Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The Blue Jays have scheduled a press conference for today at 3pm, presumably to introduce their new manager, John Farrell.  Even though the Jays have said nothing about the hire, the news flow out of Boston has been enough to take away the surprise from today's announcement.

Today will be a day for praise, excitement and cliches. 

AA will praise Farrell, Farrell will praise AA, the organization, the returning coaches and the players.

Farrell will talk about how excited he is to be here, how excited he is about the team, and how he thinks the Jays can compete over the next few years.  The Jays will be excited to land Farrell, a highly touted managerial prospect.

Mixed in among the praise and excitement will be a fair number of cliches.  Giving 100% or, even better, 110% will likely come up.  The fact that baseball is played between the lines and the manager doesn't play will probably make an appearance.  Manufacturing runs might show up.  And on and on, today is a day of love.

Don't expect too many hard hitting questions and answers today, its the off-season so look for softballs and lobs.

The local scribes are weighing in already.

Bob Elliott kicked things off yesterday talking with Bud Black who played with Farrell back in their Cleveland days.  Black talked about pitchers managing and the difference between being a coach and a manager.

As a starter you pitched one day, then sat and observed the game for four days,” Black said. “John has a great background in a lot of areas. I see a man with great leadership qualities.”

Farrell has never managed a game, like Black when he took over the Padres.

What was Black’s “wholly crap! I didn’t know this about the job” moment?

“When you are a coach you come to the park, you do your work and you go home,” Black said. “As a manager it’s 24 hours of being on call. The switch is never off. The GM is calling you in the morning. The trainer is calling you at noon. That was the biggest difference for me.

“You’re in and you’ll all in.

The Globe had three stories on the hire.  Stephen Brunt kicks it off.  Brunt delivers a history lesson on previous Jays managers but he includes this prediction:

Farrell is not a caretaker. His job will be to win. He is a pitching coach by trade taking over a team deep in live arms, and arrives at a time when the critical talent mass seems nearly there. A season or two from now, the owners will be expected to dip into their pockets to pay for the final pieces, and then the Jays will take their once-in-a-blue-moon shot.

Jeff Blair gives the hire a quick once-over telling us Bruce Walton will stay and how fresh blood is welcome.

Making it better is the fact that the status of current Blue Jays pitching coach Bruce Walton was never an issue; Walton is the one member of the coaching staff that absolutely had to be retained, and sources say Farrell – the Red Sox pitching coach – had no issue with it.

It’s nice to celebrate those back-to-back champions, especially with Roberto Alomar’s almost sure-fire election to the Hall of Fame this winter to become the first player entering Cooperstown wearing a Blue Jays hat. But enough of this parade of former players into the manager’s office. An entire generation of baseball fans has moved on and bringing in somebody from this far outside the organization is refreshing.

Robert McLeod checks in with a couple of Blue Jays.  John McDonald knows Farrell from his days in the Indians organization.

I  felt he always had the respect of the people in the organization,” McDonald said when asked why. “He seemed to be a good communicator, which I always thought was important no matter what level you are at.

“When you talked to him you just really believed in what he was saying. He spoke with conviction and he cared about players getting better."

Casey Janssen likes that there is a pitching minded manager.

"Obviously Cito was a position player so it's going to be interesting to see how things change,” Janssen said. “For me it is going to be kind of exciting to have a manager who's going to be able to run the bullpen well and run the rotation. That's kind of where it all starts."

 

The John Farrell Era Begins Today at 3 | 171 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Magpie - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#224483) #
What on earth is Blair talking about? Parade of former players? Buck Martinez was a long time ago... Martinez was succeeded by a guy who never played in the majors at all, and that guy was succeeded by a guy who played for about two weeks. (And then came the return of Gaston.)
Thomas - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 12:19 PM EDT (#224484) #
What on earth is Blair talking about?

Blair might be correct in that, for the first time in the team's history, the Jays have appointed a former pitcher as manager. This ends a "parade" of former position players. However, that is a strange way to word it and doesn't seem to relate to Blair's "fresh air" argument.

Blair seems to be having more of these "what is he talking about" moments recently.

92-93 - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 12:22 PM EDT (#224485) #
Casey Janssen makes very good points.
Original Ryan - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 12:34 PM EDT (#224486) #
J.P. Ricciardi was on Jeff Blair's radio show this morning. J.P. said that it looks like Butterfield will return to the Jays in 2011. I'm not sure what his source was, but it would be great if it turned out to be true.
Gerry - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 12:45 PM EDT (#224487) #

Terry Francona is happy for Farrell too.

"He could have already been a manager," Francona said. "His self confidence is probably second to none, and when I say that, I mean we all know he's turned down some opportunities probably for a couple of things: He had enough confidence to want to pick the right situation, and he felt an obligation, and a loyalty, to the [Red Sox] organization, which we appreciate."

Once the Red Sox season ended without a trip to the postseason, Francona knew Farrell was serious about managing.

"He was ready this winter. He wanted to go through the process this winter," Francona said. "Last winter he didn't want to waste anybody's time, or be disrespectful. Once he wanted to do it, it was only a matter of who was going to be lucky enough to have him."

damos - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 12:47 PM EDT (#224488) #
My interpretation is that Blair is talking about the parade of Cito's ex-players (Carter, Devo, Alomar, Gruber etc, etc) that come back to town & who undoubtably spend some time visiting in Cito's office..... and who give glowing radio sound bytes about how wonderful it was to play for Cito.   I think that's what he's getting at here & taking a little shot at the 'flashback friday' / Cito love-in. 
Mick Doherty - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 12:53 PM EDT (#224489) #

Bob Elliott, you either have a typo or a ratther hilarious homonym misuse1

wholly crap

(The phrase is "holy crap" ... the "wholly" above means "entirely made of crap." Maybe that works, too, but I think he meant the "Ohmigoodness" version, yes?)

Grammar Guy only points this out because it wasn't a Batter's Box error, of course!

China fan - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 12:54 PM EDT (#224490) #
As I've argued in  a previous thread, the Jays could benefit from a large amount of continuity in the coaching/managing ranks in 2011, to retain the positives that helped the Jays to surpass all expectations in 2010.   I get the argument for a manager from outside -- fresh blood to shake things up a little, fresh eyes to cast over the players, fresh perspective to see the team's strengths and weaknesses without biases -- and I hope that Farrell will bring a winner's attitude from Boston to instil in the DNA of players who've never been on a playoff team.  I see lots of advantages in Farrell's selection.  But I'd like to see the Jays retain several of the existing coaches to provide continuity and to help Farrell to understand the psychology of this team and to understand the things that made the Jays improve so dramatically in 2010.
Mike Green - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 01:13 PM EDT (#224493) #
The phrase is "holy crap" ... the "wholly" above means "entirely made of crap." Maybe that works, too, but I think he meant the "Ohmigoodness" version, yes?

Mick, as they say in the hair dye business, your roots are showing. :) 

I don't believe that George Carlin ever did a bit on this, but as it contains a reference to his three of his favourite things, words, religion and crap, we can remember him anyway. 

Back to the love-in.  Congratulations to John Farrell on his new job.  My first question: "what do you think of tandem starting?". ;-)
Dave Rutt - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 01:32 PM EDT (#224495) #
I hope we don't hear too much of the "pitchers don't make good managers" crap this off-season (thankfully, there hasn't been any in this thread or in the afore-linked stories). Farrell became a pitcher because, well, who knows - he's got a tall and lanky build, an elastic arm, he wasn't a great hitter, whatever the case may be. Then he became a pitching coach... because he was a pitcher. None of this means he doesn't have the qualities of a good manager. It bothers me when assumptions are made about people simply because they haven't had an opportunity to disprove those assumptions.

I'm not saying Farrell will be inspiring or a leader of men - just that we don't know yet, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on his prior experience and managerial stereotypes. If anything, we should jump to conclusions based on AA and crew's incredibly exhaustive search, since that's the best evidence we have for judging Farrell's managerial abilities. (Though what you think of AA and crew is up to you!)

Anyway, as I said, I haven't seen much of this 'round here, and I don't expect to, given the smart Box community. Just pre-empting, I guess.
Pistol - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 01:52 PM EDT (#224498) #
I saw something that referenced a Verducci article at SI when Bud Black was hired that pitching coaches have the same failure rate as other types of coaches, and it's just they haven't had as many opportunities so it seems like most fail.

Ryan Day - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:03 PM EDT (#224499) #
"Blair might be correct in that, for the first time in the team's history, the Jays have appointed a former pitcher as manager."

Technically not - Mel Queen was manager for the last week of 1997, after Cito was sacked.
Thomas - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:16 PM EDT (#224500) #
Technically, yes. But, Queen was never thought to be a candidate for permanent replacement, AFAIK. He's not a manager in the same way that other past managers were.
Gerry - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:18 PM EDT (#224501) #
Butterfield and Walton have agreed to come back, Farrell is talking with Murphy.
Gerry - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:29 PM EDT (#224502) #
Farrell prefers a set line-up, no surprises to the players when they see the lineup.
Mike Green - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#224503) #
Butterfield and Walton have agreed to come back

Excellent.
Thomas - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:44 PM EDT (#224505) #
Excellent.

Seconded. I am slightly surprised, but excited, that Butterfield is back.

Thomas - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:46 PM EDT (#224506) #
Any mention of decisions regarding Leyva, Langford and Malave?
Pistol - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT (#224507) #
What's Butterfield's role?  Bench coach?  That might be the better option than the 3rd base coach everyone presumed he'd take in Baltimore.

Gerry - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT (#224508) #

Farrell just said he was reaching out to all the 2010 coaches.  Somewhat non-committal.

AA and Farrell will be on the Fan with Bob McCown later today so more details might come out then.

BalzacChieftain - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:50 PM EDT (#224509) #
Nothing against Murphy, but I slightly hope that he's not returning.  Quantifiably,  I don't know how much a hitting coach really affects a team's offensive performance, but the Jays OBP needs to improve.  Murphy has the all-or-nothing approach, and while it gave the team a bunch of homers, it certainly did not score us a lot of runs.  Again, this might be the players' fault, but for the sake of Toronto's woeful ability to get on base, change the hitting coach to someone who has a perspective that aligns with the front office.
Mick Doherty - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:51 PM EDT (#224510) #

I see OAK pitching  coach Curt Young has decided to leave the team. He always impressed me and I thought he was briefly a teammate of Farrell's, but the Baseball Oracle on bbref tells me I am making that last part up -- they did have a shared teammate in 1987, the forrgotten greatness of Tony Bernazard.

That's a reach, though ...

Thomas - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#224511) #
I heard some people say they expect Young to be in the mix for the opening in Boston. He did a very good job with the young pitchers in Oakland and has a good reputation around the game, from what I've read.
China fan - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 04:10 PM EDT (#224512) #

....Farrell prefers a set line-up, no surprises to the players when they see the lineup.....

But when Gaston did this, he was ridiculed for it.  Stodgy old-fashioned thinking, the critics said.  It will be interesting to see if Farrell gets as much abuse hurled at him when he does the same stuff that Gaston did.

Mike Green - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT (#224513) #
Re Murphy,  Anthopoulos said (I am paraphrasing) during the season that he recognized that the personnel on the club lended itself to a low average, high power offence.  It is true that in 2010, the tendency was exaggerated (and this isn't really a shock with the additions of Encarnacion late in 2009 and Buck during the off-season), but the overall results were slightly positive.  Dwayne Murphy was, as a player,  very conscious of the strike zone, and I would be hesitant to suggest that he would not be capable of adjusting his approach with somewhat different talent.  Bautista certainly didn't turn into a hacker under Murphy's tutelage.
ComebyDeanChance - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 04:28 PM EDT (#224514) #
Hard to believe there's criticism of Murphy (then again, maybe not). Toronto's offensive performance relative to the rest of the league in 2010 was the best since 2003 - Delgado's last year and the year Vernon's OPS exceeded .900. To suggest that the team's obp was the result of hitting instruction rather than player talent is simply goofy.
China fan - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 04:34 PM EDT (#224515) #
It's a little off topic, but I was intrigued by this nugget from Blair's latest story:   "The Blue Jays have asked the Yankees about Joba Chamberlain’s availability in each of the past two seasons and they’ll revisit the matter again this winter with Chamberlain having fallen completely out of favour with the team."
Dewey - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 05:04 PM EDT (#224516) #
Butterfield and Walton have agreed to come back, Farrell is talking with Murphy.

That's great news, if true.  Is there a reliable source for this news, Gerry? (Other than your estimable self, of course.)  I think Butterield and Walton are important to this team.
Gerry - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 05:08 PM EDT (#224517) #

If you consider John Farrell a reliable source, then yes.

I believe the press conference is now available on the Fan590 website so you can hear it for yourself.

Dewey - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 05:23 PM EDT (#224518) #
Yeah, that'll do.  Thanks, Gerry.  I just had to ask, you see:  that's how bad I wanted those two to be here next year.  I feel better now.  Looking forward to my supper.  Things are good.
Brent S - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 05:29 PM EDT (#224519) #
How about this for wacky news? <p>
Manny Ramirez has <a href="http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/25/manny-ramirez-had-hernia-surgery-would-like-to-play-for-the-blue-jays/">told</a>; ESPN's Enrique Rojas that he would like to join John Farrell in Toronto.</p>
Mike Green - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 05:46 PM EDT (#224520) #
Manny Ramirez? Joba Chamberlain?  Roll up, it's the magical mystery tour...
Thomas - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 05:54 PM EDT (#224521) #
Interesting that they haven't announced the contract terms for Farrell or the other coaches who have agreed to return.
Jonny German - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 06:00 PM EDT (#224522) #
In the press conference AA said he doesn't plan to reveal terms, sees it as just a distraction.
TamRa - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 06:26 PM EDT (#224523) #
But when Gaston did this, he was ridiculed for it.  Stodgy old-fashioned thinking, the critics said.  It will be interesting to see if Farrell gets as much abuse hurled at him when he does the same stuff that Gaston did.

Speaking for myself - my criticism of that was only to the extent that it was SO wooden it led to head scratchers like Millar hitting clean-up. I THINK this is pretty much what everyone was complaining about but i could be wrong.

If Farrell does something like that I'll gripe about him doing it too.

You CAN have a "set lineup" and still do something sensible with the 4-slot of the man who's usually there takes a day off.

As for the news of the day - let me blow my own hom by pointing out that I've been saying all along, everywhere I post "Don't assume Butter is leaving, I think he'll stay"


scottt - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 06:29 PM EDT (#224524) #
Will be interesting to see what Farell does with the bullpen and who he'll pick for 5th starter.

Lots of work left for AA this winter with the starting nine, though.

Add the Yanks to the list of teams  looking for a new pitching coach.

TimberLee - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 07:20 PM EDT (#224526) #
Of course I have no idea whether Malave or Leyva will be back, but I would expect the Jays to have at least one coach who speaks fluent Spanish. Is that not a requirement by now?
electric carrot - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 07:30 PM EDT (#224527) #
Put me in the lets sign up Manny Ramirez camp.  I know there are lots of arguments against this but I just really like the idea of seeing Manny in the Jay uniform killing the Red Sox with homer after homer over the green monster. I think he does have one more great season left.

Joba Chamberlain?  meh. Not really against it or for it.
FranklyScarlet - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 07:31 PM EDT (#224528) #
Farrell speaks Spanish.
DaveB - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 09:02 PM EDT (#224529) #

....Farrell prefers a set line-up, no surprises to the players when they see the lineup.....

But when Gaston did this, he was ridiculed for it.  Stodgy old-fashioned thinking, the critics said.

Every manager would prefer a set lineup, with all nine spots occupied by good hitters of complementary skills, and with every guy who needs a break or who suffers an injury replaced by another solid hitter with some similar hitting traits. Cito often noted that hitters are more comfortable in the same spot in the lineup and while it was perhaps stating the obvious, it was nonetheless an admirable philosophy that many managers who "over-manage" fail to fully appreciate.  Likewise there is a lot to be said about being patient and showing confidence in your hitters, and that was what Cito did with establlshed players, arguably to a fault.

Cito was criticized for (among other things) following his "set lineup" philosophy to lengths that are rarely seen, even among the stodgy, old-fashioned set. Hill and Lind were in the No. 2 and No. 3 spots in the order, without fail, until late June, when Cito simultaneously moved them down to the No.5 (Lind) and No 6 spots (Hill), where they again stayed for most of the rest of the season. Hill was by far the worst No. 2 hitter in the AL. He didn't get on base, didn't advance base-runners. It's one thing to have a set lineup and show patience, it's another thing to have an almost automatic, unproductive out at the top of the lineup for 10 weeks. Lind, after the first month, was almost as bad in the No. 3 hole. He was a significantly worse hitter  vs. LHP than he was against RHP, yet that had no effect on him playing or where he batted. Lind has had a negative split vs. LHP his entire career and there were RH hitters on the team with whom he could have been platooned at DH, or even other LH hitters who could have simply replaced him at times. Most stodgy, old-fashioned managers would have done SOMETHING when faced with the near season-long ineptitude of a key middle-of-the-order bat against LHP, and he didn't exactly light it up against RHP either. It wasn't until September that Cito dropped him to the seven spot. The Cito mandate of lineup familiarity being of prime importance led to such oddities as McDonald and even Nick Green batting leadoff, and subs in general being assigned the batting order position of the player they replaced regardless of their difference in hitting ability.  This is not standard procedure for most managers and certainly not an example of stodgy, old-fashioned thinking. Cito's commitment to a set lineup was radically conservative and its effectiveness, given the bottom line of scoring runs, subject to legitimate debate.

Being critical of Cito doesn't mean he is being ridiculed. I appreciated a lot of what he brought to the organization but a fresh perspective is welcome. Stodgy, old-fashioned thinking about the importance of getting on base, advancing base-runners and having productive outs would be a nice change from what we have seen recently.
Chris DH - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 11:09 PM EDT (#224530) #

Interesting discussion on Manny.

Couple co-workers mentioned seeing Manny at the Eaton Centre a few weeks back - our office building is beside the Eaton Centre.  I didnt think too much of it at the time and really dont now either...just wonder what business he had in Toronto.

C.

lexomatic - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 11:19 PM EDT (#224531) #
I have no problems signing Manny for 1+1 (max) as long as he isn't blocking anyone, and he's tradeable.
Even if he doesn't have any more great years, I think he's still got a productive DH season left.

in other news, fangraphs had a Arizona fall league prospect write-up that mentioned Taylor. Reading the following makes me happy how things have turned out with the prospect shuffle.

"I wasn't as impressed with Michael Taylor, the member of the Roy Halladay trade that was subsequently traded to the Oakland A's. Listed at 6-foot-6, 260 pounds, Taylor's path to big-league success is with a power bat. But this season, he hit just six home runs. His batting practice revealed why: despite great strength in his legs, Taylor doesn't use them at all. He barely has a weight transfer, and only uses his upper body to produce power. That's not going to work."

dan gordon - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 11:48 PM EDT (#224532) #
DaveB - thanks for the excellent summation of some of the issues regarding Gaston's managerial techniques.  I am hopeful that we won't be seeing that type of thing from Farrell, and certainly don't expect that we will.  On the other side of the coin, one of the things I liked about Gaston's style was that he seldom used one run strategies such as sacrifice bunting, and I hope that Farrell has a similar opinion on the merits of such strategies.  I believe the Red Sox are typically a team which seldom uses the sac bunt, so I am optimistic about that.  Every manager has their plusses and minuses and hopefully the Jays have been able to nab somebody who has a lot more on the plus side of the ledger.
rtcaino - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 11:58 PM EDT (#224533) #
I didn't know that Stubby Clapp is the Batting Coach for the Peoria Javelinas. That is cool.
Magpie - Monday, October 25 2010 @ 11:59 PM EDT (#224534) #
it's another thing to have an almost automatic, unproductive out at the top of the lineup for 10 weeks.

It's probably closer to six or seven weeks - as you noted, Lind was just fine in April and Hill was actually out of the lineup for most of the month. That's also about how long Lyle Overbay stayed in the 5 hole before getting dropped in the order. While I think people worry about the batting order out of all proportion to its importance, there's an interesting and important principle involved - how long should a manager wait before adjusting the lineup? I'm inclined to agree that ten weeks is too long, but I'd also suggest that, say, four weeks isn't long enough. Jose Bautista, for example, hit .179/.324/.369 this past June. Needless to say, he wasn't dropped from the lineup or in the order.
John Northey - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 12:32 AM EDT (#224535) #
Man-Ram? 138 OPS+ in an 'off-year'. LF/DH only though which is a challenge on this team. 1B: Lind, DH: Man-Ram, LF: Snider, CF: Wells, RF: Bautista could really scare Toronto pitchers.
Flex - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 01:29 AM EDT (#224536) #
Curt Schilling thinks very highly of John Farrell.

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/columns/story?columnist=schilling_curt&id=5726968
China fan - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 03:45 AM EDT (#224538) #

.....You CAN have a "set lineup" and still do something sensible with the 4-slot of the man who's usually there takes a day off.....

On the days when Vernon Wells rested this year, he was normally replaced by DeWayne Wise, who was never placed in the 4-slot.   So your criticism doesn't apply to 2010, as far as I can see.

China fan - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 04:03 AM EDT (#224539) #

.....It wasn't until September that Cito dropped him to the seven spot....

Lind was bumped to the 5-spot in June.  Is there really a huge difference between the 5-spot and the 7-spot?  The point is, Gaston had his hands tied by the ineptitude of two key hitters in 2010 who had been lights-out in 2009.  All season, everyone believed they would come out of their slumps at any moment, and the Jays needed them to do that.   Both had been rewarded with healthy contracts recently, showing that the team's management had full confidence in them.  For the long-term money that they were given, they were SUPPOSED to be hitting in the top half or middle of the lineup.  If you believe that Hill and Lind are fundamentally bottom-of-the-lineup players, or platoon players, the Jays might as well trade them or dump them on the waiver wire right now.  I'm curious -- is this what you're in favor of?

In other words, when do you give up on a slumping player?  Your argument is that Gaston should have begun assuming -- in the middle of 2010 -- that Lind and Hill are poor hitters, and adjusted the lineup to put them in poor-hitter slots, or platoon them.  Yet I don't think Anthopolous himself has made such an assumption, and a lot of observers expect those two players to bounce back in 2011.   The odds were pretty good that Lind and Hill would have bounced back to something approaching their better years sometime during the middle of the 2010 season.  They defied the odds and surprised us all by failing to do so, but I don't think Gaston was necessarily wrong to believe that they would improve during the season.

Magpie - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 05:22 AM EDT (#224540) #
productive outs

There is no such thing.
scottt - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 07:31 AM EDT (#224542) #
Sure there is. You can't argue that a sac fly is not more productive than a strike out.

The 2010 Jays didn't really have a lead off hitter. Gonzalez was a decent 2nd hitter, but Cito was committed to playing Hill there. Now, we have Escobar who is most comfortable at second. 3rd is were you put your best hitter, so we started the year with the best hitter from 2009 who had a horrible year and the spot went to Bautista who had a near MVP year. Wells had a strong start end ended up in the clean up spot., although ideally, you'd rather not have straight right bats at the top. So basically, you alternate right/left bats to the end. I suppose nobody really like to be the regular 9th or 8th batter, that's why you change things in the second half of the lineup. After all, the more you move to the bottom, the less plate appearances you get during the season.

Does having a set lineup mean having the same lineup against left and right starters?



rtcaino - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 08:54 AM EDT (#224543) #

Does having a set lineup mean having the same lineup against left and right starters?

The new guy said that would depend on the roster and the capabilities of the players: implied he would be open to platoon situations.

BalzacChieftain - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 08:56 AM EDT (#224544) #

Whatever way the lineup is constructed, I'm sure they'll all be very prepared with a scouting report on Red Sox pitchers that nobody else has access to.

Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 09:23 AM EDT (#224545) #
Every rule has an exception.  With John McDonald hitting against Mariano Rivera and runners on first and second and nobody out in the bottom of the ninth, a successful sacrifice is a productive out.  The exception happens rarely enough that you don't really want to count the statistic.  However, bunting is a very useful skill, not because it may lead to a productive out but because it can lead to everyone reaching (error, fielder's choice-everyone safe, bunt single) and as an alternative a relatively less unproductive out if the "sacrifice" is "successful". 

I wonder if the club has any interest in Jayson Werth this off-season, with Bautista as a first baseman. 

TamRa - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 09:44 AM EDT (#224546) #
productive outs

There is no such thing.

Well, though I'm not a fan, i think there is in relative terms. which is to say that an out which increases even marginally the possibility of scoring is better (i.e. more productive) than an out which does not. The distinction is whether or not you make an out on purpose to achieve that.

For instance - you have a man on first and one out and you sacrifice him to scoring position intentionally making the second out. The fact that you got him 90 feet closer is of value, but that value is at least partially and maybe wholly negated by having gotten one out closer to stranding him.

That is what I assume you mean.

BUT

Man on second, no outs, and you hit a deep fly to right which is not purposely an out but simply doesn't have the gas to get out of the yard - but it's deep enough to move the runner to third. That was a productive out - as compared to a fly which was not deep enough to move the runner.

greenfrog - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 10:07 AM EDT (#224547) #
I would love to see Werth (or Crawford) on the team, but he doesn't really seem to fit with the team's development arc or AA's philosophy. First, the Jays' priority seems to be strengthening the farm system. Werth is a Type A, so the Jays would have to give up a first round pick to acquire him - with an apparently very talented 2011 draft class pending. Second, I doubt that AA is going to spend big on a corner outfielder, albeit a very good one, for his age 32-35 or 32-36 seasons. The Jays' real need is to find their future CF and 3B (or CF and 2B, if Hill ends up at third). With Wells, Snider, Bautista (and to some extent Lind and Lewis), the Jays have decent depth at corner OF. Finally, signing Werth would mean buying high in the wake of a contract year (Jason Bay is one comp), which doesn't seem to be AA's style - at least, not while the team is rebuilding.
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 10:25 AM EDT (#224548) #
Maybe.  The Escobar trade was not exactly consistent with this philosophy. It is true that if the club is looking at 4 years and a lost first round draft pick, the cost is probably not worth the short-term advantage. 
92-93 - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#224550) #
The 3 years age difference between Werth & Crawford makes a world of difference. The Jays would be ill-advised to target a corner OF for 5 years who will be 32 next year when you can just sign Manny Ramirez for one year and probably similar terms. While I don't think the club should target Crawford either, he'd at least make more sense as a young, speedy OF who can add elements to this team that were sorely lacking last year (LF defense, a steady leadoff hitter).
bpoz - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 11:50 AM EDT (#224551) #
Our relationship with J Farrell begins, with as you predicted Gerry, a display of warmth.

Boston had talented pitchers and Farrell did quite well with them. He got to see a lot of T Wakefield, I believe in a "Wakefield effect" and Farrell should be an expert on this effect if it exists.

His player development background goes well with AA's philosophy of stocking & developing talent.

I was wondering if anyone can contribute bits & pieces on Farrell's player development results. I read Baseball America rated Cleveland as the #1 in 2003, so we can actually produce some sort of evaluation because 7 years have past.
greenfrog - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 11:56 AM EDT (#224552) #
I also wonder whether Escobar might move to 3B in a couple of years, assuming Hechavarria is a legitimate major-league SS (I'm hopeful, but remain to be convinced). He certainly has the arm and athleticism, and possibly the offense, to play the hot corner. This could make sense if he loses some range - a possibility, given his age and body type.
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#224553) #
If Werth is going to get a 5 year contract, you don't want him.  My expectation is that the Yankees would be hot after Crawford, but that the market for Werth might be much softer, and you might be able to get him on a 1 or 2 year deal.  What do I know...
Flex - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 12:02 PM EDT (#224554) #
AA is pretty alert to performance related to position, and I don't think Escobar supplies the power you want to have in a 3B. I could see Escobar moving to 3B but only if that power were expected to come from another infield position like SS.

For the reasons of power and range I think Hill is more likely to be moved to third.
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 12:05 PM EDT (#224555) #
...but what I do know is, contract terms aside, I would much rather have Werth than Ramirez at this point in their careers, taking into account position, defence, baserunning and Adam Lind's contract. 
Magpie - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 12:34 PM EDT (#224557) #
Outs are destructive. All of them. Some are merely less destructive than others.

Not making outs is productive.
Anders - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 12:46 PM EDT (#224559) #
I wonder if the club has any interest in Jayson Werth this off-season, with Bautista as a first baseman.

I would be extremely surprised, like others who have responded, if the Jays seriously wade into the free agent market. AA has said he wants to build from within, and the teams needs - 1B/DH, 3B/OF (wherever Jose doesn't play) don't seem to align that well with whats out there. At this juncture in the contention cycle I don't think there's any point in the Jays trying to acquire non-premium talent long term, and while Werth is good, he's old and coming from the weaker league and is going to be overpaid (5/70 at least I would think.)

My favourite random, unlikely, off-season scenario: Trade Kyle Drabek (+something, presumably) for Colby Rasmus, Rasmus in CF (or RF), Wells in RF (or CF), Snider in LF, Bautista to third, and sign or trade for a 1B/DH (or play Lind at 1st and make EE the DH.)

Losing Drabek obviously hurts, but the team has enough frontline rotation talent to mitigate this, and realistically, they are going to have to trade someone, and Drabek and Romero probably have the most value - and I don't think Romero's going anywhere. Rasmus is seemingly out of favour in St. Louis and is almost a star, Drabek is a top-5 pitching prospect who profiles as a 2 or maybe a 1... I don't know who says no first (the Jays would have to kick in another prospect I would imagine), but if I'm the Jays I'm making that call.
John Northey - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 12:47 PM EDT (#224560) #
Not sure how high on Werth I'd be. Yes, he has had 4 straight 120 OPS+ years, peaking with a 145 this season. However, he is entering his age 32 season and didn't become a productive ML'er until age 28 - those are big warning signs that anyone putting the pen to a 3 or 4 year contract should be aware of. Plus, of course, he did all of this in the weaker league :)
92-93 - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 01:52 PM EDT (#224562) #
There's clearly no question Jayson Werth is a superior player to Manny Ramirez - he's one of the 30 best position players in baseball. But there's also no question you aren't getting Werth for 1-2 years - even Adam Dunn, he of negative defensive value and speed, got himself 2/20. I'd be surprised if Werth didn't get at least 5/75, whereas you can bring in Manny to DH on a one year deal, complemented by a RH 1B.
Thomas - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 02:26 PM EDT (#224563) #
However, he is entering his age 32 season and didn't become a productive ML'er until age 28

I wouldn't worry about Werth's late development when considering the length or duration of his contract. He was a catcher when drafted and for most of his minor league career and, while he produced reasonably for a minor league catcher, he didn't give any indication he'd become the hitter he currently is. However, his move to the outfield coincided with him developing into the major league hitter he is now. I'm not sure he's the hitter he was this year, but I think he's got several more years of an .875 OPS in him.

I'd consider 3 or maybe 4 years at the right price. It might hurt a bit at the end, but the contract of almost every marquee free agent will. However, I think Werth will aim for 6, perhaps most likely end up at 5, with a dollar value that is a bit too high.

Alex Obal - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 02:53 PM EDT (#224564) #
A sac bunt in the first inning increases your chances of taking a lead. (Decreases your run expectancy, but increases the odds of run #1 scoring.) What if pitching with a lead increases your pitcher's effectiveness the rest of the way while decreasing the opposing pitcher's? Can you rule this out? How could you possibly know?

Respect the fog, dude.

DaveB - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 03:01 PM EDT (#224565) #
If you believe that Hill and Lind are fundamentally bottom-of-the-lineup players, or platoon players, the Jays might as well trade them or dump them on the waiver wire right now.  I'm curious -- is this what you're in favor of?

Well you certainly don't put them on waivers, that's a crazy idea and one that in no way reflects my thoughts about batting order construction or the value of those players.

Yes, Cito did have his hands tied to some extent by unexpectedly poor performance of two key players. You don't give up on those players after just a few weeks. My point is that it would be quite normal for even "stodgy, old-fashioned" managers to make lineup changes that reflected performance sooner or in a different way than Cito did. Obviously that's speculative but managing is not paint-by-number. There is no how-to manual that all managers follow, which is the reason why there is legitimate debate. To review: Hill was anchored in the No. 2 spot, apart from 14 missed games for injury, until late June. After his return from injury he started 55 of 56 games in that spot, during which time his BA reached the Mendoza line for about five games. The worst hitter on the team last year had a total of eight games in the bottom third of the order, which arguably is where he belonged from at least the all-star break, if not a few weeks sooner. Lind was in the middle of the order, either No. 3 or No. 5, until September against both RHP and LHP. There is certainly a difference between the No. 5 spot and the No. 7 spot, one reason being that you would like to protect your cleanup hitter. With Lind in the No. 5 spot, Wells' OPS declined nearly 100 points. His worst two months were July and August, when Lind was hitting behind him. He hit a total of four HRs in those two months, less than he hit in any single month. I'm not saying Lind was entirely responsible for that decline, obviously he wasn't, but you can certainly argue he was a contributing factor especially against LHP. Why would any LHP give Wells something to hit, knowing Lind was on deck? One obvious solution (to engage in the ever-popular second-guessing) would have been to put Buck in the No. 5 spot against lefthanders as either a position player or platooned DH, or stick with the more productive Overbay (against LH). It's certainly not uncommon for a manager to have a set lineup vs. RHP, and a set lineup vs. LHP, and without knowing all the details of Cito's history or checking it out I would bet he has done it himself.

Lind's career OPS against LHP is .608, so, yes, he is definitely a platoon candidate and given the fact he does not have a regular defensive posttion, I would be "in favour of" finding out if someone else in the AL likes him enough to give up a legitimate top prospect or young ML position player. If I were AA for a day, I would re-sign Buck and put Arencibia and Lind together in some sort of package for the best young corner infielder, athletic outfielder or even pitcher available.






Ishai - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 03:07 PM EDT (#224566) #
John Farrell looks like Superman.
BalzacChieftain - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 03:10 PM EDT (#224567) #
I'll say that if Lind only produces to his career numbers and doesn't repeat his 2009 numbers, he really doesn't have much utility at all.  He's a 6-7 hitter on the Jays at best, and only represents value in his offense since he plays miserable defense on the other side of the baseball.  If he was an elite defender at any position he would be worth something, but if I'm a team that would actually take Lind off Toronto's hands, I'd most likely be an NL team trying to fill a spot on my bench.  Otherwise he's a waste of space unless he can replicate something close to his 2009 numbers.
Jonny German - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#224570) #

John Farrell is Superman.

Let's have a pool for the Jays first loss under Farrell. I pick May 4.

earlweaverfan - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 03:24 PM EDT (#224571) #
There's clearly no question Jayson Werth is a superior player to Manny Ramirez

This is a classic case of an interesting, but pointless, comparision.  We actually need neither of these two gentlemen to fill a gap, unless you hanker after Jose Bautista as a 3B guy.

In the short to medium run, we will have an outfield of Snider, Wells and Bautista.  If we could trade Wells' generous contract, we would, but there is no major league-ready genuine centre fielder available in the majors and no one will take on that contract, unless desperate.  Snider will eventually -(next year?) turn into a 2010 era Bautista-like hitter, and Bautista, with his plate discipline, will either remain his 2010 self, or slide gently into a merely excellent hitter.

Manny may be able to play DH and bring high OBP, but it is not clear that he can also bring high SLG any more, even at the Rogers Centre.  I would far rather try to turn EE back into a more fully developed version of his 2008 self (complete with above average OBP and HR power) than I would try to eke out another last gasp out of Manny, who, even if he did deliver, would sometime in the year turn into "Manny being Manny".  Not to mention a Scott Boras contract, and so on and on.

If we want a big upgrade at the plate, I would go for Paul Konerko who, i figure, could demand a 3-year contract.  He fills a genuine weakness - a first base bat, he hits for average, takes lots of walks, and got 39 HR this last year.  Yes, he had a bigger than usual year this year, but his 12-year record with the White Sox has been very dependably good.  He can also hit well against LHP  

Meanwhile, none of the Jays up and coming first basemen is so compelling that they must be brought up in the near future. 

The total dollars over three years would be much less than Werth over five years, and Konerko would be much more predictable in his production than Manny.

Given that Rogers will spend when the time is right, the only downside I can see is the PK is a Type A.  But if the Jays are ready to contend - as I believe - then that is a price worth paying.








Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT (#224572) #
Konerko will turn 35 in March.  A player who puts up a slug-heavy OPS+ of 134, 116, 102, 114 and 158 in his age 30-34 seasons (and a career 119 mark) is probably good for about 115 in his age 35 season, with declines after that.  Konerko lost a lot of range in 2010, according to both DRS and UZR.  I have no idea whether that is a sample size fluke or a reflection of aging, but at this point he is probably a below average defender.  Pass.

It may be that none of the available free agents is a good match for this club's needs, depending on the market.  We will see. 
China fan - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 03:55 PM EDT (#224573) #

....Lind's career OPS against LHP is .608, so, yes, he is definitely a platoon candidate.....

The Jays owe nearly $19-million to Lind under his current contract (even if they buy out his 2014-2016 years).  That's a lot of money for a platoon player.  The last time they owed so much money to an unproductive player was Alex Rios, who -- yes -- was put on waivers.  Not necessarily such a crazy scenario.   That's why the Jays are really, really, really hoping that Lind will return to his 2009 form, when his .780 OPS against LHP was at least respectable and there was no thought of platooning.  If he doesn't improve radically from his 2010 numbers, his contract makes him difficult to trade.

 

China fan - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 04:12 PM EDT (#224574) #

The talk of free-agent acquisitions is interesting.  I agree that Werth and Konerko seem unlikely, because AA isn't handing out five-year deals to veterans at this point.  But this doesn't mean that Anthopolous will refrain from any free-agent signings.  People keep forgetting that Anthopolous signed three free agents last year, and they were at key positions -- shortstop, catcher and closer.   None of the signings were praised by the cognescenti at the time -- everyone was rather unimpressed -- yet all proved to be smart acquisitions.  All were short-term deals for a few million each.  Two of the free agents were 31 and 33 years old.  That's why, weirdly enough, the Ramirez idea would actually kind of fit with the Anthopolous track record.   He could sign the guy, improve the team, and trade him for a younger player in mid-season to a desperate 2011 version of the Atlanta Braves.  Or keep him if the Jays are on the verge of contending themselves.  Low risk, low cost.  I'm not necessarily predicting it -- just saying that it's not a totally outlandish idea.

 

92-93 - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 04:14 PM EDT (#224575) #
Manny put up a .510 SLG as a Dodger this year, and his 08-09 SLG was .501. He could drop to .450 as a Blue Jay and still be extremely productive with a .400+ OBP, and would be a better fit in my mind than locking yourself into a 35 year old Konerko for 3 years. Konerko had a fantastic 2010 but for 3 years before that was looking like an aging hitter on the downside of his career.

I pointed out when everyone was gushing over the Lind contract that I didn't see much value in the extension, considering his lack of defensive/speed value and what aging DHs were being paid on the open market. He would have had to stay near his gaudy 2009 performance to be worth it, and now that that hasn't happened everyone is in panic mode with the guy. At the very worst 5m a year for a LH DH, if that's all he turns out to be, shouldn't prohibit you from doing the other necessary things to field a winner, so it's not the end of the world with Adam.
92-93 - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 04:16 PM EDT (#224576) #
Unfortunately Manny won't be low-cost as you surmise, unless you meant in that you don't have to surrender draft picks to get him and it likely won't require more than a large 1 year commitment. I think he has too much pride to accept the lowball 1/5 to 1/8 deals he's going to be offered initially.
Mick Doherty - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#224579) #

Let's have a pool for the Jays first loss under Farrell. I pick May 4.

I also pick May 4 .... 2012! That's right, Pythagoras, you can go honk yourself .... 173-0 is coming!

<yawn> I need a nap.

Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 04:49 PM EDT (#224580) #
John Farrell never made any rupees
saving the East from the NY Yankees

It's obvious.  The Jays will lose their first game under Farrell on April 1. 


Jonny German - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 05:15 PM EDT (#224581) #
I know a free agent first baseman that won't require any draft pick compensation for the Jays and has out-hit Konerko 2 of the last 3 years. And he's a year younger. And plays better defence.
DaveB - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 06:19 PM EDT (#224582) #
I'll say that if Lind only produces to his career numbers and doesn't repeat his 2009 numbers, he really doesn't have much utility at all.

I'm down on Lind as part of the Jays' future but I would disagree with this. His career OPS vs. RHP is .860 with a high slugging component, so if he produces to those numbers that's a very useful DH bat for 3/4 of the season. He has one very good season on the books, he's just entering his prime hitting years and he's young enough to perhaps learn to become a tolerable first baseman. As bad as he was this year, I think he still has significant value to the Jays and in the eyes of many teams that need a power LH bat.






ayjackson - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 06:29 PM EDT (#224583) #
I know a free agent first baseman that won't require any draft pick compensation for the Jays and has out-hit Konerko 2 of the last 3 years. And he's a year younger. And plays better defence.

Interesting question, would you be better off with Overbay-Lind or Lind-Ramirez as your 1B-DH combo.

 

electric carrot - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 08:19 PM EDT (#224585) #
Who to choose Overbay, Konerko, Werth, Manny?  As far as I'm concerned this is no contest.  Manny's the best player.  (Don't forget he was injured last year.)  But more important is that he's the most interesting player in the major leagues.  This is a guy I would pay to see.  In a league that's full of carbon-copy personalities Manny's got a little edge. As a fan I'm interested not only in what he does on the field but nearly anything that he does whether he's got the dreads under the blue jay beak or not. He's a fascinating character study.  While I would love to see the blue jays make a run in 2011 let's face it the chances are slim -- so I say let's enjoy the journey a bit more. 
TamRa - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 08:28 PM EDT (#224586) #
The Jays owe nearly $19-million to Lind under his current contract (even if they buy out his 2014-2016 years).  That's a lot of money for a platoon player.

19 mil over 3 years (actually 17 according to Cott's) is NOT "a lot of money for a platoon player"

They paid more than that to Overbay, for cryin out loud and comparing it to Rios's $12 mil per is just plain silly.

And being empty vs LHP doesn't mean you will platoon (see again,: Overbay, Lyle)

If Lind hits to his career standards vs RHP, he's plenty worth $5 mil a year. To us or to any team with a DH opening.

Heck, EE made almost $5 mil this year and was bascially a reserve most of the year.

Thomas - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 10:02 PM EDT (#224587) #
19 mil over 3 years (actually 17 according to Cott's) is NOT "a lot of money for a platoon player" They paid more than that to Overbay, for cryin out loud and comparing it to Rios's $12 mil per is just plain silly.

Yes, $6 million a year is a lot of money for a platoon player. It may be worth it depending on the particular individual in question, but as a blanket statement there is nothing wrong with saying that $6 million is more money than you'd want to pay for a platoon player. ESPN has Toronto's 2010 payroll at $61.5 million, so $6 million platoon player is worth 9.7% of that payroll.

Rios is besides the point, but so is Encarnacion. I don't understand what you're saying with regards to Overbay. Overbay has more defensive value and had 50 points of OPS over Lind. Overbay had WAR of over 3 in 2 of the last 3 seasons and of 2.4 this season. Lind was 0.1 this season. Why are we crying out loud about this?

If Lind hits to his career levels against RHP, he does have value. However, he doesn't add anything defensively and his production is wrapped up entirely in his bat. He doesn't have to be platooned, but this creates a situation where the team is playing with an ineffective DH against LHP. Conversely, if the team is forced to platoon him, it necessitates using up one of the limited bench spots on a platoon DH, which is far from ideal.

I believe $6 million is a lot of money to pay for a platoon player. And, if you're paying it for a platoon DH, you'd certainly hope for Jim Thome-type production, as opposed to Lind's career production.

John Northey - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 10:19 PM EDT (#224588) #
Interesting this love for Werth. Lets compare him and ManRam...

Manny OPS+
Last 3 years: 165-153-138 Career 155 Years under 130: 2 out of 18 (100+ PA)

Werth OPS+
Last 3 years: 121-129-145 Career 121 Years under 130: 5 out of 6 (100+ PA)

So outside of last year's career year for Werth he really isn't in Manny class as a hitter. And at 32 next year odds are extremely high that a 130+ OPS+ will not occur again for him.

If I was looking for who was likely to be the best hitter it would easily be Manny. Werth in 2010 had a negative score for UZR/150 at all 3 outfield positions. Manny was worse, but either way we aren't talking Willie Mays here.

Werth is not a solution by any stretch, a short term measure perhaps but I'd rather look elsewhere if I ran the team. Manny could provide a big boost for one or two years and with his patience at the plate could be a good teacher potentially to the younger hitters.
greenfrog - Tuesday, October 26 2010 @ 11:14 PM EDT (#224590) #
Man-Ram on a one-year contract could also be a useful player to have at next year's deadline.

I think this off-season will be more about patching with lower-cost players akin to Buck, Gregg and Lewis than it will be about chasing guys like Werth, Crawford and Konerko. AA has said that the team will consider adding serious FA talent to put them over the top, but only when they're on the verge of contention. In the meantime, it's all about building up an abundance of young talent through the draft, the international FA market, and trades.
John Northey - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 12:49 AM EDT (#224591) #
Yeah, while it is fun to imagine Man-Ram here the reality is the Jays will only sign guys like that if they pretty much come begging to the doorstep. IE: cut their rate down so much you'd be nuts not to sign them.

Given how Manny's career has been, I could see him signing a one year deal with a mutual option (either the type both have to say yes to, or a mixed player/team option where if he calls it he gets a low $ amount in 2012 but if the Jays pick it up he gets a high $ amount).
TamRa - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 01:32 AM EDT (#224592) #
Yes, $6 million a year is a lot of money for a platoon player. It may be worth it depending on the particular individual in question, but as a blanket statement there is nothing wrong with saying that $6 million is more money than you'd want to pay for a platoon player.

Let me clarify - that's not too much to spend for the guy who plays against RHP. it IS too much to pay for the guy who hits lefties.

but so is Encarnacion.

Why?

I don't understand what you're saying with regards to Overbay. Overbay has more defensive value and had 50 points of OPS over Lind. Overbay had WAR of over 3 in 2 of the last 3 seasons and of 2.4 this season. Lind was 0.1 this season. Why are we crying out loud about this?

Because he can't hit lefties either.

Obviusly there's a difference in defensive value added.

All in all, I'm not worried about Lind. it seems to me that no one learned anything from Wells' rebound. Lind (nor Hill) will not be this bad again next year at all.I'd say Lind should be up around the .850 mark at least.

Can't prove it, but if I'm deciding which of the last two years is the "Real Lind" - it sure ain't gonna be the 2010 model.

92-93 - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 01:47 AM EDT (#224593) #

Yeah, while it is fun to imagine Man-Ram here the reality is the Jays will only sign guys like that if they pretty much come begging to the doorstep.

If this is the reality, it's a mistake. I said it last year and I'll say it again - there's no reason for the Blue Jays to be running a 65m payroll just because they don't want to overpay FAs in a rebuilding process. There's ways to sign guys without guaranteeing big money/multiple years. And even if they do, like in Manny's case, where's the harm in spending even 20m on the guy for one year? It shouldn't effect what the Jays spend in other areas because we've seen payrolls around 100m when the US dollar was 20% stronger than it is today, and there's no risk associated with a one year contract like that. I'll be disappointed if trades/signings aren't made to make this team more competitive for 2011 because you never know how long your young, promising arms remain that way. 2 years ago people thought Scott Kazmir was a future ace. There are ways to strike while the iron is hot without compromising your long-term outlook, and adding pieces like Manny Ramirez are the perfect example.

scottt - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 06:42 AM EDT (#224594) #
I think this off-season will be more about patching with lower-cost players akin to Buck, Gregg and Lewis than it will be about chasing guys like Werth, Crawford and Konerko.

The talk is of improving every year and Farrell talked about OBP, base running, stealing more, bunting more and not waiting for the 3 run homerun. So, we're probably looking for guys that will be around a few years and who can hit for average.
Richard S.S. - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 08:44 AM EDT (#224595) #

This Team should compete this season, 2011; they are good enough now.   They must compete in 2012, or start all over again as the team will be getting too old.   Our biggest assets are our pitchers.   That being said:

1) We deserve a Stud Closer.   John Farrell should be able to advise us on Jonathan Papelbon, and whether or not he's the dominant pitcher we need.   (Boston has missed the Post-Season the last two years, so Big Changes should be made - called Re-Tooling.   They will be hard-pressed to win 90+ games next season.)

2) We deserve a dominant Ace, at least one.   Cliff Lee and Zach Greinke are the top of the class with everyone else a big step down.   (New York needs one of them.   Texas now has enough money ($80.0 million New TV Contract Signing Bonus+ $40.0+ million Post-Season Revenue + $75.0+ million Regular Season Revenue) to sign / keep any player - Cliff Lee -  they want.   Toronto can, and must put together, a much better deal for Zach Greinke than New York can.  If New York can't get a top pitcher, they will be hard-pressed to win 95+ games this year.)

3) We need a better Bullpen, and we should have a better 5th Starter.   We can pick up Kevin Gregg's option(s).   Even with his limitations, he can close, he can pitch late in games.   David Purcey, Shawn Camp and Taylor Buchholz should be kept.   We have a lot of pitchers who are out of options.   Jesse Carlsson, Casey Janssen, Brad Mills, Josh Roenicke and Robert Ray can be traded, or be part of a bigger deal.   Rommie Lewis, Jeremy Accardo, Brian Tallet and Dirk Hayhurst can be traded, or be part of a bigger deal, or be non-tendered.   We just need some fresh faces, better arms.

(It should be noted in passing, Tampa Bay is cutting payroll to $60-ish million.  They are losing or might lose Rafael Soriano(31),(RHP-CL), Carl Crawford(29),(LF), Carlos Pena(32),(1B), Matt Garza(27),(RHP-SP) and B.J. Upton(26),(RF-CF).   They will be hard-pressed to win 90+ games.)

4) We need a Stud First Basemen, or better than Lyle Overbay that spares us Adam Lind at 1B.   Of course, one year of Adam Lind at First is acceptable, with one year of Manny Ramirez at D.H.   (Buyouts, Transferred/Deferred Monies: $16.5 MM + Possible Free Agents: $18.15 MM + Possible Non-Tenders: $7.83 MM = approximately $42.48 MM in Payroll space just to get back to $80-ish MM in Total.)

5) We need a Stud Third Baseman, or better than Edwin Encarnacion that doesn't require Jose Bautista moving here.  

6) We need decisions made in the Outfield.   Might Travis Snider be traded?   Does Jose Bautista play LF or RF or 3B?   Who's Vernon Wells heir at CF and does he move to LF or RF?

    I think picking up two pieces this off-season should let us compete, maybe making the Post-Season.   I think picking up two pieces next off season, will get us to the Post-Season.   After that, any additons, will let us go for it.    

    I think trading for Greinke is a priority - Texas keeps Lee - we must shut New York out.   (Of the Starters to be traded this off-season, I would accept trading Marcum, Rzepczynski and Stewart as part of two deals for Studs.)    I just don't know if we can keep following A.A.'s plan for the future and take care of the window of opportunity that exists now.

Chuck - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 09:06 AM EDT (#224596) #
Boston has missed the Post-Season the last two years

Boston was the wild card in 2009.
Richard S.S. - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 11:52 AM EDT (#224597) #

Thanks Chuck.

Boston's performance in 2009 Post-Season was so forgettable, I just didn't remember they were there.   My apologies.

John Northey - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 12:17 PM EDT (#224598) #
IMO the staff should pretty much be left alone. We have tons of kids and need to sort them out. If an ace becomes available at a cheap price then OK, but it shouldn't be a top priority, nor should a closer (again, unless someone is dumping one).

3B, 1B or DH - those are the priorities as right now we have Encarnacion (most feel isn't a good option) and Overbay (free agent, not really wanting to see return) there. Hill, Escobar, Lind, Wells, Snider, Bautista are all coming back with JPA behind the plate with Molina as the backup and McDonald on the bench. Those things are all safe bets unless someone makes AA an offer he can't refuse. The rotation and pen should be the least of his worries right now.
bpoz - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 01:49 PM EDT (#224599) #
A lot of guessing and imagination going on here. I am doing it too. My beliefs and opinions are positive, so I am looking forward to a very enjoyable 2011.

We have our new manager, but how will he manage. I am not too concerned with his relationship with the media. I don't expect him to be as good as the previous manager, Cito's record trumps all guess work. Cito was a good manager.

I suppose B Showalter is a good manager. So that is 4 good managers in the AL East and I think J Farrell will make it 5 good managers.

NYY ,TB & BOS have all had recent success, so they have happy fans. They are good teams which only need minor changes and I expect that they will look at available opportunities and act accordingly. Their fans will expect to be in a pennant race all year and should not be disappointed.

The Tor & Balt fans will hope for but not expect to be in a pennant race. But both fan bases I believe are quite satisfied, with Balt very strongly expecting much improvement. I believe many Tor fans will be quite surprised if the Jays stay close all year.
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#224600) #
Goodness, we haven't had  100-comment thread on Da Box since Sept. 26 ...
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 02:25 PM EDT (#224601) #
..  'til now, that is!
Morty - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#224603) #

Seeing as free agent names are being thrown around, I've got to suggest Victor Martinez.

Martinez, Lind, and Arencibia could make for a flexible C - 1B - DH trifecta. Thoughts?

ComebyDeanChance - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 02:50 PM EDT (#224604) #
Outs are destructive. All of them. Some are merely less destructive than others. Not making outs is productive.

Not to be unkind, but I think that's both wrong and trite. Beginning with the latter, it's trite to say that a 'non-out' is generally better than an out. But that's not really the choice managers face. The choice is between what is a likely out, and a very likely out, where the latter can result in a strategic advantage.

With a winning run on second in the ninth and none out, managers don't face a decision between a hit, or even a likely hit, and an out - they face a choice between a likely out and an out which may move the runner to third with less than two out. In some situations you gladly make that out because the alternative isn't a hit, or even a 'non-out' - it's a likely out with a considerable possibility that the runner won't be moved.

If the runner is at third and less than two out, particularly in a tied game or one which you lead, it's certainly better to hit a deep enough flyball and thus record an out, which scores a run, than it is to work a walk and set up a double play.
BalzacChieftain - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 02:57 PM EDT (#224605) #

I know, wrong thread, but was surfing and found an update on Eric Thames on FanGraphs.  Turns out Bryan Smith saw him in AFL BP:

"To return the discussion to where it began — this is what the great writers do, I’m told — seeing Eric Thames (Blue Jays) in Scottsdale is why I believe that writing about batting practices has value. I went to Scottsdale with some subconscious knowledge of his 2010 good season (.288/.370/.526 in the Eastern League), but seeing him in person helps me answer those, “Should I believe or shouldn’t I?” questions that pop up in my chats’ queues. In this case, you should believe: he is really strong, and seems to have a nice understanding and usage of backspin. He also hit the longest home run I saw today, but there I go getting results-based again."


 

christaylor - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 03:29 PM EDT (#224606) #
The statement that there is no such thing as a productive out -- wrong and trite? Trite certainly, but certainly not wrong. The situations you wrote about do not come close to showing the statement to be wrong. The sac fly and the out that advances the running both reduce the probability of scoring additional runs that inning, define that as destructive and then the statement is most certainly correct.

The problem with the idea that "there's no such thing as a productive out" falls apart when one realizes that there are situations where making an out decreases the probability of scoring future runs, but can greatly increase the probability of winning -- the most wonderful and exciting example of this is the ever exciting walk-off sac fly.
Chuck - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT (#224607) #
Manny Ramirez on John Farrell: “John has tremendous knowledge of the game, a very pleasant man and he trains ballplayers.”

I know that parsing Ramirez-speak is a fool's errand, but what an odd thing for a Hall of Fame hitter to say about a pitching coach. Was Ramirez one of the ballplayers that Farrell trained? (Really?) Or was it just the pitchers, as per Farrell's previous job description?

I believe that Ramirez is sincere about his feelings towards Farrell and just uttered a whole mess of whatever to convey those feelings. Which is fine. It's what pro athletes do. On a similar note, I believe Mick Doherty to be unusually kind to unicorns.

BalzacChieftain - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 03:36 PM EDT (#224608) #

Griffin answered a question on the Manny comments, basically comparing a potential signing of him to the Oakland A's signing of Frank Thomas the year he led them to the postseason and was in the MVP race.

Chuck - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 04:01 PM EDT (#224609) #

Griffin answered a question on the Manny comments, basically comparing a potential signing of him to the Oakland A's signing of Frank Thomas the year he led them to the postseason and was in the MVP race.

The mitigating factor for the Jays is Adam Lind. The A's had no such roadblocks when they signed Thomas.

Does the organization see Lind only as a DH? Is he a viable 1B? Is he a viable LF (with the ripple effects of moving Snider to RF and Bautista to 3B)? It's clear that Gaston felt Lind should DH given the personnel he managed. But where do AA and Farrell land on this issue, especially with the departures of some subset of Overbay, Encarnacion and Lewis?

Does the organization take a position on Lind first and then fill their holes based on that stance? Or do they just slot Lind in as need be (DH, LF, 1B) based on who the team can acquire to plug the holes? If Lind's defense is deemed poor enough, maybe the organization doesn't feel they have much flexibility.

Pistol - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT (#224610) #
what an odd thing for a Hall of Fame hitter to say about a pitching coach. Was Ramirez one of the ballplayers that Farrell trained? (Really?) Or was it just the pitchers, as per Farrell's previous job description?

My guess is that Farrell didn't limit himself to just pitchers if he saw something worth mentioning.  Just knowing how pitchers work can give you things to point out to hitters (signs of tipping pitches, pitching patterns of the opponent, etc.). 

But I would also think it's odd if Farrell was working on Ramirez's swing in the batting cages.
John Northey - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT (#224611) #
Hmm... hadn't thought of Lind as able to move around, but there you go. He could shift to LF/1B/DH depending on needs and what the new manager is willing to live with defensively.

Jays can't find a new 3B but do find a 1B and DH then Snider to RF, Lind to LF, Bautista to 3B. Jays get a 3B & DH then Lind to 1B. Jays get a 1B & 3B then Lind to DH. Plus I'm certain there are other ways to juggle it (trades that open holes, or close them, or whatever).

Yup, it'll be a fun offseason.
92-93 - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 04:26 PM EDT (#224612) #
Morty, I'm all for signing Victor Martinez AND Manny Ramirez. Lind sits vs. most LHP and gets his ABs rotating through DH/1B/LF.
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 04:31 PM EDT (#224613) #

I believe Mick Doherty to be unusually kind to unicorns.

Um ... what?
<<:stretches and yawns, rubbing eyes>>

No, really ... what?

<<okay, daily three-hour afternoon nap over .. back to work!>>

P.S. what?

Mike Green - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 04:53 PM EDT (#224614) #
Manny Ramirez for $20 million?  What?  This isn't 2005.  Manny is 37.  He's a DH now, and his ability to hit is in question.  He suffered a significant decline in IsoP in 2010, but maintained his walk rate.  That is not an ideal developmental pattern for an older ballplayer.  As pitchers learn that the punch is gone, pitching patterns adjust. 

If you're going to sign him (as the A's did for Frank Thomas in his big year) on a 1 year contract for $500,000 or something, that's a whole other kettle of fish.  Maybe he ends up as the full-time DH and gets 600 PAs, but if he ends up getting 300 or 400, that is no big deal.  
ayjackson - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 05:17 PM EDT (#224615) #
Not to mention the 50-game PED suspension.
rtcaino - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 05:20 PM EDT (#224616) #

I think Manny will sign for an amount that is between $500K and $20M. You heard it here first!

DaveB - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 05:25 PM EDT (#224617) #
I don't find it odd at all that Ramirez would not only have an opinion about Farrell as a teacher, but that it would be a well-informed opinion. A locker room is a tight-knit environment and everyone, coaches and players, get to know each other very well. Ramirez spent the better part of two years with the Red Sox while Farrell was there and undoubtedly developed some kind of relationship with him. He would know people in Cleveland who have an opinion about Farrell. They were even teammates for a season, though Farrell spent most of it on IR.  Manny is a great student of the game and prepares for opposing pitchers; Farrell could have offered some excellent insight into how Pitcher X on that day would attack him and with what. Manny would also have known from pitching teammates what was going on with them and the degree of respect they had for Farrell, or if anyone had a strong negative opinion of him.

That said, I would want no part of the Manny circus for the likely cost. His production is undercut by the fact he's 39 and has played 150 games in a season once in the past five years. He did nothing for the White Sox (2 RBI in 24 games) at the end of what was, for him, a short season. He could pull a hammy getting out of bed.

Chuck, I think your comments about Lind being kind of the linchpin of roster construction are bang on. As fans, we really have no idea of Lind's capability as a first baseman. We haven't seen him enough, though there were a couple of memorably bad plays. What the team thinks will go a long way toward determining how they view the whole DH-1B-3B-OF puzzle.

Seeing as free agent names are being thrown around, I've got to suggest Victor Martinez.

Martinez, Lind, and Arencibia could make for a flexible C - 1B - DH trifecta. Thoughts?


Marty, I love that idea and mentioned it in a post about a month ago. Martinez is by far my favourite high-profile FA potential acquisition. He would help offensively, he gets on base, doesn't strike out much, he can bat anywhere from 2-6, he can help ease the defensive worries at two positions or become the full-time solution to whichever new guy (Lind, Arencibia) simply can't do the job, he'd be a great teacher for Arencibia or eventually d'Arnaud, Jiminez and Perez at spring training or if they rise quickly, he would help the young pitchers (knowledge of batters, low PB and WP rates, though mediocre now with throwing out base-runners), he's great in the locker room and of course he and Farrell know each other, going back to Cleveland.  And, he wouldn't be nearly as expensive as some of the other FA names being tossed about. He's 32 in December and looking for one more contract, probably 3 years plus an option. He'd be a great asset, perhaps even beyond his playing days.

DaveB - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 05:29 PM EDT (#224618) #
Age correction:  Manny is 38. He'll be 39 in May.
earlweaverfan - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 05:34 PM EDT (#224619) #
...seeing Eric Thames (Blue Jays) in Scottsdale is why I believe that writing about batting practices has value. I went to Scottsdale with some subconscious knowledge of his 2010 good season (.288/.370/.526 in the Eastern League), but seeing him in person helps me answer those, “Should I believe or shouldn’t I?” questions that pop up in my chats’ queues. In this case, you should believe: he is really strong, and seems to have a nice understanding and usage of backspin.

One of the key questions in the Jays making any of the 3B, 1B, DH lineup changes that have been discussed is to consider whether there will be live candidates for starting positions coming up from the minors in one or two years' time.  I don't see one at third, I am doubtful about 1B and DH, but I could imagine Eric Thames pressuring the team for a role in LF in 1-2 years' time.  Could that mean Snider to RF, Baustista to 3B, and Hill stays at 2B?

That scenario wouldn't change what the Jays do about 1B and DH, except it might shift the odds from 80% to 100% that EE would not be seen as an answer at 3B.  Then any scenario to renew EE with the club would have to shift him to DH.

The reason I continue to be interested in him is that if a hitter can hit 8 or so HR out of 20 in just two series, and during those series seems to be able to hit the pitches of any kind of opposing pitcher, could he not be taught to take that skill and apply it throughout the year?  What does he do in his streaky periods that he could not replicate in the rest of the year?

Just curious.
christaylor - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 05:41 PM EDT (#224620) #
V-Mart would be an excellent addition but I think two things point to it definitely not happening:

1) The mantra from Beeston/AA has been that the money will be there when the team is ready has been, to date, said in a way that implies that the time is not this off season.

2) V-Mart's age seems to be one where players who've yet to win a championship focus on going to teams where they believe they'll have a good shot at winning a championship. Unless he isn't that sort of player, the Jays go big on the dollars/years, or his relationship with Farrell convinces him somehow...
dan gordon - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 06:21 PM EDT (#224621) #
The Jays have picked up Jose Molina's $1.2 million option.  The Yankees have declined options on Nick Johnson, Kerry Wood and Lance Berkman.  No huge surprises.
DaveB - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 06:27 PM EDT (#224622) #
I pretty much agree with you Chris that the Jays seem unlikely this offseason to dive into the deep FA dollar pool. On the other hand, the number of positional unknowns about the Jays might encourage AA to spend SOME money on a guy who is a solution to one of those spots, helpful at two, and a complete ballplayer who gets high marks for character. I could think of worse ways to spend $8-10 million per year for three years. Add him to the cast and AA might only need to address the fourth OF spot and the bullpen through ML acquisitions, and otherwise use minor league assets for a top prospect or young player who has struggled a bit (Ian Stewart?), is blocking a younger player (Gaby Sanchez?) or might be on the outs with his organization (Rasmus?).

Martinez has been on a playoff team in Cleveland, a contender in Boston. Not sure how much importance he would place on moving to another contender but the Jays are not so far away that they can't be a playoff team within the three years he would be under contract.



bpoz - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 06:36 PM EDT (#224623) #
I was in the car and the FAN590 announced that J Molina's option has been picked up.
McGowan & Perkins had a Rogers executive as their guest, I cannot remember his name, then I got my son and lost the use of the radio.
Anyway some highlights of the conversation:-
Jays 2010 payroll $69mil, Texas 2010 payroll $55mil. This was compared to NYY 2010 payroll $205mil. All this was in answer to "when the Jays are close the $ will be there for FAs" question. I got the impression that it would not be free spending.

Also mentioned, It takes 3 years to become arbitration eligible, then it can get expensive. S Marcum & J Bautista are going to get big increases.

IMO the executive spoke quite well rather than a joker.
Jonny German - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 07:04 PM EDT (#224624) #
The Jays have picked up Jose Molina's $1.2 million option.

Blah. A terrible hitter and an overrated defender. His one asset is coincidental, he knows the Blue Jay pitchers. I suppose that's important if Arencibia is going to be the regular backstop, but $1.2M and a roster spot is a huge price to pay for a coaching role.
ayjackson - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 07:23 PM EDT (#224625) #
Cot's has Molina's option as being $1.0m with a $200k buyout.  I wonder if it was misreported to the media.
Magpie - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 07:33 PM EDT (#224626) #
Jays 2010 payroll $69mil

The players on the team account for about $63 million, so it looks to me like whoever that was is remembering the $6 million paid to Roy Halladay this year, but forgot the $10 million that went to B.J. Ryan.
ComebyDeanChance - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 08:58 PM EDT (#224629) #
the most wonderful and exciting example of this is the ever exciting walk-off sac fly.

Which is the situation where it is clearly wrong to say that there is no such thing as a productive out. Exciting? No. Productive? Absolutely. As 'productive' as a home run.
scottt - Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 10:53 PM EDT (#224630) #
Not making outs is productive.

With a runner on third and less than 2 outs, it's often better to score the runner with an out than to take a walk and set up a double play.
It depends on the situation.


John Northey - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:46 AM EDT (#224631) #
An interesting group the Yanks are letting go.

Nick Johnson - sucked in under 100 PA this year, entering his age 32 season, when healthy is a 400 OBP, 400-500 SLG hitter. Worth a spring invite, but not much more than that.

Kerry Wood - the type of guy AA drools over, a former top talent who had issues - very wild the last 2 years (5.1 BB/9) but still K's 10 per 9 and gives up about 1 HR/9 which is good. Entering his age 34 season, solid in the pen. I'd sign him for up to $2-3 million but not any further than that, and depending on what the coaches say about him (ie: can he push that walk rate back down to sub-3).

Lance Berkman - last year was his first sub-130 OPS+ this millennium. $15 million was his option that was declined ($2 million payout, but was required to be let go as part of the trade). Entering his age 35 season. Might be very expensive but would fit nicely at 1B or DH.

Kerry Wood is the only guy I'd sign as Berkman will be pricey and old, while Johnson is a classic spring invite who would have to prove he could actually be healthy for a year.
TamRa - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:11 AM EDT (#224632) #
Blah. A terrible hitter and an overrated defender. His one asset is coincidental, he knows the Blue Jay pitchers. I suppose that's important if Arencibia is going to be the regular backstop, but $1.2M and a roster spot is a huge price to pay for a coaching role.

Point of order - the price of the roster spot, that is, the fact that the roster spot exists at all oblidges you to this amount, is $500K

So - the discretionary investment in Molina is $500k (I'll take Cott's word that the option is $1 mil, not $1.2 as has been reported)

Now - you may wish to argue that $500k is a "huge amount to pay" for what Molina brings (as opposed to what a minimum salary guy would bring) and that's fine. but I have to say that in a world where average payrolls run around $70 million, that extra costs constitutes .71% of the total payroll.

I don't think anyone ought sweat that myself.

TamRa - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:50 AM EDT (#224634) #
I LOVE Lance Berkman in every way except that little thing about hitting lefties.
The last two years that's gotten increasingly worse. if that wasn't there I'd be VERY in favor of plugging him in a 1B on a 2+1 or so.

Wood? Hm. Like you said - Farrell and Pappy would have to be REAL convinced they could fix the control or he'd drive us insane.

expanding that thought to looking over the free agent relievers...

Almost the entire Tampa pen has a story:

Soriano is obviusly the class of the class, but will surely be offered Arb and we don't have to give up a first rounder to get a good closer.
Balfour is also intriguing and they might not risk offering him
Qualls had his god years but sucked hard in 2010
Choate might be worth hiring just so he doesn't pitch against the jays anymore.
Joaquin Benoit obviously was fantastic this year and has to be considered.

Frank Francisco has maybe a lower profile but his ratios are really nice. I could see him being high on the list of potential targets in terms of cost/value ratio.

JJ Putz seems to have his mojo back

Takashi Saito  has worked under Farrell and maybe he knows if dude couldn't hang in the ALE or if it was something else - he's been excellent except that one year.

Speaking of imports - am I the only one who was floored to find out what Koji Uehara  did this year?
44 IP, 37 H, 5 BB and 55 K


If you could hire the Juan Cruz who played in Arizona a couple years back...

I also wouldn't be above throwing a minor league deal with an invite at Kelvim Escobar, though I have no idea on his health - but i would consider whatever came from that to be gravy.

That's five very solid options - six counting Soriano, and (assuming the obvious return of rivera to NY) and it's a buyers market for closers (and all the more so when the lesser options are factoored in) which leads me to conclude two things:

1. Nevermind Kerry Wood, it's not worth the risk

2. So long Kevin Gregg, best of luck out there.


TamRa - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 02:51 AM EDT (#224635) #
I wish to amend my previous remarks - somehow i got the impression that Saito sucked in Boston. He did not, he just had a somewhat higher walk rate.

Gentleman, given Farrell's history with him - this guy might very well be a Blue Jay next year.


christaylor - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 02:59 AM EDT (#224636) #
It depends on the situation This is always true and seems to be what isn't emphasized enough when people talk about productive outs. A walk might set up the double play and not score the run from third with two outs, but down by two in the bottom of the ninth with one out, there's no way one could call the sac fly to score a run productive, as it would certainly decrease the odds of winning. The sentiment of there being no such things as a productive out is a rule of thumb that's true most of the time -- that's the game, to not make outs. Another thing over oft over-looked, is aside from the sac bunt, hitters are given way too much credit for the type of outs the make. Hitting a sac fly or hit the ball to the right side aren't exactly gimmes and trying to go up to the plate to do them is like going up there trying to hit home runs -- a good way to have a lousy AB.
christaylor - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 03:17 AM EDT (#224637) #
Putz and Wood are the only two relievers who seem to be worth adding at all, even then why not just pick up Gregg's option. It is not expensive and he did the job last year.

I'm not a fan of FA relievers, relievers are fungible, get enough of them someone will step up. It was the one thing JP seemed to correctly as a GM. If I'm AA, I spend the money somewhere else.

Aside from V-Mart, there's nothing on the FA market that seems to be a great solution. Cheap one year deals with options worked out so well last year, I think AA deserves the benefit of the doubt no matter whom he signs. For nostalgia's sake, I'd knock on Delgado's door. Don't get me wrong, Man-Ram would be interesting, but seeing if Delgado could have a dead-cat bounce plus another year to get him to 500 HR. That's more interesting to me than hearing Manny-speak and friends of friends sighting him sparking up doobies.

I'm more curious about what sort of trades we'll see than the FA market... getting in on Greinke interests me, but it probably take Snider + Cecil + plus.

Can AA somehow trick the Mets into dealing Beltran for Wells? Please? No chance. Up until now the griping about the size of Wells' contract has been unfounded. We've entered the albatross years: 11:$23M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$21M -- thanks JP, thanks Godfrey.
scottt - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 07:46 AM EDT (#224638) #
Need to decide what to do with Bautista. Need to decide who's catching. Need to find a lead off hitter and improve base running, but the open spots are corner infields.

No need to do anything about the rotation. The bullpen need some tweaking, but there's too many arms for the jobs anyway.

ayjackson - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 07:58 AM EDT (#224639) #

A walk might set up the double play and not score the run from third with two outs, but down by two in the bottom of the ninth with one out, there's no way one could call the sac fly to score a run productive, as it would certainly decrease the odds of winning.

The way I look at it is offenses don't produce wins, they produce runs.  The run it the unit of output.  If an out produces a run (sac fly rbi), it is the very definition of a productive out.  No matter whether it reduces the chances of winning or limits the chances for a big inning, it produced a run, therefore it is a productive out.  I'd agree that productive outs are not always desirable.

scottt - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 07:58 AM EDT (#224640) #
Greinke could be the next Pavano. It's a gamble you don't make if you don't have to.
ayjackson - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 08:00 AM EDT (#224641) #

Putz and Wood are the only two relievers who seem to be worth adding at all

There's plenty of good relievers available.  Rauch, Benoit, Ukeura, Heilman, Guerier, Balfour off the top of my head.  Rather than sign Gregg, why not sign a FA and take the comp pick for Gregg?

Magpie - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 08:37 AM EDT (#224642) #
Greinke could be the next Pavano. It's a gamble you don't make if you don't have to.

It's a gamble only if you're expecting him to repeat his 2009 season. Greinke's stats for H, HR, K and BB per 9 IP are basically identical in 2007, 2008, and 2010. He has no history of arm trouble - the Royals were actually pretty careful with his arm when he was coming up.

If I'm running the Royals and you asked me about Greinke, that conversation begins with "Travis Snider." Then I start to see what else you want to give up. What else do you want to give up?
ayjackson - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 08:59 AM EDT (#224645) #
We don't need more pitching.
Magpie - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:07 AM EDT (#224646) #
We don't need more pitching.

Famous last words! As a general rule, a baseball team never has enough pitching, and the Jays are no exception. I would remind everyone that the 2010 Blue Jays were in the bottom half of the league in preventing the opposition from scoring, and did allow more runs than the league average. Perhaps there are some more urgent issues to address, but I would still think the goal for 2011 is to at least maintain 2010's run production while improving their run prevention.
ayjackson - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:15 AM EDT (#224647) #

I stand by my comments.  To clarify, we don't need more starters, especially at the expense of our offense.  Our starting pitching was second in the AL in xFIP and all are yet to reach their prime (except Marcum who is in his prime).  I'll take Adrian Gonzalez over Zach Grienke if a nearing-FA star is the target.

R Romero Vaughan - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:25 AM EDT (#224648) #

Greinke's contract calls for him to make:

2011:$13.5M, 2012:$13.5M

Given we had to pay $6m to get D'Arnaud, Drabek and Wallace and Halladay's Phillie cotract down to :$9.75M (from $15.75m) and I think that even non Jays fans would argue Snider is the best prospect out of those 4 (certainly by minor league records/ age) I'm not sure this is right.

They might ask that but the Halladay market suggests they won't get it.

And while I accept you have 2 years of Greinke $13.5m per is not a bargain price - which is pretty fundamental to the value proposition. And the Halladay trade came with extension negotiation rights.

 

 

Jonny German - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:25 AM EDT (#224649) #

Now - you may wish to argue that $500k is a "huge amount to pay" for what Molina brings (as opposed to what a minimum salary guy would bring) and that's fine. but I have to say that in a world where average payrolls run around $70 million, that extra costs constitutes .71% of the total payroll.

The point is not the $500K or $700K, you're quite right that on a major league roster that's not a lot of money. The point is that Molina fills a roster spot with dead weight. I didn't say "$1.2M on a roster spot", I said "$1.2M and a roster spot" - it's the opportunity cost that's a killer. There will be several better catchers that sign 1 year contracts for relatively small amounts this offseason, but none of them will be signing with the Jays because Molina is tying up the roster spot.

Ultimately it's not a big deal, it won't change the 2011 win total by more than a game or two. You could even argue (and I'm sure some will) that the value Molina brings in mentoring Arencibia & the pitching staff is bigger than his lack of on-field skills. Me, I'm skeptical of all that - these are grown men we're talking about, with a full-time coaching staff employed to help them along.

Mike Green - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:28 AM EDT (#224651) #
Improving run prevention?  Sure.  The easiest and cheapest way to get started at that is to sign someone like Hudson and move Hill to third.

Here are Greinke's age 26 BBRef comparables.  I wouldn't trade Snider for him even up, when you take into account salary and expected performance. 

Magpie - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:40 AM EDT (#224652) #
the most wonderful and exciting example of this is the ever exciting walk-off sac fly.

Sometimes that's extremely exciting - nevertheless, making outs is not the path to success. I find it alarming if people start to believe that making an out is a useful thing that should be sought after. Making outs is bad, and should be resisted as best as you can. This team's hitters produced 4246 outs last year (the hitters got themselves out 4132 times and eliminated 114 base runners with double plays.) I have no idea how many of them, besides the 16 SH and 34 SF might be regarded as "productive," but I'm confident that the vast, vast majority of those outs did not help the cause. I think the team will be better off not by getting more "production" out of the enormous number of outs they will inevitably make, but by getting a few more baserunners into the mix.

I don't care that the manager talks about that stuff - managers have to do that. It's expected. It takes a pretty special guy to actually come out and say "We need to hit a bunch of three-run homers."
Magpie - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:44 AM EDT (#224653) #
I wouldn't trade Snider for [Greinke] even up

Neither would I - but if I were running the Royals, I would be asking for Snider and more besides. Or I'd be asking for Colby Rasmus and more besides. This is a Cy Young winner we're talking about!
Mick Doherty - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 10:02 AM EDT (#224655) #

It takes a pretty special guy to actually come out and say "We need to hit a bunch of three-run homers."

There's only been one Earl of Baltimore ....

Mick Doherty - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 10:33 AM EDT (#224657) #

Here are Greinke's age 26 BBRef comparables

Wow, Mike -- what a massively uninspiring list. When the best of your age-comparable similars is Wally Bunker and the top length-of-career guy on the list is either Burt Hooten or Greg Swindell .. well, I know these are only projections, but that makes the idea of trading the potential of Snider, even if it's even-up, for him just ... laughable.

Snider's list, on the other hand, while headed by Ruppert Jones and Pete Incaviglia, also includes Willie Horton, Harold Baines,  Jeff Burroughs, Dave Winfield and WIllie Freaking Mays.

bpoz - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 10:44 AM EDT (#224658) #
Just curious!! Wells is making about $21mil/yr and AJ Burnett gets $18mil/yr. IMO Wells had a decent to good year but AJ had a bad year. For AJ most losses and highest era of his career, also for what it is worth it looks like he is a career 500 pitcher.
Is there some way to figure out what they are really worth?

Next question sort of, when healthy Wells seems to produce offensive numbers 30HR & 100RBI. AJ's NYY record is 23-24 so he could have a slightly winning record next year and an Era that is 1 run lower. Is that worth their contracts?

Lastly JP Richardi said and I fully agree with him, that you cannot expect to be injury free or have a good year every year of your big & long contract. I was sort of leading to expensive FAs, Manny at $? but very short term.
I think some of the NYY players are in the $20mil range as well as other teams players I suppose.

Two more things should AA pick up A Hill's $26mil over 4 years ? J Bastien's answer about signing S Marcum long term is that he has more value as arb eligible than signed long term. I am totally lost on the Marcum strategy.
Mike Green - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 10:44 AM EDT (#224659) #
Yeah,  actually the best comparable for Greinke in the short term might be Andy Benes who was indeed quite a good starter until age 30.  You can take these things too seriously, though.  If you look at Brandon Morrow's comparables, you would think that he was headed nowhere very fast.  When you weight comparability of young pitchers, you ought not to have a pitcher with a K rate of 5 matched up with a pitcher with a K rate of 10. 
Mike Green - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 10:49 AM EDT (#224660) #
Bpoz, that answer of Bastian is code for "Teams don't have confidence that Marcum will be very good in 3 years, but do have confidence that Ricky Romero will be very good in 3 years".  I don't share that assessment of the two pitchers' relative abilities, but that may indeed be the perception.  In my view, Marcum is from the Tommy John/David Wells family of post-surgery pitchers, and will be around pitching long after Stephen Harper, Dalton McGuinty and Rob Ford are gone from our memories.
zeppelinkm - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 11:00 AM EDT (#224661) #
Shaun Marcum seems like a future pitching coach to me, as well. The man seems like a wily veteran out there and is only entering his age 29 season.  
Chuck - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 11:31 AM EDT (#224662) #

also for what it is worth it looks like he is a career 500 pitcher.

W/L record is highly team dependent. Felix Hernandez was basically a .500 pitcher this year and that hardly speaks to his performance.

Is that worth their contracts?

Fangraphs has dollar value estimators but I believe that these are overstated because of the design of their model (I think they are calculating the marginal value of a WAR without considering that real life free agent spending is artificially high because it is not a truly free market -- players in years 1-6 have artificially constrained salaries which results in a disproportionately high percentage of available dollars for free agents).

I can't imagine Wells ever meriting 20MM in any of his remaining 4 seasons. He just doesn't bring enough to the table on offense or defense (citing his HR and RBI doesn't introduce a great deal to the conversation). This doesn't mean that he can't add value, as he did in 2010, but he'll be hard pressed to ever add 20MM of value.

As for Burnett, obviously his 5+ ERA precludes the possibility that he's worth anywhere near 18MM.

I think some of the NYY players are in the $20mil range as well as other teams players I suppose.

It's always worth remembering that the Yankees have revenue streams that allow them to spend disproportionately higher than all other teams. So 20MM to the Yankees is less significant than it would be to the Blue Jays. The Yankees can eat bad contracts.

Two more things should AA pick up A Hill's $26mil over 4 years ?

The team has flexibility with Hill. Aside from renegotiating his contract from scratch, which is always a possibility (if Hill is willing), they could play a wait-and-see game with him. They owe him 5MM in 2011. Before the 2011 season starts, they can lock him up for 26MM for 2012-2014. Or, after 2011, they can lock him up for 16MM for 2012-2013 (giving up his 2014 season). Given Hill's poor 2010, I'd be more inclined to reevaluate his worth after the 2011 season and make any decision about options at that time (at the cost of foregoing his 2014 option by not making such decisions now).

I am totally lost on the Marcum strategy.

I agree with Mike that Marcum is being viewed with less longterm confidence than younger pitchers like Romero and Cecil. If Marcum can post a strong 2011, I think that everything will change for him and he'll have shaken the monkey.

Matthew E - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 11:50 AM EDT (#224663) #
Name two men who have played for the Blue Jays and who have consecutive "h"s in their surnames.
TamRa - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 11:53 AM EDT (#224664) #
There will be several better catchers that sign 1 year contracts for relatively small amounts this offseason, but none of them will be signing with the Jays because Molina is tying up the roster spot.

That are willing to be back-ups to a young stud?

Who?

Here's the list from MLBTR:

Rod Barajas (35) - Type B
Josh Bard (33)
Henry Blanco (39)
John Buck (30) - Type B
Ramon Hernandez (35) - Type A
Gerald Laird (31) - Type B
Victor Martinez (32) - Type A
Bengie Molina (36) - Type B
Jose Molina (36) - $1.2MM club option
Miguel Olivo (32) - $2.7MM mutual option with a $500K buyout - Type B
A.J. Pierzynski (34) - Type A
Yorvit Torrealba (32) - $3.5MM mutual option with a $500K buyout - Type B
Matt Treanor (35)
Jason Varitek (39) - Type B
Gregg Zaun (40) - $2.25MM club option with a $250K buyout

Barajas, Buck, Hernandez, Olivo, Martinez, an AJP won't be accepting a back up role, and Benji Molina says he's retiring. Torealba will almost certainly get his option picked up.

That leaves:

Josh Bard (33)
Henry Blanco (39)
Gerald Laird (31) - Type B
Matt Treanor (35)
Jason Varitek (39) - Type B
Gregg Zaun (40) - $2.25MM club option with a $250K buyout

So unless you covet Varitek (who almost certainly won't make less than Molina, for what that's worth) - whos the guy that's obviously better than Molina that we are passing on here?

also, just by the way, AA said he did this to "cover themselves" - I'd be willing to wager that if they had the opportunity to add a better guy as a backup, he'd be perfectly willing to eat the million dollars to free up the roster spot.

Actually, now that I mull the situation - I wouldn't be shocked if Farrell lured Varitek to the Jays as JPA's caddy.

I'd be happy to see either he or Zaun come in and steal Molina's job. But if it's not one of those two, then i'm gonna say it will take a trade to get a noticeably better guy in that job than Jose Molina (and i'm not a Molina fan, I just don't think there's much quality out there for a back-up catcher job)

TamRa - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 11:54 AM EDT (#224665) #
too easy - Buchholz and Eichhorn
Mike Green - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 11:57 AM EDT (#224666) #
What's the prize, Matthew?  A limited edition Hhead disc?  Or is it more cuttlefishh?



Mick Doherty - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 11:57 AM EDT (#224667) #

Name two men who have played for the Blue Jays and who have consecutive "h"s in their surnames.

Clarify -- last/family name only? Do first names count? Or what about -- I am making this name up as an  example -- something like "Mitch Hill"?

TamRa - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 11:59 AM EDT (#224668) #
Putz and Wood are the only two relievers who seem to be worth adding at all, even then why not just pick up Gregg's option. It is not expensive and he did the job last year.

Ummm...have you actually looked up the stats?

Seriously....go look at the guys I bolded.
Matthew E - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:29 PM EDT (#224669) #
WillRain got it. No prize or anything; I just thought it was interesting.
Dewey - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:38 PM EDT (#224670) #
You can take these things too seriously, though.   That, along with "respect the fog"  should be Da Box's mottos. 
92-93 - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#224671) #

Up until now the griping about the size of Wells' contract has been unfounded. 

The future of Wells' contract being so expensive from 2011 through 2014 has been a noose around the team's neck since a few months after it was signed and has most definitely led to founded griping related to the ill-advised nature of the Wells extension being offered at least half a season before it needed to be. Just because it only gets expensive this year doesn't make the whining previously unfounded.

but if I were running the Royals, I would be asking for Snider and more besides. Or I'd be asking for Colby Rasmus and more besides.

I'd ask for Snider, Drabek, Stewart, Cardonis, and Hechevarria...who cares? If you read the poster before you, he was back in reality, where Roy Halladay at under 10m with an exclusive negotiating window only cost the Phillies Drabek, Taylor, and D'Arnaud. If Roy Halladay couldn't bring back a top prospect who had already proven some worth at the MLB level (Rasmus, Snider) there is no way 2 years of Greinke at near market value is worth a package involving Snider. The Jays could and should get it done for much less than that - anybody not named Drabek & Snider would be fair game to me. I wouldn't hesitate to move Stewart/Arencibia ++ for Greinke and think the Jays would look mighty impressive if they could pull off a way to acquire him without giving up Snider, Drabek, Marcum, Cecil, Romero, or Morrow.

 

Richard S.S. - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#224672) #
Shaun Marcum went 13-8 over 31 starts, with 10 ND (no decisions), pitching as our Ace.    I don't forsee his numbers being any worse next year.   Not having to pitch as our Ace might mean a better record.   Having a better Bullpen and a Stud Closer might mean a better record.   Having a more balanced / better lineup might mean a better record.   Signing Shaun Marcum to a three year contract, through age 29-31, makes more sense that waiting untill after 2011 to do it.   Even adding an option year makes sense.   Waiting until after 2011, because of doubts, will cost more, you'll be dealing with age 30-32 for a three year contract, age 33 for an option year.   That doesn't make sense.
Mylegacy - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 05:55 PM EDT (#224686) #
92-93, I see Drabek as having a 93% chance of being an everyday - number 3 starter or an 80% chance of being a number 2. I see Stewart as having a 90% chance of being an everyday - number 3 starter or a 75% chance of being a number 2. I see either as being a near shoo in number 3 or 4 starter.

Since the world all knows and appreciates Drabek, and Stewart is still pretty much below the radar - I'd happily offer JPA and Drabek + even say Sierra coming back from injury, or some such - for two years of Grienke with the proviso that AA puts on a full court press to sign Grienke to a 3 to 5 year extention.

As to other moves - I think OPERATION: OPPORTUNITY CALLS.

If I'm AA I try to trade for a SERIOUS, IMPACT, YOUNG(ISH): out-fielder, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, or DH. And only THEN - depending whom I've acquired - do I start considering Hill at 2nd or 3rd, Bautista at RF or 3rd, Lind at DH or 1st, Wells in CF or RF, etc., etc. Also, then and only then - do I consider a cheapish - but good - FA guy - say Manny for instance - depending on what - if any hole still exists.

I'd be over the moon happy to start 2011 with Grienke and (Rasmus or Wright from the Mets, Fielder, or you get the idea) and some clever additions to the bullpen (if AA thinks we need them).

Are you SURE it's not April yet - man I can hardly wait. I PREDICT that AA will make a SERIOUS - MIND-BOGGLING trade this off-season or die trying!

TamRa - Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:49 PM EDT (#224692) #
The future of Wells' contract being so expensive from 2011 through 2014 has been a noose around the team's neck since a few months after it was signed and has most definitely led to founded griping related to the ill-advised nature of the Wells extension being offered at least half a season before it needed to be. Just because it only gets expensive this year doesn't make the whining previously unfounded.

Bah.

In the abstract, Wells certainly got too much - we know that know because he's had two wildly unexpectedly bad seasons (to be sure, anyone can have an off year - Bay had one - and injuries are part of the risk - but that certainly affects the cost/benefit ratio.

More importantly, after more than a decade of almost unbroken escalation in the market, the Recession promted a huge market correction that couldn't have been predicted. THAT more than the reversal in Wells' performance mad the contract a bad one.

AT THE TIME it was signed, the contract wasn't bad (or good) in AAV for a guy who was arguably one of the better CF in the game (offensively, he was THIS year). Even though it was too long and signed at an unnecessary time, if they had gotten the right breaks the deal would have worked. It had exceedingly team friendly salaries in the early years, and the high obligations were in the out years when they wouldn't have been very bad compared to the current market (i.e. $21 million won't be in the top 15 contracts, maybe the top 20, in 2014)

the market reversal slowed the growth curve in contracts but that's still likely true.

The idea was that buy the time the contract got big, so would the payroll and it wouldn't be an issue - what went wrong was that the team didn't win enough in the cheap years.

On the whole, the contract was too big a gamble just because it was predicated on too many things going right - but it wasn't, based on reasonable expectations at the time, wildly overpaying. it just turned out that way.

All that said, the contract wasn't a "noose around the team's neck" when it was relatively inexpensive ('07, which was left standing in the new deal, '08, and '09) and Rogers has said they have no payroll restrictions now or in the future so Wells' money, too much though it might be, is not keeping us from having some other player because we "can't afford them" so it's not a noose now either.

Except in that we're oblidged to have him on the roster and send him out there every day. but as long as he ends up where he ended up in 2010, that's not a huge burden.


the griping in the past derived directly from fans lack of faith that rogers would, in fact, spend enough money that Wells' deal wouldn't be an issue. it was justified based on what we knew then.

But i thin kthe poster to whom you reply was saying that people were griping about Wells' deal being a handicap to THAT year's payroll. and it wasn't. in the first three seasons after the deal was signed, Wells didn't make enough to hamper the roster construction - and anyone who was claiming otherwise in those years WAS doing unfounded griping.

anyone who was looking ahead to 2010 and beyond had a point.

rtcaino - Friday, October 29 2010 @ 08:44 AM EDT (#224696) #

in the first three seasons after the deal was signed, Wells didn't make enough to hamper the roster construction - and anyone who was claiming otherwise in those years WAS doing unfounded griping.

IMO, it did hamper roster construction, because it diminished the team's ability to assume long term obligations. In any given year, there is talent to be had on one year deals. But typically, premium talent that one would want to construct a roster with, at least on the free agent market, requires multi-year commitments.

BalzacChieftain - Friday, October 29 2010 @ 12:02 PM EDT (#224705) #

If I'm AA I try to trade for a SERIOUS, IMPACT, YOUNG(ISH): out-fielder, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, or DH. And only THEN - depending whom I've acquired - do I start considering Hill at 2nd or 3rd, Bautista at RF or 3rd, Lind at DH or 1st, Wells in CF or RF, etc., etc. Also, then and only then - do I consider a cheapish - but good - FA guy - say Manny for instance - depending on what - if any hole still exists.

I agree with you Mylegacy.  I don't think any decisions on what position the players are going to be jogging out to in 2011 will be even looked at until there's an idea of what the roster will look like closer to Spring Training.  AA is probably going to be looking to trade for a bat at who-knows-what position, and if he gets one, where that guy plays will dictate where everybody else plays.

TamRa - Friday, October 29 2010 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#224708) #
IMO, it did hamper roster construction, because it diminished the team's ability to assume long term obligations. In any given year, there is talent to be had on one year deals. But typically, premium talent that one would want to construct a roster with, at least on the free agent market, requires multi-year commitments.

Good point. To the degree that a potential acquisition required a financial commitment that long, I can see that.
92-93 - Friday, October 29 2010 @ 03:11 PM EDT (#224713) #
Thanks TJ Caino for eloquently explaining what I thought was obvious from my original post.
bpoz - Friday, October 29 2010 @ 06:15 PM EDT (#224719) #
There is talk here of C Lee & Z Greinke being V Good SPs and possibly changing teams.
IMO F Hernandez of Seattle is also V Good but his 2010 record is only 13-12. IMO his record should be much better maybe even 20 wins. None of them played in the AL East. IMO something in their records would be lessened if they did play in the AL East.
I wish I had the computer skills to quote results to back my speculations. I know many of our Bauxites have these skills, thanks for sharing them.
Wins & Losses can be helped or hurt by a teams offense. Era can can similarly be helped or hurt by, ballpark & defense.
Boston's Lester & Bucholz won 19 & 17 games each with V Good Era, I am willing to award them 21 wins each and then say that they still missed the playoffs.
IMO to be fair who would be better or worse in equal competition only in the 2010 season,CLee, Greinke,Hernandez,
Lester, Bucholz and lets say Marcum of the Jays. But much more importantly than that, PLEASE pick a win number for your best and worst selection. SO then I can ask for a rotation construction from these candidates that is Blue Jay affordable and still good. I know C Lee $9mil and Marcum $850K. Like can I get 12-14 wins from Zep @ $600K and he is my opening day #5. Any $ to production results like 2010's Beckett & Burnett IMO will not be permitted by AA. So Romero @ $4 is OK to have and be bad on occasion but not @ $10mil or so. IMO he is gone before then, traded or Type A FA.
Chuck - Saturday, October 30 2010 @ 09:41 AM EDT (#224735) #

IMO F Hernandez of Seattle is also V Good but his 2010 record is only 13-12.

Why are you fixating on W-L records? Hernandez can only control what the Mariners' opposition hitters do. And he was excellent in that regard in 2010. He has no control over what his team's offense does. His W-L record is absolutely meaningless as a barometer of how well he pitched.

When forecasting what a given pitcher will do, you're better off thinking about their IP and ERA and forgetting about their W-L record. With respect to Rzepzynski, for instance, perhaps you think he can provide 160 IP of 4.75 ERA. That would be below average for a SP but above replacement level, thus meriting a spot at the back end of a major league rotation. Now, that could translate into a 6-11 record or a 10-5 record based on the run support he received... but who cares? He can only control how well he pitches, not how many runs his team scores for him.

bpoz - Saturday, October 30 2010 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#224737) #
Chuck,
Thanks for responding. I totally agree, I mean totally. That record will count against him for the Cy Young, mainly because those 20 win seasons are so glamorous IMO. Hopefully he gets a respectable number of votes. I would consider it unfair for him to be close to some 17 game winner in voting who has a much higher Era.
The John Farrell Era Begins Today at 3 | 171 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.