Posnanski is one of the best baseball writers around, but that article was one of his worst in recent memory. I don't disagree with Wells' place on the list, but putting Rios on there makes little sense and the reasoning for excluding Eric Byrnes and Aaron Rowand, for example, was flimsy.

But isn't it possible that Wells still isn't fully recovered from his injury -- sort of like Overbay last year.

I thought this had been debunked already.  Just to summarize what I've said in several posts:

-Wells' offence was fine last season after he came back from injury

-Wells' offence is fine THIS SEASON except at Rogers Centre

• Jordan: If he accepts, the Jays have locked up a very good player and "face of the team" for a lot of years, and since there's absolutely no reason to think that salaries will go down anytime soon, it will not be a bad deal, even though wells will probably be playing right field no later than 2009.
• Jim: I know some people already have a problem with the offer.  I am not one of them, this is what players like Vernon wells get paid in 2006 and beyond, so count me in support of this deal if signed.
• ChinaFan: I don't see how this "handcuffs" the team in any way, unless you have a crystal ball and can predict the team's budget in 2010 or 2011.  Rogers has shown that he's willing to spend money, and obviously he must have approved any offer to wells, so why should we assume that he can't afford the offer that he's willing to make?
  
• Dave Till: if the guy is among the best in the league, spend what it takes to get him (within reason). Otherwise, don't bother. wells is among the best in the league. What's more, he has a broad range of skills. He's worth the money. It's better to spend $20 million on Vernon wells than $11 million on Gil Meche. (Gil Meche?!)
•  

• Rickster: I love Vernon, but this has Todd Helton, Bobby Abreu, and Mike Hampton written all over it. Good players signed to massive contracts that they are simply not worth, rendering them untradeable unless a large part of their contract is picked up.
• CaramonLS: Heck, at least Todd Helton and Abreu for the most part had the offensive numbers to support such an extension.  wells on the other hand simply does not have the track record for a deal.
• RhyZa: I think the danger in the current climate is that it is natural to compare some of the other ridiculous contracts this off season and figure we would much rather give Vernon that kind of contract over any of those players, but I don't think this should necessarily be confused as being the prudent move either, simply because of this fact
• jjdynomite: if V-Dub does sign the mega deal I have a feeling Rios is going to be the one on the block (a few years early, but it did work out that way)
• Achtungbaby: My biggest worry is that Jays gravy train might go off the rails at some point and we suddenly find ourselves with a lot of high priced talent to move.  At 18 million per season, would anyone give us fair value for wells if we ever decided to trade him.  Not mention if his performance level goes down or (shudder) he is injured.
• Malcolm Little: All we need is a market shift, a payroll change from ownership, or a change in ownership for this to become far worse than Delgado's big deal

• timpinder: I'd rather have wells than Lilly and Meche.  I'm just worried about the length of this contract.
• MyLegacy: My wife, aka She Who Must Be Obeyed (see I'm trainable), has a different take on the wells deal. She thinks this is all about the NFL. She thinks Godfrey and Teddy Boy are doing this to show the NFL that they are serious players.
  
• MatO: On the FAN590 a number of times with McCown, Blair said that he believed there were two budgets.  One with VW and one without.

• Not a bad bunch (guys he was comparable to), all above 100 OPS+, but clearly two levels.  Thompson/Mondesi or Dawson/Beltran/Green.  If he produces at the first level he will be at his 04/05 level and the Jays will be overpaying by about $8 million a year based on what we've seen this winter, the second level would make him worth his contract.
• If I had to pick a guy who wells is most like I'd go for Dawson who played in a lower offensive era but hit at a similar level, was a center fielder who had to move to RF as his legs weakened (thanks in large part to the horrid turf in Montreal).
  
• In the end I feel 100 times better about the odds of wells producing at the level hoped for over his contract than I do about Zaun (for example) but of course the financial risk the Jays took is many times as high too.  Still, I now feel this contract is much like Delgado's, it could make it hard on the Jays should salaries drop (which I doubt will happen this time) but odds are wells will produce regardless and keep CF from being a hole.

Okay, fair enough, my original comments on the Wells contract were wrong, but who could have predicted that Wells would become one of the weakest-hitting outfielders in the majors by 2009?  Hands up, anyone who predicted THAT.   As for the size of the contract, it wouldn't have handcuffed the team if Rogers had continued to spend money as they did at the time of the contract.  Instead they've done a bizarre 180-degree turn:  open up the vaults, spend generously for a couple years, then slam shut the vaults and start dumping salaries at a panicky rate in 2009.   Again, few of us could have predicted such dysfunctional schizophrenic ownership.  As I've said before, I would have thought that the Rogers corporation -- whose profits are entirely due to oligopolistic privileges in cellphones, Internet and television -- would have wanted to invest enough of these windfall profits on the Jays to make them a contender.

But, yeah, the Wells contract is a huge problem today.  If Rios and Wells had played as well in 2009 as they did in their best seasons, the Jays would be contending for a playoff spot today.    I still think that Cito and JP made a reasonable assumption when they put Wells and Rios high up in the lineup and sent them out there every day for the first half of the season.  As Cito always told everyone in the early months of the season:  for the Jays to succeed this year, Wells and Rios have to do well.  That's what 2009 boiled down to.  The Jays gambled on Rios and Wells this season, and -- based on the history of those two players -- it was a pretty justifiable gamble.  They lost the gamble, but I don't believe anyone who says they fully expected those two players to be so terrible this season.

So given that Wells is one of the least valuable players in baseball, when do the Jays start reducing his playing time?  If the Jays somehow get into contention next year and Wells still stinks is it possible that he becomes less than an everyday player?  Maybe if he's benched for a year, he'll consider ripping up his contract so he can be traded?

Wishful thinking I guess...

About half of those contracts have expired, so I'm not sure why you raised them.

Then which mainstream media sportswriter is, in your opinion?

In the article he waxs eloquent about how BAD the Rios deal is, yet throws no stones at Kenny Williams for claiming it.

I wouldn't think that one would have to look any further than the fact that the Jays gave Rios away for nothing to realize it was a horrendous contract, especially given that Rios would otherwise still be playing for the Jays for significantly less money.  I think what makes a lot of people think the Rios and the Wells contracts are so terrible is not only the monetary commitment offered to non-superstar players but also that it was offered in non-walk years.  It's not just that the Jays overpaid, it's that they overpaid when they didn't even have to.

It's not neccesarily a bad contract for the team who essentially gets him as a free agent without giving up any compensation whatsoever... other than the obligation to pay his contract, obviously.

It's also different when you are 2 games out of the division lead and you lack a centerfielder.  It's still a bad contract, but when you are chasing a flawed team like the Tigers and you have terrible centerfielders (notwithstanding the good streak from Podsednik), the decision is a bit more defendable. 

I do think the Rios contract talk has gotten overblown, this contract is not great, but it is just a blip for a high payroll team.

Kevin Millar has taken #15....bad move Kevin... you must really want to be next?

He says Rios was a clear win for Chicago

Rios has more value to Chicago than he did to Toronto because the White Sox will play him in centerfield whereas the Blue Jays wouldn't. Given the lower offensive bar for center field, Rios doesn't have to hit nearly as much at that position to be useful than he would have to hit to be useful as a right fielder.

And given his build, especially compared to Wells', one would imagine that he could play a reasonable centerfield into his 30's.

Given the bizarro love affair Chitown has with Podsednik, and his link to their World Series win, Rios may not get to become the center fielder until 2010.

"Keith Law' just finished a chat at ESPN where he's made  a few comments on the Jays.  He says Rios was a clear win for Chicago, that Toronto will sign 4 of its5 unsigned draft picks, and that Dopirak is a non-prospect. 

Too bad, I was really hoping the Jays signed all 5, hope it's not Paxton who's the odd man out. 

I've been following the Draft Signing reports on MLBTR and I've been stunned and amused by the way the majority of the clubs are ignoring the 'slot' rules and are signing picks to historically high bonuses.

This practically screams out to me that we are likely to see another depressed market for Free Agents next off season, as many clubs are making sure that they get their draft picks signed...almost at any cost.

This also makes it pretty clear that Veron Wells will be a Blue Jay for the full duration of his contract (baring injury, retirement, etc).

Isn't the belief that a VW in RF (for example) would be, at worst, an adequate defender? Watching him the last couple of years, he just looks like his body will not allow him to get to balls the way that it used to...but if you stick him in a corner OF spot and he has an .840 OPS like he did last year, can't he earn half the value of his contract? I just don't buy the notion that this team can't win because of VW's contract...it can, if he moves to a corner and Rogers concedes the fact that he is making twice as much as he should (if his hitting does, in fact, improve).

And the notion that the Jays would contend with Rios/Wells playing up to expectation...it's only true if you blame Rios/Wells for the fact that the Jays have not performed as well as their run differential would indicate, along with their respective stats. And that simply isn't fair...

I'd like to see the Jays acquire a young CF...possibly one who isn't being fully utilized by his current team. Carlos Gonzalez (blocked by Fowler) or Jordan Schaefer (injured, former HGH user, blocked by McLouth) are possibilities. I mean, if all of JP's pitching breaks down, might as well trade the #4-type starters before it happens (I'm looking at you Scott Richmond)...

Casey Janssen says his latest injury was caused when he had a nap.  Is this anything like Ricky Romero's injury from sneezing?  What is it with pitchers?  They nap, they sneeze, and they get injured.    I'm not blaming Brad Arnsberg for this.  I think it just says something about the fragility and unpredictability of pitchers.  You can coddle them, you can limit their pitch counts, but something will happen, whether it's a sneeze or a nap.

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090814&content_id=6424028&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

Re: JP

Maybe I just like swimming upstream but I am thinking maybe the Jays should consider KEEPING JP past 2010.

No, I am not his mom.  I know he has a poor drafting record, signed all these bad deals, has a .500 record, has a big mouth and ego...

BUT maybe a guy becomes a better GM because of it.  If the old saying about learning more from your mistakes is true, JP must have learned a lot.  He has already adjusted his drafting strategy, he has always been good at picking through the bargain bin for bullpen arms and depth players, and I imagine his ego has shunk to more manageable proportions.  Finally, he is likely going to be very careful about signing any more Rios/Wells/BJ/ Thomas type deals.

My fear is that we get a new GM who has to learn all the lessons that JP already has.

I was looking at the predicted Elias Rankings on MLBTR and I noticed that Barajas is predicted to be a Type B free agent.

Do the Jays offer him arbitration in hopes of getting a sandwich pick and risk having to employ him next year at 2.5 million for a sub .700 OPS?

I doubt Rod is worth 2.5 million on the open market, although the list of free agent catchers isn't impressive iirc.

Maybe I just like swimming upstream...

The Jays are already swimming upstream against the Yankees and the Red Sox.  Keeping Ricciardi is more like trying to swim upstream with a bag over your head and both hands tied behind your back.

I thought this thread was supposed  to be about Wells.  Perhaps placing him at the top of the order might force him to change his hitting approach. Wasn't it tried  earlier in his career(for a few games) with some success.

Instead of bothering with Barajas, why not (as suggested on The Southpaw) go after someone like Chris Snyder. He doesn't have a scary contract and he probably doesn't have a ton of trade value at this point either. He has a nice walk rate and some pop, though he also has high K rates and has never hit for much average. But a .775-.800 OPS from the catching spot would be nice and he seems more than capable of doing this going forward. I guess this depends on the direction of the team, but presumably the Jays would pay a starting catcher between $3 to $5 million over the next 2 years...so $11.25 million for a premium defensive position over the next two years (including a buyout for a 2011 option) isn't that much more.

If McCown's best guess is to be believed (though it seems high unlikely), Figgins over Rolen at 3B, Snyder over Barajas at C, Snider over Rios in RF and a host of replacable DH options (i.e. Delgado, N. Johnson) would likely produce a considerably stronger lineup in 2010 without costing a whole lot more financially (espescially since Figgins is the only player who would require a long term deal, and it won't eclipse the money owed to Rios, I would think). Of course, Figgins is likely a longshot, but even someone like Beltre would along with the other additions would probably improve the lineup as a whole.

But, as usual, feel free to dwell on the most negative possible impressions you can find.

You are right, I should be praising a draft that had 5 position players in the top 88 picks and none of them get on base at a .300 clip in the minor leagues 2 full seasons later.  

When you've got 2 first round picks that can't slug .300 in A ball, I think I'd stop talking about how great things are and how potentially 'freakishly' well they did.

How  about some peak translations from BP for fun on a Monday morning:

Ahrens - 214/301/301

Jackson - 224/339/282

Arencibia - 211/264/390

Better hope the scouts are right, because the numbers are a joke.  But I guess that's me being negative, because I program BP's translations.

It's fine by me.    I'll leave you alone to say ridiculously glowing things about a draft that are far away from reality. 

I'll just ignore your twisted pretzel logic.  Oh this is a good team because the third order winning percentage is good...... but these prospects are still really good even though the translations are bad.   This set of numbers has value because it matches what I want to be true... this other set of numbers doesn't have value because it isn't what I want to be true.

One time a player was bad in A ball and turned out good.  That means we can ignore back to back seasons of 35% strikeouts!

Of course we don't know.  But we do know that most players that end up being good major league players don't strike out 35% of the time in the FSL.

I'm constantly reminded by Will of the Jays run differential being a mark of the teams quality. Well, guess what, minor league stats are a mark of a prospects quality. So you can't make one argument and ignore the other because it doesn't fit your worldview.  Yeah Cecil is a good prospect, and Arencibia isn't a bust yet, but their return to date on 5 picks in the top 88 is well below average, quite the opposite of a 'freakish' draft.

If the 2007 draft was so great for the Blue Jays why don't they call Detroit and see if they can trade every player they got in that draft for Rick Porcello. If the draft has so much potential why would Detroit hang up laughing?

most players

Thanks for making my point.

their return to date on 5 picks in the top 88 is well below average

How have you measured this? 

Thanks for making my point.

Well of course nothing is absolute.  Why bother talking about minor league players at all then?  Since we don't know how it turns out what's the point of discussing it at all? 

You don't know exactly what's going to happen so no matter how ridiculously optimistic a viewpoint is, it can't be argued with the realities of probability and the statistical experiences of thousands of minor leaguers in the past.    You may as well close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ear and scream "na nah nah nah nah na". 

How have you measured this? 

The value of draft picks has been measured.  Have I looked up what the expected WARs are for those exact picks?  No, I haven't bothered yet, because there is no point because we'll never agree on what Jackson, Ahrens, Magnuson are worth going forward so it's a waste of time to do until the outcome is more certain. 

I did make a mistake saying 5 picks in the top 88, it was 7.

Take a second and ask yourself this.  If you picked 7 times in the top 88 picks including 16th and 21st overall, wouldn't you think you could do better then Cecil, Arencibia and Tolisano.  That's about what they have right now.  That draft was a huge opportunity and they didn't capitalize.   They did ok, and may have found a player in the 5th round which is always nice, but when you need to rebuild your system and you have 7 picks in the top 88, you can't swing and miss on as many as they did.

I wouldn't expect a team that was 56-61 in a pathetic division to have had a ton of success in the draft lately.

When they actually had a good team in 2002 they certainly had a ton of success in the draft. 

Unless drafting Pierzynski, Mientkiewicz, Koskie, Jones, Hunter, Radke, Hawkins, Guardado and Romero isn't success in the draft.  They also directly cashed in a player they drafted for Milton and Guzman.   Or it doesn't count because it happened before 1998.  

The level of mediocrity that is celebrated at this website never ceases to amaze me.  The most pedestrian prospects are built into future building blocks, and nothing gets the natives riled up like pointing that out. 

The level of mediocrity that is celebrated at this website never ceases to amaze me.  The most pedestrian prospects are built into future building blocks, and nothing gets the natives riled up like pointing that out. 

This is essentially true of every website that follows one team in the world.  Fans tend to be optimistic about their teams.  More importantly, fans WANT to be optimistic about their team.   And there's absolutely nothing wrong with imagining the day JPA hits 30 HRs with gold glove defence behind the plate, Snider hits 50, and Stewart, Cecil, Zep and Mills all win 15 games.  That's part of the fun of being a fan.

This certainly minimizes your credibility.

If you say so.  I'm not writing anyone off.  I'm just pointing out that based on the results to date the 2007 draft is nothing to write home about, nevermind praise.  Based on what we have seen to date they completely missed on 4 of the top 88 picks including the 16th pick overall.

I guess that's it.   Rarely does anyone here ever talk about an actual major league Blue Jays game. 

For example, League's performance yesterday didn't even generate a single post , but you point out that Jackson can barely slug his weight in his third year as a pro and everyone comes running to his defense with every excuse in the book.

I'll try not to rain on your parades by pointing out that there really aren't any excuses for striking out 35% of the time in A ball.

pretzel logic... Don't worry.  The sabermetric crowd will never lose that number.

If I were halfway clever I'd have a line about how the Jays should scout more in Aja that wasn't lame.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with imagining the day JPA hits 30 HRs with gold glove defence behind the plate, Snider hits 50, and Stewart, Cecil, Zep and Mills all win 15 games.  That's part of the fun of being a fan.

Willing self-delusion is not my cup of tea and I am always baffled why others enjoy engaging in such. But, to each their own (Mylegacy has claimed self-delusion as his religion of choice). There seems room enough for everyone in this sandbox, the glass half-full types and the glass half-empty types. And the glass is overflowing types. And the glass is completely empty types.

Jackson must have a pretty decent eye to be getting on base at that clip with that BA. With some improved ability to make contact, his OBP could hit the .350+ range and with superior defence, he could be a useful SS yet. 

Low batting averages in the minors make me nervous. I think that if someone has the ability to make contact, they can develop power and they can develop strike zone judgment. I just don't know how teachable making contact itself is. Long ago, Bill James cited players with "old player" skills (slow, low batting average, ability to draw walks, ability to hit for power) and issued the warning that such players tend not to age well. Jackson is still very young, but he's going to have to start showing some "young player" skills at some point soon.

Tony Fernandez in his first cut at AAA hit 278/328/391.  Doesn't sound like a super prospect eh?  Of course, he was only 19.

Right. And the fact that he was 19 is HUGE. To be 19 and hold your own at AAA bodes extremely well. For all the talk of minor league performances at this site, I don't feel that age is mentioned nearly enough, nor whether a level is being repeated or not. Any forecasting of major league performance, even wishcasting, should heavily factor in these two pieces of data (in my opinion).

Actually, Jim, if you're going back further, the Twins' drafting record is actually a lot worse than the Jays.  The key to the Twins' success over the last 15 years can be boiled down to 3 key moves:

1.  the Santana Rule 5 pick,
2.  the Pierzynski trade, and
3.  the Mauer selection with the #1 overall pick. 

The 2002 Twins were 94-67 and the only time in the last 15 years they won a round in the playoffs.  That's the most games they won since 1991 when they won 95.

1.  Santana started 14 games that year.  Effective, but that was only the 6th most starts on the team.

2.  Pierzynski was the catcher on that team, they didn't trade him until AFTER the 2003 season.

3.  Joe Mauer's first year making a real contribution at the major league level was 2005.

So you are saying that the reason they had success was because of things that happened after they reached the peak of that success?  How does that make any sense at all?  

The reason they had success in 2002 and 2003 when they had a raft of players they drafted on the roster was predicated on a trade they made after the 2003 season?

A player that didn't reach the major leagues until 2004 was why they were so good in 2002 and 2003?

It is actually interesting to look at the Twins roster from 2002 and 2003 and try to deduce how they won as many games as they did each year.

In 2002, No bonafide stars in the lineup. Well balanced lineup 1 through 7 with two no hit fielding MI in Rivas and Guzman. The lineup had 4 "good" hitters (116 - 123 OPS+) and 3 "average" hitters (100 - 104 OPS+). No stars.

Their rotation was more of the same. No stars, one "good" starter - 37 year old Rick Reed posted a 118 ERA+, while Lohse, Milton, and Radke ranged between 92 and 105. Johan was fantastic for 14 starts (27 games total), to the tune of a 149 ERA+, but his good work over 108 innings was pretty well off-set by Joe Mays 82 ERA+ over 95 innings.

So... well balanced lineup with no major holes until you got to the very end of it. Bobby Keity was great off the bench over 348 PA's (136 OPS+), nobody else off the bench that got more than 100 AB was above 100 OPS+.

A very average rotation. However, one that would have 5 guys in a row giving their team a fair chance to win as opposed to a top heavy rotation (2 aces 3 fillers, or something).

But look at that bullpen!  Clearly the one area of this team where they were super elite. The 5 majority shareholders in the bullpen posted ERA+ of 136 (55innings), 210 (80 innings), 236 (81 innings), 141 (91 innings), and their closer, 153 (67 innings). That's 375 innings of extremely well pitched ball. 

Hmm, i'm still not convinced that a slightly above average overall lineup with an average rotation and an stellar bullpen is the recipe for 94 wins and a division championship.

Pythagoreas agrees, they scored 768 and allowed 712. Pythagoreas says they should have won 86 (+8...). They went 29-16 in 1 run games. A winning % only surpassed by the 103 win Oakland Athetlics (32-14) and the LAD (33-15), who themselves also won 92 games.

So I see a fairly balanced team that got a breakthrough season from their bullpen, the emergence of an ace, and a team that had the ball bounce the right direction a few more times over the course of the season than it normally does.

I doubt we would be talking about them if they went 87 - 75.

It's fine by me.    I'll leave you alone to say ridiculously glowing things about a draft that are far away from reality. 

Dang. I didn't  really realize saying "MIGHT" was "ridiculously glowing" - I'll try to dial back my giddyness a bit.

I'll just ignore your twisted pretzel logic.  Oh this is a good team because the third order winning percentage is good...... but these prospects are still really good even though the translations are bad.

Does BP consider the translations to be the last word on how good a prospect will be? I confess I'm not well schooled on just exactly what the theory is behind that set of numbers.

   This set of numbers has value because it matches what I want to be true... this other set of numbers doesn't have value because it isn't what I want to be true.

Um....the real life numbers DON'T support my position any more than the ones you quoted so...uh...yeah...whatever you were trying to say there...

My supporting evidence, such as it is, is the opinion of baseball professionals who have commented - not numbers of any sort.

One time a player was bad in A ball and turned out good.  That means we can ignore back to back seasons of 35% strikeouts!

Right. It was JUST Rios who took a while to get going. Just that ONE time. So silly of me that I didn't check the stats for the last 150 guys drafted out of high school to see if there was a pattern.

Even I don't have THAT much time.

In any case, I'm not ignoring the K rates- if you take the time to read my post just above the one I am now replying to, you will see I actually brought up Jackson's K rate.

but ignore the fact that needing that surgery has on your long term prognosis on your future

So what is your prognosis Dr. Jim?

Does BP consider the translations to be the last word on how good a prospect will be? I confess I'm not well schooled on just exactly what the theory is behind that set of numbers.

Of course they don't.  No one would but they give you an idea of the relationship between his age, his stats and what that has meant historically.

Um....the real life numbers DON'T support my position any more than the ones you quoted so...uh...yeah...whatever you were trying to say there...

I was saying that you like to use third order wins to talk about the quality of the major league team and how it's handy to pick and choose which numbers you use from BP.  When they fit your worldview they are great, when they don't not so much.

Right. It was JUST Rios who took a while to get going. Just that ONE time. So silly of me that I didn't check the stats for the last 150 guys drafted out of high school to see if there was a pattern. 

Obviously it's not one, I never said it was.  But for every 100 players who strike out 35% of the time in the low minors you probably get 1 legitimate major leaguer.  Jackson probably won't even be on a top 500 prospect list by the beginning of next year.  He'll be lucky to be 15th on the Jays list which is probably about 25th out of 30 teams. 

Could he still turn into something?  Yes, of course anything is possible.  What are the chances he plays 500 games in the major leagues?  10%?  Chances he ever makes an all-star team?  0.5%? 

Guys that walk with no power in the minor leagues get their bats knocked out of their hands as they climb the ladder.  Once the pitchers can throw strikes why would you walk a guy who slugs under .300?

I don't even see how his numbers compare with Rios anyway.  Yeah Rios had a low OPS when he was 20... but he only struck out 59 times in 529 at bats, and Rios strikes out about ~18% of the time in the major leagues.  

Just keep using the facts that help your case and ignore the ones that use them.

You're confusing me with someone who has a cause.

If you really think that Jackson's injuries and subsequent surgeries are good for his development

*sighs*

Jim I haven't read anything from anyone that says his injury is good for his development.

All i've read is that perhaps it played a role in his low BA and low SLG % this year.  We don't know, there are simply too many factors involved.

So we will watch and see how he does next year when he is supposedly healthy. If after an off-season of rehab he comes back next year and posts a sub .300 SLG % then we can start to say with more confidence that perhaps Jackson will never turn into the player we were hoping. But for now to say that he has no future based off this season is a bit harsh, because of extenuating circumstances. 

Um..hello?

The Jay's failed to sign 3 of there top 5 picks in the 2009 draft.  Isn't this bigger news than...whatever we've been talking about here?

Lots of interesting opinions - but maybe someone can fill me in on this guy "Jim".

I see where he is giving no credence at all to the impact of Jacksons shoulder injury. Thats seems odd - Jackson is a talented - and YOUNG - kid playing High A ball. You might want to give him another couple years before you write him off Jimbo.

And Emaus - with the exception of one bad month - has played pretty well.

Then - the comments about Mastroianni - "cratering" at AA? The guy is third on the team in hitting and has stolen 32 bases - in AA  alone - and has only been there for about 8 weeks. He is also turning into an excellent CF that covers alot of turf.

What gives with this guy Jim?