Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Breaking News M's Pineda headed to AL East, Bronx

After the Yankees spent much of last season trying to pry perennial Cy Young contender Felix Hernandez from the Mariners with a package headed by catching uber-prospect Jesus Montero, the M's finally convinced the Bronx Bombers to change the asking price and the two teams have completed a different deal, sending Montero to the AL West in exchange for a different young ace with Cy Young potential, 22-year-old Michael Pineda. 

The timing on dealing baseball's (probably) best catching prospect is odd, given the extremely recent retirement of long-tim Yankee catcher Jorge Posada. But what say you all, Bauxites? Who wins this one-for-one "challenge" trade? In 2012? Long-term?

 Update: Sunday morning, the revamped NYY rotation took a minor hit as veteran Bartolo Colon reportedly inked a deal with Oakland.

Posted by Mick Doherty on Friday, January 13 2012 @ 07:52 PM EST.
M's Pineda headed to AL East, Bronx | 148 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
PeteMoss - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:05 PM EST (#250537) #
Don't think many consider Montero to be a catcher in the big leagues. And if that's the case... advantage Yanks. Sadly.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:07 PM EST (#250538) #
I wouldn't even call Montero a catching prospect; the industry consensus seems to be that he isn't a C long-term. This is an excellent trade for the Yankees because Teixeira has 1B locked down and it's a lot easier to fill your DH spot than to find a cheap, quality arm like Pineda's.
[ Reply to This ]
Kelekin - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:17 PM EST (#250541) #
Unbelievable trade for the Yankees.  Kind of upset to see this one.
[ Reply to This ]
vonwafer234 - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:21 PM EST (#250543) #
Man, the AL East also known as the division the #BlueJays are in just got a whole lot tougher. Yankees just made a strong trade in acquiring a front of a line starter in Michael Pineda. Barring injury, Sabathia, Pineda and Ivan Nova are going to be a force to reckon with especially with the batting lineup the Yankees have. I still have faith in my hometown team #BlueJays. "When there's an Anthopolous, there's a way."
[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:21 PM EST (#250544) #
Montero looked like he was going to be a stud of a hitter.  Pineda has great stuff, but seems to be a lot less of a sure thing at this point.  And the parks of the AL East are a lot less forgiving to a flyball pitcher like him.

Basically a challenge trade.

[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:28 PM EST (#250546) #
And the Yankees just signed Kuroda for one year.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:31 PM EST (#250547) #
I guess Friday the 13th means something else for Yankees fans. Productive day at the office for Mr. Cashman.
[ Reply to This ]
Ron - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:47 PM EST (#250550) #
While I welcome Pineda to my Yankees I wonder if the Jays can buy low on Joba Chamberlain (use him as a starter).

There's no room for Joba in the Yankees rotation or the bullpen (Rivera/Robertson/Soriano/Feliciano/Wade/Logan/Burnett or Garcia).

Eric Thames for Joba Chamberlain?
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:51 PM EST (#250551) #
Well, as the saying goes, you can never have too much pitching. (They don't say, you can never have too much designated hitting.) Don't forget about Jose Campos, either - he looks like a nice young, high-upside arm to augment an already-strong Yanks' system.

I want to see how Pineda does in upcoming seasons, but it looks like a good challenge trade for NY. Would have been nice to see the Jays add Latos to make the coming season more interesting - as it stands 2012 is looking like another developmental year (with strong NYY, Boston and Tampa teams in the division). But you gotta play the games.
[ Reply to This ]
Paul D - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 08:57 PM EST (#250552) #


Does this remove the Yankees as a contender for EJax, and the Mariners as a contender for Fielder?

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 09:00 PM EST (#250553) #
The M's still seem a long way from contending, but the nice thing for them is that Montero is very young and looks like he can really rake. But if I'm rebuilding I want strong pitching and up-the-middle players, whereas Jack Z traded Lee, Pineda and Campos for Smoak (1B) and Montero (DH).
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 09:06 PM EST (#250554) #
Trader Jack is indeed loading up the wrong end of the defensive spectrum.

The Yankees now have 7 starting pitchers. That sounds like too many.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 09:07 PM EST (#250555) #
If you think this is the only pitcher NY acquired, check River Ave Blues's latest.
[ Reply to This ]
mathesond - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 09:08 PM EST (#250556) #
So, do the Yankees sign Damon or Pena to DH? Or go 1-2 years with Fielder and blow everyone away? And whither AJ Burnett?
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 09:12 PM EST (#250557) #

And whither AJ Burnett?

Burnett, a bag of cash and a one-way ticket to Pittsburgh. Or Houston. Or San Diego.

 

[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 09:22 PM EST (#250558) #
Pineda is a fly-ball pitcher, and he's going to give up quite a few dingers at home.  We'll see how his change-up comes along. 

This doesn't fit the usual description of a challenge trade (OF for OF, P for P, 2B for 2B...).  It's a perfectly sensible reorganization of talent.  Generally, I would prefer the great hitting prospect to the great pitching prospect, but it is easy to understand why the Yankees would do this.  Kuroda is a fine acquisition as well. They go into 2012 in better shape than they were going into 2011, without spending additional buckets of cash. 

It sure would be nice to see Oswalt in a Blue Jay jersey.  Apparently his asking price is $8 million.

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 09:30 PM EST (#250559) #
Dave Cameron's analysis is up at USS Mariner:

http://www.ussmariner.com/2012/01/13/pineda-trade-sets-team-up-to-do-more/
[ Reply to This ]
Shane - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 10:04 PM EST (#250560) #

"They go into 2012 in better shape than they were going into 2011, without spending additional buckets of cash."

Yip. They fluked through pretty nice there too. Nice to be lucky.

Apparently the Mariners are trading from a strength (young pitching) so I don't see what the big deal is in this thread. Hopefully Pineda will have a significant HR increase being outta Safeco. Maybe the "secondary stuff" gossip will prove out? Might as well cling to something.

[ Reply to This ]
sam - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 10:34 PM EST (#250561) #
Jesus Montero will play first base for the Mariners. Justin Smoak might be had for the right prospect. I'd look into it. He hasn't shown the ability yet to hit the way he did in the Minors, but he's still young and incredibly talented. Travis Snider for Smoak probably doesn't get done, but Snider and a pitching prospect. Who knows.
[ Reply to This ]
lexomatic - Friday, January 13 2012 @ 10:58 PM EST (#250562) #
I'd give up much less than Snider for Smoak.
Look at their batting records again.
[ Reply to This ]
sam - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 12:10 AM EST (#250563) #
Smoak was as ready-made for the Major Leagues as any hitting prospect out of college has been in the ten or so years. He spent a season and a half at the minor league level across two organizations. He was the center-piece of the Cliff Lee trade, and an industry consensus future All-Star. He's a switch hitting 1B with Gold-Glove calibre defense, plus power, plus hit tool, OBP ability. He's the total package. Keith Law has this to say on Smoak:

"He remains an impact bat from both sides of the plate with a plus glove at first base. Smoak is a very disciplined hitter with similar swings from the left and right sides, centering the ball extremely well and showing power to pull and to the opposite field. His path to the ball is short, and he generates a lot of bat speed from the set position."

Snider plays LF and getting very close to being out of options. If he sent down at any point this year, next year, if he doesn't break camp with the Jays the Jays have to release him. Time is ticking, there is very little room to manoeuvre for Snider. If Snider sticks, you're looking at four years of control. Where Smoak has had two kicks at the can and shown improvement, Snider, has had four looks. Smoak put together a good first two months of the season and then suffered through a nagging wrist injury the rest of the way. With Smoak, you're looking at five years of control.

From a scouting standpoint Smoak projects better and has better tools, from a track record or trending standpoint Smoak posts better than Snider, and from a value standpoint Smoak has more years and options than Snider. Ultimately, a Justin Smoak type players comes along very rarely. The Snider's of this world are more frequent and easily replaceable.
[ Reply to This ]
Mylegacy - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 12:56 AM EST (#250564) #
Pineda's one interesting cat...no question. BUT - Montero's a perennial Silver Slugger, frequent All Star, at any position he doesn't stink the place out at.

Pineda's a two pitch pitcher with a straight fastball - but very good command and control - coming to the AL East. By the second half the AL West had figured him out - by May the AL East will be having him for breakfast unless his changeup grows up.

Seattle wins this trade BIG time - unless the other kid Seattle gave up turns into King Felix the Second...could happen...not likely...but could.
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 12:59 AM EST (#250565) #
I take Montero over Pineda any day. I'm still annoyed we passed on Montero to take the Drabek/Taylor/D'Arnaud package from the phils. Pineda in a lefty homerun park might be a disaster, and he was only good for half a season last year anyways. Not to mention that Pineda has already had arm health issues, and pitchers are riskier than hitters in general.

[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 01:31 AM EST (#250566) #
"From a scouting standpoint Smoak projects better and has better tools, from a track record or trending standpoint Smoak posts better than Snider, and from a value standpoint Smoak has more years and options than Snider. Ultimately, a Justin Smoak type players comes along very rarely. The Snider's of this world are more frequent and easily replaceable."

Wowzawow, not sure I could agree any less. Smoak is one of the most overrated prospects we've seen (though Alonso is giving him a run for his money on that front this year), a guy with no positional value, and who hasn't been a legit stud hitter since AA 4 years ago (and who's never shown legit 1B power potential). The only plus tool he's ever shown is an ability to take a walk.

Snider is not only younger, but has started each level at a much younger age than Smoak (starting both AAA and MLB 3 years younger than Smoak did) - and the only level Smoak ever outhit him at was in AA 3 years ago. The younger Snider has been better in MLB so far, and much more impressive in AAA. Snider also actually provides defensive value and value on the basepaths, unlike Smoak.



MLB

J.Smoak (23-24): 886pa, 11.4bb%, 22.1k%, .227avg, .316obp, .385slg, .701ops, .309woba, 91wRC+, 1.0uzr/150 @ 1B, 0.1war/150
T.Snider (20-23): 877pa, 7.5bb%, 26.9k%, .248avg, .307obp, .423slg, .730ops, .318woba, 93wRC+, 6.8uzr/150 @ LF, 1.1war/150

AAA

J.Smoak (22-24): 477pa, 16.1bb%, 18.0k%, .253avg, .379obp, .414slg, .794ops, .366woba, 116wRC+
T.Snider (20-23): 551pa, 10.3bb%, 19.4k%, .333avg, .407obp, .550slg, .957ops, .420woba, 148wRC+

AA

J.Smoak (22-22): 227pa, 17.2bb%, 15.4k%, .328avg, .449obp, .481slg, .930ops, .427woba, 157wRC+
T.Snider (20-22): 508pa, 10.6bb%, 26.7k%, .268avg, .348obp, .476slg, .825ops, .367woba, 123wRC+


Neither prospect is looking very good right now, there's no doubt that Snider looks better.
[ Reply to This ]
Shane - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 01:46 AM EST (#250567) #

"I'm still annoyed we passed on Montero to take the Drabek/Taylor/D'Arnaud package from the phils"

When did this happen? By the offseason Halladay only wanted to go to Philadelphia. (Drabek was never offered in season)

[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 02:14 AM EST (#250568) #

"Halladay's two preferred teams were thought to be the Phillies and Yankees. Indications are the Yankees offered a package that included top catching prospect Jesus Montero as the centerpiece."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/12/14/phillies.halladay.lee/index.html#ixzz1jPlCqzxC
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 03:32 AM EST (#250569) #
"While I welcome Pineda to my Yankees I wonder if the Jays can buy low on Joba Chamberlain (use him as a starter).

There's no room for Joba in the Yankees rotation or the bullpen (Rivera/Robertson/Soriano/Feliciano/Wade/Logan/Burnett or Garcia).

Eric Thames for Joba Chamberlain?"

If I were to try to pick the low-hanging fruit I'd go for Hughes

With Feliciano having had shoulder surgery there's no guarantee he has a place.

Based on last years numbers, you can't exclude any of Rivera, Robertson, Logan or Wade and Soriano gets in on his contract.

that leaves Chambelain and Hughes along with an excess starter, and Feliciano, for two spots.

Of course, I'm wondering at this point if they would do a challenge trade to get rid of AJ Burnett. Say to Houston for Carlos Lee for example. Or to the White Sox for Alex Rios.



Oh, and yes, this deal pisses me off.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 03:57 AM EST (#250570) #
" Ultimately, a Justin Smoak type players comes along very rarely. The Snider's of this world are more frequent and easily replaceable."

I disagree with this one part of your analysis. I agree with the business about Snider having had more turns and so forth, but on pure tools and ability, I think he is on paper a similarly rare talent to Smoak. Plus he's two years older which adds a bit of value to Snider's side of the balance.


the fact that 1B is a position of SOME concern, the face that we have two similar talents in LF, the fact that the M's are offensively challenged (to say the least) in the OF, the fact that snider actually does have the potential for the "hometown hero" shtick in Seattle DOES make such a swap a logical consideration.

I do not think that the relative difference in ACTUAL value is very large, if one exists at all but I concede there is a difference in perceived value - the question is to what extent GM's rely on perception vs reality.

Consider:

Smoak v. Snider

first set is career total, second set is 162 game average

P - G - AB - H - 2B - HR - RBI - BB - K - AVG - OBP - SLG - OPS
Sk - 223 - 886 - 176 - 38 - 28 - 103 - 101 - 196 - .227 - .316 - .385 - .701
Sr - 232 - 877 - 198 - 54 - 28 - 104 - 66 - 236 - .248 - .307 - .423 - .730

162 game rate
Smoak - 28 doubles, 20 homers, 75 RBI 55 BB - 105 K
Snider - 38 doubles, 20 homers, 73 RBI 46 BB - 165 K

From whence comes the perception that Smoak is a much higher value guy than Snider? Except for last year, snider's been a considerably better major league hitter than Smaok and as good a 1B as Smoak may be, Snider plays the more challenging position and plays it quite well.

No, I can't concede at all that Smoak is a significantly better hitter than Snider, and while Smoak was highly lauded as a prospect, so was Snider. the walk and K rate might give him an edge, but again, he's 2 years older. And that matters in terms of ceiling.



someone mentioned the idea of "snider and a pitching prospect" - the M's don't need more pitching prospects as a priority or they would have kept Pineda.

IF there were to be such a deal, you need to send them something they don't have. Maybe another OF like Sierra, or a catcher like Jimenez (though I think Snider and Jimenz might well be too much in real terms (as opposed to percieved value)

If it was a pitcher, it would be one that projected as a reliever in the majors.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 03:58 AM EST (#250571) #
ugly, h/t you beat me to it and did it better.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 04:08 AM EST (#250572) #
" and he was only good for half a season last year anyways."

Technically no. He had a six game stretch from July 9 to Aug 15 in which he was hammered 4 times.

but after that, his last five starts were every bit as good as his early season work.

i'd REALLY like to think the Yanks got screwed here but...i'm not seeing that much reason to bash Pineda other than the universal constant about the reliability of hitting prospects versus pitching prospects (albeit Pineda isn't actually a prospect)
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 04:11 AM EST (#250573) #
2012 Yankees dh: Manny Ramirez?

;)
[ Reply to This ]
gabrielthursday - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 04:37 AM EST (#250575) #
This is a trade that ought to be hated by all Jays fans.  I prefer Pineda to Montero straight up, and to get Campos in the mix (roughly a prospect of the same caliber of Justin Nicolino) is salt in the wound.

Montero seems a lot like Billy Butler to me, though with a little less average and a little more power, hitting well enough to be a useful DH, but not well enough to mimic David Ortiz.  If you look at his minor league numbers, there isn't one tool that jumps out as making him a future all-star: he doesn't walk at an elite rate, he doesn't make contact at an elite rate, and his power, while close to elite, looks awfully similar to what guys like Billy Butler put up in the minors.  Pineda, on the other hand, has already shown he can succeed at the Major League level, even with a two-pitch arsenal and was worth 3.4 WAR last year despite only pitching 171 innings.  And Campos on top of Pineda!  Did Zduriencik miss the memo that Montero can't catch?



[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 07:08 AM EST (#250576) #
"Neither prospect is looking very good right now, there's no doubt that Snider looks better."

There is a very big doubt. It's called regression. Last year, Smoke held his own in the major leagues. Snider was awful. Smoak had a significantly better OPS+ than Adam Lind did last year. If the Jays got him, he'd be an upgrade at 1B with significant upside. Snider has tremendous tools, but his K/BB ratio, even in the minors is disconcerting. Last year, in about season's worth of PAs in the minors and majors, Snider had a 124/38 K/BB ratio. Smoak had 55 walks in 489 PAs in the Majors. Smoke's mediocre numbers are almost all attributable to an atrocious July which was caused by playing with an injured thumb. His OPS by month were .920, .750, .737, .399, .793. I think you'll see Smoak with an OPS of around .760 this year if he stays in Seattle and around .800 if he were to go elsewhere.

I'd say Snider has a better chance to be a superstar if he puts it all together but Smoak has significantly better chance at being a good major league player. I'd make the trade in a second if I were the Jays.

"Smoak is one of the most overrated prospects we've seen (though Alonso is giving him a run for his money on that front this year), a guy with no positional value, and who hasn't been a legit stud hitter since AA 4 years ago (and who's never shown legit 1B power potential)."

No power potential? Forget about potential, the guy has hit 20 HRs in 153 games in Seattle and he just turned 25. That speaks to a guy with 25-30 HR power which is plenty these days. You know how many players hit 35 HRs last year in the AL? Four. 25 HR power is legit power these days from any position. (Also, Smoak was in AA in 2009 which was only 3 seasons ago. In 2010, he was with 4 different teams but spent his time mostly in the majors so basically your complaint is "Smoak hasn't had a stud season since he was in the minor leagues").
[ Reply to This ]
scottt - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 07:25 AM EST (#250577) #
Montero was going to be traded, there was no doubt about that. NY already has a 1B and they need DH to stuff their ageing players.

The Yankee takes a risk. I'm happy about that. Just like I'm happy they never packaged Hughes and Choba for a Cy Young.


[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 09:47 AM EST (#250578) #
No, smoak has never shown legit 1B power.

MLB: .158isop
AAA: .161isop
AA: .153isop

that's nowhere near good enough for a 1B.

that's nowhere near snider:

MLB: .175isop
AAA: .217isop
AA: .207isop

or thames:

MLB: .196isop
AAA: .258isop
AA: .238isop

hell, that's not even as good as our infamous powerless 1B prospect David Cooper:

MLB: .183isop
AAA: .171isop
AA: .159isop
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 10:45 AM EST (#250579) #
What I find interesting is that the Jays wanted to trade for a frontline starter this off-season, but it was the Yanks who (in an AA-like trade) pulled it off. Whether or not the new CBA is behind their recent decision-making, the Yankees seem to be getting smarter. Which is a scary thing.
[ Reply to This ]
raptorsaddict - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 12:24 PM EST (#250581) #
Upon reviewing the excellent evidence proffered by both the Prosecution and the Defense in the matter of Smoak v. Snider, I hereby reject the case for trading Snider, and leave Smoak on the pacific coast.

The fact that Smoak might be more Cooper than Texeira made all the difference. Moreover, he might not even be the least bit better than Lind in 2012.

To be a contender in the AL East, we need to have a bopper at first. I view 1B as DH #2. When we are actually competing for the playoffs/championships, it shouldn't be filled by Lyle Overbay v.2.0, but Paul Molitor v2.0 .

By this, I mean that we shouldn't lock down first place for mediocrity, but keep it open for either a) Prince Fielder or b) an all-bat veteran at the end of his career who we get on a short deal to help us when we're closer to true contention.

In the meantime, betting on Adam Lind on a very reasonable contract is as good a bet as any, and giving up someone with the potential of Travis Snider just makes the pro-Smoak argument that much worse.

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 12:38 PM EST (#250582) #
"I'd say Snider has a better chance to be a superstar if he puts it all together but Smoak has significantly better chance at being a good major league player. I'd make the trade in a second if I were the Jays."

and that's exactly the opposite of the way Alex thinks. He has demonstrated he'll take the risk on the high upside guy over the "safer" guy.

"No power potential? Forget about potential, the guy has hit 20 HRs in 153 games in Seattle and he just turned 25. That speaks to a guy with 25-30 HR power which is plenty these days. "

Which Snider has shown just as much ability to do...and Lind for that matter.

" Smoak had a significantly better OPS+ than Adam Lind did last year."

104 v. 95 is significant?

Lind outperformed him in every category except walks/OBP
He's 3 years younger so he stands to have a better career than Lind on paper, but keep in mind, When Lind was 24, as Smoak was last year, he was a better hitter even then:

.282 - .316 - .439 - .755
.234 - .323 - .396 - .719

I'm usually a sucker for the "once highly praised guy" (see Rasmus obviously) but Snider is also a OHP guy and I'm not done with him yet (in terms of being enamored with his future)

Frankly, I'd be a bit easier with dealing Thames in a situation like this, but I don't argue Thames would get it done.

also, the buzz I saw on Twitter all assumed Montero was a DH, so I don't know that we wouldn't be assuming too much to assume Smoak was available.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 01:04 PM EST (#250583) #
I would be more enamoured of Snider if he looked good at the plate, but just wasn't getting the results yet. Last year he seemed a mess (I actually thought he looked the best when he first arrived in the majors - since then he's undergone a series of significant adjustments that have yet to take hold). His mental approach also seems to work against him, whereas (for example) Thames seems to have a healthier see-ball, hit-ball mentality.

On the purely speculative/hindsight-is-20-20 front, I wonder what Jack Z might have been able to obtain from the Yankees for Felix. For example, could he have extracted:

Montero
Banuelos
Betances
Sanchez (or maybe Bichette as a PTBNL)
Noesi

I know that's a ridiculously huge haul, but you have to think that Steinbrenner and Cashman would be tempted. And the M's future would look a lot brighter.
[ Reply to This ]
Flex - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 01:52 PM EST (#250585) #
Well, Buster Olney said it: The Jays are the team hurt most by the Pineda/Kuroda deals.

https://twitter.com/#!/Buster_ESPN/status/158141456769482752

I am so itching for Anthopoulos to pull something out of the hat and amaze everyone, the way he did last year. His worst enemy these days is his own track record.

[ Reply to This ]
sam - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 02:01 PM EST (#250586) #
Greenfrog, I think you get it more than those who base their analysis off stats. Snider is a mechanical and psychological mess at the plate. He's by and large looked completely overmatched at the Major League level. His tools simply haven't translated. From watching a fair bit of Smoak, he has a better approach and good mechanics at the plate. You get the impression by watching him he is starting to figure it out.

The options thing, which AA alluded to in a recent interview with Cox and McCown, certainly plays a roll in what you think of Snider. This whole thing that Snider is younger than Smoak doesn't play. Snider has two more opportunities to play at the ML level with the Blue Jays. If he does not break camp with the Jays and is sent down to Triple A, if he's recalled and is then sent down again, he'll have to clear waivers. I think at that point, like Fernando Martinez recently, Snider will be claimed. The point is that, he could 21 or 31, but he has two opportunities to stick. Smoak, has significantly more opportunity.

I know the message boards have penciled in Montero as a DH, but you don't want young players strictly Dh'ing. In the odd case, like a Billy Butler, who simply cannot play defense, then maybe. However, Montero has defensive ability, maybe not behind the plate, but certainly at 1B.
[ Reply to This ]
katman - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 02:01 PM EST (#250587) #
Tend to agree with Olney, and with the Bauxite's mad hatters who were adverting a Pineda swap from AA, as a better alternative to King Felix. 2 questions for the crowd;

* Based on the Yanks/Mariners deal, what would a comparable offer have looked like from Toronto?

* If you throw up a comparable Toronto - Seattle deal proposal, my next question is: would you do it?
[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 02:18 PM EST (#250588) #
Equivalent is Lawrie alone and no I wouldn't do it.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 02:21 PM EST (#250589) #
There is no natural comp for Montero (ie, ML-ready true impact bat) in the Jays' system. But the Jays could have offered something like Arencibia, Gose and McGuire (or Jenkins) for Pineda. Less offensive potential wrapped up in one player, but a quality package nonetheless including some good up-the-middle talent. I could see Jack Z countering by demanding something like d'Arnaud, Syndergaard and Carreno (or maybe Knecht).
[ Reply to This ]
sam - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 02:25 PM EST (#250590) #
I guess d'Arnaud and Hutchison? That's probably lite.

I don't know if I see the Jays making anymore significant moves. I'd like them to go after Smoak. And then have Lind and Encarnacion essentially platoon at DH. I think there are still pitchers out there that fit with what the Jays want that could still be had. AA intimated the other that the window for making a trade like that is closing.

It's getting to that point in the offseason where I imagine some GM's might start taking some heat for lack of moves and make an ill-advised trade. That seems in part what happened last year with the Vernon Wells deal. Maybe something along those lines presents itself this year?
[ Reply to This ]
ayjackson - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 02:25 PM EST (#250591) #

I don't think Lawrie and Montero are equivalent.  Montero is a DH.  Lawrie is looking capable at a premium position.  Their bats look similar.  If people want to put a Piazza/Cabrera comp on Montero to defend their position, I'm putting a Mike Schmidt comp on Lawrie.

I think most GM's would value Lawrie a bit more than Montero and Montero a bit more than D'Arnaud.  The ability to play a defensive position is important.

[ Reply to This ]
sam - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 02:36 PM EST (#250592) #
Agreed ayjackson.
[ Reply to This ]
rfan8 - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 02:48 PM EST (#250593) #

Yanks got great value for montero considering their strengths and needs.

 

I can't believe I said that.  Yuck.

[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 03:05 PM EST (#250594) #
"There is no natural comp for Montero (ie, ML-ready true impact bat) in the Jays' system."

There's no better way to say it than this. We can come up with packages and speculate all we like but it's quite possible that without that key piece (ML-ready true impact bat), SEA was asking for a lot more in terms of upside, at which point it wasn't worth it for TOR. Maybe they wanted d'Arnaud, Alvarez, and Carreno.

I definitely agree that Lawrie is more valuable than Montero and wouldn't be surprised if that's where the conversation started and stopped.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 03:28 PM EST (#250595) #
". Snider is a mechanical and psychological mess at the plate. He's by and large looked completely overmatched at the Major League level."

I wonder if this isn't a case of "the freshest memory" weighing too heavily. I don;t remember anyone, even the more pessimistic among us, saying such things about Snider before 2011, even when he had some slumps. His whole track record (taken as a whole) prior to 2011 look perfectly respectable for a player his age in the majors.

People say "well he didn't stick" but that's more a function of the management decisions than his performance.

His '08-'09 seasons combine for pretty much exactly one full year of stats and his OPS+ over that "season" is exactly 100 - and that's not nothing for a 21/22 year old player i n the AL East.

YES he was a mess - in 2011. that does not mean he will be a mess this spring or from now on. Players have years like that. Heck, Carl Crawford is a ten year veteran and what was he last year? Six of the first seven years of Jason Bay's career accumulate to a high 130's OPS and one year, for no apparent reason, he was below average. and he was 28.

Just because Snider got twisted up in knots last year doesn't change his abilities. I agree he needs something to "re-set" (I wonder if the Jays employ a sports psychologist?) but i don't think we can possibly guess right now whether or not that will happen (It didn't happen for Hill, for instance, until he left town)
----------------------
Speaking of where Montero plays, MLBTR quote's Olney thus:


"Both the Yankees and Mariners believe that Montero will be able to stick at catcher, which many in the industry feel is a must in order for the trade to make sense for Seattle."

So there's that.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 03:41 PM EST (#250597) #

Snider is a mechanical and psychological mess at the plate

I don;t remember anyone, even the more pessimistic among us, saying such things about Snider before 2011, even when he had some slumps.

I think the reference was to how Snider literally looked while batting, not to the results.

[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 03:45 PM EST (#250598) #
There is a direct comparable to Montero in the Jays' organization, and that is Brett Lawrie. Both 21 year old probable impact bats who had their first taste of (wildly successful) MLB games last year.

I would have been beyond upset if we had moved Lawrie for Pineda.
[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 04:30 PM EST (#250599) #
IMO NYY not making the playoffs is like having to be ashamed or something, the Mtl Canadiens have the same standards. Boston is different because they have had a long history of not being a champion.
When the NYY did not make the playoffs in 2008 they responded by signing 3 FAs CC, Tex & AJ. Then won the WS.

Getting Pineda & Kuroda gives them very good pitching depth. Their offense is still good. They are now in a comfortable position to challenge for a playoff spot.
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 04:41 PM EST (#250600) #
That 2008 draft featured a bunch of 1B, all of whom managed to become incredibly overrated based on their AA performance, which held even though they've done nothing of note at AAA or MLB for a few years now. The one guy who has done something impressive at AAA or MLB continues to get no love thanks to his poor performance in AA - and that's our own David Cooper.

(remember, if you're worried about PCL factors, not only were 3 of these 4 guys in the PCL, but wRC+ adjusts for league anyways).


MLB

D.Cooper (24-24): 81pa, 8.6bb%, 17.3k%, .211avg (.228babip), .284obp (.073isobp), .394slg (.183isop), .678ops, .295woba, 82wRC+, -4.0uzr/150, -0.2war/150
Y.Alonso (23-24): 127pa, 7.9bb%, 24.4k%, .299avg (.370babip), .354obp (.055isobp), .479slg (.179isop), .833ops, .364woba, 128wRC+, 13.0uzr/150, 1.1war/150
J.Smoak (23-24): 886pa, 11.4bb%, 22.1k%, .227avg (.265babip), .316obp (.089isobp), .385slg (.157isop), .701ops, .309woba, 91wRC+, 1.0uzr/150 @ 1B, 0.1war/150
B.Wallace (23-24): 538pa, 8.2bb%, 26.2k%, .248avg (.335babip), .323obp (.075isobp), .354slg (.106isop), .677ops, .299woba, 86wRC+, -0.4uzr/150, -0.3war/150


AAA

D.Cooper (24-24): 545pa, 12.3bb%, 7.9k%, .364avg (.380babip), .439obp (.075isobp), .535slg (.171isop), .974ops, .422woba, 142wRC+
Y.Alonso (23-24): 854pa, 9.7bb%, 15.9k%, .296avg (.331babip), .364obp (.068isobp), .478slg (.182isop), .842ops, .369woba, 128wRC+
J.Smoak (22-24): 477pa, 16.1bb%, 18.0k%, .253avg (.300babip), .379obp (.126isobp), .414slg (.161isop), .794ops, .366woba, 116wRC+
B.Wallace (22-24): 995pa, 7.1bb%, 19.4k%, .306avg (.355babip), .367obp (.061isobp), .484slg (.178isop), .851ops, .372woba, 118wRC+


AA

Y.Alonso (22-23): 242pa, 13.6bb%, 12.8k%, .282avg (.308babip), .380obp (.098isobp), .432slg (.150isop), .812ops, .374woba, 128wRC+
J.Smoak (22-22): 227pa, 17.2bb%, 15.4k%, .328avg (.375babip), .449obp (.121isobp), .481slg (.153isop), .930ops, .427woba, 157wRC+
B.Wallace (21-22): 211pa, 9.5bb%, 19.4k%, .305avg (.360babip), .417obp (.112isobp), .497slg (.192isop), .914ops, .414woba, 149wRC+
D.Cooper (22-23): 1091pa, 10.2bb%, 15.2k%, .257avg (.283babip), .334obp (.077isobp), .416slg (.159isop), .750ops, .340woba, 107wRC+



Smoak and Wallace were elite in AA, Alonso was good in AA, and Cooper was bad in AA.

Cooper was elite in AAA, Alonso was good in AAA, and Smoak and Wallace were bad in AAA.

In MLB, the two guys who have had a decent number of bats (Smoak and Wallace) have struggled badly, while of the two guys with a very small MLB sample, Alonso has good looking numbers fuelled by an unsustainably high BABIP, while Cooper has bad looking numbers fuelled by an unsustainably low BABIP (caveat - low babips are not necessarily unsustainable, but could just indicate lack of a hitting tool).

Looking at the underlying numbers - BB, K, BABIP, ISO - there doesn't seem to be much to choose from between these four guys, IMO.

Smoak's high BB% stands out a bit, but so does his low ISO...and he hasn't shown the ability to hit for average in AAA or MLB, either.

Cooper's low K% stands out a bit, too, especially since it doesn't seem to come with less power than the other 3.
[ Reply to This ]
DJRob - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 04:50 PM EST (#250601) #
I guess Ike Davis isn't on your list because he has performed at the MLB level? It seems you are complaining that Cooper isn't overhyped.
[ Reply to This ]
Shane - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 04:58 PM EST (#250602) #

So Heyman's http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/12/14/phillies.halladay.lee/index.html#ixzz1jTITrYDr piece says: "Halladay's two preferred teams were thought to be the Phillies and Yankees.".

Has it not been repeated endlessly since the traded happened that Halladay would only go to Philadelphia? I'd swear i've read Wilner say it repeatedly ever since to name one journo. I guess i've dreamed it. Just like Dallas. JR didn't die after all.

 

 

[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 05:00 PM EST (#250603) #
Speaking of Cooper, what the heck are the Jays going to do with him? His defense needs work, which means he should play every day if he to improve in that area, but Mike McDade, who is by all accounts a very good defensive 1st baseman should be promoted.

The way it stands, Vegas will either have the better defensive player DHing or the guy who needs the reps DHing.

They could leave McDade in AA, but even though his numbers last year weren't great, they certainly were promotion worthy.
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 05:19 PM EST (#250604) #
"I guess Ike Davis isn't on your list because he has performed at the MLB level? It seems you are complaining that Cooper isn't overhyped."

Ike Davis has performed at every level, not just MLB.

A+ (22): 145wRC+
AA (22): 165wRC+
AAA (23): 210wRC+
MLB (23-24): 122wRC+

Minors: 11.9bb%, 22.5k%, .190iso, .350babip
Majors: 11.9bb%, 22.5k%, .190iso, .325babip

Just a good solid hitter period, elite at every minor league spot, and after a solid rookie year was showing real elite MLB potential before getting injured this year. He's just plain better than the other 4.

And I don't think I'm complaining. I'm just trying to give some perspective on Justin Smoak.
[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 06:32 PM EST (#250605) #
* Based on the Yanks/Mariners deal, what would a comparable offer have looked like from Toronto?

The Jays could certainly have pried Pineda away if we offered Lawrie.  That would be a sideways move for us, though.

So talking about the minor leaguers you'd have to get into get into d'Arnaud for sure, probably one of Gose/Marisnick, and maybe somebody else.  Maybe I do that but maybe not.  At this point Pineda reminds me a lot of Brandon Morrow.


[ Reply to This ]
Original Ryan - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST (#250606) #
Has it not been repeated endlessly since the traded happened that Halladay would only go to Philadelphia? I'd swear i've read Wilner say it repeatedly ever since to name one journo. I guess i've dreamed it. Just like Dallas. JR didn't die after all.

I think I've heard people say that, but as I recall from the time the trade was made, Alex Anthopoulos stated that he never asked Halladay what teams he'd approve a trade to. That said, I do remember that there was talk that Halladay's preference was to play for a team that held spring training in the Tampa-area. Whether that was an accurate depiction of Halladay's desires or merely media speculation, I have no idea.

It's possible that someone with the Jays told Wilner afterward that Philadelphia was the only possible destination. Wilner does occasionally reference unnamed sources within the organization.

[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 07:29 PM EST (#250607) #
Snider has one option left, with said option effective until he's sent down. However he can come up and down like a Yo-Yo this season because the option doesn't get used up until the end of this year. A.A. said Snider must make the Team in Spring Training in 2013 (or be lost to waivers), if he's sent down in 2012. If he makes the Team out of Spring Training in 2012, he'll still have the option available.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 09:01 PM EST (#250609) #
Wonder if the Mets are crazy enough to trade Ike Davis? Injured last year, didn't recover from what was thought to be a minor injury. Given how they have had so many issues there who knows? I'm sure AA has asked.
[ Reply to This ]
scottt - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM EST (#250610) #
If he's not healthy enough to play for the Mets, who would trade for him?

It's the Angels that have too many firstbasemen but that's a team that carried 3 catchers at some point, they might just rotate them at DH.

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 10:18 PM EST (#250611) #
On a side note, just looked at B-R and they have a nice summary of HOF voting at http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hall-of-fame-ballot-history.shtml where it is easy to see who else had 66% ala Jack Morris. There have been a lot of them surprisingly enough.

Bruce Sutter 2005 - elected 2006 (1 year)
Carlton Fisk 1999 - elected 2000 (1 year)
Tony Perez 1997 - elected 2000 (3 years)
Ferguson Jenkins 1990 - elected 1991 (1 year)
Early Winn 1971 - elected 1972 (1 year)
Bill Terry 1952 - elected 1954 (2 years)
Charlie Gehringer 1949 - elected 1949 (special election)
Eddie Collins 1938 - elected 1939 (1 year)

I was going to check other percentages but 8 samples should be enough to get an idea, all within 2/3rds of a percent of Morris. 5 made it the next year, 1 in 2 years, 1 in 3 years, and the 1 special election (when the HOF wanted someone elected every year I guess). All made it via the voters, and just 25% had to wait more than 1 year. Just 1 case that took longer than Morris has on the ballot (he has 2 years left).

Upping to 67 you see Dawson (1 year), Aparicio (1 year), Snider (2 years), Ford (1 year), Berra (1 year), Lyons (1 year),Dickey (1 year), Heilman (1 year), Keeler (1 year) - all but 1 was 1 year and the except was 2.

68? Niekro (1 year), Perry (2 years), Hunter (1 year), Slaughter (twice at 68, not voted in, made via vets), Ruffing (vets), Ott (1 year), Sisler (1 year). Finally hit 2 cases where they didn't get voted in and 4 more 1 year plus a 2 years.

69: Campanella (2 years), DiMaggio (1 year) - wow, hard to believe DiMaggio took as long as he did, but he was voted in just 4 years post-retirement (different rules then).

So high 60's seem to mean 1 year and in the vast majority of the time but sometimes 2 years, 3 at most unless you are near the end in which case (twice) you can end up waiting for the vets.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 10:42 PM EST (#250612) #
"They could leave McDade in AA, but even though his numbers last year weren't great, they certainly were promotion worthy."

He was a beast until he hurt his knee. No idea why they let him play through it and go off the statistical cliff.

i do know he had off-season surgery to correct it.


[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Saturday, January 14 2012 @ 10:44 PM EST (#250613) #
"I think the reference was to how Snider literally looked while batting, not to the results."

I realize that, and respect it - but i stand by the claim that no one was saying that before 2011.

------------
"So Heyman says..."

I give that only a little more credit than "So, Marty York says..."
[ Reply to This ]
sam - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 12:13 AM EST (#250614) #
McDade would have to significantly improve both his power numbers and OBP numbers for the Jays to consider him as a long term solution at 1B. My mind he starts at AA.
[ Reply to This ]
Mick Doherty - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 12:14 AM EST (#250615) #
John, I daresay that little sample you have suggests that  Morris WILL be enshrined eventually. And dammit, he should be. Just not before Alan Trammell!
[ Reply to This ]
gnor - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 09:04 AM EST (#250619) #
Montero was actually ranked #9 on the MLB top prospect list, while Lawrie was #28.
[ Reply to This ]
lexomatic - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 09:14 AM EST (#250620) #
McDade would have to significantly improve both his power numbers and OBP numbers for the Jays to consider him as a long term solution at 1B. My mind he starts at AA.

I agree with the above, but the other option is they split 1b/DH time and rotate between the two evenly.

I think unless either one makes a jump they are bad starters (or placeholders) at the ML level, but decent fill-in options that won't kill you if they're playing for a short time only.


[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 09:32 AM EST (#250621) #

I realize that, and respect it - but i stand by the claim that no one was saying that before 2011.

For what little it's worth, and that's probably almost nothing at all, Snider has never looked terribly natural at the plate to me. Lefthanded batters often seem to have a smooth, effortless swing. Snider, however, is reminiscent of Jose Cruz Jr., who seemed to be swinging a boat paddle. Snider's bat seems slow to me. When he came up from AAA after rebuilding his swing, his initial success seemed to be the result of driving the ball to the left field gap. He didn't seem to be able to turn on pitches, almost as if his swing had been reconstructed to accommodate a slow bat.

Again, this is just a subjective observation. If the results are there, it doesn't matter how a batter looks (you don't hear people trying to get Youkilis to change his style, for instance). So I do agree with the earlier comment that Thames looks more comfortable and natural at the plate. Despite that, I still believe that Snider has the higher upside, based on his track record.

 

 

 

[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 10:46 AM EST (#250622) #
I have high hopes for McDade. I think some of his numbers are good over the last 3 years, Lansing, Dunedin & NH. He was born May 1989 so he will be 23 wherever he plays. That is still pretty young. He is also a switch hitter, I think he maybe better VS RHP, but I am not sure. LV may be more difficult than NH hitting wise because he is so young, and definitely defensively with GBs on that infield.

He has met the challenges quite well going up the minors, I hope that he somehow break out even more this year.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 11:32 AM EST (#250623) #
Yeah, I'd be shocked if Morris doesn't get there someday. I just hope he has to wait for the vet's as Trammell/Whitaker should be there first and I still feel Stieb was more the pitcher of the 80's than Morris.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 11:36 AM EST (#250624) #
The discussion of the first baseman in the 2008 draft leads me to a "I was wrong" moment.  Again.  There were two first baseman on the board when the Blue Jays turn to pick came- David Cooper and Ike Davis.  I had watched scouting video of both, and I much preferred Cooper and said so.  Wrong answer, it seems.


[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 01:22 PM EST (#250625) #
I remember that draft well, and I could've sworn you were concocting scenarios leading up to the draft in which the Jays landed Lawrie. Here's what I found on a quick search (it appears you did pretty well):

Mike Green - Tuesday, June 03 2008 @ 12:28 PM EDT (#186423) The worst case scenario is that it will come down to Hunt, Davis, Gillaspie, Cooper or Dykstra, from the college ranks with Martin, Hicks and Lawrie gone.

Mike Green - Thursday, June 05 2008 @ 09:39 AM EDT (#186555) #
Anyone believe in omens? This morning, there was a young blue jay perched on a branch outside my kitchen window as I ate my breakfast. On my neighbours fence, there was a cardinal. I see a blue jay in the back maybe once every couple of years, and a cardinal somewhat more often, but I have never seen both on the same day there, let alone at the same time. Does this mean that Brett Lawrie falls to #17?

Mike Green - Saturday, June 07 2008 @ 12:07 PM EDT (#186794) #
I agree that it is a poor draft class. I do think that Ricciardi, Lalonde and company did well; there is a reasonable chance that they will get two good position players out of Cooper, Wilson, Pastornicky and Thames.

[ Reply to This ]
sam - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 01:29 PM EST (#250626) #
I remember not liking the Cooper pick at the time mainly for what it stood for as unexciting pick when there were "exciting" options on the board. But I too, was certainly less than impressed with Ike Davis. The consensus at the time was he was going to play a corner outfield spot and I did not see that happening.
[ Reply to This ]
damos - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 04:40 PM EST (#250627) #
RE: Halladay to the Yanks

I recall that during the process of trading Halladay,  Richard Griffin (!) said that the Yankees didn't figure the Blue Jays would seriously consider trading Halladay to them - but knowing that the Jays did in fact like Montero's bat, they offered Montero for Roy, straight up w/ no extra pieces. 

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/bluejays/article/750973--griffin-jays-overcame-some-tough-odds

[ Reply to This ]
Shane - Sunday, January 15 2012 @ 04:41 PM EST (#250628) #
When Cooper was drafted I can't recall what number I was up to on the "Jesus, Can Ricciardi Just Go Away Already" count? Somewhere in the teens likely. Drafting Cooper after drafting a HS player the two years previously, all the while having to stare Lyle Overbay in the face every game, had me caring less and less what was happening with this team under his watch. Then in another glorious pick out plops college Jenkins the next year.
[ Reply to This ]
sam - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 02:04 AM EST (#250631) #
If the Rangers manage to sign both Fielder and Darvish I just don't see how any Jays fan can spin this offseason as a success or look at our future playoff prospects as anything but bleak.
[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 05:19 AM EST (#250632) #
Well, the obvious claim is that the team has improved relative to the Red Sox and Rays who've done basically nothing but lose players.

that said, if there's only one wild card in '12 then it's difficult to argue a playoff spot is anything other than a serious long-shot.

But then, anyone who thought the team had as it's first priority making the playoffs in 2012 hasn't been paying any attention at all.
[ Reply to This ]
gnor - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 07:58 AM EST (#250635) #
Sabathia, Pineda, Nova, Hughes, Kuroda, Burnett, Garcia. Ouch! Plus, The Wild Card probably won't be a shoe-in for the East this year either.

Oh well, you get to be the best by playing the best, and if this is true, The Blue Jays have plenty of opportunity for improvement.

[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 08:02 AM EST (#250636) #
"n MLB, the two guys who have had a decent number of bats (Smoak and Wallace) have struggled badly,"

Why do people keep writing this? Smoak had a 104 OPS+ in his first season as a starter at age 24 despite playing through some pretty bad injuries which obviously greatly affected his performance. He wasn't great by any means, but "struggling badly" is ridiculous. He had an OPS of .737 or higher in 4 of the 5 months he played.

"Looking at the underlying numbers - BB, K, BABIP, ISO - there doesn't seem to be much to choose from between these four guys, IMO."

An assumption only a Jays' fan would come to. Cooper is clearly a lesser prospect. (Although Wallace is dropping back close to his level). The other three players did what top prospects often do, they jumped levels very quickly. None of them spent a full season in AA. David Cooper spent two years there and never dominated. At 24, Cooper was in AAA because he belonged there. Smoak and Wallace were starting 1Bman in the majors at 23. Alonso would have been starting last year had the Red not had Votto. Smoak and Alonso will start at 1B in the majors next year and likely bat in the middle of their team's (weak) lineups. There is no team in the majors that would consider Cooper as their 1Bman. None of these guys are likely to be stars but I think Smoak and Alonso will both be starting 1Bman for a number of years.
[ Reply to This ]
gnor - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 08:04 AM EST (#250637) #
Does Burnett have a no-trade clause?
[ Reply to This ]
Glevin - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 08:14 AM EST (#250638) #
"People say "well he didn't stick" but that's more a function of the management decisions than his performance."

Not really. In April, Snider had a .540 OPS. He didn't deserve to be in the majors. When he came back up in July, he was on fire for the first ten days or so but then he just stopped hitting in a spectacular fashion. He had a 33/1 K/BB ratio. Again, he deserved to be sent down. That said, sometimes prospects have a set-back, but the fact that he has become a worse major league hitter over the last four years is rather disconcerting. He still has tremendous upside but a lot of players who have tremendous ability never put it together. This is a massive year for Snider and I hope the Jays find a way to give him regular major league ABs.
[ Reply to This ]
gnor - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 08:42 AM EST (#250639) #
I'm just looking at Smoak vs Mike McDade, who just finished a season in AA. In 44 games in AA, Smoak hit 6 HR with a .328/.449/.481 slash line. McDade played 125 games with 16 HR, and .281/.328/457. Both are plus defenders, both are switch hitters.

Smoak had better numbers in AA, but he may have had an advantage playing in the heat of Frisco Texas. When he played 35 games in AAA Tacoma at the age of 23, a year older than McDade is now, his numbers dropped to .271/.377/.481.

Smoak is obviously better, and he absolutely flew through the minors, but the question is how much better? Is he worth a Gose, or Rasmus + prospect, when McDade is a year or so away? Is Gose + McDade going to be better than (whoever + Smoak) - Lind?

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 09:21 AM EST (#250640) #
Via Cot's Contracts...
AJ Burnett...
5 years/$82.5M (2009-13)
09-13:$16.5M annually
limited no-trade clause (Burnett may block deals to 10 clubs each year)

If he finds himself out of the rotation (which is possible now I guess) then he probably would take a trade pretty much anywhere. A good question is, if the Yanks ate most of his contract would the Jays be interested? He has had two years of ERA+'s in the 80's, largely hurt by his HR/9 jumping from a career of sub-1 per 9 IP to 1.5/9 IP last season. His K/9 was still 8.2 last year (dead on his career average) while his BB/9 was 3.9 (0.1 above his career average).

I see AJ as a solid #3 guy at this point with the potential to climb higher if the HR/9 is a blip and not permanent (otherwise he is moving to the pen at best). He seemed a fragile personality so maybe NY was just too much for him (wouldn't be the first pitcher to have issues there, won't be the last).

For the Jays he'd be useful as a backup plan if they could get the Yanks to eat so much contract the effective price would be $5 mil or less per year (could be via prospects worth a lot coming in while ones worth little go back - an indirect way to eat payroll and creative enough to fit AA's pattern). IE: the Jays get Burnett and the equivalent of 1 or 2 high draft picks (can't trade picks, but prospects in A ball who have high potential would be equivalent) for 1 or 2 C level prospects or low end near ML guys (ala McCoy and Farquhar).

Don't see it happening, but an interesting thought eh?
[ Reply to This ]
Shaker - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 09:21 AM EST (#250641) #
From Seattle Times: "I remember at the time of the trade hearing that some scouts were down on Smoak. They felt that his swing from the left side had too many pieces and wouldn't work, that his bat speed from the other side was a tick slow, that he was inadequate defensively, and he didn't have an athletic body. The term "doughy" was used. Sorry, but I don't see any of that. In fact, the more Smoak settles into the big leagues, the more self-assured and confident he looks. He hasn't looked slow at the plate, he's fielded his position well, and rather than "doughy," he seems to me to have a classic slugger's physique."

From Times of India Fantasy Wrap:  "Justin Smoak, 25 - Smoak had a tough year in 2011. He tried to play through thumb injuries, dealt with the death of his father and then suffered a fractured nose from a ground ball. Plate discipline and raw power are still there, don't give up on him just yet."
[ Reply to This ]
Shaker - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 09:24 AM EST (#250642) #
Does AJ to the Cubs for Soriano make sense?

$33M left for AJ, $54 left for Sori.

[ Reply to This ]
rpriske - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 09:43 AM EST (#250643) #

This trade was a STEAL for New York... and I LIKE Montero.

 

Pineda is a serious Cy Young candidate over the next ten years. Campos is also a decent prospect. Noesi is not. That puts a lot of pressure on Montero to just break even on the trade.

[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 10:49 AM EST (#250644) #
"But then, anyone who thought the team had as it's first priority making the playoffs in 2012 hasn't been paying any attention at all."

It seems clear that AA's priority is to build a consistently competitive team, which, given the apparent budget constraints, means doing so via drafting and a flourishing farm system, shrewd trades (providing young cost-controlled players) and strategic FA acquisitions (providing value production and useful trade chips). Since high-priced FAs are out, this approach will require patience.

When the off-season began, however, I think Anthopoulos had hoped to nab a couple of players that could both contribute to the above goal *and* give the team a significant boost in 2012. While I liked his bullpen moves (Santos, Oliver and Frasor), I think he would have liked to add a couple of more pieces (say, Latos and a good positional player like Beltran) that could have made things interesting this year. So while it's fair to say that making the playoffs in 2012 was never his first priority, I don't think that AA envisioned the upcoming season as a pure rebuilding year (a la the Cubs or Astros), and, in fact, may have seen an opening to continue rebuilding while creating a bit of pennant race excitement - and possibly increased revenue - in Toronto.
[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 11:06 AM EST (#250645) #
When AA got D Oliver the Hot stove video guys Pete MCCARTHY, JOE SHEEHAN & JIM DUQUETTE suggested that veteran acquisitions like Fraser, Oliver, Francisco & Valbuena are moves that a team trying to contend would make. They were saying AA was positioning himself for the possibility.

I guess you never know. Maybe we get some big years from a lot of guys.

Looks like it will be hard to get ahead of NYY, Boston, TB, Texas & LAA. If so we have some bullpen pieces & maybe EE & Lind will look attractive in July as trading pieces.

All those big spenders in both leagues IMO will be quite nervous in July.
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 11:21 AM EST (#250646) #

"Let's get Burnett.  Let's get Lackey.  Let's get E Jax."

Here is the issue I have with all these statements. 

1. There is a reason why these people are available

2. Are they really better than some of the guys we have available in AAAAA?  Would it be a good idea to block these players and not give a player like Chad Beck a chance? 

3. The Yankees and the Red Sox are not dumping players to the Jays.  They are dumping them to the NL if possible, but not to thier own division.

[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 11:28 AM EST (#250647) #
There are reasons not to get those pitchers. Blocking Chad Beck is not a good one.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 11:38 AM EST (#250648) #
I wouldn't put EJax in the same category as Burnett and Lackey. Jax is younger, healthier (vis-a-vis Lackey) and has had better results over the last couple of years. I think the holdup with him has to do with Boras and his contract demands (and to a lesser extent his reputation as a journeyman and underachiever). Plus, it's hard to know what to expect from him going forward. My guess is he's probably a #4 starter in the AL East - probably not someone you want to give 4 or 5 years and significant cash, especially if you have a below-average payroll.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 11:48 AM EST (#250649) #
The main reason I looked at Burnett is the ability to be sneaky. Get a top prospect or two from the Yanks (no idea who their top ones are) in exchange for helping them push their payroll down (a goal of theirs due to the level of luxury tax). The Jays would gain a potential middle rotation starter (if HR/9 can be improved) and some high end prospects while losing a few million and some minor pieces.

In truth, that is the type of trade I could see occurring mid-season ala the one last year - send some relievers (or utility players) to help a team on the edge in exchange for eating some salary and get some A level prospects (or slumping A talent) in exchange. Maybe not with the Yanks for AJ but with someone. The Yanks could even be part of a 3 way to make it happen (good old indirect method to trade inside the division).

That explains signing a few solid middle guys when the Jays are unlikely to contend this year, and is a fine way to set the team up for 2013/2014 while still helping it in 2012 (as solid middle men can help young starters by not requiring them to stay in as long to get a win).
[ Reply to This ]
baagcur - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 12:05 PM EST (#250650) #
Here is the issue I have with all these statements.

1. There is a reason why these people are available

3. The Yankees and the Red Sox are not dumping players to the Jays. They are dumping them to the NL if possible, but not to thier own division.

Seems if 1 is true, then the Yanks would be only too glad to encumber their AL rivals

[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 12:14 PM EST (#250651) #
I'd welcome Burnett back with open arms if the Yankees were eating a significant portion of the 2 years, 33m remaining, although it wouldn't surprise me if Allan James put Toronto on his list of 10 teams he can't be traded to. At this point I fully expect Boston to counter NYY's additions with Oswalt or Jackson.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 12:45 PM EST (#250652) #
Yeah, that is the price of the AL East. Every time you start to climb that mountain you see the Yanks or Sox do something big and the other counter it. Still, with the 50% luxury tax it will make even the Yanks start debating stuff.

AJ Burnett will cost the Yankees (as he is surplus now) $16.5 million directly and another $8.25 million in luxury tax = $24.75 million for a guy on your bench or the very back of the rotation ($49.5 million over 2 years). To any other team he 'only' would cost $16.5 million ($33 mil over 2 years). Thus there is a very, very large incentive to trade him right now. If the Yankees have to eat his salary they don't get the full benefit since, as I understand it, any salary eaten is still counted against you for luxury tax purposes. Thus a team like the Jays, who might have the $33 million of payroll space open at the moment, can trade for him and live with compensation in the way of players only. So $33 million worth of players plus AJ for a few bats and balls would be worth $16.5 million in surplus value to the Yankees and still be worthwhile for the Jays as they can't spend that $33 million on draft picks or international free agents anymore. The Jays payroll is projected to be sub-$80 mil right now so AJ would shift it to slightly over $90 which could be adjusted by sending a reliever or two elsewhere mid-season quite easily (or re-trading AJ of course).

Thus trading for AJ and a few high level prospects in the low minors (who would be worth about $33 million if they were in the old draft or old international free agent market) would be a + trade for both the Yankees and Jays if you assume AJ is just going to be released after the trade. If the Jays feel AJ is worth, say, $5 million a year at this point then you adjust the prospects required accordingly.

Another advantage for the Jays is if AJ is doing well but the Jays are out of contention they could trade him to another contender mid-season (as teams are always looking for pitching) and get more prospects back. That is an advantage the Yankees can't gain as they have nowhere for AJ to regain his value as their rotation and high leverage relief slots are all full (and then some).

Thus taking on $33 million for AJ could end up being a big boost to the system via prospects both when getting and when later trading AJ. That is one way to grow the system via cash only when you cannot spend directly on international free agents and draft picks. Would the Jays do it? Would the Yankees? Doubtful - but again, I find it interesting to try to find ways to work around the new limits and I'd bet strongly that AA finds it fun to figure these things out too.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 12:48 PM EST (#250653) #
I see zero possibility of the Yankees giving away a Banuelos, Betances, or Gary Sanchez for salary relief. Ain't happening.
[ Reply to This ]
Shane - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 01:19 PM EST (#250654) #
"The Red Sox would have to free up payroll to sign Roy Oswalt" 

Hmm.  

Personally, the Jays seem to have a nice little clubhouse going on personalities wise without an AJ in it. Hopefully no one helps the Yankees out, and he remains in NY.

[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 01:20 PM EST (#250655) #
Maybe the Yankees will move Burnett in an ugly-for-ugly exchange. Carlos Lee? Vernon Wells? Alfonso Soriano? With enough funds moving around to callibrate the misery.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 01:33 PM EST (#250656) #
If the Jays have $33-million in payroll space available, it's hard to imagine that they would choose to spend it on AJ Burnett. There are better pitchers, including Oswalt, who could be obtained for less money on the free-agent market.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 01:34 PM EST (#250657) #
The new luxury tax could be really bad for the Jays, if it motivates the Yankees and Red Sox to start acquiring high-upside, cost-controlled players and prospects like Pineda and Campos in order to save money. Essentially, they could start playing AA's game (if they haven't already) - with approximately 2-3X the money. Somehow I don't see that scenario ending well for the Jays.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 01:38 PM EST (#250658) #
Sorry, John, I didn't mean to give short shrift to your theory. I realize that you're not trying to argue that Burnett is as good an investment as other free-agent pitchers at the same price tag. I think I understand your argument about payroll cap and prospects, but I just don't think the Yankees would surrender any serious high-level prospects simply for the right to dump a contract of $10-million per year. So, assuming that $33-million on Burnett is not going to produce a haul of good prospects, I can't see Anthopoulos seeing a Burnett trade as an avenue to improving the team, when other acquisitions would be better.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 01:42 PM EST (#250659) #
"Personally, the Jays seem to have a nice little clubhouse going on personalities wise without an AJ in it."

Complete nonsense. AJ Burnett was busy winning a World Series while the Jays were in the midst of a clubhouse mutiny. In 2008, when the Jays rotation was flying high, all the stories were about how each one was trying to outdo the next one and there was a great spirit of competition among the SPs. Writers can come up with any stories they like to fit the narrative they're trying to project. Right now the Blue Jays are a fun loving, young team on the upswing. That could change with the snap of the fingers.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 01:49 PM EST (#250660) #
That cash strapped team in New York -- you know, the Yankees -- may not have enough sheckels for a proper DH.

Those austerity programs are a killer.
[ Reply to This ]
joeblow - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 01:54 PM EST (#250661) #
It's a great relief to see that the Yankees and Red Sox payrolls are not infinite. In fact, they seem to be hitting their limits. The threat of luxury tax seems to work. They are now having a hard time working around albatross contracts like Burnett, Lackey and possibly Crawford.

The depth of their farm systems come into play. The Yanks just traded their top prospect. The bad news is that this is the avenue that teams like the Jays and Rays are already on and there will be more competition for young controllable players. The good news is that I don't think they have as many bullets available.

[ Reply to This ]
Mick Doherty - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 01:57 PM EST (#250662) #
The Wild Card probably won't be a shoe-in for the East this year either.

Shoo-in? I would say "long shot"! The second-place team in the AL West, either LA or Texas, is going to win 94+ games ... and those two play Seatlle and Oakland a bunch, while the AL East top four all have to play )and presumably split) with each otehr ....
[ Reply to This ]
Shane - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 02:21 PM EST (#250663) #

@ 92-93

Brian Cashman and I don't have to smoke the objective peace pipe if we don't wanna. So there.

[ Reply to This ]
BalzacChieftain - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 02:24 PM EST (#250664) #

The depth of their farm systems come into play. The Yanks just traded their top prospect. The bad news is that this is the avenue that teams like the Jays and Rays are already on and there will be more competition for young controllable players. The good news is that I don't think they have as many bullets available.

The funny thing about the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox playing this game is that they're doing it because they have such a bounty of available resources that they're hitting luxury tax thresholds. The Jays are playing it because of "payroll parameters."

[ Reply to This ]
Mylegacy - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 02:32 PM EST (#250665) #
Mick

I've said it from the get go... highly unlikely that the THIRD place team in the AL East will win the second WC spot - EVER!

The reason is simple - with the unbalanced schedule we'll always be playing 19 (or so) games EACH with Boston, NY and TB - that leaves only 100 (or so) other games while the AL West and AL Central will RARELY ever have more than two good teams at a time.

DE-PRESS-ING!

Until they balance the schedule we'll have to finish 2nd in the AL East to get into the playoffs - that second team in the AL East will be a shoo in to get to the play-offs along with the 2nd place team in the AL West (for the foreseeable future).
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 02:41 PM EST (#250666) #
I'm starting to wonder if the luxury tax mixed with new rules for draft/international will work out to create a more balanced situation in a way people didn't think of.

If there is a strong luxury tax (and it seems 50% is strong enough to do the trick) then teams will try to stay under. That means those teams have an incentive to spend on prospects instead whereas in the past they'd have focused their resources on free agents. Thus the Yanks would've, in light of not being able to go nuts on Fielder, would blow their cash on kids in an effort to find another Fielder for a couple years down the road (ie: spending two times what anyone else can on international free agents, and double on draft picks, in an effort to monopolize the young talent).

Now the Yankees can't do that. They are limited by a hard cap just like everyone else on IFA and draft picks. So where can they spend? Not sure - I'm certain they are hunting though.

So what does this lead to? Now free agents price tags drop as the Sox/Yankees are maxed out and others are quickly working their way there (Angels for example). Teams like the Yankees need to clear space to add which will lead to some talent + contract to free space to sign a Fielder-type player. The cap is high enough that few teams will hit it, and fewer will get hit hard by it (ala the 50% rate). This should make it so the Yankees have a permanent advantage (due to being able to be at the cap every year) but not as big an advantage as they have now (being able to blow past it and spend on amateur talent).

Suddenly a smart front office can feel like they have hope - while the Yankees can have double your budget they can't blow you out everywhere and if they get stuck with an AJ Burnett contract here and an A-Rod there suddenly that payroll gap shrinks.
[ Reply to This ]
joeblow - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 02:43 PM EST (#250667) #
The one balance in the system is for medium market teams to get close to contention then pick off the expensive final pieces from the big spenders who are looking to dump. They need to leave some buffer in their "payroll parameters" to do this. But this assumes that much goes right to even get in that position.

I'd rather be rich, or have an owner who can be convinced to "go for it" once in a while. Rogers Corp ain't that guy.


[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 03:07 PM EST (#250669) #
It would be great if the Jays' payroll gradually increased as the Yankees' payroll came down. In 2011 the Jays' payroll was $71M (rounding up) - about 34% of the the Yankees' $207M payroll. Think about it: in total, the Yankees' payroll was just about triple the Jays' payroll. Ouch.

However, if the luxury tax threshold is $189M in 2014, and the Jays increase payroll to (let's say) $100M, or better yet $120M, suddenly the disparity isn't so outrageous, and maybe there would be more hope for pennants in Hogtown.

Note, however, that although the luxury tax rises to 50% in 2014, teams can get around the 50% levy by getting their payroll under the threshold a single time, at which point they're liable to start exceeding it again. So the luxury tax may not be a panacea for the Jays after all. As Jayson Stark explains:

"For the first time, under this labor deal, a team that drives its payroll below the threshold, even for one year, can hit the reset button. So if it then goes back over that threshold in a future season, it's treated as a first-time offender and taxed at only 17.5 percent. (For all you non-math majors out there, a 17.5 percent rate compares to a 50 percent rate kind of the way Nick Swisher's salary compares to A-Rod's. Big difference.)"

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/rumblings120113/why-yankees-red-sox-spending-big
[ Reply to This ]
joeblow - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 03:18 PM EST (#250670) #
"For the first time, under this labor deal, a team that drives its payroll below the threshold, even for one year, can hit the reset button."

What a joke. But I like the chance that they could screw themselves by playing games with the threshold.

Is there a source of increased revenue on the horizon for more than a few teams? The Angels are getting a big tv contract at the expense of the Dodgers, I wonder if any other market is seeing their revenue go up significantly. Not sure how the bottom 50% owners put up with this to be honest. I guess they are making money but their product sucks.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 03:51 PM EST (#250671) #

Not sure how the bottom 50% owners put up with this to be honest. I guess they are making money but their product sucks.

I imagine the "I guess they are making money" part is the thing that lets them suffer in silent dignity. Noble lot.

[ Reply to This ]
TamRa - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 04:00 PM EST (#250672) #
"People say "well he didn't stick" but that's more a function of the management decisions than his performance."

Not really. In April, Snider had a .540 OPS. He didn't deserve to be in the majors.
-------------------
I should have been more clear. You are right about 2011, but I was thinking about previous years.

========================

As for the Burnett thing, I said as soon as Kuroda was signed and still maintain, the Astros are crazy if they aren't trying to get the Yanks to buy in on Carlos lee for AJ (with the Yanks sending cash to soften AJ's 2013 salary)

Sorino is another bad deal but Lee is closer to what the Yanks could actually use than Soriano is.

Then, if AJ did well, the Astros could look at flipping him again at some point.
[ Reply to This ]
Chuck - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 04:08 PM EST (#250673) #
If the Yankees do sincerely intend to find a DH by engaging in a trade of bad contracts (and that's just our speculation that they might), they may not get to be choosy about what comes back to them. Burnett's ERA+ the last two seasons: 82, 86.
[ Reply to This ]
uglyone - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 04:08 PM EST (#250674) #
"Why do people keep writing this? Smoak had a 104 OPS+ in his first season as a starter at age 24 despite playing through some pretty bad injuries which obviously greatly affected his performance. He wasn't great by any means, but "struggling badly" is ridiculous. He had an OPS of .737 or higher in 4 of the 5 months he played."

That's an impressive spin, to be sure, but you gotta do better than that to explain away a "top 1B prospect" posting a .701ops over his first 223gms by age 24.

That IS "struggling badly", no matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise.


"An assumption only a Jays' fan would come to. Cooper is clearly a lesser prospect. (Although Wallace is dropping back close to his level). The other three players did what top prospects often do, they jumped levels very quickly. None of them spent a full season in AA. David Cooper spent two years there and never dominated. At 24, Cooper was in AAA because he belonged there. Smoak and Wallace were starting 1Bman in the majors at 23. Alonso would have been starting last year had the Red not had Votto. "

There is no doubt that Cooper struggled in AA, and the others did not - as I went out of my way to point out in the first place. But AA is just AA. Clearly, AAA and MLB are more important than AA.

But if you're happy saying "Smoak and Wallace were starting 1B in MLB last year", without mentioning the fact that they sucked at it (and ignoring the fact that Wallace was sent back down to AAA for sucking), and saying "Cooper belonged at AAA" without mentioning that he was one of the best hitters in all of AAA last year - as a rookie - and performing better there than any of the others ever had, and then going on and saying that Alonso being in AAA last year somehow didn't matter as much as it did for Cooper.....well, I think that your Spin is blatantly obvious, and doesn't really need to be answered.

I'll take the numbers over statements like "he belonged there" every time, sorry.
[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 04:27 PM EST (#250675) #
Mylegacy, if there was a second wild-card spot the AL East would have won it just last year.  The unbalanced schedule makes it more difficult for us, but not impossible.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 04:41 PM EST (#250676) #
A few things tilt in favour of one of the wild cards coming from the AL West, at least in the short/medium term:

- The addition of Pujols, Wilson, Darvish and others (including Fielder, possibly), plus the added revenue from the LAA and Texas TV contracts, helping create two strong teams, at least on paper

- The relocation of Houston to the AL West (both Oakland and Houston have some serious rebuilding to do, which will help add to LAA and Texas's win totals - and Seattle is no great shakes at the moment either)

- An improving Jays ballclub could lead to four strong teams in the AL East (which, coupled with the unbalanced schedule, will make it harder for the #2 and 3 AL East teams to pile up huge win totals)
[ Reply to This ]
sam - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 05:23 PM EST (#250677) #
In a hypothetical situation in which a billionaire like Jim Balsille owns the Blue Jays, I'm curious how much a TV contract if it were signed tomorrow would net the franchise. It seems to me that the contracts been given out to Wilson, Pujols, and likely to Darvish and possibly to Fielder, are the result of significant revenue coming in from new TV contracts. Of course Rogers owns the Jays and broadcasts all the games and related content on its own networks. I'm curious if anyone can put figures to this hypothetical. Would the Jays stand to demand a contract similar to Texas or the Angels? Would such a contract yield the team more dollars then the current situation?

It would seem the Jays comparative to other franchises are less forthcoming with their finances. Maybe that's unfair, but I have a hard time figuring out how much the Jays make and whether they operate in the red or black, and by that same token whether any increase in revenue will actually go back into the team. There seems to be a lot of smoke when it comes to discussing payroll and revenue when it comes to the Jays.
[ Reply to This ]
whiterasta80 - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 06:02 PM EST (#250678) #
Sam, make no mistake that is exactly how Rogers wants it.  In my mind our broadcast revenue should be comparable to the Rangers at a minimum. Plus you have to factor in the fact that it covers Rogers' Canadian content requirements which further adds value. 
[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 06:54 PM EST (#250679) #
I would like to quote you uglyone. "AA is just AA. Clearly AAA & MLB are more important than AA."

Our AAA is LV, which many of us do not like because we are reluctant to sent our top pitching prospects there. Also our hitting prospects seem to have untrustworthy results. I probably have not said this correctly. I guess it is just an old complaint against LV.

Anyhow Drabek skipped AAA which could have been a stepping stone to the Majors. Somehow I don't want him to lose his shine, like he did and so am making excuses for him.
We also have a lineup behind him that most likely will also not get to mature at AAA.

My hope is that somehow Alex A gets us 5 Aces. He is drafting young, big pitchers with great stuff. Our ladder for pitchers IMO does not have a AAA team, so I see a logjam at AA some day.

Step 2: Morrow has 71 ML starts & Cecil 65. Do we start getting impatient soon? We know our organizations pitching depth, I was guessing, just guessing that 25 ML starts may be a reasonable trial. Drabek has had 17 starts & Alvarez 10. If anyone struggles like Halladay did then he can easily be lost to us.
[ Reply to This ]
greenfrog - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 07:49 PM EST (#250680) #
FYI: I posted a question about d'Arnaud's thumb surgery on BP's Collateral Damage column. Corey Dawkins (one of the BP authors) replied as follows: "Surgery and rehab has been going well so far. Should be ready for spring training."
[ Reply to This ]
MatO - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 08:40 PM EST (#250681) #
The only reason Smoak has been playing in the majors is that he's the centrepiece of the Cliff Lee deal and they've given him every opportunity to prove himself since he's supposed to be a close to finished product.  The problem is there's nothing in his record, both in the minors and in the majors, that's particularly impressive.  Wallace got the job in Houston because they had nobody else.  Conveniently, both Wallace and Cooper played in Las Vegas and Cooper was only 6 months older when he did so.  Frankly, Cooper's stats blow Wallace out of the water.  Sometimes guys suddenly just "get it".  I'm not concerned about what happened AA when the guy wins the batting title in AAA when he was still 24.  Like I've said before.  Cooper hits .300  .360  .420 if he gets a chance to play.  Not a star but better than anything else the Jays have.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 08:43 PM EST (#250682) #
To properly evaluate what a Blue Jays Game's Broadcast could earn for Rogers, you need to calculate how many 15-second Commercials can be sold, from Pre-Game to Post-Game.   Multiply the cost of a 15-second Commercial (someone must have accurate numbers for this) by the number of Commercials and subtract reasonable production costs (includes Advertising package deals).   The remainder should be profit.   IMO, Rogers should clear between approximately $500K on the low side and approximately $1.17 MM on the high side, per game. 
[ Reply to This ]
ComebyDeanChance - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 09:57 PM EST (#250684) #
Rogers should clear between approximately $500K on the low side and approximately $1.17 MM on the high side, per game http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090114&content_id=3744811&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor If you divide by ten you're approximately correct.
[ Reply to This ]
ComebyDeanChance - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 10:10 PM EST (#250685) #
Sorry about that hideous post.

Reset.

Rogers should clear between approximately $500K on the low side and approximately $1.17 MM on the high side, per game

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090114&content_id=3744811&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

If you divide by ten you're approximately correct.
[ Reply to This ]
ComebyDeanChance - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 10:24 PM EST (#250686) #
Actually, this is the better exposition.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/CBC-Drops-Blue-Jays-citing-cost-concerns?r_src=ramp
[ Reply to This ]
sam - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 10:59 PM EST (#250687) #
My understanding is also that the regional arm of FoxSports bought the exclusive rights to the Angels games for the next couple years. That channel isn't a standard cable channel like a TSN or Sportsnet, but an additional paid channel more like a Sportsnet One. I imagine they'd generate additional revenue as a result?

So if we were to say a hypothetical owner independent of the major broadcasters owned the team, they could sell the TV rights to the Jays at something like $32 million a season? The Jays drew 1.8 million fans and have an average ticket price of $72 according to Seat Geek. Now there are more fans buying the $25 ticket than that $100 one so we'll move that down to $40?

Gate Receipts - $72 Million
TV Rights - $32 Million

These are incredibly crude numbers, but their two major revenue streams push them into the $100 million area. They've also taken in tens of millions of dollars annually through revenue sharing. There's also concession sales. If payroll is at $80 million or so this year and they spend $10 million in amateur spending. They probably still make off with $10-20 million a year in profit.

I might be totally wrong in all this, but that's a lot.

Also this notion that if fans start to come, payroll will rise. So if say an extra 500,000 fans file through the gates throughout the year, bringing attendance to 2.25 million. At an average of $40, that would generate an extra $18 million dollars a year. I'm skeptical that we'll see a similar rise in payroll. Let's say that the Jays start winning and they sell out almost every game. They draw the mythical 4 million. In gate receipts, they'd net $160 million dollars. If it ever gets to that point, I'd be clamouring for a lot more than a $120-130 million dollar payroll.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 11:15 PM EST (#250688) #
If you go that far back in the archives you'd find my post (sometime after early February in 2009) about how much Rogers was charging for the Blue Jays Games.   Just look at the new TV contracts LA Angels and Texas Rangers got (valued at $80.0MM to $200.0 MM per year, after depending on how much per year is used to pay down debt).  Texas looks like it might be paying $70.0 MM/year on Debt and $80.0 MM/year on Team salaries, it's hard to tell.  Rogers needs to be more comparable to these contract.   After all, if they didn't own the Jays, how much per year would the TV contract be worth ($1.0 - 2.0 Billion over 10 - 12 years?)?   My estimates are closer, than your three year old facts.
[ Reply to This ]
Richard S.S. - Monday, January 16 2012 @ 11:37 PM EST (#250689) #
There are four 15-second commercials available per minutes or 240 per hour/game, if you estimate commercial time in a game from Pre-Game to Post-Game to be 1 hour.   Charging $4166.67 per 15-second commercial is approximately one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per game.  And the average ticket price for the second straight year is just under $24.00 per seat.   Of course, Concession are usually at a $2 -$2.5/$1 rate per seat.  Add Programs/souvenirs and you might get close to a $72.00/seat price after all.
[ Reply to This ]
92-93 - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 12:05 AM EST (#250690) #
"but I have a hard time figuring out how much the Jays make and whether they operate in the red or black"

If Forbes thinks the Blue Jays are turning a profit, they are doing that and then some.

Even at only 200k per game (a # that is now 3 seasons old, seasons in which the Jays TV ratings rose) that's an additional $32.5m for the season. Add that to the approx. $45m from ticket revenues (22,000 x $25 x 81 games) and you already clear the Blue Jays payroll. Of course the team is still raking it in from revenue sharing, in-stadium advertising, concessions, luxury suites, and the MLBAM fund which has given each team a minimum of $30m the last few years.
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 01:52 AM EST (#250693) #
Here is a Forbes article. Although it shows the Jays making a profit, the franchise is ranked 27th out of 30 in value, hardly the immense cash cow some of us see.

One number I found interesting is the "Revenue per fan". That is, local revenues divided by metro population. Jays have the second lowest in all MLB. Lots of people, not a lot of fans in Toronto.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Toronto-Blue-Jays_339533.html

[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 09:08 AM EST (#250696) #
I think there is a very, very big variable everyone is leaving out.

Texas & LAA are in the winning part of the development cycle right now. Both have recently been to the World Series and are expected to fight for the playoffs each year. When the Jays were at that point (1984-1995, in '83 few thought they'd contend and in '95 we all were sure WS #3 was on the way) their TV ratings were through the roof as were ticket sales (vs the league - the mid-80's numbers now look a lot more boring but the Jays were top 4 in AL attendance from '84 to 1995). For comparison the Rangers have been top 4 just 5 times, never in the top 2 and the Angels have been 2nd or 3rd for 9 years running but not #1 since 1986.

There is no question the market potential in Toronto is huge. However, non-Rogers TV networks will only pay for what they expect the Jays to do THIS year, not what they COULD do. The Rogers corporation though has to factor in what COULD happen and try to maximize that. By owning the TV stations they can claim 100% of the gain should the Jays jump from 4th to 1st ala the Rays.

The Rangers were smart to lock in while at their peak, and that is not an option for the Jays as I cannot see Rogers selling TV rights long term even if the Jays are winning and getting over 1 million viewers a game (a possibility if they are winning).

Move the Jays to the AL or NL Central, keep improving the team so it can be a playoff contender annually with a few appearances mixed in and you'll see the Jays having revenue streams that few teams can match. Will they spend it? That is another story. The smartest thing to do is to keep growing their own players and try to use free agency sparingly thus maximizing profits. Frustrating for fans who want to win now but it sure makes sense for a corporation.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 09:39 AM EST (#250697) #
The Forbes valuations are nice, light amusing reading.  Like this one on the Marlins.  Jeffrey Luria?  Is there such a thing as a Freudian typo?
[ Reply to This ]
Lylemcr - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 10:07 AM EST (#250698) #

That Bullshit.  There are lots of fans in Toronto.  We forget that Toronto did hold the record for the highest revenue team in the years they won the world series and when the sky dome opened.

There are fans in Toronto.  What they need is management that doesn't turn them off and to put a winning team on the field.  As a former Expos fan, I know that it sucks watching your young stars rise and then be traded to other teams in thier prime.  It really erodes the fan base after awhile. 

There was a time when the Jays had a swagger and confidence that they were leaders in the league.  They were not bridesmaids, in fact, people wanted to play for them.  Since Pat Gillick left, they have not been able to get that swagger back.  That swagger starts all the way up to management.  If you do not have that commitment to excellence,  you are just a bridesmaid rolling the dice hoping that you get a lucky roll.

[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 10:33 AM EST (#250699) #
On that happy note, here is your song of the day, suitable for cubicle monkey use. 
[ Reply to This ]
hypobole - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 11:20 AM EST (#250700) #
I'm not denying there are plenty of baseball fans in Toronto, just not as many as some here would make it out to be.
When the Jays were at or near the top in attendance, the Leafs were at the tail end of Harold Ballards mismanagement, which estranged a lot of sports fans and then the opening of the new Skydome drew a lot of non-baseball fans strictly as a novelty. The Raptors didn't start till '95 which coincided with the drop off in attendance.

I believe all these factors created a perfect storm that helped spike attendance to levels we won't see again. Obviously Gillicks contending teams played a huge role as well; Toronto's sports fans were dying for a winner.

I also think that despite people bringing up the fact the GTA is the 4th largest metro area in North America or the attendance records set 20 years ago, there aren't as many hardcore baseball fans in Toronto as they would like to believe.
[ Reply to This ]
China fan - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 11:38 AM EST (#250701) #
A new tweet by Jon Morosi says the Jays and White Sox are still in "off and on" discussions about Gavin Floyd, although the price tag remains high.

Floyd, Oswalt, Garza or a similar starter who could slot in at number 3 or 4 in the Jays rotation for a price tag of around $9-million or $10-million in 2012: it makes such logic, it's so affordable and it would add such crucial depth to the Jays rotation. Makes perfect sense that Anthopoulos must be considering it, at least. And something like this is probably the potential acquisition "in the next 2-3 weeks" that Anthopoulos alluded to recently. Now let's see if it happens. No real reason why it can't happen.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 11:56 AM EST (#250702) #
The Jays' peak (Vermont reference not intended), from an attendance perspective, coincided with the Wendel Clark/Doug Gilmour period for the Leafs and an economic downturn.  It's hard to make the case that circumstances were responsible for that.  The relationship between sustained winning and attendance seems pretty clear.  Let's face it.  The Leafs have been pretty bad for over 4 decades, and the Raptors haven't exactly set the world on fire.  I'd wager dollars to donuts that if the Jays club won 90-95 games in 2 successive years, attendance in the 2nd year would average well over 30K. 

In 1983, when the club was on the cusp of winning and had tremendous young talent, they went out and signed Doyle Alexander for a goodly share of their annual salary budget (despite the presence of a good young top 4 of Stieb, Clancy, Leal and Gott).  This contributed mightily to their success in 1985 and afterwards, both directly and indirectly, as the depth allowed the Jays to give Jimmy Key a full season in low leverage relief in 1984 as part of his development.  Prior to the signing of Doyle Alexander, they spent quite a few shekels to fill a gaping hole at DH with Cliff Johnson.  Who will be 2012's Doyle Alexander and Cliff Johnson?
[ Reply to This ]
BlueJayWay - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 12:42 PM EST (#250703) #
Attendance will go up huge once this team is a playoff contender, and especially if they remain good for a few seasons in a row.  I don't think that can be denied.  This is not a Tampa Bay situation.
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 01:06 PM EST (#250705) #
Actually Alexander was a scrap heap pick up. The Yankees signed him for a big deal (at the time) then released him and the Jays grabbed him for the league minimum. A lot was made of the Yankees paying Alexander's contract while he was winning the division clinching game against the Yankees.

Cliff Johnson was traded to the Jays twice and left as a free agent once (retired after the 2nd trip here). Even as a free agent he made under $1 mil a year, or in todays dollars probably in the ballpark of $5-10 million (multiple dollar figures from the mid-80's by 10 to get a rough estimate).

The killer on the budget was the pen. Lamp/Lavelle/Caudill. 2 free agents and a trade. That was due largely to the pen really having issues in 82/83/84 (Lamp came pre-84). There was talk of even moving Stieb to the closers role back then it was such an issue.
[ Reply to This ]
Shane - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 01:56 PM EST (#250710) #

"There was talk of even moving Stieb to the closers role back then it was such an issue."

This is just before I started following baseball. WHO was saying this? Gillick or the media?

[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 04:25 PM EST (#250721) #
Cliff Johnson's salary in today's terms would be closer to $10 million.  The Jays may only have been responsible for Alexander's major league minimum in 1983, but in 1984 and 1985, his salary would have been their responsibility, no?
[ Reply to This ]
John Northey - Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 04:45 PM EST (#250725) #
Alexander was signed to a multi-year deal by the Yankees so he was still being paid by them through the end of the 1985 season (they were _very_ poorly run back then - no idea how they put together as good a team as the did). In 1986 the Jays had to pay Alexander but then they traded him mid-season, much to their regret in 1987 as Alexander was a big asset to the Tigers (post Atlanta trading him there in '87).

As to closer Stieb - I suspect the media was more the source than the team but I recall there was a LOT of talk about it. Of course, back then closers threw 130 innings in high leverage situations so it wasn't quite as insane as making him into a 60 inning pitcher but close enough to crazy to count.
[ Reply to This ]
bpoz - Wednesday, January 18 2012 @ 09:53 AM EST (#250748) #
Lylemcr, your comment on swagger brought back some fond memories for me. The great confidence in Ward/Henke, defense of White, Alomar & Fernandez. And of course WAMCO.

what were your memories?
[ Reply to This ]
M's Pineda headed to AL East, Bronx | 148 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.