necessarily go to Z?

I dunno, but I wouldn't rule out it being some complicated thing like that. i do agree, however, that on the surface your point is valid.

By the way, Anyone know if Thomspons and Zam got major league pay even when in the minors? if they didn't then the cost of those three wasn't very significant.

But examples from the past....for any and all teams...are easy enough to find.

that's kind of what makes me so ambivolent about it....it just seems to me to be kind of a built in cost of doing business because it's so pervasive.

lexomatic - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 08:50 AM EST (#195761) #

There's just one thing I'd like to say to people worrying about the waste of resources on Bautista.
With the trend of having really large bullpens in T.O. the past few years the team will have a short bench.. that means a need for versatility. Bautista happens to have experience at a number of positions. hopefully he's only used as a platoon for Overbay & backup for Rolen, he is capable ( of wearing a glove and taking a position). I don't think there are many players that fill a role so well for the Jays at a reasonable price.

John Northey - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 10:43 AM EST (#195762) #

Good point on flexibility. Bautista can play 3B/1B/LF while McDonald can play any infield position as can Scutaro while Inglett covers 2B/LF and played everywhere but CA/1B in 2008. That is a very useful bench as Cito can feel safe using a replacement for hitting/running/fielding at any position on the field at any time. If any of those 4 can catch in an emergency that would be perfect.

As to offense, who in the everyday lineup would you hit for? Shortstop is the only real weak position outside of catcher (ie: where a bench guy could be signed who could out hit our regulars) while Bautista can pinch hit for any of our left handed hitters (Overbay, Lind, Snider) who might have platoon issues.

Our bench isn't a big issue and while the cost is a bit higher than ideal, it isn't a back breaker. No, for cost > value you have to look at Ryan and Wells. Ryan is done after 2 years while Wells is here for a long time to come. Still, imo, those are the only real dollar issues. The $4+ million to Bautisa/McDonald could be better spent, but is not going to shift this team to a 95 game winner.

As to the draft vs payroll... I suspect the different budgets are due to different views on potential value. $1 million in payroll = a certain number of fans coming to/watching the games this year. $1 million in the draft = a certain number of fans coming to games in 5 years. The Jays (and every other team) would have a certain amount they feel safe putting away for a rainy day (the draft) while another amount is needed for today (payroll) just like any of us would do (save $x spend $y dollars) and contributes to cash flow and the bottom line. Thus shifting $1 million from one pile to the other isn't as easy as we like to think it is.

Gerry - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 11:11 AM EST (#195763) #

There are several Jays stories in the media today, most related to last nights dinner for season ticket holders.

National Post: Jays positioning 2009 as rebuilding year

MLB.COM, Jordan Bastian: Jays brass assesses club with fans

MLB.COM: More on the serach for a president

Hardball Times: John Brattain is unhappy with the Jays loyalty to Bud

There are several things to note from the stories:

1. The Jays are admitting that 2009 is a rebuilding year, I think this is the first time they have admitted that

2. The search for president is slowing down with the expected hire date moving further away. Could Paul Beeston be in line for the full time job?

3. JP is already positioning for an exit, he talks about how hard it is to leave home and come to Toronto

None of these are surprises but they they do fill in the picture for 2009

Mike Green - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 11:25 AM EST (#195764) #

I agree, Gerry. It is not ideal to have an exiting GM around for a rebuilding year. It takes patience and sacrifice to weather the hard times.
/inauguration speech

John Northey - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 11:30 AM EST (#195765) #

I suspect we are seeing the path cleared for Tony LaCava to move into the GM role. Hopefully if that is the case it goes smoother than the last time we shifted to an assistant GM (Gillick to Ash, from World Series to last place).

Chuck - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 12:19 PM EST (#195766) #

The Jays are admitting that 2009 is a rebuilding year, I think this is the first time they have admitted that

One imagines that they really have no choice but to state the obvious as anything else would be an insult to the intelligence of the paying public. Yes, they may have exaggerated the playoff worthiness of the team these past few years (please WillRain, that's not a cue for a tome), but to suggest the same for 2009 would be just too much of a whopper to sell.

greenfrog - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 12:38 PM EST (#195767) #

"If we're not going to be at $120 million, we might as well be at $85 million."

I strongly disagree with Beeston's comment (and wasn't it recently announced that the team would have an $80M, not an $85M, payroll?). In my view, the Jays could have been a competitive team in 2009 with a payroll around $110M. An extra $25-30M (maybe more, with some creative wheeling and dealing) would have been enough to add Burrell, Sheets, and Penny. Or Bradley, Furcal, and Smoltz. Whatever. The team would be a lot closer to the elite teams ahead of them (and more fun to watch). Now, I can see an argument for spending the money on draft signings and international prospect development instead of veterans, but that's a different debate. Either way, more money would have helped the organization a lot this off-season.

I suppose the Jays have to say *something* to their fans, so they're trying to put a brave face on a depressing situation.

Timbuck2 - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 12:41 PM EST (#195768) #

Well I for one am VERY excited that Spring Training is only three weeks away even if this is a "retooling" year. I've felt for the last few years that the Jays need to play more kids if they want them to develop. I can't wait to see full seasons from Snider, Lind, Purcey, Richmond (I think he'll make the team as the #5 starter) and possibly JPA or Cecil or even Mill/Campbell/Romero. This youth movement WITHOUT selling off all the other pieces is just what this team needs.

rtcaino - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 01:22 PM EST (#195769) #

"This youth movement WITHOUT selling off all the other pieces is just what this team needs."

I would be ok with selling off V-Dub, the .798 OPS he has posted against RHP on the past 3 years and the 17 mill a year he is owed.

(Perhaps his salary could be covered as part of some sort of federal bailout package?)

Pistol - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 03:19 PM EST (#195770) #

Hardball Times: John Brattain is unhappy with the Jays loyalty to Bud

That pretty much nails things on the head.

JP is already positioning for an exit, he talks about how hard it is to leave home and come to Toronto

I'm not sure this is new.... he always likes to talk about how he's willing to walk away. That was supposed to be a possibility several years ago (as he neared the end of the first 5 years) and he re-signed for additional years to show his commitment to the free agents he was recruiting (I believe this was the AJ/BJ off season).

Anyway, this is something I'll believe when I see it. Young(ish) GMs generally don't retire to be with their families, particularly without any amount of success. I figure JP will be the GM until he's fired; I don't see him walking away.

TamRa - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 03:35 PM EST (#195771) #

The Jays are admitting that 2009 is a rebuilding year

I've seen three or four different summaries now...haven't seen the word or the implication "rebuilding" yet.

At least not as the word is commonly used. If we were rebuilding, Ryan, Overbay, and others would have been out the door and Bautista, Frasor and Camp would have been non-tendered.

The editor who wrote that headline isn't ...skilled.

HollywoodHartman - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 04:06 PM EST (#195772) #

Keith Law's organizational rankings are out, and everything beyond the top 10 is behind the insider wall. Anybody know where the Jays ranked?

Gerry - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 04:21 PM EST (#195773) #

Jays were 18th. He likes the top two but thinks most of the pitching prospects are back-end starter types. He also notes the Jays have promising but higher-risk prospects in low-A and below.

Nolan - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 05:02 PM EST (#195774) #

I've seen three or four different summaries now...haven't seen the word or the implication "rebuilding" yet.

Well, the following quote is from Beeston and, while he never utters the word "rebuilding," it is obvious that he is implying it.

"I have a feeling that we are heading in the right direction," said Beeston, who oversaw a drop in payroll from just under $100 million US last year to about $85 million this year. "If we're not going to be at $120 million, we might as well be at $85 million."

"It would be nice to get Rafael Furcal, it would be nice to get Manny Ramirez, it would be nice to bring back (pitcher A.J.) Burnett," he said when asked about potential free agents the club could have signed. "But hopefully we're putting ourselves in a position to get those players. Maybe we have to step back a bit for the future."

I've seen headline writers take far greater liberties.

Mylegacy - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 06:59 PM EST (#195775) #

Rebuilding? Here's how I see out top 20+ starting pitchers.

First the top 10.

1) Roy...duh.
2) Litsch...Righty, 6' 1" 215 pounds 24 years old. This kid is NOT a number two guy - BUT - for us at this time, he is. However, he's a sold number three guy and some of the following could well end up being solid number two's or better.
3) McGowan...Righty, 6' 3" 230 pounds, 27 years old. IF healthy by June(ish) and back to his old self - he's a legit number 2.
4) Purcey...Lefty, 6' 5" 230 pounds, 27 years old. His control and command were much better last year. Could be a solid 2 - more likely a 3 or 4 type.
5) Richmond...Righty, 6' 5" 225 pounds, 29 years old. Very late bloomer. Professional, solid, underrated guy. As a number 5 guy he'd be one of hte best in the league.
6) Janssen...Righty, 6' 4" 205 pounds, 27 years old. When healthy at LEAST a dominating setup guy. Could easily be our number 3 or 4 guy this year.
7) Cecil...Lefty, 6' 3" 220 pounds, 22 years old. Clearly our BEST pitching prospect. TO ME he is UNDERRATED. A very solid number 2 if not better by 2010 at the latest.
8) Romero (Ricky)...Righty, 6' 1" 200 pounds, STILL ONLY 24 years old. Much was expected. Still could be a SOLID starter.
9) Mills...Lefty, 6' 180 pounds, 24 years old. Excellent control and command. Not far behind Cecil. Jimmy Key or Ted Lilly anyone?
10) Marcum...Righty, 6' 185 pounds, 27 years old. CLEARLY was a SOLID stater. Not sure how he'll recover BUT was too good to write off.
10A) Romero (Davis)...Lefty, 5' 10" 160 pounds, 26 years old. He's really my number 10. At 26 it's now or never (as a starter) COULD very well FORCE it and be NOW.

The Next 10

1) Starner, Lefty, 6' 3" 200 pounds, 25 years old. Great results everywhere so far - BUT at his age has to MOVE NOW. I like him lots.
2) Page, Lefty, 6' 7" 225 pounds, 23 years old. Wonderful results so far. I love little guys and giants - Mr. Page is the latter. Could be the SLEEPER of 09.
3) Dougher, Righty, 6' 7" 225 pounds, 23 years old. SEE Page above. Bookends.
4) Perez, Lefty, 6' 205 pounds, 24 years old. Old for his level. But has put up good results. I say rush the kid - see what he's got.
5) Rzepcynski, Lefty, 6' 3" 205 pounds, 23 years old. So far so good. HAS - 8 consonants, two vowels, fastball, slider, breaking ball and control. What's not to like.
6) Carreno, Righty, 6' 190 pounds, 22 years old. Good early results.
7) Cutto, Righty, 6' 160 pounds, 22 years old. Good early results. Too small for a righty?
8) Ray, Righty, 6' 4" 185 pounds, 25 years old. OK results, a bit old(ish). Now or never?
9) Ginley, Righty, 6' 1" 230 pounds, 22 years old. Actually might end up in the top 10 by mid-season.
10) Liebel, Righty, 6' 1" 180 pounds, 23 years old. 09 is this 3rd round picks first full season. In 08 pitched 15 innings gave up 19 hits, just 2 walks and 19 SO's. Could move fast and high.

Two Bonus Perezsss...

1) Castillo Perez, Righty, 6' 3" 185, 21 years old, 69 inninigs/70 hits/22BB/68SO at SS Auburn.
2) Luis Perez, Lefty, 6' 205, 24 years old, 137 innings/136hits/51BB/137 SO at Low A.

Mylegacy - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 07:05 PM EST (#195776) #

OOOPS

I've got Luis Perez at number 4 on the "Next 10 " list and as number 2 on the "Two Bonus Perezsss" list.

Apologies one and all - my bad.

TamRa - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 07:12 PM EST (#195777) #

Jays were 18th. He likes the top two but thinks most of the pitching prospects are back-end starter types. He also notes the Jays have promising but higher-risk prospects in low-A and below.

What about the Top 100?

I see snider at #5...who else scored?

ComebyDeanChance - Wednesday, January 21 2009 @ 10:26 PM EST (#195778) #

Mylegacy, Ricky Romero throws left.

Mylegacy - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 01:08 AM EST (#195779) #

OOOPS ENCORE!

christaylor - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 01:05 PM EST (#195780) #

I just can't see ranking Marcum as #10. Either he isn't rankable (as he's a write-off for 2010) or he's in the top 3... he was better than either of Litsch/McGowan last year and will probably be better again (given the success rates coming back from TJ).

Also, I don't see Richmond as high on the depth chart, I'd bet that Bullington gets more starts than Richmond does in 2009.

Lastly I don't see or want Janssen anywhere near the rotation. Shoulder issues aren't TJ. He won't be effective in 2009, certainly not as a starter.

Other than that, even even the above, re-reading, sounds a little less optimistic than I am for 2009. McGowan, from what I hear/read, will be ready if not on opening day, soon after. Litsch, I think has taken a step up from what was already above average and Purcey should be a tick about league average in 2009.

I wish the team would add another starter (if the rumor that Sheets would sign for Burnett's 2/24 is true, I'm ticked that that money isn't going to back into the team... with that one signing, the Jays would look at least as good going into 2009 as they did going into 2008).

Oh well, I can just see this team doing well out of the gate but with the pitching looking good, but obviously thin at the back end. This year, I think, will play out a lot like 2006, when the team looked good, except when Towers was single-handedly killing the team once every 5 days. Without fortuitous good fortune on offense, the 2009 Jays are going to look mighty bad sometimes.

christaylor - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 01:18 PM EST (#195781) #

On K. Law's prospect by position rankings http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=law_keith&id=3849879 -- I was surprised that JP Arencibia wasn't in the top 10 C . I don't think he's top 5 or anything but with how close he is to contributing to the major league club and the power numbers he showed in AA, I would have thought he'd have ranked at least.

Cecil at 7 on the LHP seems right... if the Jays contend in 2009, I think one thing that could cause that to happen is that Cecil arrives in the majors post-AS break and has success right away. Not that there aren't other ways that the 2009 Jays compete, but I have a feeling that all of them involve a few young players/pitchers stepping up in the way Litsch did in 2007.

At least the farm system is average to a tick above now, if the team had an off-season like it has this year with a barren farm, that'd be truly depressing (not that the Jays failing to capitalize on the bargains on the FA market isn't depressing).

John Northey - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 02:04 PM EST (#195782) #

Just added the ML minimum salary up top as a reference point. This makes it so the cost of the guys signed vs AAAA guys is...
Brandon League: $240k
Jeremy Accardo: $500k
Jason Frasor: $1.05 million
Jose Bautista: $2 million

Brian Tallet will be between $550k and $900k
Shawn Camp will be between $300k and $550k

Net cost for the arbitration case guys vs a AAAA roster? $4.64 million to $5.24 million.

Jays Bench 2009 (assuming Scutaro is the everyday shortstop)
McDonald: $1.9 million ($1.5 over minimum)
Jose Bautista: $2.4 million ($2 million over minimum)
Joe Inglett: Whatever the Jays choose to pay him (made under $400k last year)
Backup catcher (Barrett most likely, who was signed to a AAA deal).

Net bench cost over minimum = $3.5 million plus whatever extra Inglett & Barrett get (doubt more than $500k) so lets round off to $4 million.

Bullpen
BJ Ryan: $10 million ($9.6 over minimum)
Downs: $3.75 million ($3.35)
Frasor: $1.45 million ($1.05)
Tallet: $950k-$1.3 ($550k - $900k)
Accardo: $900k ($500k)
League: $640k ($240k)
Camp: $700-950k ($300k - $550k)
Plus Janseen, Wolfe, etc. who will all get whatever the Jays choose to pay them

Net cost over minimum? $15.59 to $16.19 million. Without Ryan? $5.99 - $6.59 million

Not bad for what was one of the best bullpens around last year. For comparison the Yankees are spending $15 million on Rivera alone, Red Sox $6.25 on Papelbon and another $4 on Wakefield or $5.5 on Smoltz depending which is in their pen, $1.75 on Okijima, $1.5 on Takashi Saito. A few of those are good deals but Papelbon is cheap due to service time (first year of arbitration) and Wakefield due to a strange contract he signed years ago ($4 million a year as long as the Red Sox choose). Interesting none the less for comparison purposes. Clear out Ryan and you have a very cheap pen.

Mike Green - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 02:23 PM EST (#195783) #

Personally, I'd look at it in terms of percentage of total payroll. If a team has a payroll of $150 million or more, a bullpen costing $20-$25 million isn't going to significantly hamper the club's chances, regardless whether it is an optimal use of resources.

John Northey - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 02:56 PM EST (#195784) #

Mike, that is a nice idea but there is a major flaw - namely that it opens up all free agents to the Yankees and anyone else willing to spend while removing all other teams from any route other than getting lucky in the draft (as top prospects will demand top dollar thus falling in the draft to the teams who will sign them).

It also assumes that the Jays payroll is based on a different set of parameters than logical market forces. Of course, they are acting like it is a fixed number thus logic appears out the window right now so maybe you have a point (one I think we all wish wasn't the case).

Mike Green - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 03:15 PM EST (#195785) #

If the home nine is going to have an $80 million payroll, while the Yankees have a payroll of $200 million, you are much better off to compete with them for free agents other than closers. "Slave to the save" costs. The Yankees can afford it, while the Jays cannot. Unfortunately, the Yankee closer just happens to be the best ever by a huge margin, and actually earns every penny of his salary.

Glevin - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 03:21 PM EST (#195787) #

"5) Richmond...Righty, 6' 5" 225 pounds, 29 years old. Very late bloomer. Professional, solid, underrated guy. As a number 5 guy he'd be one of hte best in the leagu"

No he wouldn't. He had a 4.92 ERA in AA last year. Considering he's 29 years old and has pretty bad stuff, expecting him to have any kind of major league career based on 27 decent innings in the majors seems beyond optimistic.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 03:28 PM EST (#195788) #

Unfortunately, the Yankee closer just happens to be the best ever by a huge margin, and actually earns every penny of his salary.

Agreed (wrote the Yankee fan) ... but for real ... still? He's had the best career of a closer, ever, but the fall off the cliff can't be too far off. Mo's 40 this year (not 'til November, but that's splitting hairs). And who's behind him? Joba?

Hard to say. I know you weren't necessarily meaning to get into this, but the 50-billion-dollar Yankee dream is perilously close to not having The Guy at The End.

Timbuck2 - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM EST (#195789) #

Richmond has bad stuff? How is a 94mph heater bad stuff? Plus they guy pitched better in AAA (3.56 ERA) and the majors (4.27 ERA) than AA. Looks to me like he could be a solid #5 or better with a little instruction from Halladay and Arnsberg.

robertdudek - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 03:43 PM EST (#195790) #

Regarding Canada's Team .... It looks like a solid second tier roster, but it's a very open question how many of the big names actually play,. My guess is about half.

92-93 - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 03:48 PM EST (#195791) #

"but for real ... still?"

Yes. He had his lowest FIP in over a decade and his K/BB was (I won't even bother with an adjective because none exists to accurately describe it) 12.83. Obviously he's nearing the end because of his age, but we just haven't seen any of the decline yet.

robertdudek - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 03:57 PM EST (#195792) #

Impromptu BB contest:

Who among these relievers will have the best ERA this season while pitching at least 50 innings?

Mariano Rivera
Jon Papelbon
Joakim Soria
Joe Nathan

92-93 - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 04:03 PM EST (#195793) #

"No he wouldn't. He had a 4.92 ERA in AA last year. Considering he's 29 years old and has pretty bad stuff, expecting him to have any kind of major league career based on 27 decent innings in the majors seems beyond optimistic."

He ceraintly COULD. I'm no scout so I don't know enough about his "stuff", but using his ERA and age against him serve no purpose for this discussion. Yes, his ERA at AA was a tad inflated - he followed that up with 48 innings of 3.56era 1.19whip in AAA, so it's amusing that you pick out the AA stats to show his worthlessness. And while the above numbers aren't necessarily exciting because he's older, that doesn't make them useless. Nobody is even projecting him as a #3 - the original post was that he could be a nice #5, and I see no reason that that's "beyond optimistic". Judging by his 5 insanely consistent MLB starts and some nice work in AAA, I think it's actually beyond pessimistic to think he can't be one of the better #5s in the league pitching in front of the Jays defense. Hopefully the WBC tunes him up well so he can take a back-end rotation spot until McGowan, Cecil, and Romero are ready to take it from him.

Glevin - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 04:05 PM EST (#195794) #

"Richmond has bad stuff? How is a 94mph heater bad stuff? Plus they guy pitched better in AAA (3.56 ERA) and the majors (4.27 ERA) than AA. Looks to me like he could be a solid #5 or better with a little instruction from Halladay and Arnsberg."

I would say, at best, he'll be a #5, but more likely long reliever. As for a his fastball, he will throw generally in the low 90's but it and his other pitches are pretty hittable. He's thrown 413 IP in the minors and has a career 4.40 ERA and 1.29 WHIP and he really is not particularly impressive to watch . 4 of his 5 starts he pitched between 5 and 5 2/3 innings and gave up 3 runs in each. I think that's pretty much the type of thing you could expect from him if he started regularly.

92-93 - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 04:17 PM EST (#195795) #

"4 of his 5 starts he pitched between 5 and 5 2/3 innings and gave up 3 runs in each. I think that's pretty much the type of thing you could expect from him if he started regularly."

And I think that pretty much equals the best #5 in the league. If you told me today that I could have a pitcher who will pitch into the 6th each time and give up only 3 runs I'd be very happy. I can't see a better way of receiving a 5.00ish ERA from your back-end guy.

John Northey - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 04:22 PM EST (#195796) #

Given ERA can be a crapshoot I'd still go for Rivera. Just looked up his stats... not counting his rookie season (10 starts) he has had an ERA of 3.00 or higher once. ONCE! And that year it was 3.15. 8 times he was below 2.00 for ERA, all over 60+ innings.

For comparison...
The Jays have had 27 pitchers get 1 or more OUTS and have an ERA below 2.00
12 times the Jays have had a pitcher go 10 or more innings with an ERA below 2.00 (6 below plus Cruz, Acker, Willis, Cox, Murray, and Halladay over 14 IP)
6 times the Jays have had a pitcher go 50+ IP with an ERA below 2.00 (Eichhorn, Ward, Henke, Quantrill, Ryan, Downs)

Think about that. In the history of the Blue Jays, with Tom Henke, Duane Ward, BJ Ryan, and many other solid relievers we have seen fewer 50+ IP seasons with an ERA below 2 than Mariano Rivera has had in his career.

Wow.

John Northey - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 04:35 PM EST (#195797) #

As a follow-up while I have the database open...

Since (and including) 2000 we have seen 72 seasons with pitchers going 50+ IP with an ERA below 2.00. 5 of those are Rivera, 4 are Joe Nathan, with 2 each for Francisco Rodriguez, Gagne, Kline, Lidge, Papelbon, and Wagner. The rest are one time cases. This counts 1/2 seasons with a team (thus CC Sabathia counts). 61 of those were over 60+ IP with one of Papelbon's being under the 60 limit.

Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens both cracked 200 IP in their seasons. Sabathia at 130 2/3, and Guillermo Mota at 105 are the only ones to crack 100 IP.

Hadn't noticed that Nathan is on a Rivera path - 2 years over 3.00 but both were as a starter. Just started a bit older (28 when he became a full time ML reliever, 29 as a closer vs Rivera 26 & 27 respectively).

John Northey - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 04:39 PM EST (#195798) #

OK, one more...
The Yankees have had 30 seasons of 2.00 ERA or less over 50+ IP in their history, 8 of those being Rivera. Since the end of the 1992 season when Steve Farr did it no one has done it outside of Rivera. Before that you have to go back to 1978 and Ron Guidry. Never have they had more than 5 of these seasons in one decade - the 1970's, the 1940's, and the 2000's (all Rivera with one year to go).

Can I saw 'wow' again?

Mike Green - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 05:18 PM EST (#195799) #

John Walsh has his regular year-end arm #s at THT. Wells is at -1.9 runs/200 opportunities. John e-mailed me that Rios was at +7.9 runs in 151 opportunties or 10.5 runs/200 opportunities.

Glevin - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 06:49 PM EST (#195800) #

"Yes, his ERA at AA was a tad inflated - he followed that up with 48 innings of 3.56era 1.19whip in AAA, so it's amusing that you pick out the AA stats to show his worthlessness. And while the above numbers aren't necessarily exciting because he's older, that doesn't make them useless."

Look, in 2007, he had a 4.26 ERA in the Independent League. To be an average pitcher at a level below AA when you are 27 does not bode well for a major league career.

"I think it's actually beyond pessimistic to think he can't be one of the better #5s in the league pitching in front of the Jays defense."

Just in the AL East, guys like Philip Hughes, John Smoltz/Wakefield/Penny/Bucholtz, and David Price/Sonnetstine are #5 starters. Richmond would be a lot closer to Mark Hendrickson or whomever the O's have as heir #5 than he would be to those guys. It's not pessimism, I just don't understand optimism for guys whose upside is so incredibly low. Maybe, he can be a decent fifth starter, but he is a completely replacable pitcher and dozens of free agents could make decent fifth starters. To get excited about Cecil or Mills, certainly, but Scott Richmond? It's like getting excited by Matt Ginter.

TamRa - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 08:19 PM EST (#195801) #

No he wouldn't. He had a 4.92 ERA in AA last year. Considering he's 29 years old and has pretty bad stuff, expecting him to have any kind of major league career based on 27 decent innings in the majors seems beyond optimistic.

Richmond did take some time adjusting to AA, but there's a pretty sharp division between his first six AA starts and his last 10

In the former his ERA was 4.94 and in the latter it was 4.08

I suspect the latter, combined with what happened at higher levels, is more reflective of his abilities.

Not that i think he's likely to be more than a #5, and not that I think he'll be in the Jays rotation ever again after 2009. The best thing for him and for the jays would be for him to overachieve in 2009 and give himself a little bit of trade value so that a cheap team with fewer options would want to try to obtain him next winter.

zeppelinkm - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 08:52 PM EST (#195802) #

I'd be really surprised if Richmond amounted to anything more then an average #5 guy, but that doesn't mean I won't be rooting like heck for him to do something amazing. Even if it's just a Josh Towers like full season of mad luck and over-performing, just so they can make a movie about him. Or throw a no hitter... I just really want this guy to do something special because it is so against the odds.

robertdudek - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 09:29 PM EST (#195803) #

"I think it's actually beyond pessimistic to think he can't be one of the better #5s in the league pitching in front of the Jays defense."

I think this is a very interesting statement, in that it contains insight into how the baseball world regards pitching and defense.

Presumably you mean that the Jays defense is of such quality that the numbers of a pitcher like Richmond will be better than they would be behind an average (or terrible) defense. So what this means is that the pitcher is not really better, but he APPEARS to be better because of the defense. He will put up better numbers (a lower ERA because of fewer hits allowed) but he won't actually be better because of his defense. And this effect would apply to other potential 5th starters, unless they were high strikeout pitchers who don't rely as much of the defense (in this case the good defense would still help them, but the effect would be muted).

Unless of course you subscribe to the belief that he will throw better pitches because he knows the defense is good behind him and he gets more confidence. This effect probably exists, but I don't think it is nearly as large as some people think it is - though proving one way or another is pretty much impossible.

greenfrog - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 09:32 PM EST (#195804) #

The Jays pitchers could benefit again from a strong defense in '09, which could allow fringy pitchers like Richmond to hang in there. An IF of Rolen, Scutaro (with McDonald playing the late innings at SS), Hill and Overbay is quite decent.

Assuming Johnny Mac returns to form (defensively) next year, I wonder whether he'll eke his way back into the starting SS role. Unlikely, but having an IF of Rolen, Mac, Hill and Overbay is pretty much as good as it gets. An OF of Snider, Wells and Rios is not bad defensively either. And Barajas is respectable behind the plate.

Mylegacy - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 10:08 PM EST (#195805) #

Don't pencil in Hill just yet.

Inglett was very good(ish) at 2nd last year and I was growing quite disenchanted with young Mr Hill's offense BEFORE his head encountered Ecks knee.

zeppelinkm - Thursday, January 22 2009 @ 11:27 PM EST (#195806) #

Hill was one 5/5 game away from having a .287/.348 avg/obp last season. I know 5/5 games don't grow on trees, but my point is that with 1 week of good hitting, Hill very well could have been at .290/.360/.420, without making any stretches. He was off to a slow start. This following 2 consecutive seasons of encouraging improvement with the bat, and we're ready to give up on him already? 55 games into the season isn't enough to draw conclusions from because the numbers are still so volatile at that point.

The other thing which isn't mentioned is the difference in their defensive capabilities. Hill is, to my eye, a vastly superior defensive 2nd basemen then Inglett. Inglett is no butcher out there, but Hill is really great.

TamRa - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 12:34 AM EST (#195807) #

Anyone remember Aaron Hill in 2006?

From April 9 to May 13 he played 25 games, had 88 at bats, and recorded 13 hits, while accumulating a .377 OPS

With his season batting average hovering at .186, the mob was in the streets crying he was a bust, "another wasted JP first rounder!!," demanding he be sent back to the minors and written off.

Of course, he hit .320 with an .808 OPS the rest of the way.

Those who do not learn from the past....

;)

TamRa - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 12:39 AM EST (#195808) #

By the way, on the pitching, Wilner reports this from JP:

From the pitching side, J.P. said that there is nothing holding Casey Janssen back health-wise, and that he�ll come to camp as a member of the rotation, leaving competition for the fifth spot (behind Roy Halladay, Jesse Litsch, David Purcey and Janssen) to a group that includes Scott Richmond, Matt Clement, Mike Maroth and Brett Cecil. I asked Ricciardi if he might hold Cecil back to keep his innings down, and he said no. Cecil will have a chance to make the rotation out of Spring Training, and if he makes the team, he makes the team. He added that Cecil isn�t a candidate to pitch out of the bullpen.

I don't think it's a secret what JP had in mind for janssen but the Cecil bit is fascinating. I'm going public with this - if it's true that Cecil has an equal shot at the rotation in spring training, my bet is he wins.

Barring injury or setback:
Doc
Listch
Purcey
Janssen
Cecil

(unless Purcey starts the second game...JP also said at one point that after Doc it was wide open. Someone said - probably in this thread - that this may have meant that the order was wide open since no one seriously believes Listch will lose his spot)

Mike Green - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 09:38 AM EST (#195809) #

Janssen's coming off shoulder surgery, and hasn't pitched a game anywhere since. I would be skeptical that he would be ready for a rotation spot on Opening Day. I also am of the view that Cecil needs another 2 months in triple A for development reasons.

It is true that conceivably the organization could have seven decent or better starters at some point later this season, Halladay, Litsch, Purcey, McGowan, Janssen, Cecil and Richmond. In my view, the better course instead of trying to rush the return of the injured starters or the development of Cecil would be to use the bullpen depth creatively. Run out a four-man rotation for the first two months of the season like this: Halladay, Purcey/Janssen (4-5IP +2), Litsch, Richmond/Tallet/Wolfe (3 IP +2+2). Make use of the durability of Halladay and Litsch, and put the bullpen depth to task without going through relievers batter by batter (if Janssen isn't ready to pitch in the majors period at the start of the season, you could safely substitute Frasor for that role).

Mike D - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 09:48 AM EST (#195810) #

Richard Griffin believes that the Jays have discussed acquiring Cust...and he's all for it. No, really!

John Northey - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 10:12 AM EST (#195811) #

Of note - Troy Glaus is out for at least the first 5 weeks of the 2009 season.

Mike Green - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 10:18 AM EST (#195812) #

Somewhere between Rob Deer and Adam Dunn lies Jack Cust (as a hitter). Is it a coincidence that all have four-letter last names? I think not.

TamRa - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 10:33 AM EST (#195813) #

If you didn't know better, you'd think Ol' Rich actually likes this team, wouldn't ya?

Actually, while I've contented myself to the "time is now" strategy on Snider, I wouldn't be averse to having Cust at DH this season. His OPS+ the last two seasons were each better than any hitter on the jays roster. As long as we were dealing marginal guys.

Those 197 K's ARE frightening though....

Chuck - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 10:33 AM EST (#195814) #

I couldn't bring myself to RTFA, so apologies if he discussed any of the following.

Cons for Beane moving Cust:
* he is relatively inexpensive
* he is productive offensively despite the low batting average
* he, presumably, has trade value

Pros for Beane moving Cust:
* he has "old player" skills and could collapse quickly
* having Giambi and Cust both in the lineup means that at least one has to take the field, where they are terrible

John Northey - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 10:36 AM EST (#195815) #

Y'know, I hate to say it but Griffin actually makes sense there. The A's could use some pen & middle infield depth (their rotation is weak so depth in the pen would help a lot) while they also have 2 guys whose best position is DH (Giambi & Cust). The Jays could use some offense and have their DH slot somewhat open (depending on Snider) whie having a crazy amount of pen & infield depth. The A's are in a division which they could win (the Angels had a lot of luck last year and are likely to crash to earth this year making an 85-90 win level possibly being enough to pull it off) so a little help in the right area could do the trick.

Now, Cust isn't the type of guy JP goes for lately with the massive number of strikeouts and lack of a position but he gets on base (382 lifetime OBP, 375 last year) and has power (475 slg% lifetime, 476 last year). I dont' see Beane being in a rush to trade him though as Cust is very cheap ($2.8 million in his first year of arbitration) for his production level.

If the A's would take a pair of relievers (take your choice) and one of McDonald/Scutaro/Inglett plus a catching prospect/suspect (Thigpen) it might work but I doubt the A's would be happy with that. I suspect they'd want a starting prospect along the lines of a Brett Cecil or another one of our young guys given Cust is cheap even if he is just a pinch hitter for 2009.

TamRa - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 10:36 AM EST (#195816) #

I should add, though, that when I was listing potential acquisitions I thought about listing Cust, then it occured to me that the A's are probably signing Giambi so they can step back on Daric Barton and let him get his feet back under him. I don't think Giambi makes Cust available.

(Barton is a guy I'd love to get though, if I thought he was available)

Mike Green - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 11:04 AM EST (#195817) #

John Northey,

I thought that Scutaro was the starting shortstop for 2009. There's a big, big dropoff between him and McDonald. Trading him makes sense only if you're going to start Hill at short and Inglett at second.

timpinder - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 01:15 PM EST (#195818) #

I wouldn't count on Janssen either. If I had to bet, I would predict a Jays' rotation of Halladay, Downs, Litsch, Purcey, Richmond/Wolfe. I think that Cecil, Mills and R. Romero will start the season in AAA, and Clement and Janssen probably won't show much. The Jays have enough depth in the bullpen to move Downs to the rotation, at least until McGowan returns, assuming he bounces back from his latest surgery.

92-93 - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 01:22 PM EST (#195819) #

"Presumably you mean that the Jays defense is of such quality that the numbers of a pitcher like Richmond will be better than they would be behind an average (or terrible) defense. So what this means is that the pitcher is not really better, but he APPEARS to be better because of the defense. He will put up better numbers (a lower ERA because of fewer hits allowed) but he won't actually be better because of his defense. And this effect would apply to other potential 5th starters, unless they were high strikeout pitchers who don't rely as much of the defense (in this case the good defense would still help them, but the effect would be muted)."

Excellent point. I'm not saying that Richmond is necessarily all that talented, but at the end of the day he can put up similar run prevention numbers to other #5s across the league. That isn't addressing whether those other pitchers would be even better in Toronto than Richmond. Jesse Litsch to me is the perfect example of what the Jays D can do for a pitcher - a 3.67era in the AL East over your first 287 innings in the AL East is pretty damn nice for a guy who wasn't on anybody's radar as a top prospect. If Richmond (or anyone, for that fact) can pound the strike zone and keep the ball in the park he is going to see success in Toronto's rotation. And it's why I'm not concerned in the slightest with the pitching, even though they have lost Burnett and Marcum from the #1 pitching staff in MLB over the last 2 years. The defense made that low ERA, not the pitchers.

92-93 - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 01:32 PM EST (#195820) #

"Just in the AL East, guys like Philip Hughes, John Smoltz/Wakefield/Penny/Bucholtz, and David Price/Sonnetstine are #5 starters. Richmond would be a lot closer to Mark Hendrickson or whomever the O's have as heir #5 than he would be to those guys."

You conveniently mention the 3 possible best #5s in the AL and make it seem like they are the norm. And even those 3 - in a healthy Sox rotation Smoltz is top 4 and one of the other 3 are the #5, and none of them is a guarantee for anything better than a 4.50era. Price and Sonnanstine are the same way - you're just assuming Price has a monster season. I'd look no further than at Phil Hughes and Clay Buchholz themselves to realize how silly an expectation that is (and who knows if Chamberlain is actually the Yanks #4, that back end might have some problems). Other listed AL #5s, according to team depth charts - Kyle Davies, Matt Albers, Anthony Reyes, Glen Perkins, Clayton Richard, Dustin Moseley, Dana Eveland, Ryan Rowland-Smith, and Brandon McCarthy. Now obviously lots of shuffling happens and those might not be those teams' fifth starters, but you get the idea of the type of competition Richmond has.

greenfrog - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 01:51 PM EST (#195821) #

Personally, I hope the Jays keep Downs out of the rotation. His career numbers are very ordinary (even with the outstanding relief stats over the last two years). His career ERA+ is 112. Over the last two years, as a setup reliever, his ERA+ has been a blissful 206 and 239.

Stats aside, I just don't seem him holding up well pitching 150+ innings, especially in the AL East. His career high was back in 2000, when he pitched 97 IP. Besides, it's unlikely that the net gain in wins (assuming there is one) is going to make a difference in the AL East race.

Mylegacy - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 02:58 PM EST (#195822) #

If Janssen is REALLY 100% - there is no way he will be able to go 175+ innings as a starter coming back from his shoulder injury. He would be better to start in the pen and then - if needed - get into the rotation about August of so so he ends up at 130 - 150 innings max.

Roy... the Ace of Aces.
Litsch...seriously underrated. Marcum with red flushed cheeks.
Purcey...the KEY - he MUST have his control.
Richmond...as I've said before, underrated. Late bloomer like Brendan Donnelly was.
Cecil...IF he's gonna get the job IF he earns it...I say he earns it. This guy will be AT LEAST halfway between Marcum and Halladay. He'll be Roy Lite by years end and for years. GUARANTEED!

SheldonL - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 03:03 PM EST (#195823) #

"Personally, I hope the Jays keep Downs out of the rotation. His career numbers are very ordinary (even with the outstanding relief stats over the last two years). His career ERA+ is 112. Over the last two years, as a setup reliever, his ERA+ has been a blissful 206 and 239.

Stats aside, I just don't seem him holding up well pitching 150+ innings, especially in the AL East. His career high was back in 2000, when he pitched 97 IP. Besides, it's unlikely that the net gain in wins (assuming there is one) is going to make a difference in the AL East race."

As recently as 2004, Scott Downs has pitched 200 innings. I think that proves that he can be stretched out successfully. Since then, I understand that he's averaged around 80 IP so perhaps 200 is a bit optimistic but I'm sure that we can get 5 innings per start out of him.
Yes, he's a tremendous reliever but any above average starter wuld excel in a reliever role. I'm sure Sabathia or Oswalt would put up Papelbon-type numbers in such a role.
I think that we have the bullpen depth to try such an experiment.

His numbers as a starter in AAA have been very good; his most recent extended stay at AAA as a starter featured a 3.52 ERA in 135 IP. He had a season in AA in which he struck out 101 in 80 IP with a 1.35 ERA and 1.05 WHIP.
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/D/Scott-Downs.shtml

His most recent extended stay in the majors as a starter featured a 4.30 ERA in 69 IP with 60 K's.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=4286&type=pitching&year=2005

His sneaky delivery bodes some success as in 5 of the 13 starts he made that year, he struck out 6 or more guys including an 11K performance which is currently a Jays record for a lefty pitcher in a single game.

Chuck - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 03:48 PM EST (#195824) #

As recently as 2004, Scott Downs has pitched 200 innings.

In professional sports, five years ago is a long, long time.

greenfrog - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 05:26 PM EST (#195825) #

Sheldon: good point about the higher IP count. I was looking at Baseball Reference stats, which doesn't list minor-league numbers. Still, I agree that 2004 was a while ago, especially now that he's 32 and unlikely to be as resilient. In the last three years, he's pitched 77, 58, and 70.2 innings.

Also, some of the stats you cite are a bit misleading. He struck out 101 in 80 IP ten years ago at AA, when he was 22! His K:IP as a starter went way down after that (for example, in the other season you cite, 2004, he struck out 67 in 135.1 IP at AAA). Besides, he's 32 now and unlikely to be as resilient. It looks as though he figured out a few things as a reliever somewhere around 2005-06 (having a good defense behind him undoubtedly helped). Now he has a nifty niche in which he's among the best in the game. Why mess with a good thing?

TamRa - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 07:23 PM EST (#195826) #

point of information- Assuming a pitcher needs 32 starts for a "full season" (is never skipped) then if he averages

5 IP per start that's 160 IP
5.1 = 170.2
5.2 = 181.1
9 = 192

If we follow the rule of thumb that says a pitcher shouldn't pitch more than 30 innings over his previous career high then (approx)

Janssen caps at 180
Cecil caps at 150
Purcey can go to 212
McGowan could go to 200 (obviously not likely to be an issue)
Richmond can go to 195

All that said, Purcey went 42 innings past his previous high last year so it's uncertain if the Jays consider the +30 Rule as gospel.
Cecil is obviously the guy who's gonna have to be watched.

I think the trick here is for Cito to resist his natural tendencies and to go lightly on the two pitching slots where innings are an issue. If Doc is his usual self and Litsch and Purcey average more than 6 IP/S, then if Janssen or McGowan (because of rehab) or Cecil (because of the cap) need to be pampered with the help of the excellent pen then that's manigable.

On a highly speculative supposition, if Cecil pitched 7 starts for McGowan and then had to go back to AAA, and average 5.2 innings per start, he'd burh through about 40 innings of his allotment, then he'd be in line to get about 18 turns in AAA if he were called up in September. He could average 6 IP per start and still come in at his cap, or, he could be limited to 5 IP in his AAA starts and he'd still have the innings for 3 or 4 september starts - but the trick is he does NOT need to fall short of his ceiling this year. The Jays, in my estimation, erred last year by not capping him out. He only added about 6 IP last year. If he had went to 145 or so last year, he could have gone close to 180 - essentially a full year - this year. they should have sent him to Arizona, at least (instead of the scrubs we sent out there) and let him get 4-5 more starts.

(I say this, of course, not knowing if there were other, unreported issues that made this unwise)

TamRa - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 07:29 PM EST (#195827) #

It's been a while since anyone with the Jays named Downs (or any other reliever) as a candidate to start.

I would feel pretty confident in saying that there would have to be an outbreak of the plague in jays camp before you see Downs in the rotation.

Maybe if it got down to either him or Maroth - 'cause lord knows Maroth has NO business ever pitching in Toronto - but not before.

SheldonL - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 11:05 PM EST (#195828) #

I agree, it is highly unlikely that Downs will get a sniff at a rotation spot.

However, in an ideal world, I know that Downs would love for a chance to prove that he can be a major league starter. I personally believe that he could do it and do it well. Downs has relatively little mileage so he's not quite the same 32 year old as A.J Burnett as he's only accumulated a mere fraction of Burnett's innings.
Several relievers have made the instant transition to being a solid starter. Ryan Dempster cracked 200 IP after having averaged similar innings to Downs in a similar number of years. Todd Wellemeyer did it last year; John Smoltz did it a few years back; Derek Lowe has done it; Jose Lima has done it.

But sometimes in life you can't do what you really want to do, but the circumstances (or Deleuzian Spirit) dictate your role... and currently the baseball Spirit seems to indicate that Downs will be a top notch reliever and at the end of the 2009 season, he'll get a similar deal like Ryan Madson. I.e. 3 years, $12million or something longterm worth $4-5 million a year.

For Downs' sake, I hope that he does get a sniff and then parlays a terrific 32 start-season into a 5 year deal woth $50 million. Couldn't happen to a better guy!

greenfrog - Friday, January 23 2009 @ 11:23 PM EST (#195829) #

Actually, Downsie is under contract through 2010. He'll get paid $4M in his final season. He signed a three-year, $10M deal after the 2007 season.

Dave Till - Saturday, January 24 2009 @ 08:33 AM EST (#195831) #

I feel sorry for J.P. Ricciardi. Really, I do.

Consider the 2008 Jays: despite losing their star centre fielder for a third of the season, assorted health issues with the starting rotation, Aaron Hill getting bonged in the head, and Frank Thomas suddenly growing very old, the Jays still had the fourth-best runs-scored/runs-allowed differential in all of baseball. They were unlucky, and so only won 86 games, but it wouldn't have taken much more luck for the Jays to have made serious inroads into the playoffs.

And now, poor J.P. has to go into the season minus two starting pitchers, and with an ownership group that is trying to figure out how to deal with the recession and with Ted Rogers' death. (Plan A seems to be to freeze like a deer trapped in headlights.)

There are things that Ricciardi could have done better, but can you imagine what our reaction would be if the Jays had gone out and signed two top-rank starting pitchers and one Big Scary Bat in the offseason, as the Yankees have done? We'd be spending the offseason figuring out the optimal downtown Toronto parade route.

dfp - Saturday, January 24 2009 @ 09:29 AM EST (#195834) #

I don't know if this was mentioned, but JP Arencianbia was ranked 99th.

Pistol - Saturday, January 24 2009 @ 11:19 AM EST (#195835) #

Sounds like there's a story behind this: Bart fired as Asst GM.

TamRa - Saturday, January 24 2009 @ 11:41 AM EST (#195836) #

Link didn't work....here's the bit MLBTR linked to:

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/baseball/2009/01/24/8132401-sun.html

My question is - who's Bart Given and should i care about this (from a baseball perspective)?

Mylegacy - Saturday, January 24 2009 @ 12:08 PM EST (#195837) #

In Law's Q&A he said that after Arencibia that Jackson and Mills would finish "ahead of Cooper."

So he has Snider, Cecil, Arencibia, Jackson, Mills and Cooper as our top six.

SheldonL - Saturday, January 24 2009 @ 02:07 PM EST (#195838) #

thanks, greenfrog, my bad.. I knew it was a 3 year deal worth around $10 mil but I was a bit unsure when it started...

anyway, it's all the more reason why Downs should be tried as a starter. I think relievers who dominate like he does and have been starters in the past show a significant amount of potential as a solid starter.
Considering the state of starting pitching in the league, I think gambling on Downs might be pretty good if you can get quality innings out of him for just $7 mil over the next 2 years!

As for the ownership group's decision to freeze payroll, there's all the more reason for J.P to cut excess fat off our payroll (i.e. Johnny Mac, Bautista). I hope that Bautista gets cut before spring training and thereby saving us around $2 million.

lexomatic - Saturday, January 24 2009 @ 03:37 PM EST (#195841) #

Roy... the Ace of Aces

Did anyone else notice that Roy is the LEADER of pitcher win value since 2002? http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitcher-win-value-leaderboards

timpinder - Sunday, January 25 2009 @ 11:27 AM EST (#195842) #

According to the New York Post, the Jays were among nine teams who watched Kris Benson throw on Saturday. (Yippy)

Jdog - Sunday, January 25 2009 @ 11:57 AM EST (#195843) #

Buster Olney at ESPN says the following in his article about last years statistics:

3. The pitcher who was in the best in the majors last season against No. 3 hitters -- that is, guys who batted third in the opposing lineup -- was Jesse Litsch of the Toronto Blue Jays. Opposing No. 3 hitters managed to hit just .154 against him.

Just thought I would share.

dfp - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 12:24 AM EST (#195848) #

The link provided in his blog also lists all pitchers with min. of 20 innnings in order of OPS. Jesse Litsch was actually second in avg behind Gil Meche with .141, but Litsch was first with an OPS of .389.

brent - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 02:04 AM EST (#195849) #

Could there be a better season to try out the two starters in a game idea? The team might have quite a few young pitchers ready to play but the team shouldn't burn them out.

tstaddon - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 11:55 AM EST (#195855) #

What's almost as strange as the fact that #3 hitters fared so poorly against Jesse Litsch? How about that if you change the search terms to study #4 hitters, Litsch was again tops among American League starters -- and second among all pitchers to only Randy Johnson.

John Northey - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 12:52 PM EST (#195857) #

Interesting to see Litsch doing so well vs #3/#4 hitters.
Litsch OPS vs ...
#1: 926
#2: 746
#3: 389
#4: 556
#5: 927
#6: 737
#7: 815
#8: 940
#9: 419

Weird and points out how batting order stats are pretty much a 'freak show' stat - ie: mean nothing but kind of fun to look at. Litsch kills #3/4/9 hitters, does OK vs 2/6, poor vs #7, killed by 1/5/8. Guess it is good that he beat down those #3/4 hitters otherwise the #5's would've killed off his season.

FYI: #3 hitters got him for a 1.039 OPS in 2007

Timbuck2 - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 01:37 PM EST (#195859) #

Could there be a better season to try out the two starters in a game idea? The team might have quite a few young pitchers ready to play but the team shouldn't burn them out.

They Jays have already done it once - Guzman started games going 5 innings and Kelvin Excobar finished them. I recall it working rather well. I think Cito was even the manager then too!

christaylor - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 02:03 PM EST (#195860) #

Your memory is correct but as far as I can tell the Guzman/Escobar happened exactly twice on Jun 29 and Jul 4, 1997. Hardly a long established precedent. Given that Guzman started other games after Escobar made the majors that weren't relived by Escobar, more likely the Guzman/Escobar pairing was just chance.

I would love to see a long reliever paired with Cecil to limit his innings. Not sure that is going to happen though...

SK in NJ - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 02:16 PM EST (#195861) #

I think the Jays are being way too optimistic with Janssen if they expect him to be a contributor in 2009. Didn't he have labrum surgery in March 2008? Now less than a calendar year later he's (tentatively) penciled into the rotation? I am not going to hold my breath on that. I'd be plesantly surprised at this point if Janssen becomes an effective reliever again.

My guess is Scott Richmond will win one of the final two spots, with the other going to Cecil or Romero.

Petey Baseball - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 02:16 PM EST (#195862) #

Jordan Bastian reports the Jays signed Brandon Fahey and Jason Lane to minor league contracts and are invited to spring training. Both look like Vegas mainstays for the season, but an injury or three in the outfield could see either one of them getting a call.

Thomas - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 02:19 PM EST (#195863) #

There's a new thread up to discuss the Lane and Fahey moves. However much they merit discussion may be a separate matter.

Timbuck2 - Monday, January 26 2009 @ 03:40 PM EST (#195869) #

Guzman/Escobar happened exactly twice on Jun 29 and Jul 4, 1997

IIRC those two starts Guzman was coming back from an injury. I remember having a heated argument that year with a buddy of mine who felt Escobar would only ever be a reliever. I felt he would be an outstanding starter. I won :)

GregH - Tuesday, January 27 2009 @ 03:59 PM EST (#195898) #

"However, in an ideal world, I know that Downs would love for a chance to prove that he can be a major league starter"

I've been home sick, so am catching up on essential reading!

Downs was interviewed by Mike Wilner on his Blue Jay a Day Show during the playoffs and said he did not want to be a starter at all. His wording was to the effect that he would rather be a great reliever than a mediocre starter.

I'm guessing that even if the Jays forced the issue, Downs' heart wouldn't really be in it.

Winter Blah's | 109 comments | Create New Account

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