Technically, they also offered John Buck arbitration as well.
If the Jays "closer" role is still open on the deadline day to accept arbitration, there'd be a lot of temptation on the part of Gregg and Frasor to accept and establish more value as a closer. Accordingly, the Jays should sign Putz, Wood or someone similar in the near term to dissuade them from accepting.
the Jays should sign Putz, Wood or someone similar in the near term to dissuade them from accepting.
Why?
I'm hardly the world's biggest Frasor fan, but I wouldn't mind having him back. He, Putz, and Wood are all the same age - Frasor has been more durable and more consistent at his level (the other guys generally go from Brilliant to Injured/Ineffective). And Frasor will probably be cheaper for those who care...
Why?
I'm hardly the world's biggest Frasor fan, but I wouldn't mind having him back. He, Putz, and Wood are all the same age - Frasor has been more durable and more consistent at his level (the other guys generally go from Brilliant to Injured/Ineffective). And Frasor will probably be cheaper for those who care...
I love going through Baseball Reference's transaction report.
- Sean Burroughs, son of Jeff, just signed with Arizona. He was a promising 3B at one time, hasn't been in the majors since 2006, hasn't played in the minors since 2007. Once was ranked the #2 prospect in baseball by BA.
- Dontrelle Willis now with Cincinnati
- Josh Barfield with the Phillies
- Aubrey Huff resigned with the Giants after jumping from an 81 OPS+ in 2009 to 138 in 2010 for 3 years at $10 mil per for his age 34/35/36 season - nutty deal imo.
I think the HUff deal is 2 yrs at $10 each, and a $2M buyout/10M option
OK - so the Gang of Four now have until November 30th to accept or decline Arbitration? I'm sure I read that somewhere but I can't seem to find it now. Anyone know for sure?
Wood I'd take a flier on, but not for too much. He walked 5.7 per 9 last year and that is a major warning sign (4.9 if you remove intentional walks).
Putz had a 'wow' year last year, 10.8 K/9, 2.5 BB/9, 0.7 HR/9 - all solid to great figures. However, his career figures are 9.3 K/9 (still great), 3.1 BB/9 (bit worse), 0.8 HR/9. Solid still. What concerns me is his '08/'09 when he walked over 5 guys per 9. Those years look out of place with the rest of his career, so if the Jays scouts say he is OK then I'd sign him and put him into the closer role over any other internal option (including Gregg & Frasor). He was offered arbitration but is type B so won't cost anything but cash. He made $3 mil last year but will be shooting for the $6 he made the year before I'm sure, or a multi-year deal. 2 years at $4-5 would be easy if the Jay scouts feel the turnaround is real, but I suspect he wants and will get significantly more (3 years, $7 mil per) as he already has shown he has the magic closer pixie dust in '06/07.
Putz had a 'wow' year last year, 10.8 K/9, 2.5 BB/9, 0.7 HR/9 - all solid to great figures. However, his career figures are 9.3 K/9 (still great), 3.1 BB/9 (bit worse), 0.8 HR/9. Solid still. What concerns me is his '08/'09 when he walked over 5 guys per 9. Those years look out of place with the rest of his career, so if the Jays scouts say he is OK then I'd sign him and put him into the closer role over any other internal option (including Gregg & Frasor). He was offered arbitration but is type B so won't cost anything but cash. He made $3 mil last year but will be shooting for the $6 he made the year before I'm sure, or a multi-year deal. 2 years at $4-5 would be easy if the Jay scouts feel the turnaround is real, but I suspect he wants and will get significantly more (3 years, $7 mil per) as he already has shown he has the magic closer pixie dust in '06/07.
Good catch mathesond - I didn't check Cot's, just went off the stuff on B-R and didn't catch the buyout. Still way more than I'd lock in for, but that might be left over Frank Thomas memories.
I think the Huff contract is OK. As a Giants fan, I'm happy to have him back. He has a career OPS of .821 and OPS+ of 115 and 2 of his last 3 years have been terrific. In 2008 he had an OPS of .912 and OPS+ of 137 and in 2010 he was .891 and 138. He's only 33 years old, 34 next month and was the Giants best hitter last year. The 2 years instead of 3 is key because the Giants have a terrific 1B prospect named Belt who should be in the big leagues by 2012. Huff can play in the OF a bit, but I wouldn't want him as a regular out there in 2013. They may have to use him there a bit more than they'd like in 2012 depending on how quickly Belt develops, but that's not a huge problem. And if Belt flops, they can pick up Huff's option.
Apropos of nothing particularly earth-shaking, I'd like to give a shout-out to Joanna's Guide to the Blue Jays on Twitter.
As Joanna says, Travis Snider is easily the most enthusiastic and engaging Tweeter (twit?) by a mile. Even if he posts almost exclusively about food. Seems to be all the young man thinks about! Well, that and the Seahawks.
Why?
For the picks obviously. Given Frasor and his equivalent on the open market in ability and price, the Jays will take the equivalent and hope for draft picks. Whether or not Wood and Putz are going to sign for the same as Frasor/Gregg would get in arbitration is moot - I only suggest them as examples. Gregg, for his part, can put a strong arbitration case together. I doubt Wood or Putz could get more on a one year deal, but may be able to get a multi year deal.
Travis' tweets have focussed of burgers and ditch digging so far this offseason. They don't fill me with Blue Jay joy! Next week he'll be tweeting about downhill mountain biking or ski-diving.
For the picks obviously.
Yeah, but why would that discourage Frasor? In fact, as his whole problem on the market this winter is going to be because he's a Type A, it might actually be to his advantage to do this again next winter as a Type B. Of course, if he ends up closing for Toronto in 2011, that strategy probably won't work. But if he has a good year closing for Toronto in 2011, it may not matter.
Yeah, but why would that discourage Frasor? In fact, as his whole problem on the market this winter is going to be because he's a Type A, it might actually be to his advantage to do this again next winter as a Type B. Of course, if he ends up closing for Toronto in 2011, that strategy probably won't work. But if he has a good year closing for Toronto in 2011, it may not matter.
If Frasor stays, he has a chance to be the closer again. At the very least, he might perceive that chance. If he leaves, he knows it's not as a closer.
If Frasor stays, he has a chance to be the closer again.
Which I'm OK with, until someone else steps and takes the job. My views on Frasor have shifted - I have always been one of those (like his former GM!) who thought he was one of those guys who would pitch well for you unless you actually needed him to pitch well. Now I think he's just a thrower, as opposed to a pitcher. So when his stuff is working, he's fine, and it doesn't matter whether it's the sixth inning or the ninth, if the game is close or not. But when his stuff isn't working, he has no Plan B, no way to work around it. He can't pitch his way out of it - all he can do is keep throwing, and hope the line drive ends up in someone's glove. Just as all Kevin Gregg can do is keep nibbling for the corner, and hope the umpire decides it's a strike after all. In that case, I think I prefer Frasor.
Which I'm OK with, until someone else steps and takes the job. My views on Frasor have shifted - I have always been one of those (like his former GM!) who thought he was one of those guys who would pitch well for you unless you actually needed him to pitch well. Now I think he's just a thrower, as opposed to a pitcher. So when his stuff is working, he's fine, and it doesn't matter whether it's the sixth inning or the ninth, if the game is close or not. But when his stuff isn't working, he has no Plan B, no way to work around it. He can't pitch his way out of it - all he can do is keep throwing, and hope the line drive ends up in someone's glove. Just as all Kevin Gregg can do is keep nibbling for the corner, and hope the umpire decides it's a strike after all. In that case, I think I prefer Frasor.
Frasor's BBRef comps are kind of funny: Roy Lee Jackson, Tom Buskey, a bunch of other no-name relievers and Steve Farr. Farr is the one you want- short guy who had three good years closing out games at 33-35.
It would obviously not be ideal if both Frasor and Gregg accepted arbitration, but Gregg is not likely to.
It would obviously not be ideal if both Frasor and Gregg accepted arbitration, but Gregg is not likely to.
Is this correct...we don't have a budget for amateur signings.
With no $ limits as such, we don't have to do bargain picks if we have a lot of picks. If however we have less top picks than we hoped then maybe we splurge on the Intl FAs.
With no $ limits as such, we don't have to do bargain picks if we have a lot of picks. If however we have less top picks than we hoped then maybe we splurge on the Intl FAs.
If Frasor is the closer. the Jays are in deep trouble. Well, at least until he is replaced which has happened before. When it comes to relievers I prefer to trust my eyes over any stats. Watching Frasor pitch is a painful experience. He has far more good outings than bad and I think that this may be a rare mistake by AA as i can't see Frasor wanting to become a free agent. I can't remember if it's baseball or hockey where the team can walk away from an arbitration decision. Presumably it's hockey or they would offer them all arbitration wouldn't they? . Can someone confirm that?
Is this correct...we don't have a budget for amateur signings
Since Alex took over, we might have a budget, but I believe it's set high and is adjustable higher whenever it's needed. This includes International signings as well.
If Frasor stays, he has a chance to be the closer again
Why do so many people have such a passion for a not good enough pitcher? He's one of three top relief pitcher Free Agents from a Bullpen that stunk, 10th of 14 AL teams. When you settle for less than the best, you usually finish with less than the best.
The most entertaining Jay on twitter is Dirk Hayhurst: garfoose.
Well, I still think of him as a Jay anyway... at least until he signs somewhere else.
Next week he'll be tweeting about downhill mountain biking or ski-diving.
Or, euphemastically, tobogganing or truck washing (were he to opt for the mendacious, a la Paul Quantrill and Jeff Kent).
Or, euphemastically, tobogganing or truck washing (were he to opt for the mendacious, a la Paul Quantrill and Jeff Kent).
So if Frasor and Balfour are still unsigned type A free agents come Christmas do they meet with Anthopolous and Friedman for Christmas dinner and have a "sign each other's free agent" party?
This would secure each team an extra supplementary first rounder while exchanging first rounders. Toronto may need a little extra gravy on the stuffing due to the position of the free agent. That may be mitigated by the position of the supplementary picks.
It seems that the compensation system is already missing most of its integrity - a move like this could be the icing on the cake.
It would be worth it just to piss off the rest of the division.
do they meet with Anthopolous and Friedman for Christmas dinner
I'm not sure that a fellow with the last name Friedman would have a Christmas dinner. Other than that, perfect Hitchcockian plan.
I'm reasonably confident Gregg will decline arbitration and be signed. From his point of view, he may never have a better chance at a longterm contract, being a Type B and coming off a much better season than the previous one, and given his age.
Frasor, I'm less optimistic about. His camp knows that he's one of, if not the, most unlikely to be signed as a Type A free agent. I think all teams want to have as many fingers as possible in the 2011 draft. Being put in the same pool as players like Jayson Werth, Carl Crawford and Victor Martinez is wildly disproportionate to his value to any team. His total WAR for the last five years has been 4.0 over the entire period, compared to 19.6 for Werth, 22.7 for Carl Crawford, and 18.6 for Martinez. Moreover, it has to be kind of tempting to take the team to arbitration and shoot for Benoit-type money from an arbitrator, and hope that he's a Type B next year or in a weaker class of relief pitching. Even if he were released in spring training, as some have pointed out he could be, he might be in no worse a position to negotiate with other teams as there would be no draft pick compensation.
I'm hoping that the highest-ranked free agent, Werth, signs with Detroit, so that Philly rather than Boston gets the Tigers' first pick. I've read that the Tigers are in the market for outfielders.
Frasor, I'm less optimistic about. His camp knows that he's one of, if not the, most unlikely to be signed as a Type A free agent. I think all teams want to have as many fingers as possible in the 2011 draft. Being put in the same pool as players like Jayson Werth, Carl Crawford and Victor Martinez is wildly disproportionate to his value to any team. His total WAR for the last five years has been 4.0 over the entire period, compared to 19.6 for Werth, 22.7 for Carl Crawford, and 18.6 for Martinez. Moreover, it has to be kind of tempting to take the team to arbitration and shoot for Benoit-type money from an arbitrator, and hope that he's a Type B next year or in a weaker class of relief pitching. Even if he were released in spring training, as some have pointed out he could be, he might be in no worse a position to negotiate with other teams as there would be no draft pick compensation.
I'm hoping that the highest-ranked free agent, Werth, signs with Detroit, so that Philly rather than Boston gets the Tigers' first pick. I've read that the Tigers are in the market for outfielders.
I'm not sure that a fellow with the last name Friedman would have a
Christmas dinner. Other than that, perfect Hitchcockian plan.
Blue Jays and Christmas goose. Weren't the birds flying in the Hitchcock movie? And as for the prospect of a Jew having Christmas dinner with a gentile in order to make a business deal...well, that gets you working up a sweat on the euphemism treadmill. On the other hand, they could safely agree to go to a Chinese restaurant on Boxing Day.
Seriously, I like the "I'll sign your A reliever and you'll sign mine". Of course, it's better when it's done outside the league, or at least outside the division.
Blue Jays and Christmas goose. Weren't the birds flying in the Hitchcock movie? And as for the prospect of a Jew having Christmas dinner with a gentile in order to make a business deal...well, that gets you working up a sweat on the euphemism treadmill. On the other hand, they could safely agree to go to a Chinese restaurant on Boxing Day.
Seriously, I like the "I'll sign your A reliever and you'll sign mine". Of course, it's better when it's done outside the league, or at least outside the division.
Friedman would be getting the higher pick. Is that not worth compromising your religious beliefs?
I'd roll over on Jesus for less. Though I may burn in Hell.
Weren't the birds flying in the Hitchcock movie?
I was thinking Strangers on a Train, actually. Criss-cross and all that.
I was thinking Strangers on a Train, actually. Criss-cross and all that.
I share Magpie's thoughts on Jason Frasor completely and wouldn't mind if he accepted arbitration but still don't think he will unless he likes Toronto.
ZIPS have been posted for the Rays. Several of Tampa's free agent relievers that we've speculated on before have projections that would make them serviable setup men, as suspected. Another name that catches the eye is one of my favourite perennial minor league free agents, reliever Winston Abreu.
He's projected to put up a 3.74 ERA and basically be Dan Wheeler's equal. ZIPS pegs him to have a 78% chance of putting an ERA+ of over 100. There's some reason he hasn't had more than a handful of MLB innings in his career, but everything about Abreu's numbers suggests the Jays could do a lot worse than having him as the fifth or sixth reliever.
Correction on my view above. I said Frasor has far more good outings then bad when I meant the opposite! Please decline, Jason, so we can get a draft choice.
Man, I have no idea how you would project Winston Abreu. Evidently he throws very hard even at 33. I don't know why you wouldn't want to have him around if the cost was minimal.
Wow, nice K's there for Abreu. He'd be a solid AAA signing with a shot at the pen in spring.
I said Frasor has far more good outings then bad when I meant the opposite!
He pitched in 69 games and gave up 26 runs. He gave up 0 runs in 50 games. Is a good outing only an outing where he strikes out everyone he faces?
He pitched in 69 games and gave up 26 runs. He gave up 0 runs in 50 games. Is a good outing only an outing where he strikes out everyone he faces?
Oh wait - there was one game where Frasor didn't allow any runs himself, but allowed someone else's inherited runner to score.
I share Magpie's thoughts on Jason Frasor completely and wouldn't mind if he accepted arbitration but still don't think he will unless he likes Toronto.
I don't know if I would agree with Magpie's depiction of Frasor as a thrower rather than a pitcher, but I agree that I would rather have him than Gregg. I'd much rather have a draft pick though, as would the Jays, and if he accepts arbitration I doubt it has anything to do with 'liking Toronto' as opposed to his and his agent's view of his likely success (or more to the point, lack thereof) in the market when he costs a pick.
I don't know if I would agree with Magpie's depiction of Frasor as a thrower rather than a pitcher, but I agree that I would rather have him than Gregg. I'd much rather have a draft pick though, as would the Jays, and if he accepts arbitration I doubt it has anything to do with 'liking Toronto' as opposed to his and his agent's view of his likely success (or more to the point, lack thereof) in the market when he costs a pick.
Frasor had a horrible April where nothing worked. Take out that month and you have very good stats.
And after the all-star break he pitched 29 innings with 23 hits, 9 walks, 27 strikeouts and a 2.48 ERA.
I'd still rather have the pick though, coupled with Frasor's equivalent in the open market.
Here's a pointless exercise in examining the work of the bullpen. How many Clean Outings (allowed no runs of their own, or no runners they inherited) did they provide?
A long time ago, I posited that any time a relief pitcher allowed 3 runs in a game, you probably had to consider it an unsuccessful outing. (Hey, sometimes you can get away with giving up two runs.) I was probably indulging in one of my many salutes to Mighty Tom Henke, who once went almost two full years without permitting that to happen.
So. Who provided us the Kerry Ligtenberg experience in 2010? Well, everyone. But leading the way? Naturally it was a:) the Long Man, who was b) having the worst season of his career.
Pitcher Appearances Clean Clean% His Own Inherited (BOTH - His+Inherited)
Camp 70 48 68.6 18 4 4
Frasor 69 49 71.0 19 1 3
Downs 67 51 76.1 12 4 3
Gregg 63 43 68.3 16 4 0
Janssen 56 31 55.3 17 8 2
Purcey 33 25 75.8 8 0 2
Tallett 29 8 27.6 19 2 5
Carlson 20 15 75.0 4 1 0
Reonicke 16 7 43.8 8 1 1
Lewis 14 7 50.0 6 1 1
A long time ago, I posited that any time a relief pitcher allowed 3 runs in a game, you probably had to consider it an unsuccessful outing. (Hey, sometimes you can get away with giving up two runs.) I was probably indulging in one of my many salutes to Mighty Tom Henke, who once went almost two full years without permitting that to happen.
So. Who provided us the Kerry Ligtenberg experience in 2010? Well, everyone. But leading the way? Naturally it was a:) the Long Man, who was b) having the worst season of his career.
Brian Tallet - 6
Casey Janssen - 4
Rommie Lewis - 2
Josh Roenicke - 2
David Purcey - 2
Kevin Gregg - 2
Scott Downs - 2
Jason Frasor - 2
Shawn Camp - 1
Did the starters secretly whinge when Casey came in?
I could be missing what that exercise was but if the last column is inherited runners that scored it can't be correct. Purcey never allowed an inherited runner to score? Those totals all seem awfully low to me. Regardless, Purcey had a much better year in relief than I had realized. It would be big for the team if he takes a step forward again and becomes a reliable reliever for a full season. He's under control through 2015.
The last column are those games when a pitcher allowed BOTH one of his own runners and an inherited runner to score. Twice Purcey allowed inherited runners to score, but both times he allowed his own runners to score in the same game. The 0 column in his case means there were no games when he allowed only an inherited runner to score. Sorry that wasn't more clear...
And again, I wasn't counting runs or runners - I was counting games.
Anyway - I was looking at the Long Fellow, Brian Tallet (maybe giving him the same nickname as Eamon de Valera, not one of my favourites, was a bad idea) and wondering - just what went wrong? He's still getting his Ks - not as many when he was pitching just one inning at a time, but that's normal. He walks lots of guys, but he always did that. Hits? Well, 84 hits in 77.1 IPT isn't exactly bad. Home Runs?
Oh yes.
Tallet gave up 20 HR in 77.1 IPT. Which is astonishing, and maybe even one of the reasons he was allowed to be so awful. (You know, he's out there, he seems to be doing OK and all of a sudden a baseball goes flying over the wall.)
Anyway - is that a record? Has anyone ever given up 20 HR in fewer innings?
Almost. Tallet's 2010 performance matches that of Scott Aldred back in 1997. No one had given up so much in so few as Aldred at that time, but since then Doug Waecher in 2004 (20 HR in 70 IP) and our all-time champ Glendon Rush (21 HR in 66.1 IP have plumbed new depths of non-performance.)
Finding out this out required a little jaunt through the records. After the madness of 1893-94 died down, no one gave up 20 HRs in a season until 1921, when Eddie Rommel and Urban Shocker broke this new ground. Since 1928, there's been at least one pitcher every season (except the strike year of 1981) to allow that many homers. Sometimes only 1 (1933, the War Years 1942-45), once more then a hundred (101 in 2000). It's happened 2864 times, beginning with Rommel and Shocker.
But 20 HRs in less than 100 IP? That's unusual. It happened for the first time in 1953, in the NL - a journeyman vet named Herm Wehmeier iof the Reds (20 HR, 81 IP) and a teenage never-would-be named Jim Waugh of the Pirates (20 HR, 90.1). Two years later, Cloyd Boyer of the 1955 Kansas City A's joined the club (21 HR, 98 IP). Then we have a long wait until the late 1980s Cleveland Indians come to our rescue. In 1987, they gave us our fourth ne'er-do-well: the immortal Rich Yett (21 HR, 97.2) and a few years later, in 1993, another Cleveland pitcher became the fifth man to achieve this Dubious Feat.
That was the New Boss, John Farrell (22 HR, 90.2 IP). Man, it's a small world!
It's happened more regularly since then. But Tallet's 2010 was still kinda special.
Anyway - I was looking at the Long Fellow, Brian Tallet (maybe giving him the same nickname as Eamon de Valera, not one of my favourites, was a bad idea) and wondering - just what went wrong? He's still getting his Ks - not as many when he was pitching just one inning at a time, but that's normal. He walks lots of guys, but he always did that. Hits? Well, 84 hits in 77.1 IPT isn't exactly bad. Home Runs?
Oh yes.
Tallet gave up 20 HR in 77.1 IPT. Which is astonishing, and maybe even one of the reasons he was allowed to be so awful. (You know, he's out there, he seems to be doing OK and all of a sudden a baseball goes flying over the wall.)
Anyway - is that a record? Has anyone ever given up 20 HR in fewer innings?
Almost. Tallet's 2010 performance matches that of Scott Aldred back in 1997. No one had given up so much in so few as Aldred at that time, but since then Doug Waecher in 2004 (20 HR in 70 IP) and our all-time champ Glendon Rush (21 HR in 66.1 IP have plumbed new depths of non-performance.)
Finding out this out required a little jaunt through the records. After the madness of 1893-94 died down, no one gave up 20 HRs in a season until 1921, when Eddie Rommel and Urban Shocker broke this new ground. Since 1928, there's been at least one pitcher every season (except the strike year of 1981) to allow that many homers. Sometimes only 1 (1933, the War Years 1942-45), once more then a hundred (101 in 2000). It's happened 2864 times, beginning with Rommel and Shocker.
But 20 HRs in less than 100 IP? That's unusual. It happened for the first time in 1953, in the NL - a journeyman vet named Herm Wehmeier iof the Reds (20 HR, 81 IP) and a teenage never-would-be named Jim Waugh of the Pirates (20 HR, 90.1). Two years later, Cloyd Boyer of the 1955 Kansas City A's joined the club (21 HR, 98 IP). Then we have a long wait until the late 1980s Cleveland Indians come to our rescue. In 1987, they gave us our fourth ne'er-do-well: the immortal Rich Yett (21 HR, 97.2) and a few years later, in 1993, another Cleveland pitcher became the fifth man to achieve this Dubious Feat.
That was the New Boss, John Farrell (22 HR, 90.2 IP). Man, it's a small world!
It's happened more regularly since then. But Tallet's 2010 was still kinda special.
Five days and counting till November 30th...
That's how much more time Frasor, and others offered arbitration, have to decide whether to take it or not. The reason to let it go and take their chances is John Bucks 3 year 22 billion dollar contract (it might actually have been less than 22 billion - but it was near there). The reason to accept is that it's winter - nearing Xmas and it's cold out there - and - in Frasor's case for instance - he would get himself a nice raise on a one year contract - BUT - he can then be cut in spring training and actually get only a bit of the contract - which brings us back to it being winter out there and even relief pitchers have presents to buy for someone.
Methinks Frasor might be the one who says; "Ya know - TO ain't such a shitty hole after all - I'll take the arbitration route - I'll take my chances on being a Type B next year."
That's how much more time Frasor, and others offered arbitration, have to decide whether to take it or not. The reason to let it go and take their chances is John Bucks 3 year 22 billion dollar contract (it might actually have been less than 22 billion - but it was near there). The reason to accept is that it's winter - nearing Xmas and it's cold out there - and - in Frasor's case for instance - he would get himself a nice raise on a one year contract - BUT - he can then be cut in spring training and actually get only a bit of the contract - which brings us back to it being winter out there and even relief pitchers have presents to buy for someone.
Methinks Frasor might be the one who says; "Ya know - TO ain't such a shitty hole after all - I'll take the arbitration route - I'll take my chances on being a Type B next year."
Or decline it, let the initial free agency period play out, and then start talking to those teams that have already signed a Type A free agent or two...
Decisions, decisions! It's a tough spot for him.
Decisions, decisions! It's a tough spot for him.
Magpie--Farrell was actually pitching for the Angels in '93. The Back 2 Back seasonal highlight video has footage of Olerud crushing two long ones off him in a game in Anaheim.
Is it not true that Frasor is married to a lady from Toronto? That might help him swing his decision in the Jay's direction.
All these choices by players and teams hanging in the balance...
One could return to Shakespeare, a la Magpie, but the Bard comes more with observations and questions, than answers.
He has Brutus saying:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Alex Anthopoulos and individual players might well ask: in what direction is the current heading?
For Buck and Benoit, the tide seems clear, but for Frasor? There can be big risks to getting it wrong.
(Brutus did not fare so well, himself.)
All these choices by players and teams hanging in the balance...
One could return to Shakespeare, a la Magpie, but the Bard comes more with observations and questions, than answers.
He has Brutus saying:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Alex Anthopoulos and individual players might well ask: in what direction is the current heading?
For Buck and Benoit, the tide seems clear, but for Frasor? There can be big risks to getting it wrong.
(Brutus did not fare so well, himself.)
He pitched in 69 games and gave up 26 runs. He gave up 0 runs in 50 games. Is a good outing only an outing where he strikes out everyone he faces
Magpie, you keep defending Frasor with statistics, which is very Elias of you. My original premise was that, with relief pitchers, seeing is believing, If you watch every Jays game you don't need to check those stats. You know which relief pitchers are doing the job. 26 in 69? How many of those 26 were given up when the Jays were in a close game in the 8th inning and how many of his shutout innings were in blowouts? You can regurgitate those stats all you want. I prefer to trust that feel in my gut when I see him trot out of the bullpen, sort of like I feel when V-Dub comes to the plate in a clutch situation and I wait for the pop-up or swinging strike 3 on a pitch over his head. . Frasors are a dime a dozen or maybe a million under today's baseball inflation. Whatever the right outcome of this for Jays' fans much too much ink had been spilled here on such a minor talent.
For something completely different. I recommend Ken Burns' 10th Inning which is showing on PBS stations. It is an update to his wonderful documentary Baseball.
You can regurgitate those stats all you want. I prefer to trust that feel in my gut
One's gut is often heavily influenced by the sight of a pitcher sweating, taking deep breaths and working very slow. The stats are not. It's often good to use your "gut" and the stats in sweet harmony.
.....sort of like I feel when V-Dub comes to the plate in a clutch situation and I wait for the pop-up or swinging strike 3 on a pitch over his head.....
You're trusting your "gut" on this too? Do you accept statistics on anything? Or do we bow to your gut on every baseball question?
I saw that documentary "10th inning". It was very enjoyable.
Boston winning that playoff series against the NYY, a massive comeback.
There was a guy, I think with BOS but maybe not, I think he said he got base stealing instructions from D Lopes. Those facts could be wrong BUT he said something like "You are going to have to steal a V Important base with everyone knowing that you are going to steal that base". He stole it.
SO maybe the Jays can use that tactic against NYY & BOS. There are Catchers that have great offense & other qualities but are weak defensively, stolen bases & passed balls. Do you use a spot on your 25 man for a fantastic SB threat but maybe does not have enough other values.
Boston winning that playoff series against the NYY, a massive comeback.
There was a guy, I think with BOS but maybe not, I think he said he got base stealing instructions from D Lopes. Those facts could be wrong BUT he said something like "You are going to have to steal a V Important base with everyone knowing that you are going to steal that base". He stole it.
SO maybe the Jays can use that tactic against NYY & BOS. There are Catchers that have great offense & other qualities but are weak defensively, stolen bases & passed balls. Do you use a spot on your 25 man for a fantastic SB threat but maybe does not have enough other values.
ZekeBella you make some good points. I too have been frustrated Especially by RISP failures.
It could very well be telling you the truth, and it could be a statistical GUT, V Wells bats 4th and "plays a lot/sits little" So is it possible that he gets more RISP opportunities? IF he is hitting 300+ with RISP then that is good BUT "he still did not come through when we needed him" which would frustrate fans and he would get negative opinions.
My gut would wrongly say that G Brett hit 800 with RISP or even solo homers to beat us, to me it was always HIM and opinions said "its best to walk him every time". He may not even be hitting his Avg with RISP, for all I know.
Players get games & 1st STAR with 2 for 5 but 5rbi ahead of 2nd STAR who went 4 for 5. Is that fair? I am OK with it because his hit into double play twice in a game will also happen. The poor Pinch Hitters.
Same with relief pitchers they can get a big out or let all the inherited runners score. I have seen 1 pitch double play inning over.
I don't think there are stats for this, so I research it myself,but the scraps of paper get lost. For example this year D Purcey sat on the bench a long time, that is expected for the 6th or 7th guy and then comes in to pitch. I always excuse a bad outing for something like that BUT that outing can make individual totals look bad. Personally if I was evaluating a player for promotion, trade or moving up the pen into a more important spot I would take that into consideration. Also all pitchers make adjustments Morrow seems to be a good example, April & May were his weakest 2 months but the next 3 were much better.
It could very well be telling you the truth, and it could be a statistical GUT, V Wells bats 4th and "plays a lot/sits little" So is it possible that he gets more RISP opportunities? IF he is hitting 300+ with RISP then that is good BUT "he still did not come through when we needed him" which would frustrate fans and he would get negative opinions.
My gut would wrongly say that G Brett hit 800 with RISP or even solo homers to beat us, to me it was always HIM and opinions said "its best to walk him every time". He may not even be hitting his Avg with RISP, for all I know.
Players get games & 1st STAR with 2 for 5 but 5rbi ahead of 2nd STAR who went 4 for 5. Is that fair? I am OK with it because his hit into double play twice in a game will also happen. The poor Pinch Hitters.
Same with relief pitchers they can get a big out or let all the inherited runners score. I have seen 1 pitch double play inning over.
I don't think there are stats for this, so I research it myself,but the scraps of paper get lost. For example this year D Purcey sat on the bench a long time, that is expected for the 6th or 7th guy and then comes in to pitch. I always excuse a bad outing for something like that BUT that outing can make individual totals look bad. Personally if I was evaluating a player for promotion, trade or moving up the pen into a more important spot I would take that into consideration. Also all pitchers make adjustments Morrow seems to be a good example, April & May were his weakest 2 months but the next 3 were much better.
The Nov. 26 birthday team is very good. Lefty Gomez, Chuck Finley, Mike Moore, Larry Gura and Bob Walk in the rotation. Jay Howell as the ace reliever. Brian Schneider and Jeff Torborg as your catchers, Richie Hebner at first, Harold Reynolds at second, Eddie Miller at short, and Bob Elliott at third, Hugh Duffy, Bob Johnson and Jorge Orta in the outfield and Fred Tenney (you could move Hebner to third and start Tenney at first without losing too much).
Some of the older names might not mean much. Eddie Miller was a very good defensive shortstop and a decent hitter. Bob Elliott was named by Bill James as the All-Star third baseman of the 1940s. Bob Johnson was near-HOF quality slugging leftfielder.
If you take the 3rd best seasonal WAR of the starters, the pitching staff and the ace, you end up with 49.5 WAR or roughly speaking, a serious WS contender. The team is nicely balanced with good defence in the middle of the diamond, solid starting pitching, an offence that can beat you in a lot of different ways.
Some of the older names might not mean much. Eddie Miller was a very good defensive shortstop and a decent hitter. Bob Elliott was named by Bill James as the All-Star third baseman of the 1940s. Bob Johnson was near-HOF quality slugging leftfielder.
If you take the 3rd best seasonal WAR of the starters, the pitching staff and the ace, you end up with 49.5 WAR or roughly speaking, a serious WS contender. The team is nicely balanced with good defence in the middle of the diamond, solid starting pitching, an offence that can beat you in a lot of different ways.
Shi David has a wide ranging interview with AA up, that discusses amongst other things Frasor's arbitration status.
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/jays-fine-tune-their-2011-plans/article1814161/) Sorry I'm useless with linking.
He feels the sheer high volume of free agents might devalue the compensation choices.
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/jays-fine-tune-their-2011-plans/article1814161/) Sorry I'm useless with linking.
He feels the sheer high volume of free agents might devalue the compensation choices.
He said 35 free agents were extended offers of arbitration and that if all reject them and sign elsewhere, an entire new round of picks would be created, devaluing some of the value of the selection.
“My prediction is a lot of Type A free agents will decline (arbitration) because the draft-pick compensation is not nearly what it was and there's too many sandwich picks,” he said.
He also addresses Lind and the catching situation. He certainly is very flexible in terms of roster building.
Declining comment on Manny is a very good sign as I figure he would've said 'not interested' if the Jays had no interest (could've been put into 'age' or 'dollar' terms or even 'we need guys who can play the field'). A shame about Upton's price being too high, but there is a limit to all things.
How many of those 26 were given up when the Jays were in a close game in the 8th inning
Let's find out. I would have expected the answer to be "most of them" seeing as how his job on the team for most of the season was to pitch in the seventh or eighth inning and hand a lead off to the closer. But no. It turns out out 3 of the 26 runs he allowed came in a close game (tied or ahead/behind by 1 run) in the eighth inning. In Frasor's two worst outings (4 runs allowed) the team was already losing (2 runs once, 5 runs once) when he came into the game.
All told 9 of the 26 runs allowed came in three appearances when the team was already losing by at least 3 when he came in, and another 3 of his runs allowed came in three appearances when the team was already ahead by at least 3 when he came in.
Your gut is lying to you. Don't worry - that's how it works. My gut has done the same thing to me (about this particular player, as it happens.) It happens all the time. The game fools us that way. I venture to say that I've had the exact same feeling about every reliever who has ever pitched for the Blue Jays. I felt that way about Duane Ward for three whole years. All of them.
Except Tom Henke, of course. And even there, for a couple of weeks in May 1989, I started to worry...
Let's find out. I would have expected the answer to be "most of them" seeing as how his job on the team for most of the season was to pitch in the seventh or eighth inning and hand a lead off to the closer. But no. It turns out out 3 of the 26 runs he allowed came in a close game (tied or ahead/behind by 1 run) in the eighth inning. In Frasor's two worst outings (4 runs allowed) the team was already losing (2 runs once, 5 runs once) when he came into the game.
All told 9 of the 26 runs allowed came in three appearances when the team was already losing by at least 3 when he came in, and another 3 of his runs allowed came in three appearances when the team was already ahead by at least 3 when he came in.
Your gut is lying to you. Don't worry - that's how it works. My gut has done the same thing to me (about this particular player, as it happens.) It happens all the time. The game fools us that way. I venture to say that I've had the exact same feeling about every reliever who has ever pitched for the Blue Jays. I felt that way about Duane Ward for three whole years. All of them.
Except Tom Henke, of course. And even there, for a couple of weeks in May 1989, I started to worry...
I want to say it politely... I too bought into "as a closer the pressure or something got to him".
I am OK with "infrequent" bad outings, they inflate stats and are remembered for a long time.
Great work Magpie.
I am OK with "infrequent" bad outings, they inflate stats and are remembered for a long time.
Great work Magpie.
If you want to pass judgement on whether harm or good came with certain pitcher on the mound in a certain game, you are looking at a job for WPA.
Frasor's game log says 43 up, 20 down, 6 sideways, and a total of -0.13. In other words, he was basically a Wash, in a year when the average pitcher was a bit better than a Wash.
Frasor I see as basically an average pitcher. Someone who won't hurt you, but won't push you over the top either. If you are a contender with a few holes in your pen he is a solid choice to eat innings and keep you close, emergency closer/setup as well. For the Jays he'd be useful, but isn't needed anymore really. At $2-4 million he'd be getting average dollars for average work which makes sense. So arbitration is fine, as is seeing him leave. 2 draft picks is a good trade for the Jays at this point.
Boy, it's a real yawner around here today.
Okay. Who is the best Closer A.A. can get? He must be better than Kevin Gregg, and must make this team better.
Your gut is lying to you. Don't worry - that's how it works. My gut has done the same thing to me (about this particular player, as it happens.) It happens all the time. The game fools us that way. I venture to say that I've had the exact same feeling about every reliever who has ever pitched for the Blue Jays. I felt that way about Duane Ward for three whole years. All of them.
Except of course for Justin Speier who was the master of keeping a 1-run deficit a 1-run deficit and struggling with a small lead.
Except of course for Justin Speier who was the master of keeping a 1-run deficit a 1-run deficit and struggling with a small lead.
Speaking of Speier, this season may be similar to 2004, when six Jays had multiple saves on the season, led by Frasor's 17. Speier, Batista, Lightenberg, Adams, and Chulk were the others.
Okay. Who is the best Closer A.A. can get? He must be better than Kevin Gregg, and must make this team better.
Well, the best FA available is Soriano - if you assume Rivera won't leave NY.
But is he enough better to cost you that draft pick?
Among the other FA which potentially are better than Gregg -
Uehara - 11:1 K:BB ratio really impresses me.
Jesse Crain - local guy, steadily improving numbers, wants to close
Francisco - also costs a draft pick
Saito - endurance questions, but good results every year
Putz - seems to have his Seattle mojo back.
Fuentes - wasn't as good as he's been in the past in 2010 but wasn't awful.
Given those options, unless you can trade for Soria i don't see why you'd trade for a closer.
Well, the best FA available is Soriano - if you assume Rivera won't leave NY.
But is he enough better to cost you that draft pick?
Among the other FA which potentially are better than Gregg -
Uehara - 11:1 K:BB ratio really impresses me.
Jesse Crain - local guy, steadily improving numbers, wants to close
Francisco - also costs a draft pick
Saito - endurance questions, but good results every year
Putz - seems to have his Seattle mojo back.
Fuentes - wasn't as good as he's been in the past in 2010 but wasn't awful.
Given those options, unless you can trade for Soria i don't see why you'd trade for a closer.
Pretty secondary, even though I'd love to have Rivera. This article shows that in 1952 teams held a lead in the 9th 95.5% of the time. Know what it was for 2010? Yup, 95.5%. Over the last 60 years the worst it got was 92.7% and the highest (outside of 1981) is 95.8%. For the Yankees during Rivera's career they have held 97.3% of 9th inning leads. But... from 1951 to 1962 (the Mickey Mantle era) they held, wait for it, 97.3% of 9th inning leads.
Basically, if your team is really good you will win the vast majority of those games. If it isn't, you probably will too. What is more valuable is a solid core - guys like Downs in the middle. The Jays of the early 90's were amazing thanks to the Henke-Ward COMBO, not just Henke, not just Ward. In 1993 we also had a solid Mark Eichhorn, Danny Cox combo plus guys like Al Leiter, Woody Williams, Mike Timlin, and Tony Castillo who were all solid performers.
The key for the pen is to have depth. Blowing $10-15 mil on Rivera would be nice and I wouldn't complain, but far better is to build a big group of solid performers - normally out of young starters ('92 also had David Wells & Pat Hentgen) or failed starters who have talent (see Eichhorn, Ward, Cox, even Henke was a starter at first in the minors).
Basically, if your team is really good you will win the vast majority of those games. If it isn't, you probably will too. What is more valuable is a solid core - guys like Downs in the middle. The Jays of the early 90's were amazing thanks to the Henke-Ward COMBO, not just Henke, not just Ward. In 1993 we also had a solid Mark Eichhorn, Danny Cox combo plus guys like Al Leiter, Woody Williams, Mike Timlin, and Tony Castillo who were all solid performers.
The key for the pen is to have depth. Blowing $10-15 mil on Rivera would be nice and I wouldn't complain, but far better is to build a big group of solid performers - normally out of young starters ('92 also had David Wells & Pat Hentgen) or failed starters who have talent (see Eichhorn, Ward, Cox, even Henke was a starter at first in the minors).
Other potential closer names include Jon Rauch, Grant Balfour and Chad Qualls. I'd prefer those guys to a couple of names on TamRa's list, but the market for free agent relievers has a number of possibilities.
The key for the pen is to have depth. Blowing $10-15 mil on Rivera
would be nice and I wouldn't complain, but far better is to build a big
group of solid performers - normally out of young starters ('92 also had
David Wells & Pat Hentgen) or failed starters who have talent (see
Eichhorn, Ward, Cox, even Henke was a starter at first in the minors).
I agree with John that a high-priced closer is a bit of luxury at this point in time, particularly given the almost random nature of reliever performance. Certainly, this strategy also means turning over any reliever who will return you a pic, so bye-bye Downs, Frasor and Gregg, to whom I would say,"It's been fun. I swear, it's us, not you. I jsut know there is someone else out there who is going to make you more happy than I can. I'm glad we're ending on good terms."
This is especially true given the depth of talent in our system. It's always a better idea to bet on your internal options like Purcey, returning injured player X (litsch, mcgowan, etc.), young-flamethrower (Farina, Stewart), 6th man (Zep, Drabek, Mills, so on), to build a pen, in my VERY humble opinion.
Plus, for me, it really boils down to the fact that each one of those internal options is like scratching a lottery ticket - you never know if you're going to hit the jackpot. I contrast this with signing veteran guys being comparable to buying an overpriced second hand car with high-mileage on it - just because the badge says BMW on teh hood doesn't mean that the engine has been swept out for a drivetrain from a Lada (the Russian Caddillac).
I agree with John that a high-priced closer is a bit of luxury at this point in time, particularly given the almost random nature of reliever performance. Certainly, this strategy also means turning over any reliever who will return you a pic, so bye-bye Downs, Frasor and Gregg, to whom I would say,"It's been fun. I swear, it's us, not you. I jsut know there is someone else out there who is going to make you more happy than I can. I'm glad we're ending on good terms."
This is especially true given the depth of talent in our system. It's always a better idea to bet on your internal options like Purcey, returning injured player X (litsch, mcgowan, etc.), young-flamethrower (Farina, Stewart), 6th man (Zep, Drabek, Mills, so on), to build a pen, in my VERY humble opinion.
Plus, for me, it really boils down to the fact that each one of those internal options is like scratching a lottery ticket - you never know if you're going to hit the jackpot. I contrast this with signing veteran guys being comparable to buying an overpriced second hand car with high-mileage on it - just because the badge says BMW on teh hood doesn't mean that the engine has been swept out for a drivetrain from a Lada (the Russian Caddillac).
I think this helps explain where AA is coming from in his depth argument, and why JP was after that as well initially. You need not just a strong ML team but strong AAA and AA and A teams as well. You need the feeding of prospects to the majors to be regular and strong or contending is a complete hit and miss.
Look at the killer 83-93 teams and major roles played by rookies or near rookies...
83: Barfield, Gott, Acker
84: Bell, Fernandez, Key
85: Fielder, Henke
86: Cerutti, Johnson, Eichhorn
87: Liriano, Nunez, Musselman, Gruber
88: Stottlemyre, Wells, Campusano (ugh), Borders
89: Felix, 'Goose' Gozzo
90: Olerud, Hill
91: Sprague, Guzman, Timlin, Bob McDonald
92: Kent, Derek Bell, Hentgen
93: Woody Williams is about it
Not hard to find rookies every year who played an important role. Shows how vital a strong feeder system is.
Look at the killer 83-93 teams and major roles played by rookies or near rookies...
83: Barfield, Gott, Acker
84: Bell, Fernandez, Key
85: Fielder, Henke
86: Cerutti, Johnson, Eichhorn
87: Liriano, Nunez, Musselman, Gruber
88: Stottlemyre, Wells, Campusano (ugh), Borders
89: Felix, 'Goose' Gozzo
90: Olerud, Hill
91: Sprague, Guzman, Timlin, Bob McDonald
92: Kent, Derek Bell, Hentgen
93: Woody Williams is about it
Not hard to find rookies every year who played an important role. Shows how vital a strong feeder system is.
There was a query earlier that I do not believe was answered. If a player is offered arbitration can the team walk or the player walk away from the arbitrators decison? In other words if for instance Gregg accepts, does it mean 100% for sure he will be pitching for the Jays this year?
Also, there are a couple publications out there today suggesting that Olivo should accept arbitration. After seeing what Buck signed for and with it being reported that Boston and other teams would be intererested in his services I disagree - would rather go for a 2 year deal if I were him. In 2007 he had the worst fielding percentage for all NL catchers (.986) but he has more power then the average catcher. That said, what is the general feeling that readers here have about the Jays signing him at the expense of Arenciabia getting his chance? Should the fact that he was able to pass a kidney stone during a game in April last year and then reenter to finish the game be factored in? Certainly shows passion and commitment!
Arbitration - they can walk from it, but only after paying 1/6th iirc (more if they wait until mid-spring training, more still if they wait until the final week). Not a killer amount if they feel a guy isn't worth it.
In other words if for instance Gregg accepts, does it mean 100% for sure he will be pitching for the Jays this year?
I believe that Reed Johnson came out of arbitration post-2007 being "owed" $3MM. The team released him in spring training and they were on the hook for about $500K. The Cubs then signed him for $1.3M (according to BRef).
I don't know what the exact rule is, if a spring training release means a 1/6 buyout. Presumably something similar would apply to Gregg.
I believe that Reed Johnson came out of arbitration post-2007 being "owed" $3MM. The team released him in spring training and they were on the hook for about $500K. The Cubs then signed him for $1.3M (according to BRef).
I don't know what the exact rule is, if a spring training release means a 1/6 buyout. Presumably something similar would apply to Gregg.
Thanks guys. That was my query about walking away from arbitration.
Interesting to note that there have been 32 players that have turned down arbitration so far according to MLBTR and none have accepted. I guess that could be interpreted 2 ways, either as an indication that the great majority of players, including the Jays will become free agents or just as likely that the players left are taking a long hard look at the possibility of being without a job and are surveying the landscape carefully, By my count there are 32 players left to decide. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/freeagentarboffers. So, anyone want to predict how many will accept arbitration out of those 32? I will take a stab in the dark and say 14, which may be way too high. The again it could be low! Winner gets absolutely nothing but bragging rights.
Zeke unless I misunderstood your note, I don't believe the chart you pointed to shows 32 players "turning down" arbitration. It simply shows which players were not offered therby automatically getting a "no" under accepting arbitration column. I predict 2 players will accept arbitration. I read somewhere nobody accepted last year (or maybe it was the year before last) and 1 or 2 accepted in the other of those two years. That said I guess this year could be a bit different based on the number of middle relievers available.
I looked it up - 3 free agents accepted last year (Pavano, Betencourt, R.Soriano). I don't think either Pavano nor Soriano accept this year. The year before that only 2 accept (Weathers and Oliver) and before that only 3 accepted (Barrett, Loretta, Petitte). So no batters have accepted in the past 2 years though this year there are more Type A and B's then "normal". My prediction of 2 refers only to free agents of course.
It simply shows which players were not offered therby automatically getting a "no" under accepting arbitration column.
The chart also shows players who have signed a contract with another team, thus automatically turning down arbitration. It also marks Javier Vazquez and Trevor Hoffman as having turned down arbitration. Both reached agreements with their team to not accept arbitration, if offered. I believe Orlando Hudson is rumoured to have reached a similar agreement, although he is not marked as having declined arbitration.
Sorry, you are right although there are a few players players who have actually turned it down. So the count I have is 29 now who have been offered and are making a decision. i was unaware so few accepted last year which definitely makes 14 way too high a guess, even more so after reading AA's explanation of why there will be few accepting it this year. http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/bluejays/article/897073--jays-have-many-needs-and-gm-anthopoulos-sees-ways-to-fill-them
Off topic, I am glad to see in the same story that Lind is still a consideration for first base despite his inexperience. I thought a good opportunity was wasted by Cito last September when he would not use Lind at first or Arencibia catching. He even admiited wanting to boost Bucks' numbers so he could get rewarded in free agency. A player's manager maybe, but not the best decisions for the team's future. I think maybe AA just gritted his teeth and accepted Cito's approach in September rather than make waves. Overbay and Buck were 99% gone already and were well paid for their work, especially OverPay. The loyalty from Cito was misplaced and should have been to the team. I am very much looking forward to a different approach in many aspects by Farrell. Is it April yet?? .
"So the count I have is 29 now who have been offered and are making a decision"
From the Trade Rumours chart, I count 30 that are still making a decision. No player has actually "turned down" arbitration to test free agency in a pure sense. That is, of the 5 who have "turned it down" 2 had prearranged to do so (as previously mentioned) and the other 3 took offers from other teams (Garland, Buck, and Benoit). I am assuming no player agent would allow their client to turn it down until the last moment since that would cause them to lose some leverage. Asking around to see what their FA can get without tipping their hand to whether they will accept or not is the best route right (i.e. make me a good enough offer and I will decline arbitration offer - can you say Buck and Benoit?).
Great list of rookies J Northey & thanks. I have read the list 5 times and McGriff is missing.
I feel very confident that our depth of SPs for the 5th spot will be very important to contending. By that I mean for the next 3-5 years we will have 5 strong SPs always, that is counting a 6&7 due to injuries or whatever. The pen should also not have anyone really bad due to our depth.
I feel very confident that our depth of SPs for the 5th spot will be very important to contending. By that I mean for the next 3-5 years we will have 5 strong SPs always, that is counting a 6&7 due to injuries or whatever. The pen should also not have anyone really bad due to our depth.
I guess it means nothing... but A Lind's 2007 stats doubled look a lot like his 2010 stats.
Speaking of draft compensation, the Red Sox, as is their wont, seem to have made out pretty well with the Victor Martinez - Masterson / Hagadone / Price trade. The Sox got a year and a half of of 126 OPS+ production at C, and now a 19th overall pick + sandwich pick in the reportedly bountiful 2011 draft, in exchange for a struggling big-league starter (Masterson) and two prospects who have yet to really get untracked.
So with Vazquez reportingly having signed as a FA with the Marlins I am curious if the Yankees or the Jays get the better pick in the sandwhich round (since the Marlins signed both of their FA's). I guess it doesn't matter that much (unlesss the Yankees and Jays have their eye on the player) but I am curious how the sandwich order works. I did find the following explanation but can't determine if when they say "determined by inverse order of the previous year's standings" refers to the team getting the FA or the team losing it. If it is based on the team getting the FA's then it still does not make clear if the Jays (Buck) or NY (Vazquez) get the better pick. I assume it may be based on player ranking. Can someone confirm?
"The order of the supplemental round between the first and second rounds is determined by inverse order of the previous year's standings. All the Type A picks are done first, and then the order resets for all the Type B compensation picks." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Draft
The loyalty from Cito was misplaced and should have been to the team.
Maybe it was to the pitchers.
Ah, screw the pitchers.
Maybe it was to the pitchers.
Ah, screw the pitchers.
Any thoughts on a poll question re: which Jays (if any) will accept their arb offers before the impending deadline?
I think the real question mark is Frasor, although Olivo could conceivably accept arbitration as well.
I think the real question mark is Frasor, although Olivo could conceivably accept arbitration as well.
Maybe it was to the pitchers.
Well, I think the pitchers might have appreciated working with JP when they were out of the race in preparation for this year when the games count. Likewise, good defense from Lind in the future would be more important for them than last September while he was getting a feel for 1B. Of course, a lot of Cito's 'loyalty' was to himself, making sure he went out on a winning note.
a lot of Cito's 'loyalty' was to himself, making sure he went out on a winning note.
You don't know that, obviously. Obviously. But as you don't like him, you're perfectly willing to say it, as if it is something you know.
You don't know that, obviously. Obviously. But as you don't like him, you're perfectly willing to say it, as if it is something you know.
Of course, a lot of Cito's 'loyalty' was to himself, making sure he went out on a winning note.
Heaven forbid a manager try to win every game possible.
Heaven forbid a manager try to win every game possible.
Early gift-giving tip: Book City on Bloor Street has a remaindered hard-cover version of Ring Lardner on Baseball (Silverman, ed) for a nice price. Adults will enjoy the book, but if you've got an older kid/tween who likes Mark Twain and baseball, it will go down well.
The book has a black and white of Lardner on the cover. I hadn't realized how close the resemblance was between John Sayles (who played Lardner in Eight Men Out) and Lardner.
The book has a black and white of Lardner on the cover. I hadn't realized how close the resemblance was between John Sayles (who played Lardner in Eight Men Out) and Lardner.
And obviously I don't know either, of course. Maybe Gaston was putting a personal agenda ahead of the team, and no one stopped him. That's not what I think, so I'll tell you what I think (copy, paste, touch up...)
I don't think this was a legacy thing for Gaston, as in "I need to finish over .500 to preserve it." I figure every time he looked around the Dome and saw the WS banners, and his own name and number up there he had to feel pretty secure about his legacy. Whether the team went 79-83 or 80-82 as opposed to 85-77 was not going to have any effect on that.
I think some of it may have been his belief - rightly or wrongly, it's something he believes - that it's good for the players, especially the young pitchers, to experience some success. Which he defines as winning.
Winning is the main thing. It's always the main thing. That's why they play the game. Winning as much as you can, winning at all costs. Winning is always preferable to the alternative - the alternative is losing. That's simply in the DNA of everyone who actually wears the uniform. (And that is something I know.) It's one of those immutable faiths they all live by. It's something those of us in street clothes who watch from near (like the GM's box) or afar (my seat in the press box, someone else's seat in the stands, television sets across the land) do not necessarily share. In fact, it's something we sometimes dismiss entirely. Like that idea they all seem to have that there's something special about closers, and that clutch hitters exist. There are lots of other similar notions, that pretty well all of them believe in whole-heartedly.
Which is also why it's sometimes necessary to guard against it.
I don't think this was a legacy thing for Gaston, as in "I need to finish over .500 to preserve it." I figure every time he looked around the Dome and saw the WS banners, and his own name and number up there he had to feel pretty secure about his legacy. Whether the team went 79-83 or 80-82 as opposed to 85-77 was not going to have any effect on that.
I think some of it may have been his belief - rightly or wrongly, it's something he believes - that it's good for the players, especially the young pitchers, to experience some success. Which he defines as winning.
Winning is the main thing. It's always the main thing. That's why they play the game. Winning as much as you can, winning at all costs. Winning is always preferable to the alternative - the alternative is losing. That's simply in the DNA of everyone who actually wears the uniform. (And that is something I know.) It's one of those immutable faiths they all live by. It's something those of us in street clothes who watch from near (like the GM's box) or afar (my seat in the press box, someone else's seat in the stands, television sets across the land) do not necessarily share. In fact, it's something we sometimes dismiss entirely. Like that idea they all seem to have that there's something special about closers, and that clutch hitters exist. There are lots of other similar notions, that pretty well all of them believe in whole-heartedly.
Which is also why it's sometimes necessary to guard against it.
AA seems to think that the young pitchers have enough success and that extra year of experience so that JPA can be the main catcher. As far as LInd at 1st, AA seems to think his hands are good but the footwork has to improve.
We have Butterfield to help Lind and Wakamatsu to help JPA and all of ST to do it in. I can only hope that everything works out.
We have Butterfield to help Lind and Wakamatsu to help JPA and all of ST to do it in. I can only hope that everything works out.
Link Comparing Upton to our own Snider, it makes you wonder which might be the better player two years from now. Obviously, Upton is better now, but it could be a better idea to try to acquire him if his price comes down. Another year of trending down or only staying at 2010 levels would probably do that. I'd check back in later at the trade deadline or next offseason and see what he could be had for.
Last off season O Cabrera & O Hudson were both Type A and got hurt by this designation. I just read their story, they signed late, in ST to be precise and so lost out on multi-year deals as most teams were set. MIN & CIN I suppose lost a draft choice but gained financial leverage as both were probably desperate. Hudson is now a Type B so I hope he gets a good payday.
I feel sorry for Fraser, but AA has to look out for his team.
I wonder if Fraser can decline & hope for the best AND if no takers, then accept a minor league ST invitation and make the team after Opening day. I know it is complicated, but is it doable. If he is not in the AL East and goes on to a great year does he again get the Type A harmful designation.
In the 1 week window closing on Nov 30th his agent should(?) have enough info to determine the risks of being left unsigned.
I feel sorry for Fraser, but AA has to look out for his team.
I wonder if Fraser can decline & hope for the best AND if no takers, then accept a minor league ST invitation and make the team after Opening day. I know it is complicated, but is it doable. If he is not in the AL East and goes on to a great year does he again get the Type A harmful designation.
In the 1 week window closing on Nov 30th his agent should(?) have enough info to determine the risks of being left unsigned.
I feel sorry for Fraser
Because he is a millionaire fulfilling his childhood dream and needs to figure out where his next millions are coming from? Would that we should all be so burdened.
Because he is a millionaire fulfilling his childhood dream and needs to figure out where his next millions are coming from? Would that we should all be so burdened.
wonder if Fraser can decline & hope for the best AND if no takers,
then accept a minor league ST invitation and make the team after
Opening day. I know it is complicated, but is it doable.
Not really. As you said, at this point in free agency Frasor should have a good idea of what teams are willing to offer him. He's not going to decline arbitration if there's not even at least a solid one-year offer out there (and I can't imagine a team offering one year if they're giving up a pick so he more likely need a multi-year deal). If he doesn't have a multi-year offer he should accept arbitration which I suspect (80/20) will happen.
If he declines arbitration it'll be a pretty good sign teams are desperate for relievers.
Not really. As you said, at this point in free agency Frasor should have a good idea of what teams are willing to offer him. He's not going to decline arbitration if there's not even at least a solid one-year offer out there (and I can't imagine a team offering one year if they're giving up a pick so he more likely need a multi-year deal). If he doesn't have a multi-year offer he should accept arbitration which I suspect (80/20) will happen.
If he declines arbitration it'll be a pretty good sign teams are desperate for relievers.
Because he is a millionaire fulfilling his childhood dream and needs to
figure out where his next millions are coming from? Would that we
should all be so burdened.
It's relative of course, but because of an odd system, with an odder formula behind it, Frasor's earning are being suppressed. He would make money in his next contract if he performed worse.
I'm sure he'll get by, but I'd rather see the money in his pocket than some rich owner, or corporation. So I feel a little bad for him.
It's relative of course, but because of an odd system, with an odder formula behind it, Frasor's earning are being suppressed. He would make money in his next contract if he performed worse.
I'm sure he'll get by, but I'd rather see the money in his pocket than some rich owner, or corporation. So I feel a little bad for him.
As you said, at this point in free agency Frasor should have a good idea of what teams are willing to offer him.
I'm not sure this is true. He's down the pecking order and there are a lot of FA's that have to find homes before Frasor will get any sort of offer from a team. Frasor's decision will be based on his agent's ability to predict the market.
Because he is a millionaire fulfilling his childhood dream and needs to figure out where his next millions are coming from? Would that we should all be so burdened.
Jason Frasor is a fortunate man who has achieved the dream of many through a combination of talent, hard work, perseverance and luck and, as a reward, has been well-compensated. However, relative to his peers, his earnings, and possibly job security, may be depressed because of an archaic formula and the rules behind it. There's no incongruity in recognizing both of those facts and feeling differently about each of them.
Torrealba signs with the Rangers 2 years $6.25mil.
Gregg is reportedly going to turn down arbitration. Hopefully Frasor does as well, but I'm not optimistic in that regard.
I thought Anthopolous' comments last week were likely directed at Frasor's agent when he said there will be a good market for secondary free agents because of the high number of sandwich picks this year, and he expected everyone (i.e. Frasor) to turn down arbitration. If so, I doubt the agent bought it.
There has to be some change to the draft pick compensation scheme. It's ridiculous to group Frasor in with guys like Jayson Werth, Carl Crawford, Cliff Lee etc.- guys who teams covet. His value is nowhere near their's and unless it's a distant pick, I suspect few teams are going to sacrifice anything for him.
As for sympathizing, at arbitration he gets an automatic 3.3 to 4 next year while shielding himself from the market. I think it's much more unfair to the Blue Jays, who I suspect would happily forego another team's draft pick and take only the supplementary pick rather than have him back next year.
I thought Anthopolous' comments last week were likely directed at Frasor's agent when he said there will be a good market for secondary free agents because of the high number of sandwich picks this year, and he expected everyone (i.e. Frasor) to turn down arbitration. If so, I doubt the agent bought it.
There has to be some change to the draft pick compensation scheme. It's ridiculous to group Frasor in with guys like Jayson Werth, Carl Crawford, Cliff Lee etc.- guys who teams covet. His value is nowhere near their's and unless it's a distant pick, I suspect few teams are going to sacrifice anything for him.
As for sympathizing, at arbitration he gets an automatic 3.3 to 4 next year while shielding himself from the market. I think it's much more unfair to the Blue Jays, who I suspect would happily forego another team's draft pick and take only the supplementary pick rather than have him back next year.
"The order of the supplemental round between the first and second rounds is determined by inverse order of the previous year's standings. All the Type A picks are done first, and then the order resets for all the Type B compensation picks." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Draft
There's still one point unresolved there - I'm trying to find out the details.
Using that formula, which seems to hold up when applied to last year's order, you'd get the following order in the supplemental round (not counting any of these who might re-sign or accept arbitration):
Washington
Colorado
Toronto
Toronto
Chicago WS
Boston
Boston
Texas
Texas
Minnesota
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Philadelphia
(above is type a, below type b)
Arizona
Arizona
NY Mets
LA Angels
Milwaukee
Colorado
Toronto
Toronto
Toronto
Chicago WS
Boston
San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
San Francisco
Minnesota
Minnesota
NYY
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
NOW the problem with that is that, looking at last year's draft order, when a team got multiple Type B comp picks they were seperated in the draft. for instance, picks #44-#50 went Det/Tex/St.Louis/Col./Det./Tex./St. Louis
I have to admit I'm pretty intimidated by the task of trying to decifer how the above order would be parceled out so as to seperate all those multiple pick situations.
Here's my guess, but i welcome correction:
Washington
Colorado
Toronto (#36)
Chicago WS
Boston
Texas
Minnesota
Tampa Bay
Philadelphia
Toronto (#43)
Boston
Texas
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay (since TB is the only team with three Type A comps, they are gonna get consecutive picks here)
Arizona
NY Mets
LA Angels
Milwaukee
Colorado
Toronto (#53)
Chicago WS
Boston
San Diego
San Francisco
Minnesota
NYY
Tampa Bay
Arizona
Toronto (#62)
San Diego
Minnesota
Tampa Bay
Toronto (#66)
San Diego
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Which means no less than six picks in the first 66 and potentially eight.
As an aside, TB will have no less than eight in the first 69, and as many as eleven
now the report is that De La Rosa is close to resigning which would move every one of those pics (except the first) up one slot.
I'm sure there will be more such adjustments.
I'm sure there will be more such adjustments.
I believe the order of "A" players is as follows (with score used for rank noted):
"B" Arbitration Free Agents with Elias scores:
From http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/elias-rankings/
"at arbitration he gets an automatic 3.3 to 4 next year while shielding himself from the market. I think it's much more unfair to the Blue Jays"
First of all, a 25-55% raise isn't automatic. Secondly, it isn't guaranteed, and AA has shown before he'll risk 500k (Olivo) for a draft pick, so how does Frasor know the Jays wouldn't just cut him for 1/6th his salary? They can probably do more in the draft with the 3m they'd have to waste to retain him, and he can't just assume the Jays will spend that 3m on him for 2011 to buy 1 2012 compensation pick. I still would be surprised if he accepted arbitration as a financial decision.
First of all, a 25-55% raise isn't automatic. Secondly, it isn't guaranteed, and AA has shown before he'll risk 500k (Olivo) for a draft pick, so how does Frasor know the Jays wouldn't just cut him for 1/6th his salary? They can probably do more in the draft with the 3m they'd have to waste to retain him, and he can't just assume the Jays will spend that 3m on him for 2011 to buy 1 2012 compensation pick. I still would be surprised if he accepted arbitration as a financial decision.
, you do realize that the Elias rankings don't determine the order in the supplemental rounds though, right?
The rankings (for the Type A) determine who bumps who in terms of how to award the picks the signing team loses, but not the supplementals.
De La Rosa is apparently set to sign - that takes one guy who might have trumped Frasor out of the Type A list (Downs had the advantage over him) and more importantly, takes away one of the two sup picks that came before Downs.
The rankings (for the Type A) determine who bumps who in terms of how to award the picks the signing team loses, but not the supplementals.
De La Rosa is apparently set to sign - that takes one guy who might have trumped Frasor out of the Type A list (Downs had the advantage over him) and more importantly, takes away one of the two sup picks that came before Downs.
Once again news of the Draft Pick Order is back http://riveraveblues.com/2011-draft-order/ and it will be kept updated.
you'd get the following order in the supplemental round
River Ave Blues has the Sox picking ahead of the Jays (Martinez, Buck) so far. My recollection of last years' order was that the type A's were ordered differently than the type B's.
There has to be some change to the draft pick compensation scheme.
Scrapping it entirely would work.
Scrapping it entirely would work.
The Blue Jays can get compensation for Buck Martinez? Good riddance!
Sure, and there's this 19 year old kid in Humber's journalism program with a smooth delivery. The kid's obviously got a very high upside and will sure to be available mid-way through the supplemental round.
It always struck me as pretty strange that AA would go for a vet like Buck as opposed to a controllable, high upside talent.
I was just looking at the 2009 BA Blue Jays Top 10 and was amused by the 5 largest signing bonuses in club history - #2 and #3 still belonged to Gord Ash's picks of Felipe Lopez & Gabe Gross - the only reason JP topped them was because he got stuck with the #6 pick and had to pay Romero slot. Of course the 2010 version makes the Blue Jays look a little less frugal in that area with the additions of Hechavarria & Cardonis to the top of the list, but it would still be nice to knock off somebody from 1998.
I was just looking at the 2009 BA Blue Jays Top 10 and was amused by the 5 largest signing bonuses in club history - #2 and #3 still belonged to Gord Ash's picks of Felipe Lopez & Gabe Gross - the only reason JP topped them was because he got stuck with the #6 pick and had to pay Romero slot. Of course the 2010 version makes the Blue Jays look a little less frugal in that area with the additions of Hechavarria & Cardonis to the top of the list, but it would still be nice to knock off somebody from 1998.
AY, I checked the other day and found out that Fraser's ERA as of July 6th was 5.01. But his final three months last season closely resembled his 2009 career year.
I've followed his career for years. He gives the impression of being one of the best RP's in MLB when the Jays are four runs ahead or three runs behind. But send him into a game with the Jays leading by one run?
Given a choice between the two as closer, I'll take the adventurous, frenetic gum-chewing Gregg, warts and all.
Plenty of sour grapes in the comments:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/11/cardinals-sign-brian-tallet.html
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/11/cardinals-sign-brian-tallet.html
BumWino, here's Magpie's take from earlier in the thread:
It turns out out 3 of the 26 runs he allowed came in a close game (tied or ahead/behind by 1 run) in the eighth inning. In Frasor's two worst outings (4 runs allowed) the team was already losing (2 runs once, 5 runs once) when he came into the game. All told 9 of the 26 runs allowed came in three appearances when the team was already losing by at least 3 when he came in, and another 3 of his runs allowed came in three appearances when the team was already ahead by at least 3 when he came in. Your gut is lying to you. Don't worry - that's how it works. My gut has done the same thing to me (about this particular player, as it happens.) It happens all the time. The game fools us that way. I venture to say that I've had the exact same feeling about every reliever who has ever pitched for the Blue Jays. I felt that way about Duane Ward for three whole years. All of them. Except Tom Henke, of course. And even there, for a couple of weeks in May 1989, I started to worry...
If J Fraser accepts Arb does he go back on the 40 man? We have 38 spots filled 2 available, if we offer Arb to all our Arb eligible players and then acquire some players who go on the 40 man and this brings our total to over 40, then we have to remove players from the 40 man. Are we restricted on who to remove ie Fraser,Accardo,Bautista by accepting Arb (Accardo, Bautista have to accept) are they immune from being removed from the 40 man.
I am not sure how that works.
I am not sure how that works.
Chuck, I'll take the over on games and the under on innings. My guess is Tallet has been exiled to LOOGY-land.
AA has shown before he'll risk 500k (Olivo) for a draft pick, so how does Frasor know the Jays wouldn't just cut him for 1/6th his salary?
The Jays don't get a draft pick for Frasor if they cut him in spring training. Moreover, Frasor's agent may feel his market opportunities are no worse in the spring when no draft pick compensation is required and Frasor has part of next year's salary in his pocket already, then they are now when he's been pooled with players of much greater value resulting in him costing a draft pick that he's not worth. The odds of the Jays cutting him and paying salary for nothing are less than trying to deal him in the season, so I doubt his agent is worried about that possibility.
According to mlbtr, he either signs a multi-year deal tonight, or he takes the Jays to arbitration.
Jason Frasor is discussing potential contracts with three teams and may sign a multiyear deal tonight. But if he doesn't sign a multi-year contract by tonight at midnight EDT, the Type A free agent will accept the Blue Jays' offer of arbitration, according to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports
The Jays don't get a draft pick for Frasor if they cut him in spring training. Moreover, Frasor's agent may feel his market opportunities are no worse in the spring when no draft pick compensation is required and Frasor has part of next year's salary in his pocket already, then they are now when he's been pooled with players of much greater value resulting in him costing a draft pick that he's not worth. The odds of the Jays cutting him and paying salary for nothing are less than trying to deal him in the season, so I doubt his agent is worried about that possibility.
According to mlbtr, he either signs a multi-year deal tonight, or he takes the Jays to arbitration.
Jason Frasor is discussing potential contracts with three teams and may sign a multiyear deal tonight. But if he doesn't sign a multi-year contract by tonight at midnight EDT, the Type A free agent will accept the Blue Jays' offer of arbitration, according to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports
From ESPN Trade Rumours:
Sources in the industry have indicated to ESPN.com's Jayson Stark that the Dodgers are attempting to sign at least one, and possibly two, setup relievers. Among the names known to be high on their shopping list: Jesse Crain, Jason Frasor and Matt Guerrier.
How would that pan out for the Jays compensation wise? Well I figure if LAD signed Frasor then we would get their 2nd round pick (their first which is 13th from the bottom is protected) as long as LAD do not sign Werth, Soriano, Lee, Crawford, Beltre, Konerko, Pavano, or Dunn. All are ranked higher than Frasor. So the Dodgers actually don't have much to lose by signing an "A" type FA. By the time the sandwich round is over they are probably looking at pick #63 (assuming 17 in the sandwich round which is just a guess).
yes, if Frasor accepts arbitration he is considered "signed" and is on the 40 man roster.
River Ave Blues has the Sox picking ahead of the Jays (Martinez, Buck)
so far. My recollection of last years' order was that the type A's were
ordered differently than the type B's.
Yes. That reflects the fact that all A comps come before any B comps.
Yes. That reflects the fact that all A comps come before any B comps.
I was just looking at the 2009 BA Blue Jays Top 10 and was amused by the
5 largest signing bonuses in club history - #2 and #3 still belonged to
Gord Ash's picks of Felipe Lopez & Gabe Gross
Speaking of Felipe Lopez: Seems the Red Sox pulled an even better trick than the Jays to obtain an additional draft pick. Signed Lopez late in the season for a few bucks and offered him (type B arb). He turned them down and now they are in a line for a pick if/when Lopez signs a new deal.
Speaking of Felipe Lopez: Seems the Red Sox pulled an even better trick than the Jays to obtain an additional draft pick. Signed Lopez late in the season for a few bucks and offered him (type B arb). He turned them down and now they are in a line for a pick if/when Lopez signs a new deal.
The Jays don't get a draft pick for Frasor if they cut him in spring training.
You misunderstood me, I didn't say they would. The point was the Blue Jays could have taken the risk of offering him arbitration knowing that if he accepted they will just cut him for a 500k loss.
Moreover, Frasor's agent may feel his market opportunities are no worse in the spring when no draft pick compensation is required and Frasor has part of next year's salary in his pocket already, then they are now when he's been pooled with players of much greater value resulting in him costing a draft pick that he's not worth.
MLB teams tend not to have very much money to spend in March. Bad teams won't need relievers like Frasor and good ones have already spent their millions on their closer and setup men, and aren't likely to be able to add 1-2m in salary on a 4th or 5th RP.
The odds of the Jays cutting him and paying salary for nothing are less than trying to deal him in the season, so I doubt his agent is worried about that possibility.
If there are teams willing to trade for him at his arbitration price there should be a market for his services even with the "A" attached. Enough GMs don't care about the 60th overall pick that it would prevent them from building their MLB team as they wish, and there's a whole whack of other teams losing their own As & Bs that even if they do value that pick they have enough to spare. Then there's the other GMs that realize they can just draft the Marisnicks of the world later and pay them more money, in essence buying a higher draft pick back that you lost.
Have to disagree with your entire theory. I doubt Frasor's agent is any less aware of the factors than you claim to be, and it appears Frasor is accepting arbitration. I don't think that's because the agent doesn't realize the 'cut him in spring training' theory any more than it's because Frasor likes Toronto. He's one of a couple of guys who are type A's who know they don't want to be venturing out on the free agent market.
Olivo turning down arbitration so at least Jays get that pick unless they sign him which they easily could.
http://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/9817517539201024
Agents are real people who make bad decisions too. How did Rod Barajas' do last year?