The average MLB payroll is $112 million.  The Jays' 25-man roster payroll right now sits in the low to mid 30's.  When 2011 salary increases kick in, the payroll will increase to $45-50 million--plus FA signings.  That's just half the major-league average.

Why is this so?  GTA, after all, is one of the top-ten largest markets in major league baseball. 

I think Alex Anthopoulos' remuneration and job security are based on remaining one of the lowest-payroll MLB teams, moderate on-filed success and, over time, modest increases in attendance.  The achievement of these factors maximizes Rogers' baseball profits.

However, money is available for procuring expensive talent, as long as the additional expenditures immediately produce more wins and better attendance. 

Considering what's a stake on a personal level, will AA take the risk and spend right now to improve the team?  Not a chance. 

Anthopoulos is one of the shrewdest young baseball executives to come down the pike for quite some time.  He now possesses his dream job and he will do or say anything to keep it.  As long as the Jays make a substantial profit, he's in.   And that profit is guaranteed by keeping the payroll at half the MLB average. 

If this conjecture turns out to be fact, I doubt if Anthopoulos will dare acquire one high-cost free agent until at least the second year (2014 season) of his next contract.  Between now and then, if the Jays continue to win half its games--AA will be able to write his own ticket anywhere in MLB. 

See you at the ballyard in 2014.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but baseball-reference estimates the Jays are at 84.5M right now, factoring in arbitration raises.  (Not sure if Accardo and Lewis being non-tendered would lower that or not).

I'm of the camp that the Jays could be spending more, but I think the situation is being a bit over-stated here. 

A few general thoughts (and apologies for the atypically lengthy post):

The Jays clearly have the capacity to spend much more money than they currently do - the team's owner is a multi-billion dollar corporation. However it's also a publicly traded company, which means that it's not entirely straightforward that the team either can or will spend significantly more than what is currently budgeted. It makes sense to be competitive - more wins means more people at the Dome, and more people watching on Sportsnet, both of which also benefit Rogers. The team clearly operates within budget constraints though, so marginal free agent signings (Victor Martinez or pretty much any non-Cliff Lee starting pitcher spring to mind) are a bad idea, and big budget acquisitions (Lee, Crawford) warrant particular consideration. As Magpie said, if you are going to overpay for free agent talent, you want it to be to get that 95th win, which as a lot of marginal value (it pushes you into the playoffs, say) as opposed to the 85th win, which is nice but doesn't mean squat. Notwithstanding the Fangraphs dollar value per win value calculator, free agent signings are almost never good value for teams - with the rare exception you are paying for past performance instead of future performance. If the Blue Jays are going to win they are going to need to be smart. I don't believe that the team is going to continuously delay the window for contention into the future - within the next two years players are going to start getting expensive as Lind and Hill's options get picked up, Snider, Romero, Marcum and Morrow hit arbitration and free agency, etc. I would rather see the team lock up its own players, still on the upswing of their careers, than overpay proven veterans (TM) on the downswing, and have the financial capacity to add a big piece at the right time, rather than be hamstrung by year four of Victor Martinez the DH.

Also, we really enjoy the interesting discussion and debate that happen in the comments. Batter's Box does not have a monolithic viewpoint, and even the various site authors disagree about different stuff (well, almost - everyone agrees with Magpie because of the all mighty data tables). We (the collective we) may disagree about your opinion, but no one thinks it's wrong (probably). With that being said we will almost certainly disagree if you are factually incorrect. Facts have an annoying habit of being both true and immutable (for the most part.) If you want to discuss publicy available figures such as contract/salary data, WAR (Fangraphs or BR), attendance, etc. please do take the time to look at Cot's, Fangraphs, BR, ESPN, etc. It makes things that much easier, and interesting, and means everyone doesn't have to rush to the aforementioned sites to find the correct information and post a "gotcha," which, while fun (actually one of my favourite things to do on the internet), doesn't really advance the discussion in a meaningful way. So let's try to have meaningful and deep discussion about whether we should sign, say, Paul Konerko (I say no), should have signed Adam Dunn (would have been interesting) or how JP Ricciardi screwed over/saved the franchise this week (just kidding!)

....I don't believe that the team is going to continuously delay the window for contention into the future - within the next two years players are going to start getting expensive....

That's an excellent point, and in my view it reinforces the argument that the Jays should be moving NOW to acquire one or two (carefully selected) free agents to bolster the key areas of weakness on the team.  Nobody should assume that 2013 or 2014 will magically be the year where all the young players suddenly coalesce into a World Series team.  It could be that 2011 or 2012 are just as good an opportunity as any future year.  Right now the team has a squad of excellent young starters and several excellent hitters with good power.  I disagree with those who assume that the Jays must inevitably be "mediocre" in 2011.  There's no guarantee of that.  In retrospect, we might see 2011 as a more opportune year than 2013.   Many factors are unpredictable:  injuries, unexpected declines, unexpected breakthrough seasons.  Those factors could favor the Jays as easily in 2011 as in a future year.  If there's a free agent who makes sense, acquire him now -- don't postpone everything to some magical moment in the future.  Every season, there are several teams that improve their performance by 5 or 10 wins, making them sudden contenders.  Who can guarantee that this won't happen to the Jays in 2011 or 2012?

1) when the guy is an automatic Hall of Famer, close to his prime, or 2) when you have a contender already, a 90+ win team, and the player has enough game to fill one particular need.

1. I don't see how one can fill the requirements of an autoHOFer close to his prime more than Carl Crawford (and that doesn't mean I think he's a HOFer). When was the last time Alex Rodriguez circa 2001 became available? Carl Crawford has had a better start to his career than Roberto Clemente.

2. The Blue Jays have a contender. They won 85 games last year with an on field payroll of around 60m. Are people speculating that the additions of Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, Victor Martinez, and/or Adam Dunn WOULDN'T make the Blue Jays contenders?! Because I strongly beg to differ. And before that gets shot down as a pipedream, it's essentially what the Yankees did when they added Sabathia, Teixeira, & Burnett, and people need to stop assuming the Blue Jays CAN'T spend like the Yankees. They can, and choose not to. Furthermore, Crawford fills a significant portion of your needs - I don't have a problem with Snider in RF, nor would I have a problem with Crawford in RF or Crawford in CF with Vernon in RF - people overstate the difference between RF and LF. Crawford has been exactly what this lineup has been lacking for awhile, but everybody around here just wants to sit back and wait for 2014 when the rest of this apparent "non-contender" gets expensive. How does that make any sense at all? Why do more people in the media not see Rogers for the cheap corporation they have been and call them out on it? Is it because they all work for them, or are scared that they might one day have to? That would be a shame. Beeston has been selling lies to the public for over 2 years now, and it amazes me how many people swallow the Rogers agenda like it's a late night on Jarvis.

you might get as many as 90 wins, and you might not. You wouldn't get more.

Do you run a fortune-telling service, because I'd like some definitive answers in my life that you seem able to provide? This division is ripe for the picking - the Rays are losing significant talent because they can't afford it, and Boston already lost it's #3 hitter (VMart) and will probably lose its #5 hitter as well (Beltre) while its #4 hitter turned 35 and no longer (hopefully) has the benefit of PEDs to help him along. If the Jays aren't signing big ticket FAs now, why aren't they trading guys like Jose Bautista, Shaun Marcum, Shaun Camp, etc...heck, eat half the salary on Vernon's contract and somebody might actually give you some decent pieces for him that will be ready in the magical year of 2014 when Matthew E & Mike Green will be ready to contend.

Great chart, Mike. I propose that we petition for a 2011 change of Vernon Wells' striding-to-the-plate music to the old Sesame Street fave "One of these things is not like the others."

I much appreciated the counter-productive inputs which beautifully ridiculed my great big oranges by comparing said oranges straight across with your even bigger, shiny apples.  

I got my 2010 opening day payroll figures from CBS Sports.  I totalled 'em up, divided by 30 and it came to $112 million average. 

Still, I couldn't care less if CBS Sports figures are correct or not.  My comment concerned Gyro Cutter's  motivation and subsequent modus operandi.

CBS has the Jays' payroll at $62 million.  However, I should have qualified that for the anal-retentives.  $62 million is the, like, "operational payroll', eh, and $78 million is, like. the "take-it-on-the-road-gonzo-nananana-bye-bye" payroll, eh. 

Hope you can, like, follow along, eh.  But if you can't, the extra 16 beanies went a tall doctor with a PhD in pitching and some southpaw with uber-sexy initials who just couldn't pitch no mo', eh.

Accolades are due whomever, for his introduction of the concept of the total liquidation of the Yankees payroll from the CBS league-average payroll figures in order to develop a new, artificially lower league-average payroll figure.  A remarkable stroke of genius.   And it gave me a great idea!  Let's deef out Boston, LAA of  A, Detroit and one or two others, and even further reduce the new, artificial league-average payroll.  

Then in artificially relative terms the Jays payroll hypothetically rockets upwards.  Even right now... going up...going up...  Geezus!!  Now it's league average, eh!  Without spending even one of those nickels which Alex Anthopoulos tosses around like manhole covers.

Another BB individual quoted 2011 payroll figures, while I clearly stated "this years payroll" or "the current payroll" or something.  Now why would I do that?  Because I am old and suffering from advanced dementia?  Nope, that's not it.  It's because we're still in 2010, eh.  That's like this year, eh.  And 2011 is like next year and next season, eh.  I thought everybody on here could conceptualize something as basic as that.  Apparently, I was wrong.  Sorry, eh.

The only point of my original post was to offer "fanny protection" as possibly the main motivating factor which overrides all, in terms of  AA's player movement decisions. 

Of course, life is a learning experience.  Some of today's responses to my drivel have reminded me to "keep it simple, stupid".  Thanks, eh. 

For any of you good folks I may have offended by this post...  Sorry, eh.  I'd never do something like that on purpose, eh.     

christaylor, that's a wonderful typo ...

the Yankees handing out champagne and shits

I suppose if any team were to try to brand and distribute excrement, it'd be the Yanks. And they might pull it off/. How much would you get on eBay for a vial of Jeter-poo?

I apologize for apparently not giving Alex Anthopoulos' genius enough credit.  I just heard him interviewed by some guy.

Interview Guy:  Just acquired Carlos Villanueva, eh?  How come?

AA:  Yup.  We figured his acquisition epitomized real baseball value.

Interview Guy:  Could you expand on that, Alex?

AA:  Sure.  The two most prominent factors with regard to the intrinsic baseball value received in the acquistion of Carlos were:  First, we got him for nada.  The player-to-be-named had a congenital heart condition and passed away a couple of hours before I signed off on the deal. 

Interview Guy:  Well, that's cheap enough.

AA:  Yeah, we did okay.  But the main reason was that our scouts told me that Carlos could more or less perfectly replace Brian Tallet, who, as you know, the Cards recently stole off us.  If you study the new guy's stats in depth, you'll notice that he has enjoyed progressive ERA yearly totals.  It's gone up every year.

Interview Guy:  What's so good about that?

AA: See if you can follow along here.  His ERA went up another 1.27 runs last season, and if he can duplicate that increase for us, his ERA will end up right around 6.60 this coming season.  That was pretty well exactly Tallet's ERA this past season, so we view Carlos as being the perfect replacement for Brian.  They make about the same amount of dough, too.

Interview Guy:  I woulda never thought of that.  No wonder they call you a genius. 

If you study the new guy's stats in depth, you'll notice that he has enjoyed progressive ERA yearly totals.  It's gone up every year.

I'm guessing this is a joke since it's not actually true?  His ERA was 4.61 last season and 5.34 in 2009.

Hey, Mick.  Just checked eBay for you. 

Jeter-poo sells in the New York area for the same $280 per milligram as a sliver of wood off the original Jesus crucifixion cross.  Outside of the Gotham market, it consistently moves for about 15% less.

Hope that helps. 

people need to stop assuming the Blue Jays CAN'T spend like the Yankees. They can, and choose not to.

This is true in the same sense as me saying you could run as fast as Usain Bolt but you choose not to. The revenue and ownership situations are completely different, and there is a reason why no one else comes close to spending what the Yankees spend, including the Blue Jays. The Jays aren't going to sign either Carl Crawford and Cliff Lee, and certainly not both of them. You can complain about this or accept it and move on.

Thanks, Ryan.

Well, the jokes on me.   I guess somebody better tell AA, before he puts his foot in his mouth again.   I'm too scared to tell him.  He might get annoyed and cut me off from all my insider sources. 

I feel compelled to do this. Apologies.

I got my 2010 opening day payroll figures from CBS Sports.  I totalled 'em up, divided by 30 and it came to $112 million average.

Well I'm not sure how you did, because they average out to $91 million. Cot's has it at $92 million. If you want to say the Jays payroll is $62 million that's reasonable. It doesn't count 16 million for Doc and the Beej, which, while incurred by the organization, weren't on the field costs. You then mentioned that "The Jays' 25-man roster payroll right now sits in the low to mid 30's." I assume this is the actual committed salary in 2011 (Wells, Hill, McDonald, and Lind add up to about 38 million.)  

Another BB individual quoted 2011 payroll figures, while I clearly stated "this years payroll" or "the current payroll" or something.  Now why would I do that?  Because I am old and suffering from advanced dementia?  Nope, that's not it.  It's because we're still in 2010, eh.  That's like this year, eh.  And 2011 is like next year and next season, eh.  I thought everybody on here could conceptualize something as basic as that.  Apparently, I was wrong.  Sorry, eh.

When 2011 salary increases kick in, the payroll will increase to $45-50 million--plus FA signings.  That's just half the major-league average.

Well payroll figures for "right now" don't really mean anything, because it's the middle of the offseason and not everyone is signed for next year, and, believe it or not you have to have 25 players on a baseball team. While you can say the Jays payroll is the mid-30s right now, that is for four players. Even if the Jays renounced the rights to every other player on the team they would still have to pay out at least 10 million more in salary. That's clearly not going to happen. Players go to arbitration and get raises accordingly. Mike Green presented a very straightforward and helpful table as to what the team's salary structure might look like next year, and it is much more accurate than your guess. Jose Bautista alone would account for your scheduled salary increase.

The only point of my original post was to offer "fanny protection" as possibly the main motivating factor which overrides all, in terms of  AA's player movement decisions. 

I think Alex Anthopoulos' remuneration and job security are based on remaining one of the lowest-payroll MLB teams, moderate on-filed success and, over time, modest increases in attendance.  The achievement of these factors maximizes Rogers' baseball profits. However, money is available for procuring expensive talent, as long as the additional expenditures immediately produce more wins and better attendance. Considering what's a stake on a personal level, will AA take the risk and spend right now to improve the team?  Not a chance. 

You are entitled to your opinion, which I would note is entirely speculative and not based in reality (which is why I imagine no one responded). I disagree strongly with it, not the least of which because the facts supporting your argument are incorrect. I wouldn't have responded normally, though your extremely sarcastic and somewhat offensive response changed that. Also, please stop using derogatory racial remarks. There is no place for that here.

Same principle, same effect.  If you spend more money on talent than other teams, you greatly increase your chances of winning baseball games. The Jays did it two decades ago and the Yankees have perfected this approach.

I think what Matthew is trying to say is:

Team A: 50 mil. Team B: 49 mil Team C: 48 mil.

Team A: 100 mil Team B: 55 mil Team C: 50 mil.

Assuming money = success, do both Team A's have the same chance of winning the fictional championship? Would it be fair to say that one of the two team A's (I won't say which one) has a significantly greater chance of success, both relative to the other Team A, and to their respective Team B and Team C?

There's no reason at all why a mediocre team should be expensive, and the 2011 Jays are going to be a mediocre team.

Matthew E, sorry to delve back further in the conversation, but I have to object to your definition of "mediocre," which in the sports context has been unfortunately stretched beyond all reasonable bounds to include any team not highly likely to be competitive for a championship.

The Jays are a generally young team that was, taking strength of schedule into account, quite clearly among the 7-10 best teams in baseball last year.  They won 85 games while playing 54 games against three elite teams, and with a 12 away game, 6 home game interleague schedule against SF/Phi/SD/Col/StL/Arz.

True, the Jays may be worse in 2011; assuming nothing too dramatic in the offseason, they'll probably be about as good, with the odds of the team getting worse or better being about equal.  I also agree that the path to 95 wins is neither quick nor easy from here.  But it's factually incorrect to say that they will so obviously be "mediocre" that any attempts to improve the club now would be irrelevant, because they sure as hell weren't mediocre last year and I highly doubt they'll be mediocre this year.

Interesting article on Fangraphs today, trying to explore whether JPA is ready to be the starting catcher in 2011.  The article begins with a quotation from Baseball America, and then moves into some existential questions of its own.  Here it is:

From Baseball America’s 2011 Blue Jays prospects write-up:

His defense also is in question. He has solid arm strength but threw out just 23 percent of PCL basestealers. His receiving and blocking skills are improving though just average at best, and he can get lackadaisical at times

That he’s a poor defensive catcher is also no secret. What gets me is that lackadaisical line. Does that hint at something greater than the Blue Jays have let on? Or is it just an innocuous line in a scouting report? Again, this is where we simply have no way of knowing.

 If one of them goes to the Brewers, it would be the 6th prospect that Anthopolous has traded away in the past year:  one in the Morrow trade, two in the Escobar trade, two in the Davis trade, and one in the Villanueva trade.  (Am I missing any?) 

A 7th would be Brett Wallace in the Wallace-Gose trade.  I suppose you could even include the 5 mins in which we owned Michael Taylor in the Halladay-Taylor-Wallace swap if you want to get technical.

Valdez was a project, brought in because of his stuff. Villanueva is more polished. He clearly can induce swinging strikes without walking too many people - he's just been hittable recently. Think of Shawn Camp when the Jays first brought him in.

I like this pickup, obviously. Who knows how he'll handle the AL East, but the existence of guys like CV is why many people dislike spending money on Established middle relievers.

A couple of observations, if I may...

1)  I like the Villanueva pick-up, but will have to see what's going the other way.  I would have thought it was somebody being kept on our 40-man roster until after the Rule V draft, but apparently the Brewers have more room on theirs than we do on ours, so not sure that's the motive for naming it later.  Maybe Griff's right then.

2)  I like Griff but boy he makes you shake your head sometimes.  That Farquar, Magnusen, Encarnacion tweet had my head spinning.

3)  The Adrian Gonzalez saga has begun in earnest.  I think the Padres will move him and he should command a similar package of prospects to what Doc commanded last year.  Both are perennial 5+ WAR players.  Agon is one year from free agency, as Doc was a year ago.  Agon is slated to earn $5.5m this season, which is roughly what the Phillies were on the hook for with Doc.  I think we'll be involved, especially since Boston  will be.  We can certainly trump any Red Sox package right now and if we didn't want to extend him, we could flip him back out of the division in July.

4)  It's going to be an interesting week.  Ready, set, go!

Having Youk and Agon at the corners and in the heart of your lineup will make filling out a first class batting order pretty easy in Boston for the next half dozen years.  This is a great move for them.  Quite discouraging for a Jays fan to see a weakened foe make such a move.

It seems as though Hoyer was intent on dealing with his former employer and acquiring "his guys".

I don't think that the Jays would be wise to have just two players in their early to mid 30's consuming $45 million of payroll in 2013 and 2014.

One thing Rogers has shown a propensity for is buying contracts out.  I don't think Vernon will be a part of the team by then. 

Youk-Lowrie-Pedroia-Gonzalez is a phenomenal infield.

It sounds like Iglesias was a key for Hoyer.  I imagine both Kelly and Iglesias were part of the deal.

What happened to AA's claim that he's willing to take chances, willing to take risks for high-upside gains?  Of course the off-season is not over, so there's still plenty of chances for AA to do something big, but so far he is nibbling on the edges, like a nervous reliever.  If he goes through this off-season without any big moves, it will reinforce the suspicions of many of us that AA's hands are at least partially tied by Rogers.  Yes, the owners have funded an expansion in scouting and drafting, but there's more to baseball than just scouting and drafting.  At some point, the Jays have to acquire Gonzalez-type players, and I don't buy the argument that we must wait until the Jays are a 90-win team. 

I find it amazing how fast AA's honeymoons is over for some folk.

Wasn't this what most agree was JP's big downfall? By loading up on the AJ Burnett/BJ Ryan/Troy Glaus' s of the world too soon after reaching .500 mark after years of reloading? By tying up payroll and roster spots with expensive veterans before the cheap pitching and feeder system was in place?

I think lumping in acquiring Adrian Gonzalez as a high-risk, high-reward with AA's other examples of taking risk is misleading.

While risky challenge trades for elite MLB talent (the Morrow deal) and for prospects (Wallace for Gose)  are one thing, none of them have the franchise-crippling potential of the Gonzalez deal which empties the vault both of payroll flexibility and MLB-ready talent. 

JP was also criticized for drafting college-talent with lower ceilings but more polished, instead of taking the "best player available". Well, now that we have a GM who believes in loading up on elite, 5-tool talent and high school pitchers, people are going to be reminded why JP was so impatient. The Jake Marisnick's an Aaron Sanchez's of the world take about 5 years to actually get to the show, let alone contribute anything meaningful.

We don't have to wait until we are a 90-win team, but we probably have to wait until at least the first wave of AA's draftees are in the upper minors knocking on the door for a cup of coffee.  The infusion of star-calibre MLB-minimum talent at certain positions is what allows you to afford to break the bank paying above-market rates for free agents for the ones you don't.

The Jays at the moment, outside of the phenomenal, cheap rotation, simply don't have enough of these players outside of Snider and maybe Drabek.  The rest of the position players are either only adequate or about to get expensive.

Casey Kelly is not a top prospect in my books.  Iglesias is.

Niether have shown much in my books.  All scouting projection, no results to date for either.

The 2010 Jays were too deeply flawed to be turned into a contender so easily. Not enough defense, not enough runners on base. And the 85 wins was probably a bit of an overachievement.

Bull (deleted) (deleted)!   85 wins without an Ace (2-4 wins); with a revolving door for 5th starter (2-3 wins); with a Closer who couldn't win in back-to-back games or win two of a three game series (1-3 wins); with a bullpen that finished 10th out of 14 teams (3-4 wins); with Cito Gaston's strange managing + with Adam Lind no longer hitting to all field and walking less + with Aaron Hill's offensive and defensive woes + with a team that didn't walk, steal bases, or control strikeouts (5-10 wins).    This wasn't an increase from 75 wins to 85 wins.   This was a 75 wins to an expected 62 wins to an unexpected and surprising 85 wins.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but baseball-reference estimates the Jays are at 84.5M right now, factoring in arbitration raises.  (Not sure if Accardo and Lewis being non-tendered would lower that or not).

Doesn't B-R suggest arbitration raises for about $30.0 MM.   I can't see spending more than $15.0 MM for 9 players.   I just don't think B-R's number are valid.   From the 2010 $78,689,357 salary figure, Toronto saves approx. $16.4 MM on Ryan, Halladay and Ruiz; saves approx. $15.75 MM on Overbay, Downs, Gregg and Buck; saves approx. $8.73 MM on Accardo, Lewis, Tallet, Wise and Encarnacion for approx $40.88 MM in total savings ($37,809,357).   Pre-arbitration raises shouldn't exceed $.60 MM for 12 players.   Guaranteed salary raises will be approx. $9.0 MM to $18.0 MM (depending on whether bonuses are part of Cot's total numbers or not.   And to repeat,  I can't see spending more than $15.0 MM for 9 players. 

Acquisitions of Rajai Davis, Michael Hinckley, Winston Abreu and Carlos Villanueva don't make this team that much better, but with A.A. saying people want too much for trades, the Winter Meetings, 6-9 Dec., but starting the late evening of the 3rd of Dec., will be very important.

If you're the Padres GM and all you care about is looking like a genius, you might as well demand their top pitching prospect.

Looks like Boston did pretty well.

...I find it amazing how fast AA's honeymoons is over for some folk.....

I wouldn't agree that AA's honeymoon is over.  I like all of his moves in his first 12 months.  He's an impressive guy.  I'm just suggesting that the time is right for him to step up and make some riskier moves, including the expenditure of some money on more than just fringe free agents.  Maybe he'll STILL do this -- I'm still hopeful.

.....While risky challenge trades for elite MLB talent (the Morrow deal) and for prospects (Wallace for Gose)  are one thing.....

Giving up Brandon League and Brett Wallace was risky? 

.....The Jake Marisnick's an Aaron Sanchez's of the world take about 5 years to actually get to the show....

Sure, but there's no guarantee that AA's draftees will be superior to previous draftees.  In the meantime, young talented players like Romero, Cecil, Morrow, Escobar, Snider, Hill and Lind are entering their peak years now.  Are we supposed to write them off and assume that nothing can be done until the latest draftees arrive in five years?  

....none of them have the franchise-crippling potential of the Gonzalez deal which empties the vault both of payroll flexibility and MLB-ready talent....

I don't see Boston being crippled by the cost or players involved in the Gonzalez trade.   What's the point of payroll flexibility and talent if you always have to hoard it for some future date, five years in the future?

Realistically until some corporate bean counter is willing to put his job on the line, improvement is going to be incremental.

Too true!

Unfortunately, all the rabid, passionate fanboy wish-casting and venting in the world,  won't change this dynamic.

Ouch!

Beltre has had exactly two monstrous years - 2004 and 2010.  They were both contract years.  They were also the last two seasons that Beltre played somewhere other than Safeco.  There's some guesswork there as to what, if anything, is driving the results.  I'm less inclined to believe Seattle was the problem though, because, if I recall correctly, Chavez Ravine has never been a hitters paradise and certainly wasn't in 2004.

While I'd like Beltre at 4 and $60m, I'd rather not surrender the picks.

If the Padres are in rebuild mode, I'd inquire about Chase Headley.

To channel Rocky... Adrian!!!!! Adrian!!!!

Adrian Gonzalez has a career OBP+ of 137. Adrian Beltre's is 108. Why are we even comparing the two offensively?

Now, an argument could be made that Beltre will be a better overall player than Gonzalez in 2011 (AB out-WAR'd AG 7 to 5 in 2010). But I would guess that Beltre is more likely to be a 4-win player in 2011 and Gonzalez a 6-win player. And if that's the case, then Youkilis+AG > Youkilis+AB if Youkilis drops no more than 2 wins defensively moving from 1B to 3B.

My instinct is that the Red Sox will make a gain, going from Beltre to Gonzalez, but it may not be a very big gain.

They don't get a power pitcher, not that they need much pitching for Petco,

They do play half their games on the road. Further, while Petco may have the effect of squeezing the gap between good and mediocre pitchers, you'd still prefer the good pitcher.

I don't know the Red Sox system at all, but I do know the Jays' very well.

Could someone who is familiar with both please try to suggest what an equivalent package/players would have been on the Jays' behalf? Thanks in advance.

In light of the Bob Elliot claim that the Jays continue to show significant interest in Zack Greinke, it has me guessing what it would taken to land him.

Any deal for Zach Greinke must need Kyle Drabek as your entree into negotiations.   (Future Ace K.C. is looking for).   Marc Rzepczynski and Henderson Alvarez and a prospect will do the deal.   (You might get Alex Gordon - 1B, 3B, OF, Bench?, tossed in).  

If I'm adding one of our Starting Four to the offer list, I'm suggesting we increase the deal to include Joakim Soria.  Upgrade to Shaun Marcum or maybe Brett Cecil and Alvarez, a second prospect and offer 2 of too many relievers.   I'm sure A.A. will find the deal as long as something happens.

As long as the Pitching is upgraded, not a lot needs to be done.   An Outfield of: LF: Vernon Wells, CF: Rajai Davis and RF: Travis Snider is acceptable if we have a good 4th outfielder.   An Infield of: 1B: Adam Lind, 2B: Aaron Hill, SS: Yunel Escobar and 3B: Jose Bautista is acceptable.   We'll a big bat for DH, a better second catcher than Jose Molina and a good addition to the bench gives a good start on the upcoming season.

Who hacked into Marc Hulet's account?! I too wouldn't trade Snider straight up for Greinke - it makes very little sense for the Blue Jays considering their strength is in pitching and they lack offensive upside in the lineup.

I cringe at the fact that people are willing to trade top prospects for top players but aren't willing to just go sign them on the FA market. You want Adrian Gonzalez and a 7 year deal? Sign the 2 years older Adam Dunn instead for 4 years. 3 of your top prospects is a heck of a price to pay for better defense, especially when one of them might be the best pitching prospect in baseball. 

I want the Blue Jays to spend more money, but there's no reason for them to spend their top prospects as well doing it.

Halladay might be the better the pitcher but Greinke is significantly young and has Cy Young talent. He's signed for two more years and there are a lot more legit suitors for Greinke than there were for Halladay when he finally got traded. AA had his back up against the wall when he traded Halladay, but the Royals are in the driver's seat with this deal. Teams just don’t trade young pitching like this… The closest and most recent example is the Dan Haren deal and he’s not as talented as Greinke. The Angels had to give up a young MLB starter (3rd starter ceiling), two pitchers that will be on Arizona’s Top 10 prospect list and another hard-throwing young relief pitcher.

For me though our top 4 are capable of 15 win seasons playing for the Jays in the AL East. How much better can Greinke be potential/capable wise?

We don't have to use our imaginations to divine Greinke's potential. Just look at his 2009 season. Whether he is ever able to repeat that season is anyone's guess, but it certainly tells you what he is actually capable of, rather than merely potentially capable of.

Mike Green I thought you were brilliant to use the Halladay package as a standard sort of. This "standard" concept is a good evaluation tool to help me understand big trades eg A Gon, maybe J Upton ....

The similarities with the Halladay and Gonzalez trades were that (a) the players had one season left on their current contracts, (b) the players were not going to resign with their current teams, (c) the trades were contingent on an extension being signed and (d) the players were heading to playoff caliber teams (who would be willing to pay for the incremental gain their new players would add).

Were the Jays to have traded for Gonzalez without him having any desire at all of signing an extension, the Padres could not have asked for as much from the Jays as they did from the Red Sox. While Gonzalez did not have a no-trade clause, to maximize their return the Padres had to consider a target team Gonzalez would be willing to sign with.

I don't think that Justin Upton fits into the Halladay/Gonzalez trade model. He is not a veteran at the peak of his abilities and his 2011 performance cannot easily be forecast. And he is not an impending free agent for whom the team trading him wants to get something while they can. He'd presumably be traded because he's a high upside player earning $10M on a team that would prefer much cheaper high upside players almost certainly not as far down their development paths.