Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Jamey Newberg, a Baurxite since 2006, creates the best daily team-oriented MLB e-newsletter on the planet, the Texas Rangers Newberg Minor League Report. In today's edition, he goes all Toronto on us, as he has done a couple of times before. Enjoy ...
I’ve been a little under the weather the last couple days, so I’ve reached out to our pal north of the border to pinch-hit today. You might remember this guy from a couple entries he shared with us in 2006.

THE NOUVEAU-BERGERON REPORT
The tragic number for the Jays is now down to four. It would be a waste of time talking about tonight’s game in Baltimore or the weekend series in Boston. This isn’t a bad team – we’d be in second place in the AL West – but there’s plenty of work to be done if we’re gonna make any noise the next few years in the East. Let’s look at something two of the four teams who will be in the playoffs this year did in 2007 to help get them where they are now.



Texas traded Mark Teixeira (and Ron Mahay) to Atlanta at the July trade deadline that year, getting future cornerstones Elvis Andrus and Neftali Feliz, neither of whom had yet reached Class AA, plus rookie catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia and lefthanders Matt Harrison (AA) and Beau Jones (Low A).

That November, Tampa Bay traded Rookie of the Year runner-up Delmon Young to Minnesota for young righthander Matt Garza and shortstop Jason Bartlett. (The Rays also gave up utility infielder Brendan Harris and minor league outfielder Jason Pridie, who the Twins had drafted via Rule 5 two years earlier but sold back to the Rays, and the Twins parted with relief prospect Eduardo Morlan.)

You think the Braves would like a do-over on that first one? General Manager John Schuerholz, about to vacate his post, got super-aggressive, trading for Teixeira, Mahay, Octavio Dotel, and Royce Ring on July 31, but ended up missing the playoffs for just the second time in 13 years. And the Braves haven’t been to the post-season since.

They’re two games out of first in the NL East right now. But how much better off would they be if they’d held onto Andrus and Feliz? Or moved those two in separate trades from each other and from Saltalamacchia, who lots of teams wanted, and Harrison, who was Atlanta’s top pitching prospect coming into that season and second maybe only to Tommy Hanson at the time of the Rangers trade?

For one thing, if they’d kept Andrus they wouldn’t have had to trade the player they felt made him expendable – the regressing Yunel Escobar – two months ago for middle-aged shortstop Alex Gonzalez. (As a Jays fan, I couldn’t be happier that they did.)

Toronto has a unique surplus at a key position and an opportunity to get better because of it.

Tampa Bay had Carl Crawford and B.J. Upton in its outfield, Rocco Baldelli bouncing in and out of health, and Desmond Jennings coming when they decided in November 2007 to trade Young, who had some rumoured makeup issues, for a young starter with top-of-the-rotation potential. (They had Elijah Dukes, too, but he would be traded five days after Young was.)

When Atlanta traded Andrus in July 2007, the club had veteran shortstop Edgar Renteria locked up through 2009, and the 24-year-old Escobar two months into his rookie season, hitting .314/.358/.400.

The names aren’t as glitzy, but the depth we have in catchers may be almost as strong as what the Rays had in the outfield and the Braves had at shortstop three years ago.

This year at AAA Las Vegas, we had J.P. Arencibia, MVP of the Pacific Coast League. At High A Dunedin, there was Travis d’Arnaud, ranked by Florida State League managers as the circuit’s best defensive catcher. At Low A Lansing, A.J. Jimenez was ranked as the Midwest League’s best defensive catcher. Some people think Short-Season A Auburn catcher Carlos Perez will be the best of the whole group.

It’s the kind of strength behind the plate that the Rangers seemingly had two years ago . . . which illustrates the importance of not holding onto everyone too long.

At the end of the 2008 season, every newspaper in the Boston market and in North Texas, not to mention the ESPN and Fox folks among others, had Gerald Laird and Saltalamacchia and Taylor Teagarden and Max Ramirez lined up on one side, and Clay Buchholz and Justin Masterson and Michael Bowden and Daniel Bard and Nick Hagadone on the other, and constructed a thousand trade rumours. Who knows if the Rangers had any real opportunities to make a catcher-for-pitcher deal with the Red Sox that winter? But if they did, it’s too bad for them that they didn’t pounce.

And in short order, Texas has gone from catching-rich to completely unsure about the position going forward.

There’s a lesson there.

And for Toronto, I think, an opportunity.

To draw a comparison, John Buck is probably our Laird. Nice player, but he’s not the long-term answer, both because he’s 30 years old and a free agent, and because Arencibia, the offense-first Saltalamacchia equivalent, is probably ready. While he’s not as close to the big leagues, d’Arnaud is what Teagarden was in 2008, an agile defender who throws well and profiles as a regular despite less upside with the bat. There’s not really a Ramirez equivalent in the Toronto system, just as there wasn’t a Perez down below two years ago in the Rangers organization (though in retrospect maybe Jose Felix was that guy).

So if the idea is to take advantage of that depth now, rather than hope our guys’ value builds even further, the question becomes whether to trade one of the catchers in a huge deal, like the Braves did with Andrus, or to move one in more of a value-for-value swap, like the Rays more or less did with Young.

The Jays system is average. There are high-end righthanders Kyle Drabek and Zach Stewart, plus a leadoff center field type in Anthony Gose, all of whom were acquired in trades, plus 2010 first-round righty Deck McGuire, Cuban shortstop Adeiny Hechavarria, and the catchers. Toronto needs to be building its young core, not loading up for one veteran player and mortgaging the top tier of the farm to do it.

So I like the Rays-Twins model better.

Which catcher do I trade? Depends on which one it takes to get the player we want, of course, but it seems that d’Arnaud should be the guy. Traded a year ago himself in what was Philadelphia’s own Teixeira deal – Drabek, d’Arnaud, and Michael Taylor from the Phillies to the Jays for Roy Halladay (Taylor was flipped to Oakland for Brett Wallace, who was then sent to Houston in July for Gose, who had come from Philadelphia in the Roy Oswalt trade) – the 22-year-old was having a strong year at High A before a back injury cut his season short at the end of July. Would we be selling low since d’Arnaud finished the year hurt? Maybe so, but given the weak state of the position across the league, there could be a team willing to step up on him.

I don’t move Arencibia. Let Buck sign elsewhere, and give J.P. the job. Keep Jose Molina around to back him up.

I’d rather not move Perez, and at age 19 with only short-season experience he’s not going to key a deal yet anyway.

Jimenez isn’t on the same tier as the others.

For me, Arencibia is the answer in Toronto right now, and we can be patient with Perez as he develops. If d’Arnaud isn’t so devalued by the back injury that clubs are trying to steal him from us, it would make sense that he’d be the one to move.

Speaking of how the Rangers’ catching depth turned upside down the past couple years, that’s the team I want to deal with. They could use a long-term answer behind the plate. And they’re loaded with trade pieces.

(Also speaking of Texas, you ought to read this outstanding article that good Canadian Jonah Keri published this week on pitching injuries, with its focus on what the Rangers are doing to build and protect their young arms. It’s remarkable work.)

You know, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the Rangers, who have used Matt Treanor, Bengie Molina, Teagarden, Ramirez, and Saltalamacchia this year, go after Buck this winter, just as they did last off-season. Maybe they go with Buck and Treanor, and keep Teagarden at AAA since he’ll have one option left.

Felix will be at AA. Texas can pair him up with d’Arnaud and develop them together. Maybe that’s the tandem in Arlington one day.

What do we target from the Rangers? What does Toronto need? In the short term, maybe a first baseman or DH (whichever spot Adam Lind doesn’t fill) and some major bullpen help (several key guys are likely gone this winter). Long term, the way this lineup strikes out, we could use some guys who reach base, and probably another outfielder to develop.

But you can’t solve every need in one trade.

And you have to trade wisely. I don’t even want to look back at what we did with Michael Young, Felipe Lopez, Cesar Izturis, and Brent Abernathy when we had all of them coming up as middle infield prospects. We traded all of them, and lost in every deal.

I want Tanner Scheppers or Alexi Ogando. Jason Frasor and Scott Downs are probably gone after this season, and who knows if we keep Kevin Gregg around? Either Scheppers or Ogando steps into the bullpen right away and eventually settles in as our Neftali Feliz.

I’d like Mitch Moreland, too, but I’m not sure the Rangers would move him unless they have a plans to bring in a big bat at first base this winter. David Murphy would be a great fit, but that’s another player I’d have a hard time seeing the Rangers part with for a future piece, given their plans to contend again in 2011.

I like Pedro Strop, too. He hasn’t done it in Texas, but neither did Robinson Tejeda.

And I love Engel Beltre, a five-tool center field talent who started to put things together this year.

Ramirez will be out of options and I like the bat, but if Arencibia settles in as the starter here, his backup needs to be a more dependable veteran. Again, Jose Molina is a perfect fit.

How about this: Travis d’Arnaud and John McDonald (yeah, he’s 36, but he’s under contract for $1.5 million next year and would give Texas a lockdown defender who can back up at every infield position, plus he’s shown a little pop this season) for either Scheppers or Ogando, plus Chris Davis, who has an option left and needs a change of scenery?

Is that too much to ask Texas for? If it is, they’re the kind of organization that would probably take a high-reward kid even if he’s years away, maybe one from Latin America. OK, give them 20-year-old Dominican righty Misual Diaz.

Or how about d’Arnaud and McDonald for Beltre and Strop?

Even though young catching is thin right now around the league, there are several teams with a surplus like we have. The Reds have Yasmani Grandal and Devin Mesoraco. The Nationals have Wilson Ramos and Derek Norris. The Rockies have Wilin Rosario, Jordan Pacheco, and Michael McKenry. The Yankees, behind Jesus Montero (man, Seattle screwed up on that Cliff Lee deal), have Austin Romine and Gary Sanchez. Cleveland has Lou Marson (who Philadelphia traded as part of its package for Lee a year ago) behind Carlos Santana.

The point is there are other teams out there with a high-end catcher prospect they can trade. I think the Jays need to jump on this before they find themselves like the Rangers did when they held onto their depth too long.

The Texas catching situation, with Buck and Treanor in the big leagues, Teagarden and Ramirez at AAA, and d’Arnaud and Felix at AA (with Jorge Alfaro and Kellin Deglan developing below, and maybe Vin DiFazio or Tomas Telis if his arm bounces back or Leonel De Los Santos if the bat comes around at all), would suddenly look pretty good again. And Scheppers or Ogando can be our Matt Garza – or we can bring in an upside position player like Beltre that fills a bigger developmental need than d’Arnaud does right now.

So: (1) d’Arnaud, McDonald, and Diaz for Scheppers or Ogando and Davis or (2) d’Arnaud and McDonald for Beltre and Strop. Who says no?

Thanks to my Jays buddies T.A. Seiber, Doron Barbalat (FrontOfficeFans.com), and Mick Doherty (Battersbox.ca) for talking this stuff through with me. Good day.

Nouveau-Bergeron: Let's Make a Deal with Jamey Newberg | 88 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Jonny German - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 10:32 AM EDT (#222491) #
You seem to be missing a by-line.
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 10:38 AM EDT (#222492) #
Jonny ... Jamey wrote it. Was this not clear from the intro and headline?
Jdog - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 10:42 AM EDT (#222493) #
I would be more than open to trading D'Arnaud. Especially if it brings back Scheppers. I would also be intrigued in bringing Chris Davis into the system, maybe let Cito retire and be his personal hitting coach.

The reason I would be open to trading D'Arnaud is, he has shown to be somewhat injury prone and its hard enough to stay healthy as a catcher, so showing injury problems at his young age makes me a little leery. Also I think defensive catching prospects are a little overvalued. You can sign a good defensive catcher who hits just under league average for the position as a free agent most years for little money. D'Arnaud of course has the potential to become an above average hitter but i just dont think its going to happen as he hasn't shown much in that regard yet. I would love to use him with a pitching prospect to either add a solid 1B or 3B prospect. But young cost controlled options for the bullpen like Scheppers would be a good piece as well
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 10:43 AM EDT (#222494) #
The deal for the Jays amounts to d'Arnaud for Scheppers.  D'Arnaud is a good enough athlete that he can move out from behind the plate to play another position if his back does not allow him to continue as a catcher.  The same goes for Perez.  

The Jay system is stronger in the pitching department than among position players with a broad base of talent, and it really wouldn't be a good idea to heighten this imbalance unless d'Arnaud's back injury is more serious than thought. 

Jonny German - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 10:50 AM EDT (#222495) #

Jonny ... Jamey wrote it. Was this not clear from the intro and headline?

Not at all clear, because of this line:
 
I’ve been a little under the weather the last couple days, so I’ve reached out to our pal north of the border to pinch-hit today.
 
And also because of the repeated (and gratingly amateurish) use of "we" in place of "the Toronto Blue Jays". I assume Newberg himself is a Ranger fan, not a Blue Jay fanboy. Otherwise well-written and interesting tho, thanks for sharing.
whiterasta80 - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 11:24 AM EDT (#222497) #
I too wouldn't mind seeing how far they've soured on Chris Davis.  He's still controllable and there's not denying the big time power in his bat.
ayjackson - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 11:33 AM EDT (#222498) #

I think you're selling AJ Jimenez short.  He's likely the best of the bunch defensively and his offensive performance in the Midwest league is very impressive.  His weakness, walk rate, increased substantially in his first exposure to full season ball.

I wouldn't trade D'Arnaud because he's likely the best all around catcher of the bunch, but uncertainty around his back would make it difficult to return much in value.

If I'm trading prospects to acquire something of value for the major league club, it would have to be a hitter at a position of need over the next five years.  To me, that would be 3B or 1B.  IF we're going to that, we might as well go all out and trade Carlos Perez, Drabek or Stewart, and maybe a Brad Mills type, for Adrian Gonzalez (and a negotiating window).

Carlos Perez has a high value right now and it's probably at its highest (since prospects usually fail, especially catchers).  There's no player out there at a position of need that provides as much upside to the club as AdrianG.  Plus defender and great offensive player to slot into the #3 hole for the next six years.

James W - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 11:49 AM EDT (#222499) #
This isn’t a bad team – we’d be in second place in the AL West

Whoever wrote it, they've spelled "first" incorrectly. [... Yes, I'm aware they spelled second correctly. I scoff at the AL West.]

lexomatic - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 11:50 AM EDT (#222500) #
I suppose I'd do a Scheppers for D'Arnaud trade, but not to stick Scheppers in the bullpen long-term. Admittedly I don't know if he has what it takes to start, but considering Feliz was doing well as a starter, it's a shame to not have a pitcher of that calibre used where it will be most useful
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 12:02 PM EDT (#222501) #

Jonny, I understand where you're coming from, but to refer to Jamey as "amateurish" -- other than the fact,t hat literally, he is not paid for his work -- is just silly. He was writing to a non-Box audience using an assumed character he'd used before -- thus the headline change from "Newberg" Report to "Nouveau-Bergeron" ... several of us at Da Box, myself included, have written using assumed voices in the past and probably will again. It's a long-time writer's schtick.  Sorry you didn't care for it.

James, clearly what Jamey meant was "given current record." And the Jays are 9.5 games back of the Rangers' record right now. I get what you mean -- if the Jays and, say, Angels swapped schedules, would that make a 10-game difference? I doubt it, but maybe.. Admittedly, the AL West may be the "easiest" division in MLB, and the AL East is without question the toughest, but 10 games is a LOT to make up ...

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#222502) #
Adrian Gonzalez?  Really?  If the club is going to run out a $120-$130 million payroll into the future, then maybe, but I just don't see it happening.  Gonzalez is a great player, but he is not likely to sign for bupkes with his years of experience. 

I read in the paper edition of the Globe this week that it is thought that Butterfield may very well end up re-united with his old friend Showalter in Baltimore after this year.  Needless to say, I would not be at all happy if this came about.  Butterfield is a tremendous asset to any club.

cascando - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 12:29 PM EDT (#222504) #

If the Jays are going to trade a catching prospect, I'd prefer they trade Arencibia.  His value has to be at an all-time high right now.   I actually think it would be a good allocation of resources to trade Arencibia for what could be a substantial haul (a Matt Garza-when-he-was-traded-for-Young type of player), and re-sign Buck for 3yrs to keep the C spot warm for D'Arnaud, Perez, Jiminez et al. 

Realistically, it's unlikely that Arencibia significantly out-produces Buck over the next 3 years and if the organization is indeed flush with cash, why not use some of it to pay Buck to hit 15 HR with bad OBP from the C spot and convert the younger, cheaper version of John Buck into an asset at an area of greater need? 

 

John Northey - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#222505) #
What is useful is to check Baseball-Reference's front page - they have SRS which factors in strength of schedule and run differential to figure out who is really best and worst.

The Orioles have had the hardest time, a SOS of 0.4 while the Jays are 2nd at 0.3 The White Sox have the easiest time of it at -0.1 while the division leaders all have a SOS of 0.0 (helps that they don't play themselves). The NL has just 2 teams with a SOS over 0 while 10 teams have negatives. The 'anti-Orioles' is Cincinnati who has a -0.4 SOS followed by 3 other NL Central teams at -0.3.

Based on the SRS figures the Jays are 6th in the AL, just behind the Rangers and Boston (0.6 for them, 0.4 for the Jays). The Yanks and Rays are tied for 1st at 1.2 followed by Minnesota at 0.9 (covering the other 3 ahead of the Jays). Atlanta leads the NL at 0.7 while the Jays would be 6th, just behind the Rockies.

Of course, this isn't the be-all and end-all but it does suggest the Jays would be a heck of a lot closer in the NL or AL West right now. The AL Central would still be tough (Minnesota is doing really well) but the AL East is the beast of all beasts with only one bad team and they sure are improving fast.
Jonny German - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 12:46 PM EDT (#222507) #

I read in the paper edition of the Globe this week that it is thought that Butterfield may very well end up re-united with his old friend Showalter in Baltimore after this year.  Needless to say, I would not be at all happy if this came about.  Butterfield is a tremendous asset to any club.

But the question is, would you go so far as to give Butterfield the Blue Jay managerial job? I would find it perfectly reasonable of him to jump to Baltimore absent a promotion from the Jays. I'm not sure what I think of him as potential manager, both in terms of his qualifications and how much of his current usefulness to the club would be lost by giving him other duties.

Jonny German - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 12:50 PM EDT (#222509) #

Jonny, I understand where you're coming from, but to refer to Jamey as "amateurish" -- other than the fact,t hat literally, he is not paid for his work -- is just silly... several of us at Da Box, myself included, have written using assumed voices in the past and probably will again.

You're making some incorrect assumptions, my apologies for not being clearer. Tho I do not read his work regularly I have no reason to believe Jamey Newberg is amateurish. I also have no problem with the concept of writing in an assumed voice.

I was unclear that it was Newberg himself writing, as he specifically said that it was a friend of his writing. This misunderstanding on my part may be related to the fact that I don't read Newberg regularly.

For me, a writer's credibility takes a huge hit when he refers to a sports team as "we". Thus the fictitious Nouveau-Bergeron sounds amateurish to me (and it's entirely possible that that's exactly what Newberg was aiming for).

ayjackson - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 12:52 PM EDT (#222510) #

cascando, good points on trading JPA.

MG, I don't expect that the Jays will want to run out a $50m payroll indefinitely.  I could not think of better use of $120 million over six years.  Also, Beeston has mentioned in the past that if they do spend big bucks on a long term contract, it would be a sure thing (like Texiera, I believe was his quote).  So if the Jays are serious about dealing from depth and competing in 2011 through 2015, I think they at least have to have the conversation.

ayjackson - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#222511) #
Oh, and I too thought that Mick had written the article.
bpoz - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 01:22 PM EDT (#222512) #
Absolutely wonderful article. The detailed analysis of the Texas & Minnesota 2007 trades was very well done.
I also liked the reference to the use of the Jays past infield depth to try to make our team better. Sometimes trades that don't make sense work out and good trades on paper turn out terrible.
I was reluctant before but now maybe we should trade some of our catching depth. Some excellent names were mentioned as acquisitions from Texas.
IMO none of D"Arnaud,Y Gomes, Jimenez,Tally,Perez,P Rankin & S Ochinko are ready for AA so Dunedin & Lansing will have too many catchers. Injuries cost some of these catchers ABs but I hoped J Tally would get more ABs, I could be wrong but I don't think he had injuries.
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 01:44 PM EDT (#222513) #
I do not know if Butterfield is suited to being a manager, but  I do think that he would be able to impart some of his wisdom respecting infield defence as a manager, as Gaston has with respect to batting, in my view.  I hope that the organization seriously considers him.

As for the use of $20 million/year on a "sure thing" like Gonzalez, he's not exactly a sure thing to be a very good defender.  Teixeira has been average, according to the metrics each of the last two years, after having a similar rep and statistics prior to the big contract.  Gonzalez' agent has been pointing to the Ryan Howard deal, so it may be that it will take $25 million/year to get him.  With the Wells' contract, it might be nice to have a few shekels left over for Escobar, the young pitchers and so on. 

The first step, though, is for the organization to figure out what is happening with Bautista, as this will greatly impact the club's positional needs and financial position in the medium term.   

christaylor - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 02:07 PM EDT (#222514) #
There's some inconsistency in the logic of the idea of trading from C depth, or at least an something that I think is being overlooked. I agree that JPA's value is high, there's some depth at the position in the Jays system. It is definitely that C prospects are difficult to develop, often project badly, and moves off the position are regular. The leap in logic is to think that any GMs wouldn't also take this into account and down-grade C prospects value relative to prospects at less difficult to develop positions. This would mean that unless AA can find a GM who absolutely loves a C prospect, there won't be a good return based on perceived value... perhaps I'm too pessimistic based on the Jays recent history with C of the future, so many names, so little value.

I also think looking at trading a Jays C prospect as comparable to the Garza/Young deal is misleading in this situation. Garza had 24 starts in two season and Young over 700 bats, both in their early 20s. Arencibia is the same age Young is now. A much more comparable type of deal would be to trade Travis Snider for another similarly ML experienced player of a different type... which I'd have no problem with, come to think of it, especially if it made the Jays INF situation better.
John Northey - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 02:55 PM EDT (#222515) #
Right now catching isn't hitting the point where it is 'play or trade'. Even if the Jays keep Buck it could be avoided by having JPA & Buck mix and match at DH and having a 3rd catcher on the roster (assuming Lind can handle 1B).

For 2010... (age in brackets for 2011)
ML: JPA (25)/Molina (Buck if resigned)
AAA: Jeroloman (26), whoever
AA: d'Arnaud (22) mixed with Yan Gomes (23)
A+: A.J. Jimenez (21)
A: Carlos Perez (20)
SS and under: an assortment

I see no logjam that needs clearing - in fact, I'd say this is an ideal setup. Sign a couple of Molina types for AAA depth, more for the low minors as backups. Jeroloman could earn a shot in 2011 as the injury replacement but now has to be viewed as a AAAA guy, not a prospect thus even if d'Arnaud tears up AA there is no fear about him getting room in AAA.

Now, by mid-season we might have a good logjam if Jimenez or Perez gets off to a great start while d'Arnaud isn't as AA could get crowded, but worst case you leave a guy a level too low for a bit longer than needed.

I say keep d'Arnaud unless given a silly trade offer. I would not trade him for a reliever though, that is certain. We have about a dozen starters of whom a few could easily be shifted to the pen. There are always good quality arms on the scrap heap too for the pen. You should (virtually) never trade a prospect for a reliever.
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 03:03 PM EDT (#222516) #
Babelfish tells me that "new-berg" translates to "nouveau-iceberg", which indeed would cause waves up and down Boulevard St. Laurent, if not the St. Lawrence River.

The closest comps to Young in the Jay organization would be Arencibia and Snider- first round picks with significant power and strike zone issues.  Young probably had more developmental issues than either, as he had the "bat toss at umpire" incident prior to the trade, but was also thought to have more "upside". 

dan gordon - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 04:25 PM EDT (#222518) #
On more than one occasion, I've seen good GM's say that the best way to make a good trade isn't to decide who you want to trade, it's to decide who you want to get.  I doubt AA was trying to trade prospects like Johermyn Chavez, T. Collins, and T. Pastornicky.  Rather, he wanted to get Morrow and Escobar and those guys turned out to be part of the package he was asked for in return.  In fact, I believe I read something to that effect regarding one or both of those deals.  It would be interesting to know which players he might be targeting this off season.
scottt - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#222519) #
Babelfish tells me that "new-berg" translates to "nouveau-iceberg"

new might be English, but berg is German. I'd go for nouveauhill.


Buck is gone and only JPA is ready for The Show. If anything, there's a surplus of pitchers but it's hard to trade good young pitching.
dawgatc - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 07:09 PM EDT (#222524) #
I agree with that theory 100 percent - prospects no matter how good are still just prospects - you can always go out and find some more if you're willing to part with the money - you really have only 8 positions plus your pitchers - if you can get someone who can play one of those 8 positions a lot better than what you have, then you have to go for it ,if you are serious about winning- don't worry about if the other team got a real good deal - it doesn't matter as long as your team is improved - we traded 3 good prospects in those 2 deals - i would have traded 6-8 prospects if that what it took to get it done - I,d like to see AA package 3 or 4 more and pick up a player like colby rasmus;daniel schlereth or brett lawrie - the phillies are the best example of this approach these days and the results are obvious
TheBunk - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 10:42 PM EDT (#222531) #
Schlereth is a future bullpen piece with control problems.
scottt - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 10:59 PM EDT (#222532) #
Anybody could have made deals to improve the Phillies, they had awesome position players and no pitching. The Jays have position players that are not producing.  In either case, it boils down to a monetary issue. It's easy to acquire all-star players once they reach free agency like Doc did if you can pay them. If you can't pay them, you're just trading prospects for a one year rental and that's not sustainable.

Neither Buck, nor any of the catching prospect is a sure thing. Buck likely regresses next year.

Personally, I like Martinez as a 1B option. 1.170 OPS vs left handed pitching and high OBP. Could be signed without losing a pick if the Jays keep losing. Besides, if you're willing to trade 6-8 prospect to improve the team, why would you care about losing a pick?


dawgatc - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 04:08 AM EDT (#222538) #
personally I don't care about losing a pick -I think many teams worry too much about number 1 picks - there are usually 5 or 6 picks that grade out better than the rest of the pack - the 19th choice is probably just as much of gamble as pick number 47 but you have to pay this huge signing bonus - I think 5 picks you got for 500000 each is going to get you a player as often as 1 2,500,000 19th pick -and the guy you signed is for sure a better bet to help you than some high school phenom who hasn't played A ball yet
brent - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 07:04 AM EDT (#222539) #

Link

I want to see someone justify Cito here for not playing JPA because Cito wants Buck to get his 20th homer.

CeeBee - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 08:19 AM EDT (#222541) #
"I want to see someone justify Cito here for not playing JPA because Cito wants Buck to get his 20th homer."
Cause Cito and buck are fishing buddies?
rpriske - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 09:15 AM EDT (#222542) #

d'Arnaud and Johnny Mac for Scheppers and Davis?

 

Yes please.

aaforpm - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 09:32 AM EDT (#222543) #
no way in the world that the Rangers are stupid enough to do:

D'Arnaud and Mac for Scheppers and Davis


.......why the hell would they value D'Arnaud and Mac that highly when most of the people on this site would be that willing to lose either of them.  D'Arnaud may be worth more in the future but until he proves he can hit there is no way that he can fetch a top prospect like Scheppers.  Johnny Mac on the other hand may have a hard time getting a 25 man roster spot on any competitive team, and he's overpaid (I know he doesn't make that much, but he's still overpaid). Texas may have soured on Davis but I'm sure they can get a lot more for him than a defensive replacement.

I think trading Snider for someone that could play 3rd base (ie: Ian Stewart) would make more sense, but since very few teams, including the Rockies, have the 3B depth to trade away a 3B for another LF this deal doesn't happen.   I also think the timing may not be right for trading Snider, his value may simply not be that high at this point.  So in the short term, the Jays should maximize Bautista's value by putting him on 3B, then wait for some of our minor league pitchers to mature so that we can trade away SP surplus (Marcum, Cecil) to fill any holes in the lineup that we have at that point (perhaps go for Brett Lawrie)

Lastly, don't care that he lost (actually prefer it because I do want to protect our 1st round pick next year - no matter how much he costs), but Drabek's stuff looked nasty yesterday - the future looks bright
John Northey - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 09:57 AM EDT (#222544) #
Just read that comment from Cito and it was...well...I hate to say 'dumb' but it is all I can think of. Putting a guy's reaching a milestone above the long term interests of the club is not a good idea.

So Buck is at 18, Overbay at 19, Wells at 27 thus all 3 should expect to play everyday until they reach 20 or 30 HR? At least no one is near 100 RBI or 200 hits. Morrow was the only pitcher approaching a milestone (200K's) but was shut down.

Checking career milestones none are within reach this season (interesting that John McDonald has more sac bunts than anyone else who has been a Jay this season though).

Scary seeing how low the figures are for our pitchers though. Highest career win total? Marcum at 36, no one else over 30. Gregg's 116 saves is a mile over Accardo's 38 and Frasors 35 next is Downs & Morrow at 16. Gregg is just 10 K's from 500 while Camp need to bean one more guy to get to 30. Litsch leads in shutouts at 2, Romero in complete games at 3 (didn't Halladay do that every month?).
ayjackson - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 11:04 AM EDT (#222547) #

no way in the world that the Rangers are stupid enough to do:

That deal was proposed by Newberg - one of their most knowledgable fans.  So it's possible you may be overvaluing Scheppers (a reliever) and Davis (a failing prospect).  It's possible that Newberg is overvaluing D'Arnaud (injury concerns) too.

I think you could trade D'Arnaud or similar talent for three major league relievers, why you'd want Scheppers is beyond me, unless you felt he could start, but why would we be interested in that?

ayjackson - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 11:08 AM EDT (#222548) #

So the Mets moved into a tie for 15th overall with us last night - which means one of us is in position to have our first round pick protected.  I'd be pretty happy even at this stage to finish 79-83 and pick 12th overall.

I'd also not be opposed to letting Downs, Frasor and Gregg all walk and replace them with the likes of Benoit, Rauch and Heilman.

ayjackson - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 11:25 AM EDT (#222550) #

Rumours have it that the Brewers could look to move Rickie Weeks for young arms.  Food for thought, but moving Hill to third base could address that position.

Also,

No Major League team is currently in possession of as talented a young, Major League starting staff as the Toronto Blue Jays.

John Northey - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 11:40 AM EDT (#222551) #
Could be an interesting winter. Rickie Weeks could be useful, but then what happens with Hill? Hill at third is not a good idea offensively as he just doesn't have the bat for it. Weeks has hit well (120+ OPS+) for 2 years but pre that he hit for a 97 OPS+ over 1907 PA. Could be a case of buying high instead of AA's habit of buying low.

If I was to guess, I'd bet AA has his eye on guys who are having off-years who his scouts say there is no reason for it. Look for guys with poor luck (high LD%, poor average as they keep hitting it right at people) to get an idea on who to expect him to chase.
China fan - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#222552) #

.....I want to see someone justify Cito here for not playing JPA because Cito wants Buck to get his 20th homer.....

But if you had bothered to read the article that you linked to, you'll clearly see that Gaston cited two reasons, not one reason.  The second reason is the more important of the two reasons:  it's the fact that the young pitchers prefer to pitch to Buck, not to JPA.  Given that the 2010 season is all about developing the young pitchers, this is a pretty darn important reason.  The Jays have 5 young pitchers who represent the future of the team.  This season is all about developing them, protecting their health, and getting them to learn how to win games.  They can do all of those things better with John Buck.  So Gaston has decided to prioritize the young pitchers ahead of a rookie catcher who's had only a handful of major-league games.  JPA will get his chance next season, but 2010 is about the pitchers and I tend to agree with Gaston that the needs of the young pitchers are higher priority than a few September games for a catcher who probably won't be ready for full-time catching duties in 2011 anyway.  As for Buck, he's an all-star and a top-5 catcher (by OPS) in the league.  In case the Jays want him back next season, it's not a bad idea to treat him with some respect.

When Gaston gives two reasons for a decision, it's not particularly helpful for us to ignore one reason and pretend that the other reason is the only reason.

MatO - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#222553) #

it's the fact that the young pitchers prefer to pitch to Buck,

That's not what he says.  He says the pitchers are accustomed to pitching to Buck not that they prefer pitching to him.  It's hard for pitchers to get accustomed to pitching to someone who never plays.  Cito also quite clearly says that once Buck gets 20 then he'll get JPA in there (or until he thinks of another excuse not to - see pitchers, accustomed).

ayjackson - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 01:18 PM EDT (#222554) #

"The thing I'd like to see is to give Buck every opportunity to get his 20th home run," Gaston said. "The sooner he gets it, I can do something. That's pretty much what it is."

Spin away, Chinafan.

christaylor - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 01:24 PM EDT (#222555) #
I'd rather have Hill at 2B than Weeks, but I don't think moving Hill to 3B is that bad of an idea to shrug it off. I don't think it is unfair to say that he hasn't displayed the range this year as he has in past years and on the face of it, I see no reason to believe that he'll OPS+ in the 80s again next year (his BABIP and LD% just seem to be so off his career numbers that he'll probably turn it around). I'd be surprised if Hill isn't at 3B here or somewhere else down the road in the future.

He's not really having an off year, but Brandon Wood seems like an AA-type acquisition. He probably wouldn't cost much and will be 26 next year, worth a chance if the Angel's aren't asking a ton.
whiterasta80 - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 01:32 PM EDT (#222556) #
DId you expect Cito to come out and say that JPA lacks significantly in his game calling?  I tend to agree with Chinafan that this is the right course of action.  Sure I'd like to see more JPA... but heck its on Sportsnet1 half the time anyway.  Let Buck get his numbers, and let our pitchers stay comfortable and positive heading into next season.
BalzacChieftain - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 01:44 PM EDT (#222558) #
They're going to have to pitch to Arencibia sometime.  Personally, I'd rather see it happen in a meaningless September than in Spring Training or April.  That way the Jays at least go into next Spring with some commonality between pitcher and catcher instead of starting from square one.
ayjackson - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#222559) #

DId you expect Cito to come out and say that JPA lacks significantly in his game calling? 

Yes. If that were the case....[enactment follows]

Cito, why is Arencibia spending so much time on the bench.

Well, Jerry, we're just trying to get him comfortable with our pitchers and the hitters in the league by having him spend time with Buck and Jose and sitting in on pitchers meetings.  We feel that that is the best way to learn at this stage.  Catcher's a difficult position because there is so much to learn - we just want him to relax and be comfortable.  He'll get plenty of opportunity to hit in time.

[enactment over]

If that were the truth, it seems pretty reasonable.  And I have said in the past that a slow approach with JPA is defensible.  Hell, maybe even getting Buck to 20 homers is defensible.  But geez people, don't sit back there day after day and try to spin Cito's comments/actions as if he were beyond reproach.

 

Spifficus - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#222560) #
Funny, AY, you're hypothetical perfectly describes what I'd do with JPA. Get him in on the meetings and engaged. Let him catch pitchers he's accustomed to from AAA for now, and then have him catch everybody once during the last two turns in the rotation. As for Buck and #20, until those last two turns my thought would be, "Meh. Why not?"

After the Accardo comments in the spring of '09, though, I try to not get hung up on what Cito says in a scrum.
MatO - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 02:34 PM EDT (#222561) #
In case people didn't notice it posted on an old thread.  The Jays have severed their ties with Short A Auburn.
Kasi - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 03:19 PM EDT (#222562) #
As long as Buck maintains his type B status, I'm all for getting JPA in there. We need to find out if he can manage the pitching staff, and now is as good a time as any. China as usual tries to spin articles into saying what they didn't say. It is about the vets, about the milestones, about getting the outgoing players their next contracts. Which is sad because we want to see the young players get a chance. It would be one thing if Buck was a great catcher that we were keeping. But he's not.

And even if JPA isn't getting much time in at Catcher, they should at least be able to get him in at DH occasionally. As of right now he's just sitting uselessly on his ass. Then again with how Cito and Dwayne teach batting, I don't know if I want them missing with JPA. The hitting as of late is atrocious. Did the fifth inning last night even take 2 minutes for Hill, Lind and co to get themselves out? It's pathetic.

TamRa - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#222563) #
oh my, here we go again.

But if you had bothered to read the article that you linked to, you'll clearly see that Gaston cited two reasons, not one reason.  The second reason is the more important of the two reasons:

sheer rationalization on your part.

Here's the first quote:

"The thing I'd like to see is to give Buck every opportunity to get his 20th home run," Gaston said. "The sooner he gets it, I can do something. That's pretty much what it is."

The THING is - not "one of the things is"
That's pretty much what it is - singular, the thing I mentioned, is what it is.

there is no ambiguity here, no muddled confabulation with other considerations, no sense of "there are several reasons and this is one of them"

it's the fact that the young pitchers prefer to pitch to Buck, not to JPA.

Again, here's the remark:

the Blue Jays' young pitching staff, which has grown accustomed to throwing to Buck.

but that's not a quote, and no where does it say "prefer"

Here's the actual quote:

"We kind of owe them something, too. Not to say that [Arencibia] is not a good receiver back there -- he is a good receiver -- but you want to put the best lineup out there for [the pitchers' sake], too. They're really responsible for us even having [73] wins."

this doesn't even HINT that the pitchers like working with one over the other - it is a reflection of CITO'S opinion that Buck gives them the best chance to win, whether that be hitting or handling pitchers or throwing out runners or all three.

But it's also an addendum to his first remark and it is nothing but rationalization to say that it is obivously the bigger concern - nothing in the text tells you which, if either, Cito thinks is a bigger concern - you are reading into the text that which reflects best on Cito.

Again, HE said "that is THE reason" in the first quote.

Given that the 2010 season is all about developing the young pitchers, this is a pretty darn important reason.  The Jays have 5 young pitchers who represent the future of the team.  This season is all about developing them, protecting their health, and getting them to learn how to win games.  They can do all of those things better with John Buck.


Wait a minute - WHAT?

Let's see, Marcum is not a "young pitcher" and has been in the bigs long enough he doesn't need his hand held.

Morrow isn't starting anymore, and likely Cecil isn't either - no more than one more for sure (and oh by the way, how did Cecdil's last few starts go with the wise ol' veteran catcher?)

that leaves Romero and the contenders. Romero has impressed the team enough over two season to get a long term deal, yet he still has things to learn in his last THREE starts of the season that only Buck can teach? REALLY?

So, we have Hill (a 30 year old veteran), Zep (maybe three more starts) and Drabek (two) - your whole argument then comes down to what Drabek can learn from buck in two starts then. fine. let buck catch Drabek. the rest of the time that claim doesn't hold water.
there's nothing anyone is going to learn from Buck in the last two weeks that they haven't learned in the previous six months.

When Gaston gives two reasons for a decision, it's not particularly helpful for us to ignore one reason and pretend that the other reason is the only reason.

No, but when the first reason is irrational and the second is illogical, it's not like either are praiseworthy.


Manhattan Mike - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#222565) #

China Fan never ceases to amaze me. Even when Cito comes straight out and says that once Buck hits 20 HR it will be easier to get JPA in the lineup he STILL tries spinning it in the other direction, that JPA isn't playing to be fair to the young pitchers.

This season is all about developing them, protecting their health, and getting them to learn how to win games.  They can do all of those things better with John Buck.

This assertment of fact really astounds me.

92-93 - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#222570) #
If young catching is thin around the league then no team has a surplus, people just think they do. I would never trade D'Arnaud for an arm that profiles as a reliever, the upside on D'Arnaud will always be higher and such a trade would be the opposite idea of what AA did when trading Wallace for Gose. I also agree with the previous posters that if there's a prospect C getting traded here it has to be Arencibia, somebody whose value is at an all time high coming off the season he had in the PCL and a guy who doesn't profile well defensively with poor OBP skills. If his ceiling is John Buck why not just bring Buck back or sign somebody similar to get the compensation pick and cash Arencibia into a higher-ceiling prospect?

Somebody mentioned Rasmus earlier in the thread - I'd trade Brett Cecil for him in a heartbeat and move Wells over to RF.
China fan - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 04:23 PM EDT (#222572) #

So now it's "spin" if I point out that Gaston gave two reasons, not one reason?   Do people actually think it's more accurate if you delete half of Gaston's comments and pretend that's all that he said?

All I'm asking is that people read the quotes.  Instead people deliberately misquote Gaston and then, based on a misquote, try to ridicule him.   If you want to disagree with someone, at least have the intellectual honesty to quote him accurately.

If I hadn't intervened in this thread, people would have been quite happy to pretend that Gaston gave only one reason for his decision.  That's worse than spin -- it's deliberately twisting Gaston's words and deleting the stuff that doesn't fit with the anti-Gaston viewpoint.

As for JPA's playing time:  it makes perfect sense to use spring training as the time for him to learn the pitchers.  A few games at the absolute end of the 2010 season is far from the ideal time for a rookie to learn to be a major-league catcher with a young pitching staff.

92-93 - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 04:28 PM EDT (#222573) #
It's spin when you say the more important reason is the 2nd one (JPA's supposed trouble with handling the starting staff) despite Clarence himself saying otherwise. But of course now you're going to concoct a whole new batch of nonsense about why Clarence has to say that to the media as opposed to just giving his honest opinion on JPA's defensive abilities, which he had no problem doing when he backtracked within a week after saying JPA would receive the majority of playing time with Buck on the DL.
China fan - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 04:47 PM EDT (#222574) #

As for WillRain's critique:  he seems to be suggesting that Gaston has no idea what the young pitchers prefer.  When Gaston talks about "owing something" to the young pitchers and doing things "for their sake," obviously it is based on what those pitchers have told him and what Gaston himself believes is best.  (Or do you really think that Gaston would be ignoring their words and recklessly ordering them to do something that they don't want?) 

Most fair commentators would have to acknowledge that Gaston has done a great job of developing the young pitchers this year.  So when he talks about what's best for the young pitchers, it's obviously based on a whole range of things that Gaston knows about them -- including their preferences in catchers -- and it deserves a bit of respect.  Even the anti-Gaston crowd would surely give him credit for developing the young pitchers properly.  Gaston obviously believes that young pitchers will develop better if they have a veteran catcher to help them.  The results on the field, if you look at the dramatic improvements of the young Jays pitchers this year, suggests that Gaston knows something on the subject.

WillRain's critique is based on the hypothetical possibility that the young pitchers don't care about their catcher -- that JPA is just the same as Buck -- and that Gaston knows nothing about what's best for the young pitchers.   Both of those propositions are pretty dubious and unlikely.

As for the pitchers themselves:  yes, they're basically all young, especially if you subtract their TJ surgery time, their injury time etc.   Cecil is 24.   Zep is 25.  Romero is 25.  Drabek is 22.   (So there's 4 of 5 that you can't even challenge at all.)   Marcum is 28, which I consider pretty young, especially when you remember that he's only had 2 fulltime seasons before this year.  As for Shawn Hill, I wasn't counting him, but it could be argued that the catching is even more important for a rehab project like him.  He's only had a couple of partial seasons in his major-league career, so he's young in major-league terms.  

China fan - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 04:53 PM EDT (#222575) #

.....JPA's supposed trouble with handling the starting staff.....

So finally we see the essence of the anti-Gaston argument:  you don't believe Gaston when he implies that Buck is better than JPA in handling the pitching staff.  (That's the obvious meaning of your sarcastic comment about JPA's "supposed trouble.")   Okay, instead of being sarcastic, let's hear you make the case that JPA is just as good.  Let's hear the facts, not the sarcasm.

Where is your evidence that the 25-year-old rookie, who has played only a handful of major-league games, is as good as Buck in handling the pitchers?  I'm stating that it's illogical and irrational to think that a rookie with virtually no major-league experience is as good as an all-star veteran like John Buck.  I'm saying that Buck logically deserves a share of the credit for the good performance of the raw young pitchers on the Jays staff this year.  Where is your evidence to the contrary?  Not sarcasm, please, but facts.

Thomas - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 05:58 PM EDT (#222580) #
Morrow isn't starting anymore, and likely Cecil isn't either - no more than one more for sure (and oh by the way, how did Cecdil's last few starts go with the wise ol' veteran catcher?)

Will, I'd object to your comment on Cecil's last few starts and lack of mention of the fact that he's had quite a good year in his first full season as a major league starter. Whether or not Buck deserves credit for that is another issue, but if you're going to imply that the two haven't been working well recently and Buck is responsible for this, then you should be prepared to give him credit for the bulk of the season, when they have been working well together.

China fan - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 06:02 PM EDT (#222581) #

As for the claim that anyone who defends Gaston is merely "spinning" or spewing "nonsense" -- maybe we should review some quotes from Jeff Blair's interview with Alex Anthopolous on Sept. 8, which make it clear that both Blair and Anthopolous can see a lot of legitimate reasons for what Gaston is doing:

"Anthopoulos is more than okay with how Gaston is using Buck and Arencibia. Sometimes you just have to give it to a guy like Buck, you know? He’s put together a season in which he’s led all AL catchers in home runs (17) and runs batted in (57). Beyond that, he must get at least some credit for getting the Blue Jays’ young starting pitchers to this point of the season without serious injury, which, you’ll remember, was Job 1 in 2010.

Press Anthopoulos on Buck and he’ll tell you two stories. One, he’s seen Buck and Jose Molina both going over a pregame scouting report with individual pitchers. (“You don’t often see two catchers doing that, usually it’s just the guy catching that day.”) Two, he had a discussion with Pat Hentgen last spring when Hentgen described in detail the importance of familiarity between catcher and pitcher.

Buck is a free agent who is comfortable here. How do we not know the love they’re showing him isn’t part of an attempt to bring him back to help mentor Arencibia? As for familiarity with next season’s starters? That is why the baseball gods invented spring training, no?"

(end of excerpt from Blair's interview with Anthopolous)

Thomas - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 06:05 PM EDT (#222582) #
That comment isn't meant to suggest I support the way Cito has divided the time at catcher in September. I understand Cito's loyalty to Buck and I believe a catcher can learn by sitting on the bench, but there's no reason JPA shouldn't have around 7-10 starts by month's end.
TamRa - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 06:07 PM EDT (#222583) #
Somebody mentioned Rasmus earlier in the thread - I'd trade Brett Cecil for him in a heartbeat and move Wells over to RF.

Oh my yes.

If you want to disagree with someone, at least have the intellectual honesty to quote him accurately.

I copy and pasted his quotes directly.

If I hadn't intervened in this thread, people would have been quite happy to pretend that Gaston gave only one reason for his decision.  That's worse than spin -- it's deliberately twisting Gaston's words and deleting the stuff that doesn't fit with the anti-Gaston viewpoint.

His second point, absent your reading into it, is just as vapid as a reason for his choice as the first.

I could have gone "anti-Gaston" with the second in the absence of the first.

he seems to be suggesting that Gaston has no idea what the young pitchers prefer.

No, I'm suggesting YOU don't know that, and that Gaston didn't say that - you read it into his words as i clearly demonstrated.

further, JPA has caught all of 45 innings in the majors (5 games in other words) - frankly, if the pitchers HAD said they didn't like throwing to him (which again, there is NO evidence for) THAT would be irrational because the sample is much too small for a rational person to reach that conclusion.

When Gaston talks about "owing something" to the young pitchers and doing things "for their sake," obviously it is based on what those pitchers have told him and what Gaston himself believes is best.

The latter, yes, the former - not obvious AT ALL unless you WANT to see it. clearly HE (Gaston) thinks it's best - that "thinking" is exactly what we are taking issue with. if the pitchers have a stated preferance (not that it would matter based on a tiny sample) i invite you to produce evidence that they do - since none has yet appeared in this thread.

Most fair commentators would have to acknowledge that Gaston has done a great job of developing the young pitchers this year.

Most commentators would give Bruce Walton that credit - and have. Every comment I've seen in my life about Cito and pitching is that he doesn't do any more than he has too with the pitchers, he much prefers working on the hitting side.

So when he talks about what's best for the young pitchers, it's obviously based on a whole range of things that Gaston knows about them -- including their preferences in catchers -- and it deserves a bit of respect.

How is that obvious? how do you know he doesn't ASSUME the pitchers love the veteran catcher AS HE DOES? Isn't it the human thing to assume others see what is obvious to you? How do you know that he knows that the pitchers would have an issue with JPA even if he does know they love buck? it's entierly possible to like pitching to more than one catcher.
And, by the way, how is it the wise cagey veteran manager isn't sharp enough to realize you CAN'T know whether you prefer to pitcher to a catcher when no one on the staff has pitched to him more than twice?!!?! (assuming the unproven assertion that the pitchers don't like throwing to him)
Frankly, if I'm the manager and a pitcher tells me the guy who's caught him TWO times is a problem for him, I'm going to tell him to grow a pair and take responsibility for his own work. if i can keep from laughing in his face.

the thing is - no professional pitcher who has the respect of his team (as all ours seem to) would DREAM of making that claim.

Gaston obviously believes that young pitchers will develop better if they have a veteran catcher to help them.

Gaston obviously believe the sun will shine brighter and the breeze will smell sweeter if a veteran is on the field. What he believes and what actually IS ain't always exactly similar.

The results on the field, if you look at the dramatic improvements of the young Jays pitchers this year, suggests that Gaston knows something on the subject.

Improvement? you realize Gaston was the manager last year too, right? Why does he get credit for improvement and not blame for underachivement? In other words, we all praise Gaston for flipping the magic switch on Adam Lind...so where's the finger pointing for Lind's 2010 performance?

But hey, let's dig deeper:
Marcum - much the same guy as he ever was
Romero - perfectly natural progression from last year
Morrow - first year as Blue Jay, and as full time starter, no previous frame of reference
Cecil - Granted
Zep - worse
Tallet- off the cliff.

Where, if I may be so bold as to ask, is the wonderful quantum leap forward i'm supposed to pat him on the back for?

WillRain's critique is based on the hypothetical possibility that the young pitchers don't care about their catcher -- that JPA is just the same as Buck --

Bull.

my (previous) critique is based on the fact that there is no evidence in this thread that they think that and that your claim they do is post-hoc rationalization which cannot be demonstrated from the quoted article.

It is YOUR claim that they have made this statement which is entierly hypothetical, made up of whole cloth in fact.

Now THIS critique is arguing that #1, it;s highly unlikely any pitcher made that claim, #2 if they did then they have said an irrational thing since one or two games with a catcher can't possibly be enough evidence to base that conclusion on; #3 that if Cito has HALF the brains you argue he does, he wouldn't take such a claim seriously if it had been made;  and #4 that even in the highly unlikely event the claim ewas made and taken seriously, all that would prove is that everyone involved believed an irrational thing.

and that Gaston knows nothing about what's best for the young pitchers.   Both of those propositions are pretty dubious and unlikely.

where have i made or implied this claim?

yes, they're basically all young, especially if you subtract their TJ surgery time, their injury time etc.


Which still doesn't even address the fact you are trying to have it both ways - i.E. a dozen or so starts for JPA isn't a big deal, but the last 2-3 starts os a season for guys who have essentially two full seasons or more under their belts is crucial.

both can't be true.

So finally we see the essence of the anti-Gaston argument:  you don't believe Gaston when he implies that Buck is better than JPA in handling the pitching staff.

Nothing has been posted in this thread which proves any such trouble exists.

Even if Cito HAD said that, which he didn't, it wouldn't prove he was right. but since he didn't, you are guessing.

Where is your evidence that the 25-year-old rookie, who has played only a handful of major-league games, is as good as Buck in handling the pitchers?

What's your evidence that he's not?

in point of fact, the scuttlebutt last winter was that the Royals dumped the obviously better hitter (Buck) fur the guy who can't hit A ball pitching (Kendell) BECAUSE they wanted someone who was actually good working a staff.

Admittedly, it's the Royals - but the point is Buck has never been praised for that part of his game until he got to Toronto so it's not like it's a slam dunk his skills are unrivaled.

I'm stating that it's illogical and irrational to think that a rookie with virtually no major-league experience is as good as an all-star veteran like John Buck.

he doesn't HAVE to be. He won't GET any better unless he PLAYS . THAT is where the logic is. the irrational argument is that the future of our yountg pitching will somehow be terribly damaged because their last 2/3 starts are caught by the guy who'll be catching them next year instead of the guy who;'s been catching them this year.

I'm saying that Buck logically deserves a share of the credit for the good performance of the raw young pitchers on the Jays staff this year.


Of course he does. That is an irrelevant point.


ayjackson - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 06:31 PM EDT (#222584) #

As for the claim that anyone who defends Gaston is merely "spinning"

Well since I introduced the word "spin" in this thread, let me be clear I was only referring to you.  I'm not anti-Gaston.  I'll call bullshit when I see it though.

Kasi - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 06:41 PM EDT (#222585) #
I have no problem with people defending Cito China. What I do have problems with is you linking an article and drawing conclusions from it that are actually rejected by the same article. We can follow links and read the articles (and most of us have read them when they were written initially) We know they don't say what you think they say. Spinning is calling for arguments that aren't supported by the text in question, but by your own supposition.

As for the argument at hand. Even if JPA is worse at handling pitchers then Buck he is not going to get better unless he actually plays. I'd rather he get the time started now, unless they don't think he can catch or if they plan to bring Buck back.
China fan - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 06:46 PM EDT (#222586) #

WillRain, when I talked about people who were misquoting Gaston, don't worry, I wasn't referring to you.  I was referring to several other posters, earlier in the thread, who had quoted only half of Gaston's comments and ignored the second half.   Although I disagree with your interpretation of what Gaston was saying, I give you full credit for quoting every word of Gaston's comments, so that readers can judge for themselves.   I also give you credit for debating on facts, rather than just making a brief sarcastic comment.

But I've read your latest post several times and, while I'm impressed by the length of it, I'm struggling to understand your main points.  As far as I can tell -- and this is my honest reading of your comments -- you seem to think that Gaston should be blamed for lots of things, but he shouldn't get any credit for the development of the young pitchers.  You take it on faith that he's not good with pitchers, but you ignore the evidence on the field and you don't provide any evidence of your own.  It's illogical and rather silly to claim that Gaston talks only to hitters and never to pitchers and makes no contribution to the development of the pitchers.  You think he is wrong about the interaction between catchers and pitchers, even though Blair and Anthopolous say the exact same thing that Gaston says about the importance of familiarity.

You accuse him of having a bias towards veterans, but you haven't explained why his starting rotation is filled with young pitchers.  You appear to think that a 25-year-old rookie is just as good at handling pitchers as a 30-year-old all-star veteran.  When I disagree, you demand evidence, ignoring the evidence on the field -- the fact that the young pitchers themselves are doing better than expected.  You give Gaston no credit for the development of Ricky Romero because you say that Romero's development was "as expected" -- ignoring the fact that Romero was seen as a complete bust until Gaston came along.  You give him no credit for the development of Cecil or Morrow, both of whom are doing much better than anyone expected this .  You give no credit for Shaun Marcum, whose comeback from injury has been better than expected.  I'm not saying that Gaston should get all of the credit for these developments, but you give him zero credit, which is unfair and illogical. 

China fan - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 06:50 PM EDT (#222587) #

ayjackson, you seem to have wandered into the wrong place.  It's over at Drunk Jays Fans, not here, where people win arguments by using profanity.

If you seriously think that I'm the only one who is defending Gaston on this -- why not read Blair's article and the Anthopolous quotes?  Then tell us why Blair and Anthopolous are both wrong.   Because I'm saying basically the same thing as Blair and Anthopolous.

China fan - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 07:02 PM EDT (#222588) #

.....I'd rather he get the time started now, unless they don't think he can catch or if they plan to bring Buck back....

How do you know that they don't plan to bring Buck back?   How do you know the Jays private assessment of JPA's catching skills?  If there's a possibility of either of those, wouldn't you acknowledge that it is possible that Gaston has valid reasons for his decisions?

.....What I do have problems with is you linking an article and drawing conclusions from it that are actually rejected by the same article....

You haven't shown that I did that.  If you're referring to the article with the Gaston quotes, the orginal poster misquoted it.  He quoted only one of Gaston's two reasons for sitting JPA.  I pointed out that there were two reasons, not one.  How is this "rejected by the same article"?  The article actually proves that I was right -- there were two reasons, not one.

christaylor - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 08:22 PM EDT (#222589) #
If whether a C prospect who many saw as a complete bust before the season is playing enough during his September call-up is a bone of contention in Blue Jay land, then the team is in good shape.
ayjackson - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 09:02 PM EDT (#222592) #

ayjackson, you seem to have wandered into the wrong place.  It's over at Drunk Jays Fans, not here, where people win arguments by using profanity.

poor form, I agree.  I apologize to bauxites.

TamRa - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 09:10 PM EDT (#222594) #
As far as I can tell -- and this is my honest reading of your comments -- you seem to think that Gaston should be blamed for lots of things, but he shouldn't get any credit for the development of the young pitchers.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. I think that as a GENERAL principle, applied to guys I like and guys I'm skeptical of, that -
1. Managers get far more credit and blame than they deserve. i.e. Lind, Cito, I would argue, should get marginal credit and marginal blame for Lind's wildly different seasons, though his fans would give him mad props for the good one
and absolve him on the latter, and his harshest critics probably the reverse. i think both are overstatements.


2. that managers, as a rule, have far less to do with the performance of the pitchers than the pitching coach does except in the area of overuse or lack thereof. (On that count, i give Cito full credit by the way) - I'd go so far as to say this is axiomatic. Thus, I would consider it almost negligible that Cecil improved or Zep regressed in terms of my evaluation of Gaston.

More generally, I give Cito I think an appropriate amount of credit. Despite last years meltdown, he seems most times to be a good motivator and a good manager of personalities (which is a managers main job) and, other than his proclivity to veterans, has a good grasp of keeping most of his players happy. He is as good as your average guy on ingame strategy and his peculiaralities on that subject are of a generic sort. I think his managment of the use of starting pitchers this time around has been virtually above reproach. Ithink he has demonstrated a tealent for identifying at least one sort of hitting mechanic flaw which has been key to getting great years out of a number of players and, within his prejudices regarding hitting styles, he's made a credible difference in the teams offense that can be attributed directly to him.

That balanced against my criticisms which I think are well known and i won't detail in this post.

  You take it on faith that he's not good with pitchers, but you ignore the evidence on the field and you don't provide any evidence of your own. 

Incorrect.

1. i didn't say he wasn't good with pitchers, I said that - typically of most managers - he didn't do much either way with pitchers except in game management (and one could well assume that he relies heavily on his pitching coach for a lead on how to do that.
2. I did in fact provide evidence that there is no significant difference between the young pitcher's performance last year and this year that would lead one to say "Cito has done a great job developing the young pitchers." That IS "on field evidence"

It's illogical and rather silly to claim that Gaston talks only to hitters and never to pitchers and makes no contribution to the development of the pitchers. 

I didn't say that - I said professional observers routinely credit Walton with the improvements, and it happens across the league (who get's praise for the Cardinals pitching, LaRussa or Duncan? So forth and so on)

that is axiomatic.

It's not a claim Cito has NOTHING to do with it - simply an understanding that ANY manager has a marginal influence in this area.


You think he is wrong about the interaction between catchers and pitchers, even though Blair and Anthopolous say the exact same thing that Gaston says about the importance of familiarity.

I do not think the Blair article makes the case you claim it makes, with all due respect. Certainly it's not a big peice of evidince for the quote from Cito in this article, and, in fact, I already demonstrated that there's no way that could be even what Cito thinks, let alone what AA thinks.

JPA caught Romero twice - one poor and one excellent start; Marcum twice, one poor and one decent start, and no one else more than once.If we want to define irrational and silly, it's the idea that with that sample ANY jays pitcher has said to Walton or Gaston that they have a problem throwing to JPA.

and there's no outside evidence that the Jays think JPA has serious issues as a catch-and-throw guy (Cito himself said in this article "He's a good reciever" - and your whole case is built on taking Cito at his word)

More in my next post...got to chance machines...
TamRa - Thursday, September 16 2010 @ 09:47 PM EDT (#222602) #
You accuse him of having a bias towards veterans, but you haven't explained why his starting rotation is filled with young pitchers.

A. the one veteran available to him to start got entierly too many starts. He can't use what he doesn't have.

B. more evidence that he's more focused on hitting than pitching.

You appear to think that a 25-year-old rookie is just as good at handling pitchers as a 30-year-old all-star veteran.

No, i think that with the odds reasonably high that the 25 year old will be the primary catcher next year, he needs to learn how to be that good.

However, that said, JPA has been "handling pitchers" for years - that is NOT what separates him from a major leaguer. What constitutes the difference between the two is not that, or familiarilty with our pitchers (easily overcame and not a huge difference) - the difference is familiarilty with THE LEAGUE. that's where JPA's learning curve is and it's why i was tolerant of him sitting most of the time vs the contenders - knowing how to pitch to, for instance, Jorge posada or Dustin Pedroia or Michael Young is the massive volume of information he has to ingest.

BUT there's a point at which you have to take your "book learnin'" out onto the field and use it. JPA could have spent the last few weeks learning the proclivities of only 4 teams for now, and should have done so - but that is only theory unless you call some pitches to luke Scott or ichero and see how it goes.

When I disagree, you demand evidence, ignoring the evidence on the field -- the fact that the young pitchers themselves are doing better than expected.

Eh? first, they are not doing better than I expected; second the fact they are doing better than some expected is NOT evidence that Buck is the cause, in point of fact if one starts looking for suspec5ts the first and most obvious candidate is Walton - but in any case when there are multiple candidates, the improvment alone doesn't identify the prime influence; third, the "evidence on the field" - besides not proving that Buck is the architect, doesn't necessarily prove that it's not the pitchers themselves who get the credit.
As i described above, Romero's improvment is perfectly in-line with what anyone might expect in the second year for a pitcher of his caliber; marcum is pitching much as he has in the past, and Morrow is too complex a situation to credit to simply having a better catcher. that leaves a guy who's improved a lot (Cecil) one who's regressed a lot (Zep) and a veteran who fell apart. that's hardly a convincing case for Buck being a godsend. it's no case at all.
to be clear, if you say "the young pitching has really stepped up, who gets the credit?" Most observers say Walton, that's one possibility. the pitchers themselves are another possibility. Buck/Molina is a possibility. Cito is a possibility. Finally there's the "Doc's not dominating the staff" factor that's been decribed elsewhere. That's five factors, which, IMO, ALL played a role - and i listed them in descending order of importance. IMO.

(if I had to put figures on it: 50% Walton, 30% pitchers, 15% Catchers, 10% Cito - mainly in not overusing them - and 5% the doc factor...but that's just illustrative)

finally (on this point) i "demand evidence" only in response to your doing likewise. I argue that much of what you claim to be evident in the two articles you cite is not present in the text of either, but you reading into them assumptions which support what you already thought.  given that, IMO, the articles do not support your claims to the extent you suggest, I'm saying "what OTHER evidence do you have?"
As for the on-the field evidence, I take it as a given that each of us will interpret those events differently and according to our own biases.

ignoring the fact that Romero was seen as a complete bust until Gaston came along. 

Only by knee-jerk pessimists.

You give him no credit for the development of Cecil or Morrow

incorrect, i granted Cecil. I do not dismiss his potential influance on morrow, but i view it within the context of the points i've previously made - i.e. that managers have marginal influance on pitcher development, good managers and bad, and other than overuse are not a major factor.

What i said above about Morrow is a recognition that you can't take a relief pitcher out of one organization and make him a strater in another one, with different manager, coaches, teammates, and administration, and make any sort of sensible comparison in an attempt to identify who isw most responsible for the turnaround.

as a general rule, i say again that's probably Walton - but there are two many factors to give any one person credit beyond whoever Morrow himself gives credit to.

You give no credit for Shaun Marcum, whose comeback from injury has been better than expected.

I reject that claim. There's no rational reason except pessimisim to have expected Marcum to fair more poorly than he has. Meanwhile, you haven't blamed Gaston for Tallet or Zep.

I'm not saying that Gaston should get all of the credit for these developments, but you give him zero credit, which is unfair and illogical.

Not zero, just marginal, as I illustrate above.

ComebyDeanChance - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 01:06 AM EDT (#222611) #
I appreciate Jamey Newberg taking the time assess the Jays. I took his post as a gift and I'm grateful for it. His French however, needs some crisping.

I was surprised by how highly he rated Arencibia, particularly in comparison to d'Arnaud. I was also impressed with the depth of his knowledge of Toronto's catching prospects.

I was further surprised that he would see John McDonald as trade bait.

Indeed, were I a more suspicious type, I would suspect that Mr. Newberg is a clever litigation lawyer who is talking down d'Arnaud, while strategically offering out the unexpected chance of trading John McDonald for value, in the hope of negotiating a d'Arnaud theft.

As for the Snider, while I would worry about the possibility of selling low, I would also be concerned that I might be missing out a chance to sell higher than may be possible in 1-2 years.

As for the thread shift into criticizing Gaston for not playing Arencibia, I think whatever Arencibia accomplishes or experiences in September 2010 is just as important as where Travis Snider hits in the batting order, or how many pinch-hit opportunities Randy Ruiz received. Which is to say that while it appears to make for some internet drama, it's about as close to irrelevant as it gets. The manager next year will make a decision based upon Arencibia's spring training performance, and personally I would be surprised if he's the starting catcher in April. I anticipate that Anthopoulos will shop for a catcher in the off-season, and I'd rather see Buck resigned and take the pick for Gregg than vice-versa. I doubt the organization is misled by placing too much weight on some offensive stats from Las Vegas, by someone who had an obp around .300 in AA, and worse than that (.284) last year in LV. But more than that, I think there are reservations about his catching. I haven't noticed a lot of all-star starters benched in September when they are about to become free agents and their performance is much more important to them than Arencibia's is to anyone, nor do I think that such a practice would endear Toronto to players assessing it as a destination, nor to the starting pitchers on the staff.


TamRa - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 02:22 AM EDT (#222612) #
Dismissing JPA based on work prior to 2010 ignores the health issues in 2009 and the lasik surgery.

As for Buck, no one is calling for benching - just not playing every single day (you an bench Molina without difficulty) Typically, catchers get more rest than anyone anyway.

I doubt seriously the next important free agent is going to say "yeah, I could make $8 million but I might have to sit a half dozen games in the last two weeks and, yeah know, screw THAT. i'll take the $6 million I could get in the other town"

Now, is it true that it is a relatively small consideration - especially got a guy who's got 15 games left - yeah, sure. But Cito begs us to bitch when he says stupid stuff like this.

He could have as easily said "JPA hasn't learned the opposing hitters yet and we have him working on that" and no one would have batted an eye.


92-93 - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 02:33 AM EDT (#222613) #
"(Or do you really think that Gaston would be ignoring their words and recklessly ordering them to do something that they don't want?)"

Clarence came straight out and said that once Buck hits 20 HRs it will be easier to start playing Arencibia. How does that not imply to you that Clarence's bigger issue with playing Arencibia is taking away Buck's chance at a meaningless personal milestone as opposed to making it harder on his young pitchers to succeed? Why once Buck hits his 20th does Arencibia's apparent lack of ability in calling a game not matter anymore?

This idea that Arencibia's defensive abilities are being judged through 5 sporadic starts behind the plate is the msot egregious error of sample size ever.

"Cecil - Granted"

Not so fast. Cecil was a top prospect coming up and his improvement in xFIP looks a lot smaller (and more expected?) than his over a run difference in ERA. The xFIP improvement is primarily a result of improved command, a theme common to Romero as well.

If Clarence deserves credit for Romero and Cecil he deserves the blame for Travis Snider. In reality he deserves neither.
scottt - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 08:09 AM EDT (#222616) #
Many of the pitchers have thrown to JPA while in Vegas. I don't see that any of them has done significantly better in Toronto than in AAA.

Run Buck most of the time if you must, but why use Molina over JPA?

If we're evaluating Hill, Rzep, and Drabek for next year, why would having them pitch to a catcher that will be there next year be a bad thing?



jerjapan - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 10:20 AM EDT (#222627) #

Sometimes I wonder if the endless discussion of Cito's managerial skills is most popular with people who work alone, who are not members of teams, and who have never lead groups of people.  Why?  Because there is pretty much no discussion or recognition of what effective leadership IS ... effective leadership is consistent relationships with people.  To motivate a group, one must treat members of that group consistently.  If a manager is a players manager who gives McDonald starts in left to increase his versatility in a contract year, who wants players to achieve 'meaningless milestones' (which, obviously, are NOT meaningless to anyone on the team), who sticks by vets like Bautista and Scutaro, allowing them to show skills never previously seen, than that same manager cannot just stick a highly touted rookie (one who has done nothing at the big league level aside from his big debut) into the lineup without being inconsistent.  You have to earn the mans respect - not just have it handed to you because you are valuable to the organization. 

Question Cito's decision making all you want, but we can judge him only by his actions, which to  me show he is a man of character who says what he means.  AA may disagree with Cito on many points -  but he's not going to handcuff the man and force him to do things that run counter to his nature.  Again, effective leadership is empowering the people beneath you - sometimes they feel and act differently then you do.  Force them to follow a party line and you may disempower them.  This is a game played by people, not numbers.   

Will Rain nailed it:

Despite last years meltdown, he seems most times to be a good motivator and a good manager of personalities (which is a managers main job)

ayjackson - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 10:35 AM EDT (#222628) #
jerjapan, I hear what you're saying on the macro level.  on the micro level, Cito would not lose any respect for finding a few starts here and there at catcher or DH for a player who was the AAA MVP. 
bpoz - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#222635) #
I was just wondering about catchers. I tried to get info on the 2009 NYY but failed due to not knowing how to do it correctly.
AJ Burnett had a better 2009 than 2010 IMO. I read that J Molina was his personal catcher in 2009 but could not get the 2009 game logs to verify this. Is that true?
There are probably other reasons why Burnett was better last year.
Chuck - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 12:25 PM EDT (#222636) #
bpoz, go here and click on the individual dates for boxscores.
Chris DH - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 12:46 PM EDT (#222637) #

Back to the article from Jamey for a second.

I wouldnt expect the Jays to be interested in trading a player from a premium position, like catcher, for relievers. Scheppers may have started 7 games in AAA this year but it was with mixed results and with the concern over his pitching mechancis (iirc), his future probably lies in the bullpen. And as we all know relievers are a fungible commodity.

1B-OF Moreland looks interesting but I am not sure he has the power to play 1B or DH on a fulltime basis. How is his defense in the outfield?

CF Beltre looks like someone AA and the Jays would be interested in - high upside playing a premium position. But the Jays just acquired Gose. Not sure that matters though.

As others have suggested, if the Jays are looking to fill a hole. 3B would be my preference. The lower minors at 3B are looking better with the recent international signing and 2010 draft but there isnt much there at the higher levels. Hey, the Red Sox need a catching prospect to replace Varitek and the defensively challenged Martinez. Is Saltalamacchia the answer? Somone like Travis d'Arnaud may be to there liking. 3B David Renfroe is highly rated but his production this year was awful as he just finished up in the NY Penn League. 3B Will Middlebrooks is supposed to be above average defensively and was solid offensively in High A this year. Travis d'Arnaud for Will Middlebrooks?

Lastly, I may have missed it, but i didnt see much discussion from the Battersbox on a potential Colby Rasmus acquisition. You would think AA/Jays would at least be calling St. Louis. What would be fair? Travis Snider?!?

C.

christaylor - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 01:18 PM EDT (#222640) #
On Rasmus, my feeling is why there's not much discussion is I think many would trade Rasmus for Snider in a heartbeat. I suspect the Cards would want more... Snider plus a pitching prospect not named Drabek? Done.

Then there'd be the elephant in the room of moving Wells out of CF...which if he can put up another 120+ OPS+ ought not to be a big deal, if he put 80, it would be a big deal. I suspect he can repeat these numbers and being in LF he'd be a plus defender and in RF at least average (although I'd like to see Bautista there for the next few years, if he's willing to sign an extension).
92-93 - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 02:01 PM EDT (#222647) #
Wells should have a hard time complaining about a switch to a corner when Torii, a CF on a 9 year Gold Glove streak, is moved to RF to improve the team's defense. Vernon is signed through until his age 37 season meaning a defensive switch shouldn't cost him future earnings so he doesn't have much of a reason other than personal pride to complain if the team tries to make itself better. I hope the media would take him to task if that were the case.
John Northey - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#222648) #
Just opened Molina's game log and AJ Burnetts.

AJ & no Molina: Game Score=51 ERA: 4.30 9-7 4.4 BB/9 7.9 K/9
AJ & Molina: Game Score=57 ERA: 3.45 4-2 3.7 BB/9 9.9 K/9

This year...
Game Score=47 ERA: 5.13 10-13 3.8 BB/9 7.1 K/9

Interesting eh?
Mick Doherty - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 03:51 PM EDT (#222666) #

CBDC, an interesting post. And of course, Jamey IS a lawyer in Dallas, so there's that.

But as for his rating of Arencibia over d'Arnaud -- and I'm not sure he did that, precisely -- don't blame him for that. As he notes in the last graf, he checked with some Jays bloggers, including me, on a variety of things. I have no idea what the guys at FrontOfficeFans.com may have told him, but I know I talked up JPA -- maybe it's just a hunch, and my vision is less than ideal looking toward the True North from Texas, but I definitely like Arencibia from the current crop of Jays backstop prospects. If that turns out to br wrong, don't blame Jaime Nouveau-Bergeron, point that finger at me.

ComebyDeanChance - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 10:00 PM EDT (#222689) #
Another swing and a miss at wryness on my part Mick, I actually knew he was a Dallas civil litigator having met him very briefly a few years back in Arlington. His dedication to reviewing the Ranger farm system while maintaining a successful practice impressed me.

So perhaps it was a Yankee fan attempting to backroom mastermind a d'Arnaud heist to prevent whatever remote opportunity the Blue Jays ever have to overtake the stripes.
robertdudek - Friday, September 17 2010 @ 11:51 PM EDT (#222697) #
Then there'd be the elephant in the room of moving Wells out of CF...which if he can put up another 120+ OPS+ ought not to be a big deal, if he put 80, it would be a big deal. I suspect he can repeat these numbers and being in LF he'd be a plus defender and in RF at least average (although I'd like to see Bautista there for the next few years, if he's willing to sign an extension).

If there were a problem, I would point Wells towards a man named T Hunter. This T Hunter happens to have been one of the greatest defensive centerfielders of all-time. He now patrols right field for the Angels, and by all accounts has taken it well.
TamRa - Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 02:26 AM EDT (#222703) #
ya know, from all other indications, Wells doesn't seem to be the sort who would object - his off field activity, you might remember, just got recognized as highly unselfish.

i think it might have been one of the big mistakes of the previus regim to ASSUME he would be too proud to move and work around that false problem.

now, AA said at the start of the year he had no problem with Wells in CF, but if there was a guy who was even better who could be acquired, i think he'd ask and i think Wells would take it with grace. if there was to be any concesesion to ego it would be to move him to RF instead of LLF.


ayjackson - Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 02:59 AM EDT (#222704) #
Wells CF defence isn't that poor.  I think he's been hobbled a bit in the past and he's definitely declining in skill out there, but he's probably just a bit below average.  His bat plays really nicely out in CF though and I'd be inclined to leave him there at least another year, probably two.
bpoz - Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 10:38 AM EDT (#222709) #
Thanks Chuck.
I reviewed AJ's 2009 season and he had some very good games with a variety of catchers. J Molina did start all his playoffs games though.
John N did some checking on J Molina and AJ Burnett too.

I don't know what to conclude. I remember Cito commenting on P Boarders good ability to block balls in the dirt. Maybe AJ and other pitchers without pin-point control feel more secure with more defensively strong catchers ie blocking & throwing out men on base.
christaylor - Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 06:44 PM EDT (#222727) #
Just for the record, I wasn't clear, my main concern wasn't Wells character or ego (it was a story that was out there when the talk was moving him out of CF for Rios -- which probably was justified ego, I doubt Rios ever was the superior defender) just the much more legitimate elephant of the genuine concern that his bat would be good enough for a corner.

I'm genuinely a Wells fan and agree that he's been about average this year -- it'd take a clearly superior fielder on the team to make me want to see moved from CF and Rasmus is that sort of fielder.
ComebyDeanChance - Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 02:39 PM EDT (#222746) #
"I doubt seriously the next important free agent is going to say "yeah, I could make $8 million but I might have to sit a half dozen games in the last two weeks and, yeah know, screw THAT. i'll take the $6 million I could get in the other town"

Will, I don't think that's how it works. The first two guys who'd notice are Buck's agent and Buck. Buck's agent would no doubt regard it as a bush league action for a team that signed someone who then made the all-star team, to bench him in September and thus reduce his performance stats in a free agent platform year. Agents talk to to other agents and other players and pulling a stunt like that with Buck as he's approaching free agency would undoubtedly affect what's said about the Jays to others. It's hard enough to get players to come here, which is why Ricciardi had to offer far more to Ryan than anyone else, and far more to Burnett along with an opt-out, in order to get them to Toronto. The organization has a reputation of treating players well, and playing Arencibia in preference to Buck would be meaningless as far as Arencibia is concerned and counter-productive.
ComebyDeanChance - Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 02:56 PM EDT (#222748) #
Will, I forgot a point I also wanted to reply to. It may or may not be that Arencibia's earlier stats were the result of physical problems. I don't know one way or another and neither does anyone else. i do know that the organization considered him fit to play and that those are the numbers he put up, and I do know his numbers this year were accomplished in an extreme hitter's environment where others who've put up huge numbers (Snider, John-Ford Griffin, Delucci) have not successfully hit major league pitching. I don't agree that his numbers at AA and his first year in LV can be simply ignored or automatically multiplied by some factor because he had lasik surgery, and I think, as I said, that this is an equivalently weak ground to criticize Gaston, as Snider's batting order position or Randy Ruiz' pinch hit chances.

Nouveau-Bergeron: Let's Make a Deal with Jamey Newberg | 88 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.