Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Interviews An Interview with Darold Knowles, September 2011
Darold Knowles is the pitchng coach for the Dunedin Blue Jays.  Last Friday Knowles spoke to me from Dunedin just before the Jays swept a doubleheader from Clearwater to make it to the playoffs.  Knowles last spoke to Da Box in June.

BB: Let me start with Asher Wojciechowski.  He had some struggles earlier in the year but he has pitched better recently.  What are the reasons for the improvement?

DK: I think his command, he is throwing a lot more strikes with his fastball and he is throwing it down, they are putting it in play and he is getting outs.  Earlier he was getting behind a lot, he was up in the zone a lot.  He has stayed within himself a lot better I think.  The breaking ball still needs to be tightened up a bit I think and his change-up is so-so, the fastball command has probably been the number one thing.

 

BB: He still throws that heavy ball with sink?

DK: He is a max effort guy, throws 91-92, wants to throw harder but to me he pitches better there.  In the past when he got into trouble he would try to throw it at 95 and it was always up in the zone.

BB: Ryan Tepera seems to have two good starts and one bad one.  Is it because he is a sinker/slider guy and sometimes the ball finds the gaps and sometimes it doesn't?

DK: Well I think the main thing with Tep is the command because when he stays down he has as good stuff as anyone on this club, the ball has very good life on it down in the zone.  He gets to the point where he has trouble throwing his breaking ball for strikes but when he throws it for strikes he is good.  Where he has issues is when he gets behind and the breaking ball flattens out, he just gets hit.  When he stays down and that breaking ball is working he has really good stuff.

BB: Lets talk about Aaron Loup who is headed to the AFL.  How has he come along this year and do you see him as a lefty specialist?

DK: He has evolved into a lefty specialist, he threw more over the top before and he has dropped down now, like a low three quarter delivery.  It seems like he has a lot more deception, his fastball is sneakier if you will, and he has been handling lefties very well.  His command of his breaking ball is not as good as it should be yet, but I think that is one of the reasons they want him to go out there, face better hitters, and learn that he has to throw that breaking ball over the plate to lefties and righties.

BB: When I spoke to you last you were waiting for Drew Hutchison to arrive and now he has come and gone.  I assume while he was there he impressed you with his command and his ability to put hitters away.

DK: This kid has a chance to be something special.  He throws across his body and he can still get the ball to the glove side of the plate and that's hard to do.  He can really get in on lefthanders, he has the late life on his fastball and he just turned 21 a week or so ago and he has the poise and mound presence of a guy much older than that.  His breaking ball got better when he was here, his change-up is good, his fastball obviously is very good, and he throws hard enough.  The one thing (to work on) is his command of his breaking ball and the sharpness of it.  When he got here it was either big or it was flat, he has a little depth on it and that's what we worked on mainly here.  He is a good athlete and he has a chance to be very good I think.

 

BB: Would you compare him in any way to Shaun Marcum?

DK: I think he pitches inside better than Shaun Marcum did.  Marcum relies on that sinker and the change-up.  I don't think Drew Hutchison's change is as good as Marcum's is yet, but it has a chance to get better, remember he is only 21 years old, he is still learning.  But he throws harder than Marcum did.

BB: Another player who has moved on is Nestor Molina, I assume he didn't have much left to learn there when he moved up?

DK: Tremendous command, this kid has tremendous command.  It's been a long time since I have seen someone of that age be able to command the ball as well as he did, and still throw it hard as he does.  I think what makes him stand out is that he has a tremendous split, when he gets two strikes on you he is just going to put you away with it.  He could probably pitch higher right now because of his command and his stuff.  He was lights out in this league, he was so good in this league I felt like he was getting bored, it was too easy for him.  I know they are watching his innings, he is not going deep in games because of his innings, he also has a chance to be very good.

BB: Finally, how had Deck McGuire developed before he left you?

DK: It seems like I haven't seen Deck in two months now.  Deck just got better.  When the season started I just wasn't sure about him, I thought his stuff might be a little short, but he got better, he worked hard, his slider got better, his sinker got better, his arm angle dropped just a little bit and that allowed him to have more movement on his ball.  He has a great work ethic and really believes in himself.  It's not going to come as easy for him as it would for Drew or Molina but he will do what it takes, he is a great competitor.  He has a chance to be a very good pitcher.

--------------------------------------------

Batters Box thanks Darold Knowles for his time.

Posted by Gerry on Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 01:12 AM EDT.
An Interview with Darold Knowles, September 2011 | 114 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
hypobole - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 02:09 AM EDT (#243337) #

hypobole thanks gerry for his time.

I find these interviews fascinating. Can't thank you enough for the work you put into these.

[ Reply to This ]
Thomas - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 06:13 AM EDT (#243339) #
Another great interview, Gerry.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:20 AM EDT (#243340) #
Another great piece. Part of what I love about this site. A question I'd like to see asked at the end of these though is 'are there any players you feel fans should know about who I haven't mentioned yet'. Sometimes guys can show stuff that doesn't show up in the stat sheet, or who show stuff in the bullpen that doesn't translate well (yet) on the mound. Might find some hidden gems or new guys to cheer for.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:34 AM EDT (#243343) #
OK, now I know. It's Molina's split that has developed.  Thanks, Gerry, that little tidbit explains Molina's awesome K numbers.

The interview is a whole is terrific.  I have a very good picture of where Asher Woj, Hutchison and Molina are right now (well, a month ago in the latter two cases), and you cannot find that anywhere else.
[ Reply to This ]
Helpmates - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 11:45 AM EDT (#243354) #
I realize he's a marginal prospect (if even that), but I would've been interested to hear his observations of Casey Lawrence.  I'm always interested in the "diamond-in-the-rough" guys.
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 12:47 PM EDT (#243358) #

It has got to make you think that Molina has got to be in position to be trying for the Jays next season

1. Romero

2. Morrow

3. Cecil

4. 2 open positions with Villeneuva, Alvarez, Perez, Molina, Hutchinson, Drabek and Mills fighting for it. 

I would be very happy with a rotation that had Molina and Alvarez as 4/5. 

Drabek and Hutchinson should both be ready for 2013 as well as McGuire.  Morrow and Cecil have to take their game to another level next year. (assuming Molina and Alvarez pan out

We can't forget McGowan...  It was great to see him last night (and his chops).  I would love to see him in the bullpen next year. (with Villeneuva, Perez, Litsch, and Janssen.  A veteren left hander would be nice too). 

[ Reply to This ]
Paul D - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 01:30 PM EDT (#243361) #
I would be very happy with a rotation that had Molina and Alvarez as 4/5.

Depends what the Jays are going for I guess.  If they're trying to win next year, I'd rather see Morrow/Cecil as 4/5, with new pitchers at 2/3.  Maybe Darvish and Harden/Bedard.  Or a trade for Josh Johnson.   You can bring in some of these guys in the bullpen and start them when your starters get injured.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#243362) #

4. 2 open positions with Villeneuva, Alvarez, Perez, Molina, Hutchinson, Drabek and Mills fighting for it. 

From what I've seen of Alvarez, one of those rotation spots is his. The others can fight over whats left over.

[ Reply to This ]
ayjackson - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 01:36 PM EDT (#243363) #

I think the Jays will try to find another top 2 starter on the trade market this winter.  They may use Cecil as bait, I'd imagine.  And perhaps one of the young arms.  The challenge is to identify a top 2 pitcher, one or two years from free agency that could be pried away from his team.

Immediately, I think of Greinke.  I wonder if Cecil, McGuire plus another prospect would be a possibility.

Cecil and McGuire should be enough to get Billingsly, but do we want him?  Josh Johnson's shoulder has made him a question mark.

[ Reply to This ]
Paul D - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 01:39 PM EDT (#243364) #
Josh Johnson's shoulder has made him a question mark.

I agree, but that's why you get him.   He might come at a discount.  Then you sign Harden/Bedard and hope you get 36 starts from the combo.

Greinke is not being traded this off season.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#243369) #
The Brewers had to give up Lawrie to get Marcum. So the Jays are probably looking at giving up equivalent talent for a similarly cost-controlled #2/3 starter.
[ Reply to This ]
dan gordon - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 03:12 PM EDT (#243372) #

Great to see such positive reviews of Molina and Hutchison.

I was very impressed with McGowan last night.  His location was off a bit, but that will come with game action.  Control is the last thing a pitcher gets back after he's missed a fair bit of time due to injury.  I think he's a viable candidate for the rotation next year.  In fact, if Perez puts up another stinker like that next game, I think they could put McGowan in the rotation for some starts this year.  AA also mentioned the possibility of going to a 6 man rotation when he was interviewed on The Fan yesterday. There's certainly no shortage of guys in the bullpen if he can only go 5 or 6 innings. 

To me, the main candidates for the rotation next year are Romero, Morrow, Cecil, Alvarez, McGowan and Molina.  Drabek has a shot, probably some time during the season (AA had some good things to say about his progress, which was good to hear) and so does Hutchison, also probably during the season.  I think Villanueva is in the pen and Mills is not a candidate, except as possibly a lefty for the pen.  Perez is a possibility too, but I think he's more likely to be a bullpen guy.  Would love to see them go and get somebody if it didn't cost a boatload of talent, but I think 2013 is shaping up very nicely with the internal candidates.  By then you can add McGuire and maybe Jenkins, making 11 candidates including Perez.  I'm assuming they also see Carreno as a reliever.

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#243374) #
And this explains why the Jays want to develop pitchers as much as possible (the Lawrie-Marcum deal). The cost of solid cost-controllable pitchers is sky high.

If we are lucky we'll have a few next year in Romero, Morrow, Cecil and Alverez with more in AAA ready to attack. If not, well, then it gets expensive. Thus why Japanese guys are so expensive and why it takes premium prospects to gain guys in the majors and why we see 7 year deals for pitchers.
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:40 PM EDT (#243378) #

It is funny to hear everyone talk about what AA should to do.  For example, we should trade for 2 first line starters and sign Fielder and Johnson.  It is not possible with our budget.

Here is a fun game we should play(virtual GM). 

Next year, let's say AA was given the thumbs up to expand the roster by 30 million dollars per year (assuming he didn't spend it on the minor league system already) .  Also, the free agents on the squad are still free agents and need to be filled by the 30 million.

Other parts of the question. 

1. Who do you offer arbitration to and who do you not?  

2. Who do you release? and only pay the buyout(if applicable)

3. What free agents do you go after or do you save it for 2013?

4. Is there a trade you would try to execute? (assuming that the player is available)

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:44 PM EDT (#243379) #
One mental test I like to do is: would I want this pitcher starting for my team in the playoffs?

Romero: yes
Morrow: maybe, depending on which way he's trending. Could be dominant, could implode
Cecil: probably not (would like to see him regain his form over a full season first)
Alvarez: in time, quite possibly (he looks great, but the sample size is minuscule)

I think the Jays will be on the verge of arriving when they have three or more guys who fall into this category. How else are you going to beat teams with Doc/Lee/Hamels, Lester/Beckett/Buchholz, Weaver/Haren/Santana, or Greinke/Gallardo/Marcum?

The Jays have a number of prospects who could fit this bill eventually, but they will take time to develop. I guess it all depends on the window of contention. Adding Darvish would be risky, but could accelerate the timetable if he's of this calibre.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:54 PM EDT (#243381) #
Personally, I would much rather have Henderson Alvarez starting a game in the playoffs in 2012 than Brandon Morrow. That does not mean that I would like him to start 2012 in the rotation.  One of the options that the club has would be to stick Villanueva in the rotation to start the season with Alvarez in the pen and then switch 'em in June or July.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 04:58 PM EDT (#243382) #
The payroll this year (including $5 mil for Wells and $500k for Olivo's buyout) was $70.5 million.

The Jays have $41.65 million locked in for next year ($14 to Bautista, $5.15 to Lind, $2.75 to Hechavarria, $2.75 to Davis, $5.25 to Romero, Teahen $5.5, Escobar $5 plus a few buyouts). That covers 7 guys (maybe 6 if Teahen released). That leaves (based on a $100 mil budget) $58.35 million.

Cecil, McGowan, Carlson, Litsch, Janssen, Villanueva, Rasmus and Morrow are arbitration guys - lets say $16 mil for all of them (no higher than that I expect) covering another 8 guys. That leaves $42.35.

Encarnacion won't be bought out now I suspect, so that costs an extra $3 mil. Now down to $39.35 million with 16 of 25 slots filled. Remaining guys on roster are under $1 mil each, so lets budget $1 mil each (solid bench guys or pen will be more) costing $9 million leaving $30.35 in the budget.

So adding Pujols eats up all of that. Fielder or CC would leave, maybe, $5 million in the budget. Darvish, if you spread his money over 6 years (number of years Jays would have him pre-free agency) then he'd cost at least $100 mil / 6 = $17 per (roughly) leaving $13 mil in the budget (maybe sub-$10 mil depending of course).

Boy, not hard to blow that budget if just one premium free agent is added.
[ Reply to This ]
DaveB - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 05:15 PM EDT (#243384) #
Thanks Gerry. I always enjoy your interviews and they most definitely help to understand how the organization views their prospects.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 05:30 PM EDT (#243386) #
... It is not possible to do with our budget.
Who said we had a budget? A.A. didn't, Paul Beeston didn't, nor has anyone else in the chain of command said anything about a budget. Whichever Doomsayer you got your delusion of a 'budget' idea from won't agree. Does it matter? Some holes will be filled internally, some via trades. The rest will be filled via Free Agency - Darvish, Fielder and/or Papelbon - $40.0 - $60.00 million increase if needed.
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 06:12 PM EDT (#243389) #
That was pretty cool to hear him admit that he didn't think McGuire's stuff was up to snuff early in the year....because that was the distinct impression I got from hearing his comments about Deck in the midseason interview.

And he'd only be willing to admit that if the improvements Deck had made were legit...else he'd just have said the same iffy non-statements he used in the first one.

on a pure stats basis, McGuire's peripherals took a huge step up around midseason and that continued up to AA. even the stats weren't big fans of his in the first half.
[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 07:51 PM EDT (#243396) #
Richard SS, I respect yours & everyone else's opinion. But I have 2 questions for you.

1) How confident are you that the Jays will sign those expensive FAs you often mention?
2) How confident are you that the Jays will even TRY to sign any expensive FAs?

I realize the word expensive cannot be pinned down.

I am 5-10% confident in them being signed and maybe 15% that AA will seriously try.

I think your moves will greatly improve the team and maybe even get us a championship. Texas represented the AL in the WS and the Jays are close to them. If we get IN then I have faith we can be the AL team at the WS.

When V Wells was having a bad year in 2009, I realized that he or any big FA can/will have good & bad seasons before & after FA. V Wells had a good year in 2010 and also earlier in his career. So if the club thinks a player can be very good ie Wells or Snider and then they are good, you keep them for the cheap/affordable years and don't sign them to the Albatros contract IMO only.

Lastly the debate on the existence of a budget...IMO you do not win or lose that debate. That is answered IMO when we actually contend or try to.
[ Reply to This ]
Mylegacy - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:00 PM EDT (#243397) #
Two comments:

ONE:

To Gerry: ...everyone says...great work, blah, blah, blah. Well Gerry - we ALL really mean it! Your REPORTING (not guessing, not speculating, not commenting but REAL REPORTING) is as good - or better (mostly better) than the other Prospect Porn we get from ALL other sources combined. Thank you! AND - keep it up - or else!

TWO:

If we were going into the playoffs NOW - this week - I'd go with Romero, Alvarez and McGowan. I honestly see these three guys - RIGHT NOW - as our best three starters. After than I'd flip a coin on either Morrow or Cecil and not really care which came up first. Morrow just hasn't proven he can can pitch with guys on base and Cecil - I think - is just really wearing down at this time.

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 08:36 PM EDT (#243399) #
For example, we should trade for 2 first line starters and sign Fielder and Johnson.  It is not possible with our budget.

Yes it is. but it's not necessary and isn't going to happen.

I''m going to (continue to) take the contrary opinion: unless something special falls into our laps, or we sign Darvish, the Jays will not add a significant SP this winter. Nor should they.

Here's my Opening Day depth chart (in order not of talent but their likelihood to be in the rotation if healthy):

1. Romero
2. McGowan
3. Morrow
4. Cecil
5. Alvarez
6. Drabek
7. Villianueva
8. Perez
9. Molina
10. Litsch

The first 3 are set if healthy.

Cecil is keeping a spot warm until someone takes it from him. (and they likely will) 

Alvarez is penciled in but they are looking around for the ink pen.

Drabek, if he has his stuff back together in ST might push Cecil to the 'pen (again, assumes everyone is healthy)

Villianueva would be the first option for a stopgap if a short-term opening occured, then Perez.

Molina could potentially steal a spot if he's superhuman in the spring but he would have to clearly outclass - shame - at least two of Cecil, Alvarez, and
Drabek. I don't think there's a very high chance he breaks camp with the Jays.

Listch is always handy if things go very wrong and when Jesse Litsch is your 10th option, you are doing just fine on pitching depth.

Buy the trade deadline Cecil will be in the 'pen and one of Drabek or Molina will have hijacked him. (AGAIN, assumes health all around)




I re-iterate what I don't see many others saying: quit trying to rush The Plan because Alex isn't gonna do it.  You KNOW the front three are going to be in the 2012 rotation, and you know if McGowan holds up he will be too. I take it as a given that Cecil will be surpassed by a kid at some point so lay him aside. if you sign a starter then he's going to have to be significantly better than someone in this group: Romero, McGowan, Morrow, Alvarez, Drabek, Molina (that's enough names to account for McGowan's potential fragility)

And even then you are blocking Hutch and everyone behind him. Will 5 of those six guys start, say, at least 25 games a year every year the next 3-4 years? No. But you also have, besides them, 3 or 4 guys who would be perfectly competent 5th starters over a limited stretch.

I know I'm out here on the limb alone, but our SP is FINE as long as you are not going balls-out to make a run in 2012, and no matter what we think, Alex ain't doing THAT. if they gel and make a run, that's gravy. Alex is not going to screw the development of guys who might be here six years or more for a temporary boost.

1. Who do you offer arbitration to and who do you not?  

Everyone.


2. Who do you release? and only pay the buyout(if applicable)

Decline the option on Rauch.


3. What free agents do you go after or do you save it for 2013?

Save. Well, there are some relievers that would make decent imports.

To be clear, I'd spend big money (whatever it takes) on Pujols, be okay with doing so for Darvish, and tolerate doing so for Fielder - but I'm proceeding from the assumption that these are unlikely. And only after i tried and failed to get Votto.


4. Is there a trade you would try to execute? (assuming that the player is available)

Assuming Francisco walks, i'd make a play for Sergio Romo to be the presumptive closer.

I'd try REAL hard to deal for Votto and failing that, try to get Alonso and then see what Lind would bring me.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 09:33 PM EDT (#243400) #
on the payroll, I make it like this (i can't help myself, ok?):
(all figures per Cotts)

42.95 committed (7 major league players, Hech, and 2 buy-outs)
Romero, Bautista, EE, Lind, Teahen, Esco and Davis)

12.8 estimated arbitration (6 players)
Janssen, Villianeuva, Listch, Morrow, McGowan, Rasmus)

That's
3 SP
3 RP
1B, SS, DH, RF, CF and two bench players

you need:
2 catchers - Arencibia & FA?
2B - FA (Johnson?)
3B - Lawrie
LF - Snider or Thames
Bench IF - FA (McDonald)
2 SP - Cecil and Alvarez or Drabek
3 RP - Perez, Carreno, & FA
closer - FA

so there are 7 pre-arb guys among those 12 - no more than half a mil apiece for a total of something under 3.5

So far that adds up to about 59.2 million

the other five presumed free agents (if not traded for) consists of two bench players a middle/set-up reliever and a closer along with a 2B

I'm going to call them:
Molina-type: $1 mil
McDonald: $1.5 mil
Mike Gonzalez: (a name out of thin air, haven't researched) $4 mil

That leaves what you would spend on Johnson if you re-signed him and whatever you think you can get a closer for. If you estimate around $4 mil for the closer (I don't expect Alex to pony up bigger than that for one) then you have almost $70 spent and still need a 2B

Johnson is the only guy worth spending significantly on - figure probably $7 or so for him due to scarcity, no more than 2-3 on anyone else.

Add in Pujols or Fielder and you go to $100  true but if you do that you don't need anyone else - don't add one of those two and you have plenty of flexibility and frankly there's no reason to assume they would stop at $100 if they felt it was a good buy.


[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 10:47 PM EDT (#243401) #
If we were going into the playoffs NOW - this week - I'd go with Romero, Alvarez and McGowan. I honestly see these three guys - RIGHT NOW - as our best three starters. After than I'd flip a coin on either Morrow or Cecil and not really care which came up first. Morrow just hasn't proven he can can pitch with guys on base and Cecil - I think - is just really wearing down at this time.

serve me up an order of Romero-Alvarez-Molina-Hutchison in the playoffs right now.

and I actually think I'm serious.
[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 11:23 PM EDT (#243402) #
And I actually think you're nuts. Molina and Hutchison have a combined total of 37 innings above A ball.
[ Reply to This ]
katman - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 11:27 PM EDT (#243403) #
"...he was so good in this league I felt like he was getting bored..."

Wow. You don't hear that too often.
[ Reply to This ]
sam - Wednesday, September 07 2011 @ 11:31 PM EDT (#243404) #
I agree with you Jonny German. They need more time.
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 12:27 AM EDT (#243408) #

I am never one to believe that players have to spend time in the minors.  If they get it and are basically "bored", why not move them up and challenge them?  If they are dominating the minors, wouldn't you worry that they play down to the level of thier competition?

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 08:13 AM EDT (#243416) #
Lylemcr - the eternal challenge. Making sure guys are getting pushed, but not too hard or they lose confidence but not too light or they develop bad habits.
[ Reply to This ]
Paul D - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 08:47 AM EDT (#243417) #

If the Blue Jays want to compete next year they unquestionably need more starters.  Whether they should try to compete next year or not is another question, but if that's what they want, they need more pitching.

[ Reply to This ]
ogator - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#243442) #
Even rebuilding teams have to compete every twenty years or so.  Right now they have a legitimate MVP candidate, a  very promising 3B man they acquired for a first rate pitcher, a superior SS, a catcher who set a franchise record for home runs, a major league CFer and a farm system bursting with major league or near major league ready talent, a pitcher of the month for the AL, a coming young stud pitcher who throws 95-100mph...oh yeah and an ownership that has so much money falling out of their pockets that they want to start a bank just to keep track of it all.  Let's bend down, scoop up some of those misplaced Rogers bucks (maybe they should replace the Loon with a picture of Ted and start call them "Teddies").  The fan base should demand that they compete next year.  The fan base has been more than patient.  No more 3 year, 5 year,  7 year plans.  No more "there will be money when the time is right" apologies.  The time is "right", right now!  O.K. Rogers, open the vault.  Maybe we won't go all Joe Carter on the other guys but at least let's try to compete and let's do that right now.  Let's all stop feeling sorry for those poor guys who have to compete against the monied franchises.  Rogers wants to start a friggin' bank!  How about let's compete in 2012 and damn those Rogers torpedoes.
[ Reply to This ]
Mylegacy - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 01:38 PM EDT (#243445) #
Put me in the, as my four year old nephew would say,  "wait a hold it" camp.

No amount of angst is going to make Hutchison, Molina, Nicolino, Snydergaard (HMNS) mature faster than they're going to mature.  The "emergence" of Alvarez and the "miracle" of McGowan are making me think - don't go after Darvish or whomever - go after Puljos or Fielder (or both - OK - might be a bridge too far there).

By July at least ONE of  (HMNS) will FORCE the issue. In the meantime - patience (remember it's a virtue) children.

Back in 1982 it was CLEAR to me - and many others - the Jay's were on the Verge of Great Things. The JOURNEY to those Great Things was every bit as interesting as the two WS Wins. AA is on track, on budget and on time to building a dynasty...lets not rain of his spectacular (so far) parade!

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 01:50 PM EDT (#243446) #
Agreed Mylegacy. The Jays should chase Fielder, Pujols and/or Darvish this winter. However, skyrocketing the payroll to $120+ (which it would take to get 2 of them) might not be the best idea. 1B/DH clearly needs improvement. 2B, if Johnson isn't kept, will need fixing. The bullpen will need fixing.

This is a good team. However, a lot still needs to go right, even with major FA signings, to be a winner. A year from now more prospects will be ready or nearly ready. AA needs to show strong judgement on the long term this winter. Sign a free agent if he'll help not just 2012 but also 2013/2014/2015 and more so than guys here already.

If I could trust that Rogers would keep the budget at $140+ then go ahead and sign everyone. However, history tells us not to trust so lets hope AA is smart with those dollars.
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 01:56 PM EDT (#243447) #
You can't dictate when the players you need come available.

The Jays will need a Prince Fielder whether they compete next year or whether they compete 2yrs later. They don't have a Prince Fielder in the system.

We know a Prince Fielder is available this year, and we can be fairly certain there won't be a Prince Fielder available just exactly when we're perfectly ready to add him.

Will there be a CJ Wilson available in 2 years? likely. A Papelbon? probably. We can pass on those guys this year if we don't think next year is our time.

I guess there might be a Fielder available in 2yrs if the Reds idiotically decide to move Votto, but I don't see that as a good bet to happen.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 04:11 PM EDT (#243453) #
uglyone - agreed, you can't count on when they are available. However, if you expect to contend in, say, 2013 then Fielder or Pujols can make sense. If it is 2015 then Fielder might but Pujols probably doesn't (year 4 of a deal, by which point many free agents are turning into pumpkins) but Darvish still would.

AA has said he is after star quality - ie: guys who are top 5 at their position in the majors. Fielder is #10 in the majors for OPS+ this year, with just one guy younger ahead of him on the list (going by age listed, 2 others are the same age). He would be #5 for 1B/DH (Cabrera, Ortiz, Votto ahead of him). Pujols is right behind at #11. Both fit the definition of a top 5 talent.

Btw, looking at that list I noticed Alex Gordon, who many here coveted in the winter, is #21 with a 141 OPS+ in LF/1B. Sigh. If only KC would've given up on him eh?

FYI: on the other side we see in the bottom 5 Rios, Dunn, and Alex Gonzalez. Phew, did the Jays avoid a disaster or 3 there eh?
[ Reply to This ]
Mylegacy - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 05:02 PM EDT (#243454) #
A thought on McGowan...

Over at KLaw's chat today he was not confident that McG could be "counted on" going forward - how long can he stay healthy.

While I see McGowan as one of our top three for 2012 - I too share KLaw's concern about McG's prognosis. However, I think (and I think Dustin would agree with this) that I would play Dustin in 2012 as if he was a NORMAL healthy starter and basically run him out every fifth day. IF - his shoulder falls off - so be it. I think Dustin would want this opportunity as well. Either the glue sticks or the shoulder unwinds - either way - Dustin has had his shot at redemption and should be satisfied to have a five or six year career as a starter or go home - broken - but unbowed.

To be crass - IF McG falters - as long as he lasts til mid-season - Molina or Hutchison will be ready by then and we can move on seamlessly.

KLaw says if you're not counting Alvarez then Hutchison is the Jay's best pitching prospect.

[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 05:25 PM EDT (#243456) #
Alonso or Votto will arrive via trade - Fielder or Pujols will be signed as Free Agent(s). Bautista will not be 'hung out to dry' like this year ever again - a great year wasted.
We do not have enough Pitchers of Romero's caliber just yet. If Yu Darvish is wanted by A.A. he'll get him, or someone as good or better.
The Bullpen sucked. A.A. said on PTS/Fan 590 a while ago he would be signing a couple of Closer Candidates. Hopefully they're Tier 1 types. Papelbon or someone of his caliber may become more acceptable after Seaon End Team Meetings.
[ Reply to This ]
Ducey - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 06:03 PM EDT (#243457) #
So Votto, Fielder, Darvish, and Papelbon.  Why not Velander, and Weaver too?
 
Do you think AA is picking players for the Nuclear Power Plant Softball team?
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 06:12 PM EDT (#243458) #

I still say if we just get one good arm for the bullpen and sign a second baseman for 1 or 2 year contract, that is all we would need.  Now, I will not cry if AA manages to sign Fielder or Pujols, and I think there is a good chance he might.  But...The Jays biggest issue this year was not the offense.  If nothing is done to address the bullpen issue, we are going to have a crappy year next year (with or without FielderPujols)

One thing is for sure, it is going to be a crazy offseason. The way the Jays are so tightlipped, there is no way a person can predict what the Jays are going to have for a roster on opening day.  I look back to this year, and I can't believe the roster now.

I can't wait for next season!

[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Thursday, September 08 2011 @ 11:02 PM EDT (#243474) #
Richard, when AA says he's signing a couple of closer candidates, I don't see that as meaning Heath Bell and Jonathan Papelbon. I see that as again signing a couple of guys with POTENTIAL to close, like he did this past offseason with Rauch and Francisco. 
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:52 AM EDT (#243476) #

Now that I'm not restricted to using my iPhone for commenting on Batter's Box.   Nor trying to do it in 2 minutes bits of time (getting timed out responses) by a slow two-finger typer.   12-hour shifts suck.

1) How confident are you that the Jays will sign those expensive FAs you often mention?
2) How confident are you that the Jays will even TRY to sign any expensive FAs

For most of this year Jose Bautista stood alone.  It must never happen again.    Adam Lind wasn't the Big Bat needed, even though he'd tried.   Is Lind the answer long term at 1B, he`s cheap, but I don`t think so.   Edwin Encarnacion was to be a 30+ HR guy aka Big Bat, and it didn`t happen.   I don`t bring him back.   However, I would go after a Big Bat this offseason, failure to do so would be stupid.   Alonso (trade), Votto (trade) or Pujols (FA) might block someone, but not very soon.   Signing Fielder (FA) as D.H.(50%) and 1B(50%) let`s you keep Lind 50-50 1B&D.H.   With less pressure, Lind may improve.   Signing Fielder doesn`t violate The Plan, I just don`t know where else a Big Bat comes from.    (Fielder: $25.0MM).

I can`t imagine A.A. not signing Kelly Johnson (not after trying to obtain him much earlier).   After all, he`s the best 2B available on the FA market and he`s still a Blue Jay.   I can`t understand settling for less the best here.   This I think is part of The Plan.   (Johnson: $7.0MM).

Romero and a cast of `not good enough` makes up or Roster, now and the next year or two.   It does not matter what A.A. said on PTS earlier this week, A.A. will try to obtain rights to Yu Darvish, rather than NYY or BOS.   He doesn`t block anyone for at least three years.   I can`t see A.A. not trying, after all, this is The Plan.   (Posting Fee: $60.0MM).   (Darvish: $15.0MM).

The Bullpen sucks, and then it got worse.   A.A. said on PTS/Fan 590 a while ago he would be signing a couple of Closer Candidates.   If we need to fill 4-5 spots in the Bullpen in-house, they`d better be Tier 1 material.   It is still possible, after End of Season Meetings bringing Papelbon to the forefront.   Three year contracts don`t block anyone, nor do they violate The Plan.   (Closer Candidates: $10.0MM - $5.0mm each).   (Papelbon: $14.0MM).

One way or another, to take a step forward will cost money: $17.0MM - $61.0MM.   How much is one Home Playoff Game worth (at average ticket price at $100.00-$150.00 or more), I think enough to make a $42.0MM - $46.0MM investment  reasonable. 

[ Reply to This ]
Paul D - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 08:16 AM EDT (#243478) #
Richard, I disagree with you about Encarnacion.  He delivered exactly what was expected and is a lock to come back next year as the DH.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 08:45 AM EDT (#243479) #
EE has been outstanding this year. In the second half, he's hit 303/389/527. It might be a fluke, but it could also be that he's figured a few things out. My pet theory is that (like Escobar) he's fallen under the positive influence of the Great One (baseball version), aka Joey Bats.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 09:56 AM EDT (#243481) #
Since the All Star break (not including yesterdays game)
sOPS+
Encarnacion - 149
Bautista - 143
Lind - 82
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 10:21 AM EDT (#243482) #

Even if the Jays sign a FielderPujols type, there is still lots of room for EELind.  EE can play 3rd/1st and DH and Lind could go out to the outfield every once and awhile.  I would rather have an EE on the bench than a McCoy or Nix.

Why is there this love affair with McCoy?  Couldn't we give some youn minor-league a chance to season a bit?

[ Reply to This ]
DLyons - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 10:36 AM EDT (#243484) #
McCoy has defensive versatility. Every team needs a backup SS and McCoy can play the other IF spots as well as CF. He can take a walk as well and has a little speed. You can't ask for much more from a super utility guy. I don't know if the Jays have anyone in the Minors that could fit that profile, maybe Diaz, but his bat may be worse than McCoy's.
[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 10:45 AM EDT (#243485) #
Richard SS, Playoff Revenue is a great subject. We should work out some reasonable figures for playoff games and also possible attendance increases due to the fielding of a 91-96 win team.
While you are setting your sights on Winning ( 96+) in 2012, Go for it buddy. I am strongly impatient for 90+ wins in 2012 and hope AA will try for that from Opening day. I think our everyday line is talented but young & inexperienced, which could cost them, so I am waiting an extra year. Of course everything depends on what AA thinks & does.

A key question is what "Closer Candidate" means. Bell, Papelbon & maybe J Axeford are proven successful closers. Will AA get one of them or will he get a Fraser, Gregg, Rauch type. He has never specified and he probably will not. I agree with him keeping quiet. FF is one I liked because he seems to have the raw stuff of an elite closer but he has not done it well enough to be considered Elite, and with ample opportunities. A Bauxite keeps mentioning the name of a RP that he thinks is a worthy closer candidate. Developing a closer is also a good way, so a parade of closer types is fine with me. Brian Wilson is a closer that may become elite. He is a failed starter. I think bringing in Rauch & his type is a mistake because they seem to be OWED multiple opportunities and at the expense of unproven but promising RPs who are having enough success to warrant a shot at closing.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 11:09 AM EDT (#243487) #

Why is there this love affair with McCoy?  Couldn't we give some youn minor-league a chance to season a bit?

McCoy's role on the team next year would be to fill in everywhere and hopefully log no more than 100 AB. You wouldn't want to try to develop a young player with upside by placing him in such a limited role. And you'd want someone who's willing to accept that role without griping (much as John McDonald has always done). In a universe of 4-man benches, a super utility guy is a useful ingredient.

EE can play 3rd/1st and DH and Lind could go out to the outfield every once and awhile.

I think we have seen the last of Encarnacion at 3B and Lind in LF. The organization has to decide if these two players will serve as the 1B and DH next season. I think Encarnacion's option will get picked up.

Lind is under contract so ties with him cannot be so easily severed. His OPS+ from 2007-2011: 77, 100, 141, 90, 97. His big season, now 2 years removed, is looking like a serious outlier. He'll turn 29 mid next season, so a turnaround is not terribly likely (though, of course, not impossible). Even if Lind were to improve to league average with the bat, that doesn't help much at first base. If the team can find a taker, I'd advocate cutting bait.

A key question is what "Closer Candidate" means. Bell, Papelbon & maybe J Axeford are proven successful closers.

Axford was the very definition of closer candidate before becoming a "proven successful closer" in 2010. He had a power arm but had been stuck in the minors because of strike zone issues. He addressed those well enough to warrant promotion to the majors and earned a shot at closing when it was clear that Hoffman was toast. AA's language suggests that he'd prefer to manufacture his own "proven successful closer" rather than pay for someone else's.

[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 11:16 AM EDT (#243488) #

Brian Wilson is a closer that may become elite.

He may, but this year's numbers would hardly serve as exhibit A. While he's still keeping the ball in the yard (his forte), his K and BB rates have each dramatically headed in the wrong direction. I think there is a temptation to think too much of him because of his carefully crafted cartoon-character closer persona (illiteration accidental). His 2011 has him more reminiscent of Kevin Gregg than of someone you'd open the vault for.

[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 11:18 AM EDT (#243489) #
I'm still not buying that EE is a new man. I think he's just being himself only moreso. He's always been better in the second half than the first, and he's always been a particularly streaky hitter with high highs and low lows.

If no new first baseman is acquired, I would essentially split the position between EE and Lind. It would be a dynamic situation as to who gets more playing time, not a straight L/R platoon.

If a new first baseman is acquired I'd trade Lind. His contract and upside are agreeable enough that I believe this would not be difficult. I'd love to have EE as the big bat on the bench - he'd make a couple starts a week at DH, pinch hit, and most importantly be the backup for the 4 corner positions and DH in the event of an injury. Snider and Thames would be be my regular left fielder and DH, so EE would also serve as safety net if one of them (or perish the thought Lawrie) should fail to perform well.

That's how I see it. But it's entirely idle speculation as I fully expect AA to have more elaborate plans in mind and some of the players I'm pencilling in won't even be around.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 11:24 AM EDT (#243491) #

I'd trade Lind

Rumour has it that the very right-handed Milwaukee Brewers may soon be in the market for an affordable left-handed first baseman.

[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 11:28 AM EDT (#243492) #
It is interesting that EE has hit quite well over his career (260 PAs, sample size warnings apply) as a DH.  On average, players hit worse as a DH than when playing the field, but EE (like Ortiz) may be the exception.  This might not be a shock in light of his defensive struggles. 

Right now, the in-house options at 1B/DH are Lind, Cooper and EE.  That is not bad, but not good either.

[ Reply to This ]
ayjackson - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 11:55 AM EDT (#243493) #
If we're going to do a performance platoon at first base, I'd prefer it to be EE and Loewen or Cooper rather than EE and Lind.  Much more economical. 
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 12:03 PM EDT (#243494) #
I'm somewhat skeptical about EE's resurgence as well, but he's been anything but streaky over the last few months. Unless you consider OPS's of 846 (June), 909 (July), and 961 (August) running hot and cold.

Also, his career 1st/2nd half OPS split is 756/822 (a 66-point difference), This year, the split is 688/938 (a 250-point difference). So first of all, his career split probably isn't that great if you take away the huge second-half weighting this year. Second, even if you buy the theory that a 2nd-half surge by EE is par for the course, his 2nd-half production in 2012 massively outclasses his career average, suggesting that maybe - just maybe - something else is going on this year.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#243495) #
Last comment: even if EE hasn't magically morphed into a 900 OPS player, as a 28-year-old with a $3.5M salary; the ability to play 1B, DH, 3B (in a pinch), and now potentially LF; and a career triple-slash line of 261/336/456, he's still a valuable player to have around.
[ Reply to This ]
Spifficus - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 12:26 PM EDT (#243497) #

From the ever-flawed observational standpoint, the approach in Encarnacion's ABs looks so much better than in past hot streaks. Last year it seemed like he was just running into a few more during his hot streak, but this time it seems like he's pretty consistently giving a good AB.

I'm not saying he's a middle of the order threat, and if a better opportunity presents itself that he's much of a roadblock. With his 3 consecutive months of hot (while looking the part) it sure seems like the team could do worse at the DH slot, especially for a $3.5M one year commitment. And, if the time comes to move him aside for a better option, as greenfrog notes, he still supplies a good 4-corners-type mirror image of Hinske off the bench.

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 12:31 PM EDT (#243498) #
Heh. Milwaukee and/or St Louis could be hunting hard for a guy to play at 1B but unless some AA magic occurs I doubt Lind will get much, if anything (of course, I felt the same about Wells).

I suspect EE will be kept around, as a backup 1B/3B/DH if nothing else (at his salary he is reasonable for that) and he'll probably get some spring time in LF/RF as well (try to make him an all-corners guy).

Pujols fits the way AA thinks - super talent, can play more than one position (3B as well when needed but not regularly, -1.7/150 g this season, also played LF for awhile) and plays his own well (known as a top defensive 1B, +4.3 runs this year, peaked at +21.7). However his age is an issue as are his salary demands. Fielder is a mediocre at best, more like a poor 1B defensively (costing 5.7 runs at 1B this year according to FanGraphs, average 6.5 to the bad lifetime per 150 games).

Tough call for AA. He has a budget I'm sure, and would love to get Pujols or Fielder but boy does that limit the budget going forward (ala Wells & Delgado in the past) and he hates being locked in at a position on the field. If Pujols will take a 5 or less year deal and is willing to move to the AL and Canada then I could see AA getting him. Fielder there is no way AA goes over 5 years for either.

Yup, 2011/2012 free agent season will be interesting. If Lind goes then we know something big is about to happen.
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:00 PM EDT (#243501) #
I don't trust either EE or Lind to be an impact player on a full-time basis. But I expect both of them to have extended redhot streaks and extended ice cold streaks.

In the event that we sign an impact Fielder-type bat.....unless we're getting value for one of them in a trade, I would just keep both of them and platoon them. I think a Lind-EE platoon would give us a solid chance at an .850ops from a 1B/DH slot, and would only cost us $8.5m.

And it wouldn't have to be just a strict R/L platoon, they could also just run with the hot bat when either of them go on one of their patented tears, and sit the other one when they go into one of their patented slumps.

Good teams have depth, and neither of these guys cost much to keep.
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#243503) #
1) SS Escobar
2) 2B Johnson
3) RF Bautista
4) 1B Fielder
5) 3B Lawrie
6) CF Rasmus
7) DH Encarnacion/Lind
8) LF Thames/Snider
9) C Arencibia

PH) Lind/Encarnacion
OF) Snider/Thames
IF) McCoy
C) whoever

That's a dang good lineup right there.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:19 PM EDT (#243504) #
I suspect it would be Snider or Thames on the roster, not both. The other slot would be Davis (plays all 3 OF, very fast baserunner, already signed anyways, probably wouldn't whine about being on the bench).
[ Reply to This ]
MatO - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:26 PM EDT (#243505) #

Last night was probably a good indication of Cooper's typical line in Vegas.  Looper to LF for a single, liner to right-centre for a double, fly ball to left-centre for a double.  All off LHP.  He had no major platoon difference in AAA.  I expect his ML line to be .300   .360  .420 which is what Mike's MLE's basically were.  That would make him a more valuable player than Lind.  Barring the signing of a Pujols or Fielder I'd  try and move Lind in the off-season and replace him with Cooper.  I'd have Lind playing as much as possible to the end of the season to boost those shiny HR totals.

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:29 PM EDT (#243506) #
Very good-looking lineup 1-9 (although I'm not sure I love Johnson hitting second), but I just can't seem to imagine AA spending what it will take to land Fielder. Some GM, somewhere, is going to break the bank for Fielder (ditto for Pujols). Good idea or not - and I like Fielder - a six, seven or eight-year contract at $22-25M per just doesn't seem to be AA's style.

If I had to guess, I would say that Anthopoulos will bide his time and attempt to get in on the ground floor of the *next* Fielder or Votto. During the bidding war, the name-brand FAs look great, almost irresistible, but often fail to work out - it happens every year. AA seems to be focused on the long term - on building a "dynasty", as Marco Paddy said in a recent interview.
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#243507) #
I don't see a need for Davis. Rasmus is a true full-time CF, so backup duty there is not a big issue. Both Snider and McCoy can fill in at CF in a pinch (and for LF and RF as well). Both Snider and McCoy also bring good to very good speed on the basepaths as well, though obviously not quite Rajai-level.
[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:39 PM EDT (#243509) #
An interesting idea from Tao of Steib is Logan Morrison. He's shown outstanding OBPility in the past and this year is hitting for good power (but not getting on base at his usual excellent rate). Minor league track record is excellent. Doesn't seem likely that Florida would be foolish enough to give up on him, but that's the type of thing AA pulls off. And Florida did arbitrarily demote Morrison to the minors for a week in August.
[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#243510) #
I should clarify that Morrison speculation is for first base. He's been a left fielder in the majors but played over 400 games at 1B in the minors.
[ Reply to This ]
Spifficus - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#243511) #
You'd want Snider (or Thames) getting full time ABs in AAA, though, so they're ready to fill in in case of an injury. Davis would have a decent amount of use off the bench as a pinch runner / defensive sub, and shouldn't be as adverse to the inconsistent ABs of a bench player.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:49 PM EDT (#243512) #
Plus Davis bats right, and you have a left-handed centerfielder and left-fielder who will need time off from time to time, and you might as well get the platoon advantage. 
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#243515) #
I dunno, I think there's plenty of AB to go around at the MLB level for both Snider and Thames, especially when we run into inevitable injuries.

I like the idea of having bench guys who are arguably starters in say Lind and Snider, especially if the guys holding the starting jobs ahead of them are far from proven in those roles like Thames and EE.

And I want Rasmus starting every single game he's healthy for next year.


[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 03:26 PM EDT (#243528) #
There is a general rule that you want guys on the bench who are willing to live with that role. Snider & Thames would probably have trouble if they were once a week guys. Davis however seems to have accepted it while still wanting to play everyday. McDonald is a classic on this as he shows tons of energy and desire but I've never heard a complaint from / about him.

I'd probably start Snider in the minors (if he has options) and let Thames play himself out of a job. Loewen (from a radio interview I heard him on) seems to be willing to do the work that a part timer would have as well (nearly being out of the game does that to a guy). Cooper & Snider & Thames though I doubt are ready to be bench guys - to have the discipline to practice all the time and to be ready even if not in the game.
[ Reply to This ]
Spifficus - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 04:44 PM EDT (#243540) #
Further to that, it's not just whether they're willing to live with a bench role, but more importantly whether they can remain productive while doing so. Snider and Thames have always played every day, and also have hitting styles that I think would leave them ill-suited for the task (lots of swing-and-miss, while being particularly slump-prone... the second concerns me a bit about Encarnacion if he gets moved to a reserve role).
[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 05:51 PM EDT (#243546) #
If I had to guess, I would say that Anthopoulos will bide his time and attempt to get in on the ground floor of the *next* Fielder or Votto.

Sure that seems more his style, but there's a risk.  You don't know if the guy you target (Yonder Alonso?) is going to become the next Fielder or Votto.  On the other hand, Fielder and Votto are already Fielder and Votto.  You know what you're getting there, at least for the next few years.

name-brand FAs look great, almost irresistible, but often fail to work out

And the same can be said for a lot of prospects.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 07:23 PM EDT (#243557) #
True, but when a prospect doesn't work out, you aren't on the hook for enormous sums of money. Look at last off-season:

- The Red Sox will be paying Carl Crawford (OPS: 686) $142M over 7 years (not to mention the previous John Lackey signing: $82.5M over 5 years)
- The Nationals will be paying Jason Werth (OPS: 732) $126M
- The White Sox will be paying Adam Dunn (OPS: 576) $56M over 4 years

Yes, some pricey FAs turn out to be decent investments. But man - there are a lot of busts, and they can wreck a team's budget (unless you have a $160M+ payroll like Boston, or a $200M+ payroll like the Yankees). The Jays were extremely fortunate to get out from Wells's contract, or we likely wouldn't even be having the Fielder/Pujols conversation.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 08:43 PM EDT (#243565) #
You know what you're getting there, at least for the next few years.

You really don't.
[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 08:50 PM EDT (#243567) #
You don't?  I think you know you're getting very good hitters, yes.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 09:30 PM EDT (#243570) #
you know you are getting a guy who HAS BEEN a very good hitter right up until the moment he signed the contract.

one question:

did the White Sox know what they were getting when they signed Adam Dunn?

Many many other examples might be offered.


it's true you have a track record which informs your decision. But it happens from time to time that a player signs a big deal and never plays as he did before the contract was signed.


[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 09:47 PM EDT (#243574) #
I think the Dunn situation is quite rare.  Fielder and Votto have been nothing but elite hitters for years, and they're still young.

Again, everyone saying that signing free agents can be a risk.  Well, DUH.  Taking a drive down to the corner store can be a risk.  Taking a shower can be a risk.  Just because bad things happen sometimes can't scare you away from an avenue to improve your team.

You know what else is a risk?  Staying cheap all the time and hoping all your prospects become elite.
[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 09:56 PM EDT (#243575) #
A further question:

Is there ever a good time to sign a superstar free agent?

[ Reply to This ]
Alex Obal - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 10:12 PM EDT (#243576) #
did the White Sox know what they were getting when they signed Adam Dunn?

You're right of course, but I can't resist - they should've! (Also, I'm sorry, Victor Martinez. You're a full Magglio after all.)

That said, I'd be thrilled to see the Jays get a basher. Fielder? You're replacing Lind/Thames/Snider with an MVP candidate in his 20s. Pujols? Farfetched, but he's 31, far as we know, and one year removed from being the four(?)-time-defending best hitter in the NL. Either way, I'll take the bet. If he busts he busts. If either guy is willing to come to Toronto, the budget would have to be really low for me to advocate wimping out.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 10:18 PM EDT (#243577) #
I think the Jays are willing to take risks, but AA is trying to take intelligent risks that won't bring down the organization. Ricky Romero, Jose Bautista, Yunel Escobar - even if these players bomb out, the team would still be able to recover. Not sure it would recover from Fielder bombing out, at least in the near term, after giving him $160M or $175M or whatever.

To be clear, I like Fielder. I think he's a very good player who would fit perfectly in the Jays' lineup for the next couple of years at least. It's just that signing him carries a lot of risk, more than AA has demonstrated he's willing to take on.

It's sort of like investing. Good investors look to buy low and sell high *while* minimizing their risks. People often focus on the potential reward of various investments but forget to look closely at the potential downside. It doesn't mean you should never take risks - just that they should make sense in the context of your overall strategy.
[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 10:22 PM EDT (#243579) #
And one more thing at the risk of piling on...

We have to remember what the object of this is.  The object is not to have the best farm system, or the most "cap sace", or to build the cheapest 75 win team possible.  The object is supposed to be to win the world series.  Those other things can be means to an end, but let's not forget that end.  I get this vibe from Keith Law sometimes, where to listen to him you'd think it's better to have a team that only costs half a million per win, than 1.5 million per win....even though the former team wins 80 games on a $40 mill payroll and the other wins 100 games on a $150 mill.  As if the team with the better wins/payroll ratio "wins".  And it's true; I'd never throw big money at a Sabathia or Pujols or Fielder or Darvish or etc. if all I'm trying to do is win 80 games in the AL East.  But that's not what we're trying to do.  I hope.

[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 10:29 PM EDT (#243580) #
I think the Jays are willing to take risks, but AA is trying to take intelligent risks that won't bring down the organization. Ricky Romero, Jose Bautista, Yunel Escobar - even if these players bomb out, the team would still be able to recover. Not sure it would recover from Fielder bombing out, at least in the near term, after giving him $160M or $175M or whatever.

To be clear, I like Fielder. I think he's a very good player who would fit perfectly in the Jays' lineup for the next couple of years at least. It's just that signing him carries a lot of risk, more than AA has demonstrated he's willing to take on.

It's sort of like investing. Good investors look to buy low and sell high *while* minimizing their risks. People often focus on the potential reward of various investments but forget to look closely at the potential downside. It doesn't mean you should never take risks - just that they should make sense in the context of your overall strategy.

Yeah and I'm not advocating for Fielder specifically necessarily.  I'd rather have Votto, and he would have to be traded for at this point.  Pujols is better than Fielder as well, but older and even more expensive.  I'm talking about the concept of giving big money to a superstar.  The way some people talk you'd think it was never appropriate, hence my question above.

I think throwing some money around soon (obviously not just for the sake of doing it, but for talent you think is elite) would make sense soon.  There is a good core here, it's cheap, and the farm system is good.  Payroll obligations for 2012 are few. 
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, September 09 2011 @ 11:12 PM EDT (#243581) #
BJW: I totally agree. The object is to win the WS. I would go one step further and say that the object should be to build a dynasty (or at least a team that is consistently highly competitive) in Toronto. Wouldn't that be fun?

The primary challenge is that the Red Sox and Yankees can spend a lot more than anyone else. They can afford to make multiple mistakes in free agency and still be competitive (consider just the BoSox in recent years: Crawford, Lackey, Dice-K, Lugo, Drew - all busts, basically, and Boston has been among the best teams in baseball anyway). If the Jays try to go toe to toe with those teams via big spending, they're going to fail (unless Rogers becomes a big spender as well, which is another issue altogether). Exhibit A: BJ Ryan, AJ Burnett, Rios and Wells. It wasn't a winning strategy.

So: the Jays need to do things differently, and be smart - very smart. What I believe AA is doing is attempting to build up an overwhelmingly strong farm system, front office, and scouting department. This creates a much larger and deeper pool of prospects, along with excellent intel, which he can use to (a) obtain the top-tier talent (like Lawrie and Alvarez) he needs to build around, and (b) trade for more cost-controlled, high-ceiling talent. So far, so good.

Now - will he need to spend big ($100M, $150M, $200M) on an individual player to win in the AL East? Maybe, maybe not. In the short term, quite possibly. But maybe he's trying to add so many prospects like Lawrie, Alvarez, Hutchison, Nicolino, d'Arnaud and Marisnick, that over time, he'll be able to actually skip the huge FAs altogether. Maybe he's figured out that for a medium-budget team, the mega-free-agents are actually a losing proposition in the end, because you have so many resources and so much risk tied up in one or two players. One mega-bust, or two substantial busts, and you're back to the JP era. Better to continually deal from a position of strength.

In my view, this is what AA is doing. It's why he's piling up draft picks, drafting extremely aggressively, and leaving no stone unturned in Latin America (and God knows where else - perhaps the Nordic countries are the next great prospect frontier).

Does this mean that AA won't pursue Fielder? I don't know. I suppose it's possible, and that Rogers has given the GM the green light to go big (no pun intended). It must be awfully tempting. But I don't think that's the game that AA is playing. He wants to win, and win big, but I think he wants to give the Jays the best odds of being very, very good for a long, long time. That means doing things a bit differently than his big-spending rivals.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 12:41 AM EDT (#243586) #

Any Free Agent signings are a risk you should have to take.

As Greenfrog says:

The Red Sox will be paying Carl Crawford (OPS: 686) $142M over 7 years (not to mention the previous John Lackey signing: $82.5M over 5 years)
- The Nationals will be paying Jason Werth (OPS: 732) $126M
- The White Sox will be paying Adam Dunn (OPS: 576) $56M over 4 years


Carl Crawford was 29, when he signed.   He was never hit many HR, nor drove in many RBI.   Paying that much money for just Average, Speed and Defense was foolish.   His being intimidated by the Big Show in Boston was unexpected.   He never was a Star.  To early to call this a bust.   (A.A. never, ever makes this deal).

John Lackey was a mediocre Ace, who had lost his Job to someone younger, when he signed at age 30.   This contract was foolish, in time and money.   He never was a Star.   This contract is a bust.     (A.A. never, ever makes this deal).

Jayson Werth was 31, a late bloomer, when he was signed.   He went from a good place to hit, not being The Man, to where HR go to die, being The Man.   This is an excessive contract by a desparate GM.   The difference shouldn't be this big.??.   He never was a Star.   To early to call this a bust.   (A.A. never makes this deal).

Adam Dunn was 30, when he signed.   He was good for HR, BB, Ks, and a poor Average.   Then he changed Leagues.    He never was a Star.   It's still to early to call this a bust.   (A.A. never makes this deal).

Albert Pujols is a Star.   He will be 32, January 19.   He is coming off his worst year in his career, possibly hurt.   His value will surprise us, as well as how long he lasts.   (A.A. never makes this deal).

Prince Fielder is a Star, not as big as Albert, but a Star none the less.   He will be 27, until May 9th.   He is consistently healthy, missing fewer games in his career than 1/2 the Blue Jays were this season.   Bautista is signed thru possibly 2016 (Age:35).   Fielder will be Age 35 in 2019 (an 8 Year contract).   (A.A. should/must make this deal.)   He doesn't as DH / 1B block anyone.

Drafting / signing 30+ players, having 200+ in your system every year, costs more than Fielder's contract would.   How many Stars has it delivered as yet?

 

[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 02:22 AM EDT (#243593) #

The objective of a GM is to win the World Series as often as they can.

Signing Yu Darvish (25?) should be an objective of A.A.   This Is The Plan.   Sign high upside draft pick / international free agents.   Training, feeding and paying the prospects in hopes of having a well above average MLB player (1 in 200+?).   Or trading for them, then hoping to sign them long-term.   If Rodgers developes interests, assets, contacts in / with Japan, this signing could be a steal.    Ricky Romero and Yu Darvish should form a quality 1-2 punch for this team, through at least 2016.   They will not block anyone, as good as or better, from the rotation.   This just gives it a small push.   Anyone not good enough is a valuable trade piece.   (5-6 years, $12.5 - $17.0 MM / year).

Signing a top tier Closer / Closer Candidate(s) should jump-start this Bullpen rebuild.   Any in-house pitcher good enough to be a Closer won't be blocked.   The more that good, the better.   (2-4 years, $8.0 - 15.0 MM / year).

Prince Fielder is young enough, consistent enough, healthy enough and a Star.   He is The Plan.   He's just a younger and possibly better version of someone A.A. just signed.   As DH / 1B (50-50) with Adam Lind, he doesn't block anyone (some of you think E.E. should be retained) not easily replaced.   He takes the pressure off Lind and let's the Jays postpone any quick decisions about him for a year or two.  This doesn't waste Jose's good years, just gives things a push.   (8 years, $25.0 MM / year).

Kelly Johnson is the best available 2B Free Agent on the market and he's already a Jay.   (3-5 years, $6.0 - $7.5 MM / year).

A) Estimate of jump-starting the road to contention: $51.5 - $64.5 MM.   Some of it is spent (Closer Candidates and Kelly Johnson): $14.0 - $15.5 MM.    B) Adding just Darvish: $26.5 - $32.5 MM.   C) Adding just Fielder: $39.0 - $40.5 MM.

You can easily do B) or C) and spend less than $120.0 MM.   I think you should, A.A. might.   This equals approximately 92+ wins (+/- 3 games) and you will contend.

[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 10:09 AM EDT (#243600) #
Excellent plan Richard SS. And AA does seem good at getting his man.
As mentioned by various Bauxites, the off season will be very interesting.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 10:36 AM EDT (#243601) #

The objective of a GM is to win the World Series as often as they can.

If this was true, then the $ figures you quoted would be nowhere close to reality. Because almost every GM would be bidding to pick up as many of these FA's as possible and drive prices through the roof. However this doesn't happen, because your basic premise is wrong. The primary job of almost all GM's is to field as competetive a team as possible within the financial structure of their organization, thereby making a profit for the ownership.

Drafting / signing 30+ players, having 200+ in your system every year, costs more than Fielder's contract would.   How many Stars has it delivered as yet?

Lawrie and Alvarez already this year in Toronto, Pineda and Ackley in Seattle, Freeman, Teheran, Kimbrel, in Atlanta , Trout and Walden in Anaheim.etc, etc.

[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 11:24 AM EDT (#243604) #
Fielder and Votto should never really be compared to the free agent class of Dunn, Crawford, and Werth.

There is far less risk in this two young studs than in the 3 aging players with large question marks that were signed last year.

Career stats aren't the best predictor of immediate future success, but I do like to use them to get an idea of "risk factor" and maybe even "true talent".


Votto (27): .960ops, 153ops+
Fielder (27): .923ops, 141ops+

Dunn (31): .879ops, 123ops+
Werth (32): .828ops, 118ops+
Crawford (29): .774ops, 105ops+

I really don't care which stats they used to convince themselves it was a good deal, but the Red Sox invested $140m in a career .775ops left fielder. That was always going to be an awful contract. Even if he won't be as bad as he is this year in every year of the deal, chances were as he approached 30 and beyond he was going to regress down to his career averages and below. Werth is a better player than Crawford, but at 3yrs older there was plenty more risk. Pretty much just as much a bad idea as that crawford deal was. Dunn looked like the least risky of the three, and signed for the best price, but even then he was nowhere near as good as the likes of Votto and fielder, and was much older to boot. And relevant or not, attitude question marks have dogged his career.

IMO those three deals are classic examples of a "good" players getting paid like "great" players due to a weak free agent class.

Meanwhile, the likes of Votto and Fielder are truly "great" players.
[ Reply to This ]
Thomas - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 12:12 PM EDT (#243606) #
Lawrie and Alvarez already this year in Toronto, Pineda and Ackley in Seattle, Freeman, Teheran, Kimbrel, in Atlanta , Trout and Walden in Anaheim.etc, etc.

I wouldn't call any of those players stars yet. They're certainly not remotely comparable with Pujols, one of the best 10 hitters in major league history, or Fielder. They might be. Most of them won't be.

[ Reply to This ]
CeeBee - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 12:20 PM EDT (#243607) #
But the truth is every star player came up through someone's farm system and started out as a prospect. Even the Yankees and Redsox rely on their farm system for most/many of their star players.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 03:50 PM EDT (#243624) #

If the be a star you have to compare to Albert Pujols, then there were, are and will be very few stars. However, within 4-5 years and maybe even sooner, Lawrie will be outproducing 1st ballot Hall of Famer Albert Pujols, both offensively and defensively.

As far as Fielder, OPS+ ages 21 to 27 - 97, 110, 157, 130, 166, 135, 153.

Lawrie OPS+ age 21 - 183

[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 04:16 PM EDT (#243625) #
The difference between hypo- and hyper- is less than I thought.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 05:16 PM EDT (#243626) #
The difference between hypo- and hyper- is less than I thought.  

If you think I meant 25 yr old Brett Lawrie will put up better numbers than 25 Albert Pujols did, your remark is correct.

But that's not what I said. It may be conjecture, but far from hyperbole to think a 25-26 yr old Brett Lawrie will outproduce a 35-36 yr old Albert Pujols. 

However, whichever way you meant it, your remark was rather witty.

[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 07:54 PM EDT (#243634) #

The objective of a GM is to win the World Series as often as they can.

If this was true, then the $ figures you quoted would be nowhere close to reality...     ...How many Stars has it delivered as yet?

Lawrie and Alvarez already this year in Toronto, Pineda and Ackley in Seattle, Freeman, Teheran, Kimbrel, in Atlanta , Trout and Walden in Anaheim.etc, etc.

hypobole

Look at how well all other GMs are doing this primary job of yours.   They are making poor-to-bad decisions more than than good-or-better.   IMO Alex Anthopoulos stands alone, and everyone else is a full step below (OK, he's still a newlywed with a really young baby.   So a few lapses will - when they happen - be forgiven.)  

The kids you have mentioned are good, even very good, but they have a long, very long way to go before being called a Star.    

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, September 10 2011 @ 09:36 PM EDT (#243636) #
Again, everyone saying that signing free agents can be a risk.  Well, DUH.  Taking a drive down to the corner store can be a risk.  Taking a shower can be a risk.  Just because bad things happen sometimes can't scare you away from an avenue to improve your team.

You know what else is a risk?  Staying cheap all the time and hoping all your prospects become elite.

I wasn't arguing against ANY spending (I'm FOR smart spending) i was only replying to the one point about knowing what you are getting.

Is there ever a good time to sign a superstar free agent?

Absolutely. When JP signed AJ and BJ that was a good time and reasonably good signings. We got pretty much what we should be expected to get from AJ and BJ is an example of the point "sometimes you get something other than you expected"

Yes, it didn't produce a contender, due to various circumstances - but it was the time to go for it. sometimes it just doesn't work.

The reason that i argue it's not time to sign a major FA pitcher (other than Darvish) is because we're not yet to that point on the development curve.

I would sign Darivish or trade for Votto (assuming for the sake of discussion that could be done) right now because it's a rare opportunity to import a major player who's age is compatable with the core you are building. Fielder is the right age too but i worry about the length of the deal.

Pujols, assuming he really is 31, is a generational player so, again, he's an exception.

But guys like Reyes or Wilson or whatever - they just don't fit for me.

So I guess what I'm saying is that spending on the RIGHT person - an exceptional player that isn't available in most years - is fine. Spending to put you over the top when you need to tweak (as in, for instance, the Winfield/Molitor signings) is not only ok but essential.
Spending just because you can is silly.

That said, I'd be thrilled to see the Jays get a basher. Fielder? You're replacing Lind/Thames/Snider with an MVP candidate in his 20s. Pujols? Farfetched, but he's 31, far as we know, and one year removed from being the four(?)-time-defending best hitter in the NL. Either way, I'll take the bet. If he busts he busts. If either guy is willing to come to Toronto, the budget would have to be really low for me to advocate wimping out.

I agree. If we add any of Darvish, Votto, or Pujols this winter i'll be very happy - and I'm not really worried about the cost in dollars for the Free Agents. if we manage to add Fielder on some arrangement that doesn't go past 5 or 6 years, the same (I have an idea Boras is gonna try to stretch it out to 8 or 10)

But no one else - these guys are exceptions, flukes. Your typical FA class doesn't have even one such exception.

The object is supposed to be to win the world series.

It seems to me that AA recognizes the massive amount of variables which can undermine achieving that goal - heck, look at how many years the Yanks are the consensus best team on talent and how many of those years they actually won a ring - so his goal is not "win THE world series" but "be a strong contender every year and from time to time you will win one or more"

Those are two different stratagies. Both can be served by free agent signings, but not necessarily by the same signings.


[ Reply to This ]
Gerry - Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 09:52 AM EDT (#243650) #
Thanks for all the kind comments guys. I posted these two interviews before I went on vacation, glad to see they generated lots of comments.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 10:13 AM EDT (#243651) #
Btw, these comments about Pujols age - could those just end? The US became very picky about ages once 9-11 happened thus for Pujols to be faking his age he'd have had to avoid the US security for a decade, even though he is high profile and trying to get (or already has - not sure) his US citizenship.

Btw, Pujols is his worst season is now up to 297/368/547 with 34 HR (11th straight year with 30+) and 88 RBI (on pace to crack 100 for his 11th straight year). With any luck he'll crack 300 again for, yes, the 11th straight year. It'll take some work to push his OPS to 950+ for the 11th straight year but at 915 he certain could make it. This does not sound like a guy who is really 35, but more like a guy who is on the outside edge of his prime who had a bad month to start the season.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 02:54 PM EDT (#243662) #
Comments about Albert Pujols' age, contrary to belief, isn't about Albert fudging his birthday.   WHO CARES.   He will be 32 FREAKING YEARS OLD (16 Jan.'12), with SIGNIFICANT INJURY CONCERNS, before he signs his next contract.   The concern isn't 2012, 2013, 2014, it's 2015 and later.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 03:20 PM EDT (#243664) #
Richard, my comment was about "Pujols, assuming he really is 31".

Obviously it is very risky investing in a player who is on the wrong side of 30. His age 32/33/34/35 seasons I'd be willing to risk, but beyond that is a pure crapshoot. Ideally you'd get him for 3 years at $30 per. Much better than 10 at $20-$25 per (rumoured to be his price). Risk $90 mil on 3 or $200 mil on 10 - those last 7 would be 'just' $15.7 per (marginal cost vs $90 for 3) but odds are you'd be eating quite a few of those with little or no production. Suppose you were willing to pay $30 for 3, then $25 per for the next 2 ($140 for 5) then it would be $60 mil more for 5 more years or $12 mil per. I'd still go with 5 for $140 or 3 for $90 although the 5 year I'd avoid, it just is a preference to the 10 for $200.

Yeah, this winter will be interesting.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#243665) #
I agree with Richard SS here - assuming Pujols will be 32 in January, as reported (and I have no reason to doubt this), there should be a real concern about declining production going forward. I checked BRef and looked at Pujols's "Similar Batters" and "Similar Batters through 30". A couple, like Larry Walker and Hank Aaron, produced well into their late 30s or even early 40s. But most of them fell off after their early or mid-30s. Often the decline seemed to really kick in around ages 34-36. So while Pujols could remain very good for several years, signing him to a mega-contract would seem to be pretty risky.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 04:44 PM EDT (#243667) #
Yet people back away from Prince Fielder, just as fast.   He's 27, until 9 May '12, consistently productive, consistently healthy and a veggie.   His weight is not a problem, I wish more people could say the same.   Productive ages, 28-33, will be 2012-2017.   The worrisome years, 34-35, will be 2018-2019.   An 8-year Contract would be 2012-2019.   Contrasting  this to A.P.'s (Ages 32-40, 2012-2019), shows Fielder as a better bargain.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 05:06 PM EDT (#243669) #
the express reasons that i like Pujols over Fielder is because of the potential of limiting him to a five year deal.

If you give AP 5 years that's age 32-36
If you give PF an 8 year deal (and it might easily be 10 - it's boras you are dealing with) then that's 28-36

I might be wrong but i MUCH prefer Pujols at 36 to Fileder at 36.

Enough so that i'm not scared of AP in his fifth year (36) will be significantly worse than Fielder in his fifth year (32)


If the argument is that neither man will sign for 6 years or less, then that obviously changes things.


I will, however, point this out - and it applies to both men (an argument borrowed from my one time defense of the intent of the Wells contract):

If you were to pay PF $25 million a year for 8 years (2012-2019) and you assume a normal rate of baseball inflation in the salary structure, $25 million will not be REMOTELY as big a hit on the '18-'19 payroll (when presumably he would be in some decline) as it is in the '12-'13 payroll.

I forget right now the exact figure but the typical yearly inflation in baseball, both in what the upper echelon guys make and the overall salary structure, well outpaces the inflation rate in the general economy.

[ Reply to This ]
Matthew E - Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 08:04 PM EDT (#243672) #
Yet people back away from Prince Fielder, just as fast.   He's 27, until 9 May '12, consistently productive, consistently healthy and a veggie.

That just puts him at a platoon disadvantage against vegetarian pitchers.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Sunday, September 11 2011 @ 08:36 PM EDT (#243674) #
I've heard that becoming vegetarian improves your secondary stuff, but eating red meat can add a few MPH to your fastball.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 12:39 AM EDT (#243683) #

TamRa

Pujols would need $30.0+ - $35.0+ MM per year on a retirement contract (not 5 years), possibly 8 - 10 years.   However, Fielder on a 4 year $100.0+ MM, leaves him at the end seeking another Big Contract, at the same age as Pujols is now.

[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 01:02 AM EDT (#243684) #
I've heard vegetarians have sweet swings.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 02:01 AM EDT (#243686) #

Fielder and Pujols are great hitters and will make fantastic additions to the heart of the order for a couple of teams. However, I seriously doubt either of those teams will be the Jays. EE will be back next year as DH with Cooper in all probability taking over at 1st. AA will deal  Lind in the offseason for anything of value.

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 03:04 AM EDT (#243688) #
Pujols would need $30.0+ - $35.0+ MM per year on a retirement contract (not 5 years), possibly 8 - 10 years.   However, Fielder on a 4 year $100.0+ MM, leaves him at the end seeking another Big Contract, at the same age as Pujols is now.

I'm not sure Pujols will sign a deal of 6 years or less of course - though i think if anyone does give him a "retirement contract" it would only be St. Louis.

But IMO of the two he's the far more likely. The only way Fielder is back on the market in 4 years is if he arranges an opt-out deal like CC has in New York, IMO

I guess by new years we'll find out which of us is correct.


[ Reply to This ]
James W - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 09:46 AM EDT (#243694) #
I love the claim that Pujols was "possibly hurt." He missed 2 weeks with a broken bone in his wrist.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 10:28 AM EDT (#243696) #
If a team is crazy enough to give Pujols a $30-35 million a year deal over 8 years then the Jays would do well to stay far, far, far away from free agency. That would be the type of deal that cripples an organization due to the odds being that Pujols won't be anywhere near that value by the mid-point (if not the start) of the contract. FanGraphs is generally viewed as overestimating the value of players yet only twice has Pujols been shown to have a value over $35 million and just 4 times over $30 million (in an 11 year career). This year is in the $22 range right now (still growing of course) but won't reach $30.

I'd risk up to $30 a year over 3, maybe 5 years if my scouts felt strongly he was able to keep it up for 5 years - overspend to gain extraordinary quality but knowing it would be a major risk. But $30+ over 8? There is no way he will do that unless he pulls a Bonds and even then it would be marginal at $30-$35 a year.

There now seems to be rumours that, to avoid being in trouble over hording money, the Marlins will sign one of the big two this winter (Fielder/Pujols) to open their new park. I'd be fine with that as it would keep at least one of them out of the AL East, but it would also jump the prices for either.

As to Fielder, remember that Delgado did sign a 4 year deal at a similar age (after his age 28 season - 181 OPS+ - he signed the 4 year record for a week deal that drove JPR up the wall years later).
[ Reply to This ]
Dewey - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 11:17 AM EDT (#243701) #
I've heard vegetarians have sweet swings.

Only the left-handed ones.
[ Reply to This ]
Original Ryan - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 02:34 PM EDT (#243731) #
As to Fielder, remember that Delgado did sign a 4 year deal at a similar age (after his age 28 season - 181 OPS+ - he signed the 4 year record for a week deal that drove JPR up the wall years later).

When Delgado signed his contract back in 2000, really long-term deals were still relatively rare. Today top players routinely get 6-8 year contracts. Like TamRa, I'm doubtful Fielder would accept a four-year deal.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 04:09 PM EDT (#243761) #
There now seems to be rumours that, to avoid being in trouble over hording money, the Marlins will sign one of the big two this winter (Fielder/Pujols) to open their new park. I'd be fine with that as it would keep at least one of them out of the AL East, but it would also jump the prices for either.

I'm not sure they would convince either to come there - i'm sure Pujols wouldn't - but if they want to pa the payroll and have ANY sense, it would be them that went out and got Darvish (albeit, he might decline to sign that far outside the spotlight)

or, failing that - be the ones to overpay Reyes and move Hanley (either to the OF or another team)
[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Monday, September 12 2011 @ 06:52 PM EDT (#243775) #
Things change so fast...if the Cubs are still a rich team then they could go after Pujols or Fielder.
[ Reply to This ]
An Interview with Darold Knowles, September 2011 | 114 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.