Jim Callis reports that Daniel Webb has been signed by the Jays - 450k bonus.

This leaves the Jays with 21 unsigned draft picks.  However, 15 of those are 15th round or later.  I do wonder if they'll try to come to terms with some of the later HS guys, though.

Of the five remaining who were drafted in the first six rounds (Paxton, Eliopoulos, Barrett, Marisnick, Hobson), Keith Law figures the Jays will ink four of them.  He mentioned Marisnick might be the one who slips through.  That said, anyone else remember Marisnick's Twitter on draft day where he said the Jays had met his price?  I wonder if they're just holding off on announcing it.  Getting kinda close, though.

From Keith Law:

I'm not sure where to post this, but this is from Blair regarding the possible payroll increase next season: (It's found about two thirds into the article unde the heading "Garbage Time":

"I keep hearing that Rogers Communications has let it be known that they will agree to increase the Toronto Blue Jays’ payroll, but only if Paul Beeston stays on as president and chief executive officer. The thinking is he would be allowed to hire a facilities management guy and bring in a veteran baseball person if he so desires to continue grooming Canadian-born assistant general manager Alex Anthopoulos … :

Obviously the Jays scouts saw something they like in Hobson, Ill leave it up to them to decide how much he deserves. Chances are he doesnt make it, but I like they are willing to pay a little extra cash for someone they actually like instead of going with a financially safe option.

my list of  top-10 jays prospects at the end of the year would probablyl includethe 9 of  Mills, Stewart, Farquhar, Cooper, Collins, Arencibia, Gonzalez, Sierra, and Chavez.

with the 10th spot going to one of Ray, Jackson, or Pastornicky.

If I had to put my picks in order, maybe something like this:

1. Z.Stewart
2. D.Cooper
3. B.Mills
4. J.P.Arencibia
5. M.Sierra
6. D.Farquhar
7. T.Collins
8. Y.Chavez
9. R.Gonzalez
10. J.Jackson/R.Ray/T,Pastornicky

Reidier Gonzalez doesn't get much love.  Low K numbers, late round pick, and still in AA despite posting some impressive results while guys get promoted ahead of him.

He's been injured for quite a while now.  I think it was his groin.  He came back and pitched  like one inning and aggravated it and has been shut down for the rest of the season.  He made accross the board improvements this year and at a higher level so he's definately worth watching in the future.

Jordan Bastien is also reporting on twitter that Hutchison (15th) has signed.  Anybody else seen any news on this?

"Jays have signed Marisnick (3rd rd), Hobson (6th), Hutchison (15th) and Webb (18th). Have inked 34 of 51 picks w/ 2 hours til deadline."

Per Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus (via Twitter):

States that some Boras deals have been done for days but unannounceable.  Not announced per direction of MLB.  His thoughts were concerning the 1st and 1st round supplemental.

This may include Paxton...

Pfft...the Jays aren't going to sign the remaining top 3 rounders as they want to give future GM Alex Anthopolous extra picks in the next draft.

Signed,

Consipracy Theorist

As per Bastian:

"If Toronto does not sign Paxton or Eliopoulos, the team would receive compensatory selections in next year's Draft. "

I thought if a team does not sign any of the top 3 round picks they are compensated...does that not include supplemental picks?

However, I highly doubt there is a strategy behind not signing drafted players.

Oh you are probably right...though considering this is the first time the Jays have been open about going over slot, would it not be a surprise if they are willing to play "hardball" more than other teams that casually go over slot? Not saying this is their thinking...just saying I would not be surprised...

And Strasburg signs!

Sources indicated that the #BlueJays did NOT sign supplemental 1st round pick and Scott Boras client James Paxton.

Tough year for #BlueJays as 2nd round pick Jake Eliopoulos and 3rd round pick Jake Barrett also do NOT sign.

Seriously if this is true the Jays are just a joke of a franchise at this point. Let Rios walk for nothing and fail to sign your #2, 3 and 4 picks? The comp picks are just an excuse to go cheap yet again. No way the Jays go for anything other than easy to sign college guys with these picks next year.Why should Jays fans even bother attending at all? Clearly there is zero commitment to winning, now or in the future. I seriously hope at this point the Jays are sold. Get an owner who cares about more than looking good for shareholders.

What a gigantic slap in the face these past two weeks have been.

The Paxton one really pisses me off. You knew he was a Boras client. You should know every picks asking price. There are just no intelligent excuses for this.

So much for the theory that the dumping of Rios was a good baseball decision.   According to that theory, the savings would be reinvested in the drafted prospects.  Whoops, never happened.

It's obvious that Beeston and Ricciardi have been misleading us all -- to protect their employer.  But isn't that what employees do?  They like their jobs, so they carry out their assignments, even if they have to lie to the public.  Beeston and Ricciardi were required to put a happy face on all of this, so that's what they're doing.  They're pretending that "cash is king" and pretending that all of the salary dumps and budget cuts and bean-counting savings are intended to HELP the Jays.  No, they're intended to help the employer -- as always happens in the corporate world.  Why are we surprised?  Corporations want to make profits, and they hire the employees who will do it for them.  Canadian corporations don't want to invest in a risky long-term return if they have a guaranteed flow of easy short-term profits from cellphones, Internet, television etc.   Why are we so flabbergasted by the simple reality of the Canadian business world?

What's frustrating about all of this is that the Jays could have made a playoff run in 2009 or 2010 with Halladay and the good young pitchers and Lind and Hill and Scutaro and Rolen, if only the owners had enough guts to invest an extra $20-million in the core of the team that they had.  The gaps in the lineup were obvious in the offseason.  A good DH and 1B could have been purchased, Lind could have been shifted to the outfield, and the team would have had a crack at the playoffs.  of course Vernon Wells might still have sabotaged the whole thing, but at least the Jays would have had a shot at contending.

Its not like these picks are lost. They will get them back next year, they drop a spot in the draft but that might not be that bad.

I am aware that Bastian reported as much, for the 1s and 2 round picks, but I was always under the impression that only 1 round picks were replaced if the player went unsigned.

just maybe there is some sort of plan here.

Sure and just maybe the Tooth Fairy is going to leave a catcher and shortstop under Riccardi's pillow this winter.

We don't know a lot of what is going on internally, but at this point it's pretty clear there is no plan.   What could the plan possibly be?  Run the major league team into the ground while at the same time destroying the minor league system?

Getting the picks next year aren't nearly as valuable as having the picks in your system now.  It causes two issues, you'll have fewer assets in the nearer term and if you have too many picks in any one draft the team can't afford to pay the bonuses that players picked that early command.

Are they trying to win now?  Pretty obvious that they aren't.  Are they trying to win in 2010?  The jury is still out on that, but I'm guessing probably not.   Are they trying to win past 2010?  Based on this debacle, it's not looking like that is a goal.

Marisnick was selected with the Yankees third rounder, not Barrett.

Also, this from Baseball America confirms that we will indeed be compensated in next year's draft for the lost picks.  Some consolation at least.

There are no extra selections due to unsigned picks this year, but that could change. To encourage teams to take a harder line on signing bonuses, MLB pushed through a rule change for unsigned picks in the first three rounds, beginning with this draft.

If a team doesn't sign a pick in the first or second round, it gets a pick in essentially the same slot in the next draft. Previously, unsigned first-rounders merited a pick at the end of the supplemental first round. Unsigned picks beyond that drew no compensation. So if the Pirates didn't sign the No. 4 pick this year, they would get a pick just after No. 4 next year (which would be labeled as 4-A).

Unsigned third-round picks will merit a supplemental pick between the third and fourth rounds next year. The hope from MLB's perspective is that teams will be more willing to walk away from a draft pick (and exorbitant bonus) if they know they will get an equivalent pick the next year.

The chance of us drafting a player of Paxton's caliber (ie: 1st round talent, high upside) with that supplemental pick is going to be very low.

Thats just not true. There are players just like him every year in the Supplemental Round. Brett Cecil was drafted in that round, so was Dustin McGowan. There is ALOT of talent still available at that slot every year. I cant beleive all of the overraction to this on players nobody here has even watched play a single game. Do you not realize the Jays have a chance to draft these exact same players next year if they so chose? They are not gone... they havn't lost out on anything. I think it would have been a bigger mistake to sign a guy like paxton for 2M and then him turn into a bust. The scouts obviously put a price tag on the talent and these guys were just asking too much. They must not have been convinced these guys were the real deal. I don't think it has anything to do with ownership.

No, he's not Porcello, but he's still probably a Top 10/first half of first round pick if he has a good year at Kentucky this year. Now, he was probably seeking a bonus that reflected his potential, but the Jays should not have drafted him if they weren't willing to pay what he was demanding. That speaks to your second point, about there not being a plan with this front office and that couldn't be clearer.

From Jim Callis's chat at BA today:

JP Riccardi & The Rest of Jays Management (Toronto): We brilliantly saved the club millions by letting Rios walk and even more brilliantly, we didn't bother signing 3 of our top 4 draft picks (they take too long to arrive anyways, whereas we can have money now in our pockets). Please, tell us how amazing our signing decisions were this year - feel free to compliment us on letting Paxton, Eliopoulos and Barrett walk.

Jim Callis: Hmmmm, sarcasm. I haven't talked to the Jays or seen a post-mortem yet, but their draft strategy seemed odd, to say the least. They'll recoup compensation picks for their unsigned sandwich-, second- and third-rounders, but why take that many over-slot guys at the top of the draft if you can't or won't sign them? They did land Jacob Marisnick for $1 million and got a couple of other guys done late, but they let a lot of talent walk away.

Do you not realize the Jays have a chance to draft these exact same players next year if they so chose? They are not gone... they havn't lost out on anything.

One small point: I believe that if a team chooses a player in the draft in consecutive years, the team must receive permission from the player first. So, the Jays' attempts next year at drafting Paxton might rely entirely on his decision, not the team's.

I've looked at the Star article and find it extremely implausible and lacking in credibility.  The claim that Rogers would have allowed the Jays to spend $110-million this season is unsourced, unexplained and utterly contradicted by the facts on the ground.  Every single personnel move over the past 18 months has been aimed at cutting payroll, slashing budget, dumping salaries and going cheap.  Has there been a single high-priced player acquired since Frank Thomas?  A single high-priced contract since Scott Downs or Aaron Hill?  The facts make it plain that Rogers is cutting payroll and never had any intention of offering extra money.

 Moreover, the failure to sign three top drafts is the final nail in Doc Halladay's coffin.  The Star article suggests that the Jays might try to extend him.  Why would Halladay even contemplate such an absurdity after the salary dumps and budget cuts of 2009?  He has made it very clear that he wants to play for a winner, and a move to a new team is his last best chance of that.  HIs body language and terse comments since the trade deadline have made it obvious that he sees no future for himself on this team.  He'll be gone in the offseason. 

The Star article, with its lack of sources and absence of attribution, suggests that the Star is being spun like a laundry machine.  Why did they allow themselves to be spun so blatantly by the Jays management?

The language that is needed to describe this organization isn't even allowed on Drunk Jays Fans.

The idea that the payroll is tied to someone in the front office staying in the company's employ is ridiculous on every level. 

The idea that Riccardi didn't spend 30 million dollars that would have been available if they didn't have so many pitching injuries is also ridiculous on every level.

I don't know if I've ever seen something run quite this poorly and as bleak as I've said the future looks, based on the past few weeks it is probably much worse.  The people running this franchise are idiots, and they think that the fans are idiots. 

I would try and figure out what they are trying to accomplish, but I think at this point it is impossible.  My best guess is that they think they maximize their profits while minimizing their risk if they build a team that wins 73-77 games.  Sure they could invest in the brand and potentially win 90 games, but that comes with a lot of risk.  They could go Marlins and try to build for the long term, but that hurts their corporate marketing arm.  Instead they will just make random moves, not becoming a complete laughingstock on the field by spending 80-90 million dollars, but not investing the capital it takes to build a real winning team. 

Riccardi delivers the lies and he stays employed. 

If you're going to pick guys, then sign them.

Well Anthopoulos says they're going to pick the best players and offer them what they're worth.  If they lose some guys along the way, fine, there'll be extra picks from previously lost guys to compensate (except in the first year of said strategy).  Over the long haul, agents recognize your strategy and won't call your bluff, and you get the best talent available at the appropriate price.  The strategy has merit (except this year).

I think what's most disappointing is that Paxson, Eliopoulis and Barrett were the kind of young, high ceiling starting pitchers that we had been longing for.  In the end, we signed a projectable college righty and a toolsy outfielder.  Same old, same old.

By the way, we did come away with the 20th and 71st best players in the draft, according to BA.

And happy 20th birthday Robert Webb.  Don't blow your $450k in one place.

WillRain, I do like your optimism, but I'm just not buying JP's argument.  He's still claiming that the Jays intended to write off 2009 and make a big push for 2010.   By now, it's clear that this is just total nonsense.  Several essential pieces of the 2010 puzzle have been dumped or nearly dumped in recent weeks. They dumped Rolen, their only chance for a decent 3B in 2010.  (There's absolutely nobody in the Jays system who can replace Rolen in 2010, and EE is clearly a far inferior player.)  They nearly dumped Halladay -- and would have actually dumped Halladay if they'd gotten a slightly better package of prospects from the Phillies -- and in fact have just about burned their bridges with Halladay by now, so he's effectively gone for 2010.   They dumped Rios, even though there is nobody in the system to replace him for 2010.   Where is the plan for 2010?  They've clearly weakened the team's chances for 2010.

The most revealing quote from Ricciardi in the latest interview is this line:  "The unfortunate thing is that we got off to a really good start...."    In other words, JP actually regrets the Jays success in the first few weeks of this season!  (This after he had publicly proclaimed that the Jays must get off to a fast start in 2009 after their slow starts in previous seasons.)   Basically JP is unhappy with the fast start by the Jays this year because it screwed up his plan to hit rock bottom this year!  He was actually hoping for failure in 2009, so that 2010 would look like progress.  This is unbelievable -- a GM who wanted the Jays to fail this year, a GM who says it is unfortunate that they won a lot of games in the first month!

Now I know that WillRain will try to spin this quote in a more positive direction, but I think his words are pretty clear and unintentionally very revealing.

What's your argument here? that they are intentionally TRYING to be a bad team?

Here's a thought - maybe they have different ideas about how to be a good team than you do. they might be wrong, of course - as might you - but it makes a lot more sense than assuming they have no desire to do things to be a good team.

You really are just difficult at this point to pick fights right?  I don't have an argument there, I am quite literally trying to figure out what their plan is by looking at their moves and can't find anything that resembles a cognant series of thoughts that can even be put together as a plan in any sort of plausible way.

What have they done in the last two months that would lead you to believe they are trying to win baseball games at the major league level?

They have traded Rolen, shopped Halladay, given Rios away, given Kevin Millar at-bats as a cleanup hitter, allowed the same pitchers in the bullpen to implode repeatedly, the manager sits on his hands during games...  Where in the last month has this team done something that leads you to believe they are trying to win baseball games at the major league level today?  If they aren't signing draft picks what does that mean for 2012, 2013 and beyond?

Maybe there is some grand master plan to take the payroll to 120 million dollars and try to win in 2010, I'll believe it when I see it.

I think it's 100% reasonable to draw the conclusion that Rogers is ok with the Blue Jays being in 4th place and staying that way.  

 I mean, sure it could be a flat out lie,

You seem like a smart enough guy to have learned by now that you can't believe anything that anyone associated with this team says.  Yet, here you are defending them based on what they said today.  Of course they are going to say things like this - it's the day after they were publicly humilated by not signing 3 of their top 4 picks.  They are placating you.  Is there such a thing as battered fan syndrome?

According to the Anthopolous interview, the plan is bluntly to draft the best player available, in their opinion, with every pick.

And then not sign them.

You're accusing me of being irrational because I am taking JP at his word?  He says it was "unfortunate" that the Jays had a fast start.  I think it's pretty clear that his strategy was to write off 2009 -- he is bascially admitting that now.  The fast start, he admits, threw a wrench in his strategy.  If I'm being irrational in believing what JP says, then shouldn't you be accusing JP of being irrational?  I'm just quoting his own words.

As for Rolen -- the trade MIGHT help the Jays in the long run, if the two pitchers develop as they should.  But surely you admit that the Rolen trade does NOT help the team in 2010.  Nor does the near-certain trade of Halladay for long-term prospects.  So now JP is obviously not playing for 2010 either.  How can you seriously argue that JP wants to win in 2010 if he weakens the team at 3B and gets rid of Rios without any return at all, and burns his bridges with Halladay?

I'm sorry, but JP's own words are making it very clear:  he never intended to win in 2009 (despite the foolishness of the fans who were excited by the fast start) and now he's punting 2010 as well.

And for anyone who thinks that I am quoting JP unfairly or "out of context", here is the full quote so that you can judge for yourself:

"I think we’re probably playing the way we all expected in spring training. The unfortunate thing is that we got off to a really good start and once you get off to a really good start I think expectations went out the window except everybody in the front office. We kept saying we’re still young in a lot of these areas and are going to go through some growing pains."

I don't see any other way of interpreting this quote.  JP is saying that he expected the Jays to suck this season and knew it would happen  He says the 4th-place losing record that the team currently holds (the "growing pains" as he calls it) is fully what he expected.  Then he bemoans the misfortune of the "really good start" which increased the expectations of the fans (everyone except the smart guys -- "everybody in the front office" -- who apparently knew all along that the team would suck).

 What bothers me is a GM who plans for failure, who accepted defeat in 2009 because he couldn't be bothered to pursue a free agent or two.  He was pessimistic about 2009 so he didn't take any steps to give the team a better shot in 2009.   I could accept it if he was sacrificing 2009 to build a strong team for 2010, but instead he is creating more gaps and holes in the lineup for next year.  He created a gap at 3B which wasn't necessary.  He is clearly planning to trade his ace pitcher for prospects, rather than trying to persuade him that the team could win.  (The trade that he tried to arrange with the Phillies would have certainly weakened the team for 2010, even if there is some optimistic possibility that he would have acquired prospects that COULD have helped the team in the long run.)  I'm not being emotional in saying this, I'm simply analyzing the lineup for 2010 -- even if somehow JP manages to keep Scutaro, which seems unlikely -- and I see gaps that cannot be filled in the free-agent market, even if we optimistically believe that the Jays will get a bigger payroll in 2010, which I'm very skeptical about.

Ozzieball, you're buying JP's spin on the Rolen trade.  Rolen may have requested a trade, but the Jays were not obliged to trade him.  Was it a mere coincidence that the Jays were able to cut their payroll by $10-million in 2010 by trading Rolen?  Perhaps you thought it wasn't a salary dump when Rolen was traded, but didn't you notice a bit of a pattern later when JP dumped Rios for no return at all and when he tried to trade Halladay and when he failed to sign three top draft picks?  You really don't think that budget-cutting is the common thread in all of these deals?  I think it's a little naive to believe that his trades are just his human kindness to help out a guy who wants to be traded. For his next act, JP is going to kindly help Halladay to go elsewhere too.  Alternatively he could have tried to convince Rolen and Halladay to stay with the Jays because the team has a chance of winning in 2010, but I suspect that he isn't able to make this case convincingly and would rather please his owners by saving $30-million on the combined Rolen-Halladay salaries in 2010.

James W and lexomatic, your charitable view of JP"s comments is interesting, but even if we accepted it as accurate, it still means that JP was unhappy with the rising expectations of the Toronto fans in the first couple months of the season.  So we have a GM who doesn't want his own fans to get excited about his team's performance.  He calls it "unfortunate" that the fans were happy at the team's early success.  Why?  Because the fans were complicating his life, putting pressure on him to improve the team, and he didn't want to meet those expectations, or he knew that the owners wouldn't allow him to.  So, even if we take this interpretation of JP's comments, the implications are just as bad: a GM who prefers to keep expectations as low as possible, to make his life easier, and finds it disagreeable when the fans want more from his team.

If JP wants to explain the problems of 2009, he would have a stronger case if he pointed to the stratospheric payrolls of the Yankees and the Red Sox, as he has done in the past.  Instead he's making this argument about the "growing pains" of the Jays, which would be nice if the Jays were clearly growing in a forward direction.  But when he undercuts the team in 2010 by trading (or trying to trade) some of its better players, I'm failing to see enough growth to justify these "growing pains" that we are supposedly enduring.

WillRain, I think you're going after different elements in the Jays fan base, not the same people. The people who bemoaned the Ryan/Thomas/Rios/Wells contracts are probably not the same people who bemoaned the failed draft signings. Most fans are probably like me on the Ryan/Rios/Thomas/Wells contracts:  we were happy that the owners were willing to spend money and take a gamble on these guys. Sure, we were disappointed when they later failed to live up to expectations, but at least they produced one or two good seasons for the money and the gamble was probably worth taking, especially in the earlier climate when it seemed that the owners had a lot of money.  Our position is consistent: we want the owners to spend money, to take risks, to sign top draft choices and sign free agents, even if the gambles don't always pay off.  When they DON'T spend money -- when they don't sign their top draft choices and when they trade players primarily to save money -- that's when we become disappointed. 

WillRain, you're saying that the Jays should sacrifice a "good-but-not-great" season in order to have a great chance in the following season.  I fully agree with you.  (I'm not advocating "just enough spending" to get 85-win seasons -- I'm not sure where you got that notion.)  But where is the evidence that the Jays are aiming for a "great" result in the next season or two, without Rolen and Rios and Halladay and probably without Scutaro?   I have to agree with Mike Green's comment here -- ownership has crippled their chances in 2010 and probably 2011 too.

 You're also off-base in assuming that I wanted the Jays to pick up a mid-range hitter in the early months of this season, after the hot start.  No, I was talking about the offseason after the 2008 season, when some decent free-agent hitters were available for DH and 1B.   The Jays didn't even attempt to sign any big hitters in the offseason, even though this was an obvious hole in their lineup.  I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a strong DH (allowing Lind to go to LF) would have put the Jays closer to the wild-card race.  And why would it necessarily harm the team's chances in 2010 to sign a good hitter before the 2009 season?  You're assuming that money spent in 2009 cannot be spent again in 2010 -- not necessarily true if ownership is commited.  You're also assuming that the owners would save their pennies and spent it all on wonderful free agents before the 2010 season -- a generous assumption.

I'm connecting this to the Ricciardi comments about "unfortunate" expectations for the following reason:  I suspect that the team's hot start was somewhat embarrassing to Ricciardi and Beeston, casting a spotlight on their failure to pursue any free agents in the offseason.  I think they were assuming (and expecting) poor performance by the Jays in 2009 to justify their lack of spending after the 2008 season and to make them look better if the team improved in 2010.  I'm not saying they WANTED a bad result, I'm just saying that they were ASSUMING a bad result, and they could have allowed that assumption to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.   If the GM and Beeston were expecting a bad result in 2009, there is a danger that subconsciously (or even consciously) they were behaving in a risk-averse way that allowed their expectations to become reality.

Nobody in Jays management ever said that pitching was their ONLY need in the offseason.  They NEVER said they had "enough hitting" -- I defy you to find a single quote saying anything like that.  In fact, they acknowledged that they also needed a big hitter, a DH or whatever.  If you go back a few months on this thread, Jays sources were openly being quoted about a possible bid for a DH-type hitter.  Ibanez was being touted as an obvious possibility for the Jays, especially since JP had tried to acquire him at the 2008 trading deadline.  And it would have been much easier to sign a veteran hitter for one or two or three seasons than a pitcher for 4 or 5 years, so we're not talking about a Lowe, we're talking about Ibanez (for example).

Anyway our argument is somewhat pointless because we're arguing about hypothetical possibilities here, and you can always argue that the Jays should not have signed anyone because you knew they weren't going to compete in 2009 anyway.  My point is -- why don't the owners at least make an attempt?  If they're not trying, the fans are going to notice it, and yes, some of them are going to become more bitter and cynical.

However, please don't describe me as bitter and cynical -- that would be highly inaccurate because I'll continue following the Jays and cheering them on, regardless of how bad the ownership is.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that Beeston is flat-out lying.   But remember just a couple weeks ago when Ricciardi defended the Rios deal by saying that "cash is king."  The clear implication is that the Jays would spend their cash on useful things, like their top draft choices.  They didn't.  So we should be skeptical when we hear Beeston and Ricciardi promising that the cash will be spent on good things.

After all, Beeston and Ricciardi would never be allowed to acknowledge that Rogers is simply pocketing the money.  That's just not done.  They HAVE to give it an optimistic spin.  Does it mean that they are flat-out lying?  Does it mean that Rogers is pocketing the cash?  Not necessarily, but it is logical for us to be skeptical of the official explanation.

It's unreasonable to expect the fans to produce absolute proof that Rogers is pocketing the cash -- how can anyone prove that at this stage?  But I suspect in 2010 we will have a pretty clear answer.

Wait wait, your problem is with the guy hitting 320/346/680 (small sample size argument accepted) who missed on a pitch?  Even that Pujols guy misses the occasional pitch.  And for what it's worth, I'd rather have had Ruiz up than the departed Rios.

There are many bigger culprits than bad luck, or Randy Ruiz.  Looking at you, Ricky Romero and Casey Janssen.

BJ blew up and got dumped.

Rich, how does that affect Toronto's ability to attract free agents in the future?  If anything, it might impress some free agents that the Jays were willing to give a 5-year contract to that riskiest of commodities, the closer.

The Jays historical track record of attracting free agents or not attracting free agents is unlikely to be a determining factor for the 2010 free agents.  There are only three real factors in Toronto's ability to attract free agents:  1) money; 2) the prospect of being on a winning team; 3) the prospect of playing in a foreign market with few marketing possibilities in the US.   The Jays can't do anything about the 3rd factor, but they can certainly control the first 2 factors if they want. 

they might know full well they want Figgins this offseason and so moving rolen was no problem at all - or they might have assesed the situation after Rolen made his request and decided that was a reasonably non-impact sideways shift in the major league roster while picking up a couple of good young pitchers.

WillRain, with due respect, those possible explanations for the Rolen trade really make no sense at all.  How could the Jays be confident of acquiring Figgins or a simlar player in the offseason?  Attracting any free agent to Toronto is a battle.  It can be done, but even if the Jays make a massive determined bid for Figgins, their chances are 50-50 at best.  (See:  Meche, Gil.) They know that they are at a huge disadvantage against big-payroll big-market teams if any of them make a bid for Figgins (or even small-market teams -- see: Meche, Gil).  So it really stretches credibility to suggest that the Jays would trade a Gold Glove top-hitting 3B because they were confident of replacing him with an equally good player in the offseason.  (Same thing about Jason Bay, by the way:  there's less than a 50-50 chance of luring him to Toronto, and no sane executive could COUNT on the likelihood of acquiring someone like him.)

Your other suggestion is that the Jays saw it as a "non-impact sideways shift in the major league roster" while acquiring a couple of good young pitchers.  But it's already clear that EE is far inferior to Rolen, both with the bat and the glove.  He's definitely a downwards shift.  It's really hard to make a case that EE is in any way comparable to Rolen.

I could go further and question the two young pitchers -- one of whom is not so young any more (27 in fact) and hasn't impressed so far on the Jays, the other is likely to become a reliever and has less value than a starter -- but that's not even necessary for my basic argument, which is that the Rolen trade is part of the evidence that the Jays aren't planning to make a big push for contention in 2010.  Those two young pitchers are unlikely to be big factors in 2010, even if they eventually do become useful to the Jays, and EE is equally unlikely to help the Jays become contenders in 2010.

I do agree that the Jays will prove me wrong if they acquire some great players in the offseason and make a big push for 2010 contention, and I do agree that I don't have a crystal ball and cannot be absolutely certain that this will not happen.  But on the balance of probabilities, based on all the evidence of the past two months, and the evidence of the past 18 months, I'm reasonably confident that this is an unlikely scenario.

There is no way in the world that Papelbon is the second best closer in the game.  His stuff is so far down from past years it's not even funny.  The pitch he got Ruiz out on was so bad Frank Viola in the Red Sox booth was in shock that he got away with it.  

While Ruiz deserves a pass for having already hit a homerun in the game -- to say nothing of 3 in 6 games -- he did not look good in the Papelbon at-bat. He definitely got a couple of nice fat mistake pitches that he didn't do anything with, letting Papelbon off the hook. Still, when you give up 10 runs, you can't hang the loss on one poor at-bat.

Re Papelbon, I definitely agree that something is wrong, despite his ERA of just over 2. His location isn't there (just check out his walk rate this year). He doesn't seem to throw the splitter any more. And he doesn't seem to have his mid-90's gas, or at least he didn't last night. He hasn't gone Brad Lidge or anything, but something just ain't right.

Bay's becoming an American citizen bears no relevance to which team he'll sign for in the offeason. He became an American citizen, in part at least, because it made the paperwork much easier for him. Perhaps there was smoe patriotism towards the US involved, but I doubt that was his prime or sole motivation. His wife and two daughters are American and I don't doubt he spends much of his time during the winter in the States. However, he didn't do it out of any dislike for Canada and still intends to play for Canada in the 2013 WBC.

Now, I would beat heavy amounts of money that Bay will not sign here in the offseason for a variety of reasons. But becoming an American citizen is not one of them.

It's not a question of intelligence -- I never implied that Ricciardi or Beeston or Rogers are stupid people.  To the contrary, I think they are intelligently following a plan -- but it's a plan to reduce costs and maximize profits. 

My point is merely to suggest that they should turn their intelligence in a different direction.  Instead of maximizing profits, they should be good corporate citizens with a conscientious sense of CSR by investing some of their profits in a public good:  the welfare of Canada's only major-league baseball team, a team that could inspire a nation and boost the morale of millions of people. Now there's an intelligent use of corporate resources.

I'm not sure if this is what you were saying or not, but Al Franken is certainly not an idiot. He graduated from Harvard with honours. His interviews and radio show demonstrate he is very articulate and knowledgeable and his appearances in debates or various Senate committee already show he has a strong grasp of policy. I think that total indicates he is fairly intelligent.

Disagree with his politics all you want but, compared to the sorry state that is much of the current US political climate, Al Franken is not one of the first names that should be picked on. /end politics on the Box.