Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - State Of The Franchise

The Toronto Blue Jays held their annual State of the Franchise event at the Dome Monday night for season ticket holders and it revealed an interesting nugget or two among some of the inane and long-winded soliloquies/questions.

Some fans seemed to be angry, much like the Blue Jays logo of 2004 to 2011.

For the first time, the event was broadcasted live on Sportsnet.ca. Play-by-play announcer Buck Martinez hosted the event with Jays president Paul Beeston, general manager Alex Anthopoulos and manager John Farrell. One fan expressed anger about the Jays unable to sign free agents like Prince Fielder or Carlos Beltran. Other complaints ranged from the Colby Rasmus trade, the seeming indifference about playing in Toronto (which Anthopoulos denied), the poor management of expectations by the club and the lack of merchandise for the fairer sex (the missus agrees! ;D).

Some of the comments made by the panel Monday...

Beeston says 5 year contracts is the maximum they will go on any player
Beeston says the team is looking at installing actual grass at the Dome but would not guarantee if or when that will happen
Beeston and Farrell would not mind seeing National League rules being used at American League parks and vice versa
Beeston says he would be disappointed if the team is not in the playoffs two or three times over the next five years
Former Jays catcher Kevin Cash is now an advance scout with the club
Anthopoulos says there were a couple of free agents they offered more years and money to but were turned down
AA adds some players do not want to play on turf, DH or change leagues
Farrell says the team would not hesitate to call on Drew Hutchison if he's needed and lists Anthony Gose, Travis d'Arnaud and Deck McGuire as other players to watch

One other interesting comment at the end made by Beeston was that if anyone had any questions, give him a call or e-mail AA. Okay Bauxites, if you had a chance to ask one or both of them anything, what would it be?

Posted by #2JBrumfield on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 09:02 PM EST.

State Of The Franchise | 155 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Brent S - Monday, January 30 2012 @ 09:14 PM EST (#251362) #

I actually had a chance to speak to AA briefly as he was waiting around before the event started.

I asked him about the Jays' plans to alter their strategy in the IFA market due to the new CBA. He didn't seem to worried and said it wouldn't impact their current strategy, nor the results they are currently seeing in the region. He said they could still sign good players -- the prices would simply come down by orders of magnitude.

He also seemed completely convinced that MLB is headed for an international draft.

After that, he was whisked away. I can see why people like him -- he's very polite and extremely talkative. Nice guy.

TamRa - Monday, January 30 2012 @ 11:46 PM EST (#251364) #

"How does the team feel about investing the money they now can't spend on amateur player acquisition on radically upgrading what is spent on the development of minor leaguers (diet, transportation, workout equipment, etc)?"

It seems to me that, if you choose not to blow the doors off on major free agent signings, the next "market inefficiency" that might be exploited is to do minor league development better than anyone else.

ayjackson - Monday, January 30 2012 @ 11:48 PM EST (#251365) #

The comments about FA's not liking the turf and not wanting to DH (as well as taking less to play elsewhere) were clearly directed at Carlos Beltran.

sam - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 12:37 AM EST (#251367) #

In light of Beeston's comments tonight and greater accountability I think there should be a countdown clock on BattersBox to September 2014. Years to playoffs.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 12:48 AM EST (#251368) #

Beeston says 5 year contracts is the maximum they will go on any player

Ha! Unless Ricky Ro is 26-3 next year or Brett Lawrie wins the triple crown and either demands a six- or seven-year extension as a reward. There are always exceptions, so speaking in absolutes like that just sets you up to have to explain away the exceptions later ...

hypobole - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 01:35 AM EST (#251369) #

some thoughts on the panels comments.
- limiting contacts to 5 yr is smart business practice and a repellent for elite FA's.
- had over 20 yrs to "look at it". Get rid of the fake turf.
- watching pitchers hit - LIVE! That's how you spell excitement.
- I will also be disappointed if we don't make the postseason multiple times. Not surprised, but disappointed.
- good for Kevin Cash. In all likelihood a good hire.
- But were they offered more than they signed for?
- NO player WANTS to play on turf, it only a matter of the level of disdain. True that some (and probably quite a few) players don't want to DH and should show why Edwin may be a bit more valuable than perceived. Can't blame pitchers for preferring to stay in the NL.
- Looking forward to the wave of kids arriving.

Question : What's the single most important area for the future success of the Blue Jays organization? IMO, the correct answer is player development; making sure our minor league teams are second to none.

Mike D - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 07:50 AM EST (#251370) #

Apparently, AA referred to a trade for a #2 starter that he could have made, but chose not to on account of the high price. Jeff Blair cites multiple sources in saying that the M's wanted Lawrie for Pineda, and of course you wouldn't do that deal.

greenfrog - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 08:07 AM EST (#251371) #

I think Beeston's prediction of 2-3 playoff appearances in the next five years was a bit silly, although I recognize that this is Beeston's optimistic style. And hey, it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

I also thought AA's saying that the Jays have had the equivalent of about five drafts over the last two years was a bit much. Yes, the team has had a couple of promising drafts, but the equivalent of five drafts? (I might give him four, had he drafted Kolten Wong instead of Tyler Beede in 2011.)

I would *love* to see the team playing on natural grass, either in the RC or in a new stadium.

greenfrog - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 08:16 AM EST (#251372) #

This is very positive for the Jays' 2012 draft (ie, in light of the team's extra first and supp round picks):

"The college draft crop is thin this season but the prep crop is very good. Like Jameson Taillon and Dylan Bundy, Lucas Giolito will be in the conversation for the 1st overall pick. Ultimately, I don't think he will be but he has a chance. The draft is very heavy in Pitchers and Outfielders with a few solid up the middle talents. Expect this list to change a lot by the draft as there are 60 players that could have 1st round talent."

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/1/31/2758269/pre-season-high-school-top-100-draft-prospects

sam - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 09:12 AM EST (#251374) #

This will be an interesting draft year. It's prep heavy with a few toolsy outfielders, but mostly deep on pitchers. Over the last five years the college crop of players has been consistently whittled down as teams have invested significant resources getting players signed. However, you may see that reverse as guys who may have gotten a million dollars outside the first round just won't and may choose the college education as a result.

Also, when you're dealing with multiple picks in the first round with one not being guaranteed there's always the possibility of drafting a "safe" pick or pick that may move fast. A guy like Marcus Stroman may be targeted with that second pick or another of the college pitchers, none of whom outside of Mark Appel look particularly promising.

Anders - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 09:53 AM EST (#251375) #

I imagine they are waiting to see how Lawrie does before offering him a Matt Moore/Evan Longoria type contract, but I imagine any Lawrie contract wouldn't be longer than five guaranteed years, + options. Overall I think that the policy is reasonably sound - the first A-Rod contract and the big Jeter one seem to have just about worked out, but after that I am hard pressed to think of any long term contracts that have really worked out well for the teams. Obviously it would be nice to sign star players, they are almost universally overpaid.

watching pitchers hit - LIVE! That's how you spell excitement.

This made me laugh, although I have to say at this point it would be more interesting watching Roy Halladay hit than... John Mayberry or whoever the extra guy the Phillies would get on the field is. I'm sure the NL fans feel the same about David Ortiz/Josh Beckett.

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 10:07 AM EST (#251376) #

The Pujols' contract worked out pretty well for the Cardinals!

China fan - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 10:08 AM EST (#251377) #

Beltran signed a two-year $26-million deal with the Cardinals. If the Jays offered him more money, as Beeston was hinting, it does slightly ease my concern that the Jays seemed unwilling to spend money on free agents. (Unless Beeston was flat-out lying, which some people often accuse him of doing. I'd be interested to know if people think he's telling the truth on this one.)

If the Jays made a serious offer to Beltran, did they want him to play 1B or DH? In any event, Beeston's comments about Beltran and about their willingness to offer a 5-year contract to Fielder (if he was willing) are a pretty clear hint that the Jays aren't very satisfied with Lind. It will be interesting to see how much rope the Jays give to Lind this season. If he's still under-performing by July, do they dump him?

MatO - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 10:26 AM EST (#251379) #

I mused a while ago that the phony turf might become a problem in attracting talent. I recall Beeston saying that the Jays would look at how they could put natural turf into the Dome back in the mid nineties. I would assume that technology has improved since then. I know that soccer games have been played on temporary natural turf set-ups.

Anders - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 10:46 AM EST (#251380) #

The Pujols' contract worked out pretty well for the Cardinals!]

Very true, and not that I added this qualifier, but Pujols' contract covered 3 arb years and 4 FA years (it was 7/$100 mil as you may recall.) A pretty good deal! I may look into this subject matter in more depth, drawing a distinction between FA contracts and team extensions.

sweat - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 11:11 AM EST (#251381) #

My vote is for this question/suggestion.

Rich - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 11:15 AM EST (#251382) #

Having a firm policy on contract length irrespective of the context - who the player is, age, ability, market conditions, is ridiculous. Elite players in the prime of their careers can certainly be worthy of a contract beyond 5 years. Sure it's risky, but unless the Jays can out-scout and out-develop their opponents consistently sooner or later they will box themselves in with this.

And yes, history is a guide. In 1993 the Jays let Jimmy Key walk because of Beeston and Gillick's policy of no more than 3 years for pitchers. Key was 32 at the time. He went on to win another 70 games for AL East opponents. It was a dumb decision at the time and sticking to this type of policy no matter what is hard-headed and short-sighted.

This doesn't mean I think Fielder will be worth what he is getting in years 8 and 9 of his deal but to say the club won't even consider this under any circumstances says a lot about how committed they are to winning IMO. Yes, they want to win, but not if treads upon their views of "the right way" to do it.

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 11:23 AM EST (#251383) #

Interestingly, a tricky point in the Darvish/Rangers negotiation was that Darvish wanted a 5 year contract and the Rangers wanted a 6 year contract. Hard and fast rules about length of contract reflect a deficit of imagination. If Brett Lawrie indicates after a healthy and productive but non-MVP 2012 that the club can have him for 5 years at $60 million or 7 years at $80 million, the club would be well advised to choose the latter. Insistence on option years will not always work.

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 11:24 AM EST (#251384) #

Coke to Rich.

bpoz - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 11:34 AM EST (#251385) #

CF,IMO you have to look at Lind's contract. How many more years are guaranteed & for how much? The option years are an easy out. Like you say, it all depends on how he performs.

If he has a monster year in 2012, you explore the trade offers or keep him if the team is doing well. Well means contending which is a subjective evaluation. I can see him or quite a few players having great & not so great years, it just seems that this inconsistency is common IMO. So I am ... surrendering to the concept of trading players after a good year. Will I be honest enough to not complain if Hill, Lind traded after 2009, Marcum & Cecil after 2010. This one is tough, JPA & Romero after 2011. All these players could have brought good value in trades. And AA knows good value.

Dewey - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 12:19 PM EST (#251386) #

MatO - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 10:26 AM EST (#251379) #

I would assume that technology has improved since then. I know that soccer games have been played on temporary natural turf set-ups.

Have a look at this item from a recent NYT article on the grass at Lambeau Field, where the Packers play (link is below); and on how it�s kept green even in frigid weather. A Dutch company has apparently devised a way of using huge arrays of artificial lights to do so. It�s already in use at several U.K. and European soccer stadia, as you say Mat. Interesting stuff.

The floor of the Rogers Centre is concrete, right? They would presumably have to remove that first, before planting grass. Huge (and expensive) job. And Rogers are the owners.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/sports/football/tenderizing-the-packers-tundra-with-light-and-heat.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

greenfrog - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 12:33 PM EST (#251387) #

I would be interested in knowing how they plan on getting Rasmus back on track. Will he be working exclusively with Dwayne Murphy? Do they want him to hit line drives to all fields, or are they content to let him pull the ball? (The latter dilemma was something Hill never seemed to work out, while Snider seems to have struggled with the same issue. I would hate to see Rasmus suffer the same fate.)

Ron - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 12:41 PM EST (#251388) #

Beeston admitting the Jays have a self imposed contract cap of 5 years is just as dumb as JP Ricciardi saying he had a policy of not drafting Scott Boras clients in the 1st round. Why in the world would you handcuff your own organization with this silly restriction? If you�re not willing to go over 5 years, you will never sign an Elite MVP/CY Young candidate free agent in their 20�s.

I wouldn�t be surprised if AA doesn�t agree with this but he doesn�t have the final say since Beeston is his boss. If this is the case, I hope Beeston retires soon and a brighter President replaces him.

John Northey - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 01:22 PM EST (#251389) #

I suspect the Jays would look at having the grass put on the concrete via something between the concrete and the grass. The challenge is that it would cost them the ability to rent out the stadium floor from April through October and maybe the first week of November as well. So just 4 months of trade shows and the like which generally bring in the big bucks for a stadium. Not an easy sell to Rogers I would think. They could still rent out the circle area (where you buy food) and do big video presentations and the like during the baseball season which could bring in a fair amount but no monster truck events or wrestling/boxing/ultimate fighting matches.

I just don't see Rogers writing off all that revenue for the minor gain a grass field would bring (financially).

Original Ryan - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 01:38 PM EST (#251390) #

The floor of the Rogers Centre is concrete, right? They would presumably have to remove that first, before planting grass. Huge (and expensive) job. And Rogers are the owners.

I think there is also a parking garage below the floor, which might pose an expensive challenge when installing a drainage system.

I think the biggest hurdle right now is the Argos, and (to a lesser extent) a future NFL team. If grass was installed at Rogers Centre, the seats in the lower bowl might need to be made permanent during the baseball season. I'm not sure if a CFL-sized field could be accommodated using the baseball seating configuration. Even if the CFL field could fit, the grass would be in terrible shape for most of the baseball season due to the damage football games would inflict. If the Blue Jays want to install grass, the Argos would need find somewhere else to play.

I'm not sure how many events outside of baseball and football Rogers Centre hosts during the baseball season. Presumably those events would be impacted as well. I'd be interested to know how much revenue the facility generates from them.

92-93 - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 01:52 PM EST (#251391) #

I imagine they are waiting to see how Lawrie does before offering him a Matt Moore/Evan Longoria type contract

Then it wouldn't be a Moore/Longoria type contract. Both had less service time than Brett Lawrie already has. I hope AA has been pursuing a contract extension with Lawrie all winter, and that Brett is too cocky (in a Tim Lincecum kind of way) to sign away even his pre-FA years.

(Unless Beeston was flat-out lying, which some people often accuse him of doing. I'd be interested to know if people think he's telling the truth on this one.)

Please, CF. If you're going to troll, be accurate. Beeston didn't say any of those things that hinted towards Carlos Beltran; Alex Anthopoulos did.

Lylemcr - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 01:55 PM EST (#251392) #

Personally, as much as I would love to have a big free agent, I understand why they have a policy of no 5 year+ contracts. Statistically speaking, there are not a lot of contracts that teams are happy with that are 5 years+. If you are not the yankees, you can not do to many of these contracts. You can't tell me the Red Sox are not in a bit of trouble because of the Crawford/Lackey/etc contracts.

In the same breath, it would be nice to have just one of those players... Just once.

I think if the Jays core competency becomes thier minor league system and developing players, then they should keep on that track. When that development means we can trade for a Santos, then they do it.

I think the Jays are practicing responsible and pragmatic governing of the team. Never a knee jerk. Stay the course. I am not sure it wins them championships, but it does make them contenders.

Rich - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 02:06 PM EST (#251393) #

I don't think the Crawford contact length is really the problem. If it were 5 years and he plays as poorly as he did in 2011 it's still every bit as big of a problem. To say the club won't go beyond 5 under any circumstances is just telling top talent right now that the Jays will never be suitors. It's a losing proposition.

Hodgie - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 02:25 PM EST (#251394) #

Besides winning, I don't know that the Jays can do much to win in the courts of public opinion. If they don't provide commentary on the pursuits of free agents, they are being deceitful and not managing fan's expectations. If they make statements about their process to manage expectations, they are labelled idiots and their intelligence is questioned. It would seem there is more compassion for cripples, bastards and broken things than the Jays front office these days.

Chuck - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 02:44 PM EST (#251395) #

It would seem there is more compassion for cripples, bastards and broken things than the Jays front office these days.

I think a distinction needs to be made between front office and ownership. Rogers would appear to be the b�te noire in this equation. And they are neither cripples nor broken. As for the other...

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 02:46 PM EST (#251396) #

How can Rogers win in the court of public opinion? In just one year, make a sincere effort to actually win rather to rake in dough. What they say is dross.

When the Rays won in 2008, they made a concerted push with the resources reasonably available to them to do so. The Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, Twins, Tigers, and Rangers have all done so within the last 5 years. It happened during the Labatt's period for the home nine, and fans are still waiting for that kind of commitment from current ownership.

China fan - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:00 PM EST (#251397) #

All right, 92-93, come clean. As far as I can figure out from careful reading of everything you post, you believe that Beeston is a liar, but Anthopoulos is not. Have I got that straight?

China fan - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:04 PM EST (#251398) #

And if Anthopoulos is telling the truth, the Jays offered more than $26-million to Beltran. So, 92-93, doesn't this slightly contradict your theory that the Jays are total cheapskates who refuse to spend money? (And do you really dismiss people as "trolls" if they dare to disagree with you about anything? Is that your definition of a "troll" -- someone who doesn't pay homage to all of your opinions?)

Hodgie - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:05 PM EST (#251399) #

"If you�re not willing to go over 5 years, you will never sign an Elite MVP/CY Young candidate free agent in their 20�s."

I was curious as to how realistic this pursuit might be. Short for time, I quickly dug through what data I could find courtesy of ESPN which tracks free agent signings from 2006 onward. Here is the list, as best as I can glean, of free agents that have signed since 2006 for more than 5 years and were in their 20s at the time. My apologies in advance if any errors are present. Included is the age of the player, length and value of the signing and fWAR produced since the signing. For Matsuzaka and Darvish I included the posting fee in their totals.

Daisuke Matsuzaka (26) - 6 years $103.1M 10.6 fWAR
Barry Zito (28) - 7 years $126.6M 6.6 fWAR
CC Sabathia (28) - 7 years $161M 18.7 fWAR
Mark Teixeira (28) - 8 years $180M 12.6 fWAR
Aroldis Chapman (21) - 6 years $30.25M 1.3 fWAR
Carl Crawford (29) - 7 years $142M 0.2 fWAR
Yu Darvish (25) - 6 years $111.7M
Prince Fielder (27) - 9 years $214M
Jose Reyes (28) - 6 years $106M

That is 9 free agent contracts for more than 5 years that I found for players in their twenties. Of the 9 such opportunities, I count two disasters (Matsuzaka and Zito) and a potential third (Teixeira). Two others are off to ominous starts (Crawford and Chapman) and of course the three that have yet to play a game for their new teams. I see only one success in Sabathia, who funny enough might actually be under-valued. Feel free to take this for the 30 minutes of research that it is worth....

MatO - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:10 PM EST (#251400) #

I think the Rogers Centre did have real grass for one of those international soccer exhibition games a few years back (ManU or someone like that). They brought in pallets of turf and put them together to form the field. It's a huge job as the turf is really heavy and only temporary because of the lack of drainage. I think the Pontiac Silverdome hosted some World Cup games when the US was the host using a similar concept.

MatO - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:16 PM EST (#251401) #

Here's a detailed article on how it was done

http://www.turfandrec.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2770&Itemid=159

92-93 - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:21 PM EST (#251402) #

No. I call it trolling because for 2 years I have been VERY clear that my criticism is directed towards Beeston and Rogers, NOT AA. You apparently have continuously missed this for 2 years and keep prodding in my direction nonsensically.

And no, signing Beltran to bring the Jays closer to the median MLB payroll would not contradict my "theory that the Jays are total cheapskates". I don't predict the future - I comment on the present, and the fact is (NOT theory) that Rogers consistently spends a below average amount on a baseball team in one of baseball's largest markets. Signing Beltran with the money they eventually gave to Oliver, Cordero, and Frasor would have proved absolutely nothing.

China fan - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:33 PM EST (#251403) #

I suppose it proves nothing if you assume that the Jays would refuse to sign any relievers if they had signed Beltran. But that strikes me as nonsensical. Why should we believe that the acquisition of a DH would have any impact on the bullpen? You're relying on your own assumptions to make your argument. You're suggesting that the Jays would totally neglect their bullpen if they managed to sign Beltran. I find that illogical and speculative, and not a solid basis for your attack.

China fan - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:39 PM EST (#251404) #

Moreover, your numbers simply don't add up. Anthopoulos said the Jays offered more money than Beltran accepted. Even if it was just $14-million per year, slightly more than the $13-million than Beltran accepted, the total offer to Beltran would have been nearly $16-million MORE than the combined total given to Frasor, Cordero and Oliver (which was $12-million total).

You can't claim that the Beltran offer was just a repackaging of the money given to Frasor, Cordero and Oliver. You're wrong by $16-million.

timpinder - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:40 PM EST (#251405) #

Natural grass would be a great change to the RC. I watch more games at Comerica than RC despite the fact I'm a Jays fan and it's almost an hour further for me to drive to Comerica. There's something about the atmosphere at a real ballpark. It's an atmosphere that RC is missing. Real grass would be a big step in the right direction and I'd likely go to more games in Toronto if it felt like I was at a ballpark and not a concrete entertainment centre. I hope it happens.

bball12 - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 03:43 PM EST (#251406) #

Grass wont help much.

Winning baseball games will help alot.

92-93 - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 04:57 PM EST (#251409) #

I'm not relying on any assumptions. You are. You're the one claiming they could have been players on Beltran, assuming that's who AA was referring to. All I said was that the Jays would still have been running a below average payroll at the time of the signing had they nabbed Beltran, and I have no reason to assume they would have continued spending money after that much like you have no reason to assume they wouldn't have. We do know that AA said payroll is currently in the high 80s, which suggests that if they indeed were willing to overpay for Beltran that the bullpen would've had to have been retooled in a manner not involving $.

92-93 - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 05:01 PM EST (#251410) #

"You can't claim that the Beltran offer was just a repackaging of the money given to Frasor, Cordero and Oliver. You're wrong by $16-million."

I love how you consistently make claims on my behalf that I've never remotely implied. If anything, my claim was that the money they may have offered to Beltran was repackaged towards the bullpen, not the other way around.

hypobole - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 05:02 PM EST (#251411) #

Winning baseball games won't help much

Winning enough baseball games to make the playoffs will help a lot

The turf by and of itself doesn't play a large part, but it
- limits players who would be willing to sign with the Jays
- causes increased injury risk
- causes some fans to not want to come to watch the games live.

China fan - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 05:04 PM EST (#251412) #

It's always difficult to figure out what you mean, since it's a moving target. But you clearly equated the Beltran money and the Frasor/Cordero/Oliver money, implying that they were the same. Now you're backing away from that.

The current payroll is still below the high 80s today, so there's room for another free agent if the Jays could persuade one to sign. But if the Jays had signed Beltran to a $28-million deal, why do you assume that Anthopoulos would still have quoted that same number? He obviously cited that number in the absence of Beltran, so it doesn't contradict the Beltran point at all.

China fan - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 05:17 PM EST (#251413) #

Here, courtesy of the National Post, is the full transcript of AA's answer on Beltran. Of course he can't explicitly confirm that he offered a contract to Beltran, but his meaning is quite clear:

�Carlos Beltran, great question. Only two years. I know that we were linked to him and so on, but with a lot of players, at times, some of them don�t want to play on turf at no matter what money. Some of them don�t want to DH at no matter what money, and some of them have health concerns from a medical staff that the club may feel they have to DH, and if they have to DH they�re unwilling to sign no matter what the dollars are, considering they�ve made a lot of money in their career. And some don�t want to change leagues, going from the National League to the American League, even if you offer them more years and more money. At that point, I don�t know what you can do, other than having taken that shot.�

Later, AA added this comment, which again seems a clear reference to Beltran, since it matches up to the same phrasing that he had used in the earlier comment:

�There [were] two free agents that we offered more years and more dollars to, and we ultimately, for other reasons, couldn�t sign the players,� he said.

greenfrog - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 05:29 PM EST (#251415) #

If AA wants to charge one last item on the Rogers credit card, he might consider Edwin Jackson. According to MLBTR, E-Jax is "much more likely" to sign a one-year deal than a multiyear one. I see the logic in seeing what we have with Romero/Morrow/Cecil/Alvarez/McGowan (TamRa outlined it well in another thread), but I would be pretty happy signing Jackson to a one-year contract, slotting him in behind Morrow, and creating a competition for the #4 and 5 slots. If the Jays are in contention in midsummer, the SP depth will be welcome. If they're not, Jackson could be useful trade bait. And the risk is minimal on a one-year deal.

92-93 - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 06:10 PM EST (#251416) #

I'm sorry that you have problems with reading comprehension, CF, but it's not a moving target. The message is clear. Rogers has been cheap in terms of expenditure, and AA is an excellent GM hamstrung by a mediocre payroll.

The money they would have spent on Beltran in 2012 equals the money they are spending Oliver/Frasor/Cordero. I have no idea where you find a contradiction in that. Nowhere did I indicate that the total $s guaranteed would've been similar.

92-93 - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 06:17 PM EST (#251417) #

Jackson on a 1 year deal is also likely to bring you back a first round draft pick. I don't agree with the premise that Jackson would be "blocking" the Jays young arms. They have exactly one pitcher who has ever thrown 200 innings, and while I expect Cecil & Morrow to be able to do that this year, pitching is pitching. I find it strange that everyone can admit the Jays need a frontline starter but then be scared of adding a Jackson/Oswalt/Kuroda type lest it take away innings from our precious young arms. There will be plenty to go around, there always is - just a reminder that JoJo Reyes, Carlos Villanueva, Jesse Litsch, Luis Perez, Zach Stewart, and Brad Mills combined for nearly a 3rd of starts made by Jays starters last year. You can never have enough pitching.

China fan - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 06:24 PM EST (#251418) #

Sorry, but there's a huge difference betwween $28 million for a DH and $12 million for three relievers. And guaranteed money is always more significant than a one-year number.

greenfrog - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 06:45 PM EST (#251419) #

I'm not sure Jackson will produce a draft pick for the signing team. I used to think so, but he might just accept a $12-13M offer from the offering team (or whatever the going rate is to ensure draft compensation), especially if his market value is proving to be more like $8-10M a year than $11M+.

pubster - Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 11:55 PM EST (#251420) #

"The Jays are total cheapskates"

Im assuming when you say the Jays are cheap that you actually mean Rogers is cheap.

If you do any research at all on Rogers you will quickly see that they arent cheap. (ie. Spending $500+ million for MLSE)

Statements like the ones quoted go against the evidence.

Unless you have some conspiracy theory that Rogers will spend money on all of its other endeavours except for the Jays.

TamRa - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 02:18 AM EST (#251422) #

" just a reminder that JoJo Reyes, Carlos Villanueva, Jesse Litsch, Luis Perez, Zach Stewart, and Brad Mills combined for nearly a 3rd of starts made by Jays starters last year. You can never have enough pitching."

Indeed. And the current equivilant of that group (i.e. the most likely to start outside the presumed starting five) is Kyle Drabek, Drew Hutchison, Deck McGuire, Carlos Villianueva (nothing wrong with that), and Litsch.

I'm fine with seeing those guys get starts if need be.

I'd rather watch any of the first three as, say Kuroda. and if we get as far as our ninth option for the rotation, odds are one more signing isn't going to save us.

TamRa - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 03:00 AM EST (#251423) #

"I was curious as to how realistic this pursuit might be. Short for time, I quickly dug through what data I could find courtesy of ESPN"

Conveniently, Cott's has a list of the biggest deals and another of the highest AAV. The list has been edited to remove players who didn't ever actually hit the market before signing the deal, those signed after their 30th birthday (to maintain the context) and those signed for five years or less.

2. Alex Rodriguez, $252,000,000 (2001-10)
4. Prince Fielder, $214,000,000 (2012-20)
7. Mark Teixeira, $180,000,000 (2009-16)
8. CC Sabathia, $161,000,000 (2009-15)
9. Manny Ramirez, $160,000,000 (2001-08)
14. Carl Crawford, $142,000,000 (2011-17)
16. Johan Santana, $137,500,000 (2008-13)
. . . Barry Zito, $126,000,000 (2007-13)
23. Mike Hampton, $121,000,000 (2001-08)
27. Carlos Beltran, $119,000,000 (2005-11)
28. Ken Griffey Jr., $116,500,000 (2000-08)
29. Jose Reyes, $106,000,000 (2012-17)
. . . Scott Rolen, $90,000,000 (2003-10)

Only 13 such deals signed EVER.

AAV
3. Alex Rodriguez, $25,200,000 (2001-10)
8. Prince Fielder, $23,777,778 (2012-20)
. . . CC Sabathia, $23,000,000 (2009-15)
11. Johan Santana, $22,916,667 (2008-13)
. . . Mark Teixeira, $22,500,000 (2009-16)
17. Carl Crawford, $20,285,714 (2011-17)
19. Manny Ramirez, $20,000,000 (2001-08)
. . . Barry Zito, $18,000,000 (2007-13)
35. Jose Reyes, $17,666,667 (2012-17)
. . . Carlos Beltran, $17,000,000 (2005-11)

That's the only 10 deals which meet the criteria with an AAV over $17 mil

I'll leave it for other to argue about the risk/reward factor.

TamRa - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 03:07 AM EST (#251424) #

if you heard AA with Blair today, one of the juciey tidbits he threw out was a big ol' hunk of praise for Evan Crawford.

Fascinating.

gnor - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 06:33 AM EST (#251425) #

The floor of the Rogers Centre is concrete, right?

The floor is concrete, but it's built over a basement that contains training facilities. Presumably, they would have to install some drainage, and perhaps reinforce areas to take the added weight. The big problem I see is the movable seats.
The way I see it is that it would have to become a dedicated baseball stadium from March to October, which would mean a substantial loss of revenue from other events. IMO, it's not going to happen.

gnor - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 06:49 AM EST (#251426) #

What would I ask AA?

"Alex, if you were the opposing GM negotiating a trade with The Blue Jays, and you were allowed to pick one starting pitching prospect, who would you ask for?"

gnor - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 07:12 AM EST (#251427) #

If Edwin Jackson does sign a 1 year deal, it probably won't be with The Blue Jays. If we are speculating, however, while he may help the Blue Jays short term, it may not be in the best long term interests to do so. This is the first time in a long time that the team is starting Spring Training with more or less permanent pieces in place, and it's a good opportunity to evaluate what they have. This includes pitching depth, and this is a good time to have a look at guys that for now have a role as injury replacements. Having Jackson aboard would limit our opportunities to see these prospects show their stuff at the big league level.
If in fact they are in the race in July, trade prices will be lower, and they will have a better idea of what they need by that time.

greenfrog - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 08:21 AM EST (#251428) #

"If in fact they are in the race in July, trade prices will be lower"

I think this is a bit of a myth. Often the bidding can get aggressive at the July trade deadline - look at the haul Colorado got for Ubaldo (or, for that matter, the haul the Jays got for Jackson plus a couple of relievers). Whereas currently (if you believe the latest rumours) AA could have an entire year of Jackson for nothing more than cash and a one-year contract.

Although I agree that if Jackson is aiming for a pillow contract he'll probably look to a more likely contender (unless the Jays offer more cash).

greenfrog - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 08:40 AM EST (#251429) #

"I'd rather watch any of the first three as, say Kuroda."

Agreed - if they're ready. However, there is a good chance that none of Drabek, Hutch or McGuire will be ML-ready (*fully* ready, not just "ready because we need a guy") through at least the first half of 2012.

I think Villanueva is best suited to remaining a long man in the bullpen. And I don't particularly want to see Litsch chewing up innings as a starter again.

Assuming that McGowan is unlikely to pitch a lot of innings in 2012, the rotation starts to get a lot thinner - especially if one of Romero, Morrow, Cecil or Alvarez spends time on the DL.

Rather than construct elaborate scenarios in which the current starting five stay mostly healthy; Cecil, McGowan and Alvarez all perform acceptably well or better; and Hutch, McGuire and/or Drabek arrive on the scene in a timely way to provide reinforcements, I would prefer to add Jackson as a #3 and assume that I'm going to need the depth over the course of a season. IMO there is no real downside (other than cash) in adding another tradable SP asset in these circumstances (decent SP in his prime with a good recent track record available on a one-year deal). If it turns out that the young SPs and prospects are doing great, and the cream is rising to the top, so much the better - trade from a position of strength.

jester00 - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 09:49 AM EST (#251433) #

Greenfrog, as I read through your posts I'm chuckling to myself because over at insidethedome, I'm making the same argument for signing Jackson on a 1 year deal. It's like I'm reading my own writing. It's kinda freaking me out.

Anders - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 09:57 AM EST (#251434) #

I think this "let the young guys pitch" thing is born out of an extreme overvaluing of prospects/young pitchers that isn't really warranted. Drew Hutchison has thrown 15 innings above A ball, Deck McGuire 20. Kyle Drabek walked 93 guys in 150 some innings last year combined. Carlos Villanueva is basically a slightly better version of a journeyman, Brett Cecil was poor last year and has lost 1.5 MPH on his fastball, while Dustin McGowan is coming off major surgery. In an ideal world the Jays would get 1000 innings or so from their starters, and as 92-93 points out, Ricky Romero is their only pitcher to have every thrown even 200. If they get 200 decent innings combined from those aforementioned six non-Ricky pitchers it would be I think a pleasant surprise. Meanwhile Jackson's hit that mark the last three years (well, 199.2 this past year) and conservatively I would have to think that he would improve the club by at least 2.5 wins this coming year. The cost is nothing, essentially - well, money, and not prospects, and Jackson is probably an okay bet to qualify for compensation as he's actually pretty good.

I have to say I don't see the downside at all.

Anders - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 10:02 AM EST (#251436) #

Greenfrog also is right on the money.

The Jays managed to trade Jackson and 2 relievers (though I still think someone should give Zep a chance to start) for a 25 year old CF one year removed from a 4 win season. If they are out of it in July there's no reason they couldn't do it again anyway.

Mike Green - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 10:28 AM EST (#251438) #

Edwin Jackson on a 1 year contract? Sign me up. It sure would be nice to have the payroll dollars that were committed to Cordero to sweeten any offer to Jackson.

jester00 - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 10:30 AM EST (#251439) #

Exactly. And further to the point of being able to trade Jackson, lets look at his trade history to see what he's brought back in trade.

December 10th 2008 traded from TB to Detroit for Mastt Joyce.

December 9th 2009 traded from Detroit to Arizona for Max Scherzer and Daniel Schlereth

July 20th 2010 traded from Arizona to ChiSox for Daniel Hudson and David Holmberg

Jully 27th 2011 traded from Toronto with 2 relievers for essentially Rasmus

Those are some pretty decent returns for Jackson. I see no downside to attepting to sign him to a one year deal

John Northey - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 11:03 AM EST (#251442) #

Attempting to sign Jackson is one thing. Actually getting him is another. As others have said, if you are wanting to do a one year-back to free agency thing as a pitcher then you are going to go where you can best accumulate wins and keep your ERA down. The AL East in Toronto (or Baltimore for that matter) will not fit either of those. Any NL team will keep your ERA lower (outside of Colorado). Most teams in the two central divisions (outside of Pittsburgh & KC) give you a higher potential at making the playoffs. The Rangers, Angels, Yankees, and Red Sox all have fantastic shots at postseason play in the AL.

The Jays will either have to overpay or guarantee 2 years+ to get Jackson to come here unless his market has completely cratered. I just don't see it happening.

Chuck - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 11:19 AM EST (#251443) #

I think this "let the young guys pitch" thing is born out of an extreme overvaluing of prospects/young pitchers that isn't really warranted.

And isn't this just symptomatic of human nature?

Those who follow the minor leagues closely will have an emotional investment in those players (especially if they have met them or watch them in person) and will instinctively overvalue them. Conversely, those who do not follow the minor leagues at all may likely undervalue those players.

And this business of knowing players personally, you see the effects at the major league level as well. Those of us who have been critiquing Adam Lind's abilities have been doing so without knowing the man personally. And that's fair, we are critiquing his skills, not making value judgements about the man as a person. But insiders like Mike Wilner for instance, may have a more difficult time openly critiquing Lind when he knows him personally, and likes him. And that's understandable, but it does detract from objectivity.

BalzacChieftain - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 11:24 AM EST (#251444) #

Agree with John completely. There is no chance a pitcher going after a one-year contract to build value would sign with the Jays, even moreso when there are multiple suitors. Many teams would buy Jackson if they only had to guarantee one year. Home runs are inflated approximately 15% at the RC according to park factors at http://www.statcorner.com/team.php?team=TOR&year=2011&leag=A_L.

Then you take into account facing the lineups of the Red Sox and Yankees, and it's not looking good. Not to mention the fact that some people still value the W, and he wouldn't see a whole lot of those with the Jays.

Mike Green - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 11:27 AM EST (#251445) #

"Overpayment" for a free-agent innings eater of slightly above-average quality is no surprise. The degree of overpayment is another story. On a player of Jackson's ability on a 1 year contract, you are looking at $2-$4 million. He is not going to ask for $17 million and he is not going to get it.

Mike Green - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 11:43 AM EST (#251446) #

greenfrog - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 12:07 PM EST (#251448) #

Of course, all this is premised on a rumour that he'll sign a one-year deal. Who knows, he could end up signing in Baltimore for 5 years/$60M or some such deal.

Rich - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 12:37 PM EST (#251451) #

And incidentally, 2-3 years for Jackson at market rates would be an entirely reasonable thing for the club to do. Where this organization is strongest in pitching is at the Syndergaard, Norris, Nicolino, Sanchez level, quite a distance from the major league level.

I agree 100%. If the club enters 2012 without upgrading the rotation I fail to see that it's likely the club will exceed last year's record. Even the most optimistic of fans can't reasonably claim this is a 90+ win team as currently constructed. If AA is just working silently on this, then fine. But if the brass really believes the club can contend with its current rotation they are dreaming.

Sal - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 01:04 PM EST (#251453) #

"Even the most optimistic of fans can't reasonably claim this is a 90+ win team as currently constructed"

This year's team is much better than last year's at opening day. We're too fucused on this off season and forgetting the improvements done throughout last regular season.

Now I am not saying we'll win 90+ games, but I can see why the most optimistic of fans might say that.

Chuck - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 01:38 PM EST (#251454) #

Now I am not saying we'll win 90+ games, but I can see why the most optimistic of fans might say that.

One of them is now gazing upon his clock, seeing it is 10:35 PST, and is wondering: "too early for a wee dram?"

Anders - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 01:44 PM EST (#251455) #

I have to disagree here. It seems most forget that we had Jojo Reyes for about half of last season and Drabek and Snider in terrible forms for at about quarter of the season. That is not mentioning Hill's terrible performance and one of the worst 3B team production we's seen recently. We all know about the BP and CF as well.

We'll get into this sort of thing in more depth here on The Box as the season draws neared, but the flip side to this is that Ricky Romero won't pitch as well and Jose Bautista probably won't hit like Babe Ruth. Brett Lawrie is also unlikely to keep hitting quite as well, though there's a full year of him (hopefully.) The Jays also weren't particularly unlucky with injuries last year. There's always a flip side.

If I were to just eyeball it I would say right now this might be about an 87 win team, so say 82-83 games in the AL East. That being said I think that a wider array of outcomes is possible just because there is so much uncertainty, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them win 75 or 90 actual games.

China fan - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 01:45 PM EST (#251456) #

Cordero's contract has now been finalized, and Darin Mastroianni has been DFA'd to make room for him on the 40-man. No real surprise there. Mastroianni was probably the most obvious candidate.

92-93 - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 02:15 PM EST (#251458) #

I'd be fine watching Drabek, Hutchison, Litsch, and Villanueva too, TamRa, but some of us wouldn't mind if the Jays actually tried to compete in 2012. This is the 4th straight season we're being told that we're better off seeing what we have in our own players as opposed to adding more established talent.

And pubster, I hope you realize you were quoting a completely fabricated "quote" by China Fan. Nobody said that.

Sal - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 02:33 PM EST (#251461) #

Anders, we were talking about the most optimistic of fans :)

John Northey - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 02:36 PM EST (#251462) #

There is the rub. This team could be horrid if a few things go wrong (key injuries, Bautista losing his magic, Romero pitching to xFIP while Morrow keeps doing the opposite). If a few things go right though things could be really good (Johnson, Rasmus, and Snider/Thames hit at league average levels for their positions, Lind comes close to that as does EE, Morrow gets to a 100 ERA+, Cecil/etc. have 95 or better ERA+'s).

Wait you say, what I just said for 'going right' don't sound like much. That's right. However, remember that last years team got a 61 sOPS+ out of CF, 79 out of 2B, 89 at 1B, and 86 in LF. Remember that last year Morrow & Cecil each had a 90 ERA+, while JoJo, Drabek, McGowan, Mills combined for 42 starts with a sub-80 ERA+ (all were sub 80 for ERA+ or if you prefer had 5.40 or worse ERA's).

That is a low bar to clear and it isn't unreasonable to hope for that (on average) out of those guys. Lind will have a major challenge as he now has Fielder & Pujols in the league to compete with (for overall average) but otherwise we are not asking anything beyond what one should reasonably expect.

I figure that should shift this team up from 81 to the high 80's in wins if things don't go extreme in the bad for somewhere else in the lineup/rotation/pen. Not to mention the advantage of a better bullpen.

China fan - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 02:47 PM EST (#251463) #

Now here's where 92-93 is trolling again. He accuses me of "completely fabricating" a quote. But here's what he actually said: "Rogers has been cheap in terms of expenditure, and AA is an excellent GM hamstrung by a mediocre payroll." So apparently he objects to the phrase "total cheapskates" but he's completely fine with "cheap" and "mediocre." (Or possibly he sees a difference between "Jays" and "Rogers" -- as if perhaps someone else except Rogers is making the financial decisions?) If there's a difference between "cheap" and "cheapskates", it's so trivial as to be meaningless to anyone except him...

greenfrog - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 02:58 PM EST (#251464) #

I agree that the team should be better simply by virtue of the upgrades John mentions. But remember that the AL competition is getting better too. To name a few:

LAA (adding Iannetta, Wilson, Pujols, possible upgrade w/ Trout)
Tex (adding Darvish + Feliz to rotation + deeper bullpen w/ Nathan/Adams/Uehara/Ogando)
NYY (adding Pineda, Kuroda + possibly healthy Hughes)
TB (adding Pena and Scott, full season from Moore and Jennings)

Another danger is that the Jays, while improved, will still be too average-ish at multiple positions to be really dangerous. This is why I was in favour of going after Darvish - ie, for the chance to really make the team's rotation a weapon (instead of hoping for good enough).

China fan - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 03:14 PM EST (#251467) #

I actually agree with your basic statement about Rogers, 92-93, which is why I'm so puzzled by your belligerence. But if you feel there's a big difference between "has been" and "are", okay, fine. However, your insistence on "has been" is meaningless if it's a description that extends to include the present day, which apparently your description does. And should I have said "behaving like cheapskates" instead of "are cheapskates"? Would that have made you happy? (This is getting positively Clintonesque -- does it depend on what the meaning of "is" is?)

bpoz - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 03:20 PM EST (#251469) #

I believe both the 2010 & 2011 teams had similar records at the All Star break, but the 2010 team's 85 wins invigorated me with their strong finish but the 81 wins for the 2011 team really disappointed me.
Being under 500 in 2012 is going to really hurt. I also feel other fans will feel this despair, if it happens.

I hope Beeston's rosy forecast turns out right.

Thomas - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 04:25 PM EST (#251475) #

John, I think you're right, but as Mike points out, it's a matter of degree. All else being equal, I'm sure Jackson would love to feast on the Cubs and Pirates four or five teams a season rather than the Yankees and Rays. However, all else isn't equal and MLB front offices have presumably graduated to a point that a skilled agent can make a convincing case that, for example, a 3.70 ERA in the AL East for the Jays should be viewed more favourably than a 3.40 ERA in the NL Central for the Cards (to use the most basic of measures).

Now, I think Jackson would be much more wary of Toronto if it played like the old Coors and might result in Jackson, consciously or not, changing his mechanics or approach, but I highly doubt that's a concern.

I think you're right in that Toronto may not offer the same appeal as Cincinnati, but I don't think this is a significant hurdle.

Anders - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 04:47 PM EST (#251477) #

Anders, we were talking about the most optimistic of fans :)

Touche.

bpoz - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 05:45 PM EST (#251480) #

Excellent analysis Sal.
I am sure there was a good reason why Rauch got so much opportunity to close. He may have just ran out of time to iron out the wrinkles.

Rich - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 08:55 PM EST (#251481) #

John, I just don't see that the rotation will likely be much better. Could Morrow and Cecil both be better? Possibly. But I'd say odds are at least even that they won't be. Morrow's troubles with runners on are well-documented and seem like more than just an aberration. The loss of Cecil's stuff is no less certain to be temporary. I also wouldn't bet slots 4-5 will be all that much better either, though the fact that Reyes is gone is a small positive sign.

I would say that almost everything has to go right for the team as currently constructed to win in the high 80's. And even if they do, so what? They'll still be far back from the post-season, especially with so many other competitors aggressively improving themselves this winter.

The cold hard reality is that Rogers just doesn't care. The team makes tons of money even drawing what they draw at the gate and ownership really isn't interested in spending the kind of dough needed to compete with the big boys. This is a big market team that year after year simply refuses to act like one. AA is smart and doing his best but he's playing with one hand tied behind his back.

TamRa - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 10:26 PM EST (#251483) #

"I think this "let the young guys pitch" thing is born out of an extreme overvaluing of prospects/young pitchers that isn't really warranted."

I'm sure there's an element of that in any debate, but there's also an element - so it seems to me - of emphasizing the negatives of our own guys more so than on other teams. For instance, how many would say "i don't think we can count on Cecil" are optimistic about a rebound from Phil Hughes?

"I'd be fine watching Drabek, Hutchison, Litsch, and Villanueva too, TamRa, but some of us wouldn't mind if the Jays actually tried to compete in 2012. This is the 4th straight season we're being told that we're better off seeing what we have in our own players as opposed to adding more established talent."

I don't think developing your own talent is the opposite of "trying to compete" - particularly when there are enough options to cover some attrition.

Mylegacy - Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 11:43 PM EST (#251485) #

On the pitching...

Romero - is he a keeper? Ya, I say so.

Morrow - is he a keeper? Ya - but he's got a HUGE FLAW -with guys on base he turns into Groucho Marks - without guys on base he's every bit an Ace. Is there a reasonable chance they can fix - or at least somehow negate his problem? Ya, I say then can - IF they can he's a flat out ACE.

Alvarez - this guy was an excellent prospect and has shown in the show he's brought his game with him. is he a keeper? Ya, I say so.

Cecil - this guy is an OK pitcher - a guy I'd like to see GONE to the bullpen - BUT - not replaced by a slightly better pitcher but by a lot better pitcher - this was AA's off season plan - but the Mariners wanted Lawrie and it never happened. We don't know what other moves AA turned down. Cecil WILL be replaced sometime this year by either McGuire, Jenkins - or my choice - Hutchison.

McGowan - I love this guy - I love his guts - his determination and damn near everything about him - I WANT to see him get his shot at Glory. IF - he can't hack it - so be it. BUT I want to see this guy get at least a legit chance to make it - EVEN if it hurts the team until June or so when McGuire , etc., or etc. will replace him. Hopefully - the guy makes it. IF he makes it and keeps the younger guys at bay it will be because he's earned it.

As I've said above Hutch, McG and the Jenkers all stand near by frothing at the mouth to get to the show. Behind these guys are almost too many to count. I'd rather see Cecil get a last chance to hold a spot rather than watch Oswald or some such be slightly better stopping Cecil from getting a shot at it.

As to Roger's being cheap shits in suits - I AGREE - they are cheap shits -BUT they're SMART cheap shits and when AA has got our young star elevator working and the fans start responding - then - I PROMISE YOU - the cheap shits at Roger's will SPEND WHAT IT TAKES to get us to the top - BECAUSE - they can make MORE MONEY with a winning team in the play-offs that fans are coming out to see in groves. CALM the F*CK down - it's all gonna work...

Time for a scotch...

Glevin - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 01:59 AM EST (#251486) #

"Now I am not saying we'll win 90+ games, but I can see why the most optimistic of fans might say that."

The most optimistic fan might say 110 wins and a World Series title but it's not realistic. The Jays are the fourth best team in the East. Yes, if this and that happens and everything goes perfectly, the Jays will be better, but that doesn't happen. Bad things happen to every team. Realistically, this is a 75-85 win team that will very likely not compete again this year. It's frustrating that this keeps getting pushed back, but that's the way it is. (And if Rogers won't spend more, it will keep getting pushed back further).

Sal - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 08:57 AM EST (#251488) #

"The most optimistic fan might say 110 wins and a World Series title but it's not realistic. The Jays are the fourth best team in the East. Yes, if this and that happens and everything goes perfectly, the Jays will be better, but that doesn't happen. Bad things happen to every team. Realistically, this is a 75-85 win team that will very likely not compete again this year. It's frustrating that this keeps getting pushed back, but that's the way it is. (And if Rogers won't spend more, it will keep getting pushed back further)."

110 wins is not realistic, but a realistic optimistic fan can easily make the case for 90 wins. Not much has to go right for this team to be competitive. We had extremely bad performances at multiple position for large portions of last season. 2B, 3B, CF, LF, 1B and 2 starters and some of the buillpen were very bad overall last year. That's half the team.

We don't need to hope for all-star performances for all these positions, just league average. For me, I just look at the current roster and last year's roster and I see a big improvement in the quality of players. Nothing is gauranteed in baseball, but I would say this year's team has significantly better odds of being good.

Rich - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 09:10 AM EST (#251489) #

Sal, I think you're ignoring the rotation. The Jays were 11th in a 14 team league in starters' performance last year and have done nothing to upgrade the talent here. It takes a strong pair of rose-tinted specs to imagine that every one of the 2-5 pitchers will be better than last year. Morrow was erratic and Cecil was awful. Alvarez is extremely young and McGowan (and I love the guy) is very fragile. Behind them, Drabek looks lost and Hutch, McGuire, and Jenkins have all yet to pitch above AA. Even if one of those break through it won't be until later in the summer most likely.

Beeston keeps trotting out the line that Rogers will spend when the team contends. It ain't gonna happen. We have been sold on 85-win teams with young talent as "being close" since the days of Gord Ash. We went through it with JP's 5 year plan and here we are again - decent team with some good prospects and we're being told once it all matures and we only finish a few games out then we can finally expect the team to behave like the big market franchise that it is and always has been.

bpoz - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 09:57 AM EST (#251490) #

I am content with Romero as our #1 based on his results so far. I also like Alvarez as the #5, because each year or most years I leave the #5 spot for a promising young pitcher whose next step is the majors based on results. Alvarez is well qualified here.

The #2,3 &4 spots are where I lack confidence.
Morrow :- I think he will get the ball every 5th day and the club will be patient, no matter his results IMO because they see his high ceiling. So I can see him here for at least 2 more years. So I give him the #4 spot ahead of the kid.

Cecil has to prove he belongs in the rotation. He seems to be quite good if he has his good stuff. By his 3rd or 4th ST start, 65 pitches, we should know where his velocity sits.
McGowan:- He was able to throw 75 pitches per game and not injure himself, so that is a good 1st step. His goal has to be to increase the pitch count maybe to 90 pitches and get the crispness back in his non FB pitches.I just looked at highlights against LAA and his slider & Change looked pretty good. He struck out Vernon Wells. His FB was 93/94 in Sept. Even if he is successful, there is still no way that he makes 30 starts.

I believe a lot of players have already started working out, in preparation for the season.

Mike Green - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 10:02 AM EST (#251491) #

I am optimistic about the starting pitching. I think that Romero will have another year at his career norm, that both Cecil and Morrow will be quite a bit better than their career ERAs as starter (4.64 and 4.58 respectively), that Henderson Alvarez will throw 150 innings with an ERA under 4 and that McGowan at some point will throw 80 decent enough innings. Unfortunately, that is not going to be good enough to give the club a fighting chance at competition. There are too many innings to be made up by pitchers who can be expected to have an ERA around 5.5 and the top end is not likely to be great. The team defence is only fair, and so it's not really reasonable to expect the pitchers to outperform.

If you want to be really optimistic, the source would have to be Anthony Gose. If he comes on, there is the possibility of the club's defence improving at three positions (centerfield, rightfield and first base), and with that, comes the hope of a season like the White Sox 2005 success. Gose is, however, not ready.

Sal - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 10:07 AM EST (#251492) #

"Sal, I think you're ignoring the rotation."

I am not. I am saying it is better than last year's.

Romero, Morrow, Cecil, Alvarez, Jennifer Lopez is better than Romero, Morrow, Cecil, Reyes, Last Year's Drabek

BlueJayWay - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 10:11 AM EST (#251493) #

I agree with you mostly, but a major difference now is the team's farm system is magnitudes better than it ever was under JP. Everyone has it as a top 3 system, and a lot of baseball people have it as the best system overall right now. That changes the equation completely. That allows the Jays to do things that they couldn't before.

Rich - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 10:37 AM EST (#251494) #

I am not. I am saying it is better than last year's.

Romero, Morrow, Cecil, Alvarez, Jennifer Lopez is better than Romero, Morrow, Cecil, Reyes, Last Year's Drabek

But how much better? Enough to win 15 more games? The team has only one starter who was healthy and performed well all last season. I'd say expecting significantly better performances from 3 or all 4 of the other spots is unrealistic.

I think Mike Green's post just above yours is wise - yes, Cecil and Morrow do have the ability to be better and they may well be but it still won't be close to enough. I'll be very interested to see what BP's projections on Alvarez look like. 150 innings with an ERA below 4 seems pretty optimistic to me.

greenfrog - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 10:58 AM EST (#251495) #

'For instance, how many would say "i don't think we can count on Cecil" are optimistic about a rebound from Phil Hughes?'

I'm not particularly high on either Cecil or Hughes, but it should be noted that Hughes has a bigger arm than Cecil, and better component stats for the most part - H/9 IP, HR/9 IP, K/9 IP, K/BB, WHIP, ERA+. They have similar BB/9 IP rates (3.1 and 3.2). He had two solid seasons prior to going down with an injury and was an All-Star in 2010.

Also, thanks to the Pineda and Kuroda acquisitions, the Yankees (CC/Pineda/Kuroda/Nova/AJ) aren't necessarily counting on Hughes in 2012 to the extent the Jays are counting on Cecil.

Lylemcr - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 11:18 AM EST (#251496) #

The first half of the season started with Patterson, Rivera, Reyes,Out of shape Cecil, Drabek and a pilon at 3rd base. Hill and EE also stunk it up. But... The bullpen started out ok,plus Lind and Bautista were crazy good.

The second half featured a series of younger players and the bullpen was a mess (as well as the starting staff). The Jays managed to finish around the 500 mark.

This year, the Jays are one year older..... Think about it..... They have one of the youngest teams in the league and they have a stocked minor league system. There is going to be alot of room for growth this year. I feel really good about the offense. I think it will be near the top. I think the bullpen has lots of good options now. The only question is the starting staff. I think the starters this year will be better than last year, but that is not saying much.

I am looking forward to next year. I am not sure we are a playoff team, and the Jays may have statistical anomolies that make them a worst team record wise, but I also think there is a higher ceiling to this years club and if they can remain in the playoff hunt till the trading deadline, they have the chips in the minor league system to move to fill the holes.

hypobole - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 01:08 PM EST (#251497) #

a baseball team in one of baseball's largest markets.

This is a big market team

expect the team to behave like the big market franchise that it is and always has been.

This is a common refrain. Yeah, Metro Toronto's populaton is around 5.5 million. But population doesn't necessarily correlate with market. The NLL Toronto Rock lacrosse team averages just over 10,000 per game at the ACC. Why not more in such a large "market"? Because there just aren't that many hardcore lacrosse fans. As much as we believe otherwise Toronto does not have the hardcore baseball fans to make this a large baseball market.

Last year the Jays finished 16 games out with 81 wins and finished 25th in attendance averaging 22,445 fans per game. Denver's metro population is half Toronto's. They finished 21 games out and won 73 games. They also finished 12th in attendance averaging 35,923 fans - over 50% more than the Jays.

I know I'll get the "i remember when" responses about the strong numbers from the 80's when competition for the sports dollar was limited. The Leafs had Ballard alienating their fans and there was no basketball team here. And yes, there was the huge attendance increase when the Skydome opened. I also remember my company busing people to a couple of games then, with over half the people never having seen a live game before and most probably never again. They, like many others at the time, went to see the Dome, the game being secondary.

I'd love an owner like Ilich who is willing to spend first, and I'm no fan of the Rogers conglomerate. But I also think they have a better understanding of what is the true market for Blue Jays baseball than those of us who would like to think otherwise.

BlueJayWay - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 01:31 PM EST (#251498) #

This is a common refrain. Yeah, Metro Toronto's populaton is around 5.5 million. But population doesn't necessarily correlate with market. The NLL Toronto Rock lacrosse team averages just over 10,000 per game at the ACC. Why not more in such a large "market"? Because there just aren't that many hardcore lacrosse fans. As much as we believe otherwise Toronto does not have the hardcore baseball fans to make this a large baseball market.

Last year the Jays finished 16 games out with 81 wins and finished 25th in attendance averaging 22,445 fans per game. Denver's metro population is half Toronto's. They finished 21 games out and won 73 games. They also finished 12th in attendance averaging 35,923 fans - over 50% more than the Jays.

I know I'll get the "i remember when" responses about the strong numbers from the 80's when competition for the sports dollar was limited. The Leafs had Ballard alienating their fans and there was no basketball team here. And yes, there was the huge attendance increase when the Skydome opened. I also remember my company busing people to a couple of games then, with over half the people never having seen a live game before and most probably never again. They, like many others at the time, went to see the Dome, the game being secondary.

I'd love an owner like Ilich who is willing to spend first, and I'm no fan of the Rogers conglomerate. But I also think they have a better understanding of what is the true market for Blue Jays baseball than those of us who would like to think otherwise.

I mostly disagree. There are many baseball fans in Canada/southern Ontario, definitely enough to call the Jays a "big market" team, even if the number of baseball fans per capita is lower than in the States. Remember there's only one team in this country, so there's a huge population to draw on.

You bring up the Colorado Rockies attendance, but going into last year they had been in the playoffs two of the previous four years, including going to the WS as recently as 2007. It's hard to compare to a team like ours, where there not only has not been playoffs since 1993, they really haven't even come close, and playing in the vicious AL East makes it hard to even hope for it.

The lacrosse comparison doesn't really work because it is not one of the major sports. You could say the same thing about, say, cricket. You put a cricket team in Toronto but it probably won't draw much either because there really is no market for it. There IS a market for baseball though, that has been proven.

In regards to your last paragraph about them understanding the "true" market for (good) Jays baseball, I hope they do, because the last time this team was really good they were setting attendance records. And you can't lay all the credit on the new Skydome either, because they were packing them in at Exhibition Stadium as well, after the team became good.

Rich - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 01:35 PM EST (#251499) #

Toronto isn't a large market? Nonsense. The team draws flies because ownership has made it clear they aren't interested in investing in the club. Market size IS largely defined by population, and is also influenced by wealth and competition. Toronto is one of the largest, most affluent communities on the continent. There are plenty of people here who would pay good money to watch a contending baseball team.

Rogers got their ballpark for $25 million. Even noted cheapskate Jeffrey Loria kicked in over $100 million for his new playpen. The Jays' tv market spans the entire country with 30+ million people and no other MLB team to compete with for eyeballs. They own their own TV and radio channels, not to mention a not-so-minor telecommunications network. Add all these advantages to the fact that Rogers is among the wealthiest club owners in baseball and it's abundantly clear that the Jays could compete with the more successful AL teams and they choose not to.

Sure, some people came to the dome when it opened just to see it but the fact is people in this city WILL support a winning team. And that goes for baseball or pretty much any other sport. I 100% disagree that Toronto doesn't have baseball fans, but in any case it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the market. The problem is that it's been 20 years since any version of Blue Jays brass has acted any differently.

bball12 - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 02:03 PM EST (#251502) #

What person who has any knowledge whatsoever of the game of baseball would expect attendance to be healthy when:

1) You lose as many - if not more - games than you win. Year after year afyer year.

2) You put the likes of Juan Rivera/Corey Petterson/DeWayne Wise (just to name a few) in the starting lineup. Seriously - who is going to pay anything for that?

All the hype in the world won't overcome that type of mismanagement.

Not really all that complicated to figure out.

Sal - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 02:55 PM EST (#251504) #

"The team draws flies because ownership has made it clear they aren't interested in investing in the club"

What kind of "investment" are we talking about? Many people are pointing fingers without specifying what they would have done differently

Rich - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 03:08 PM EST (#251507) #

The Jays could have made an outrageous bid to get Darvish, and should have. Offers to Fielder and / or Pujols and possibly a closer. Heck, I would have kept Scott Downs but they were too cheap to pay him. It's not that they would have gotten all these guys it's that they don't even consider trying yet they have plenty of money to do so. I guess they are saving it so they can offer me a discount on my cable bill (oh wait, that just went up too).

hypobole - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 03:16 PM EST (#251509) #

Seattle hasn't played in the postseason since 2001 and consistently outdraw Toronto. Pittsburgh's drought is longer than ours and outdrew Toronto last year. The Cubs (who are large market) are supported whether they win or lose.

The Jays , owned by Rogers, did show they were trying in '06. They signed B. J. Ryan to the richest contract for a reliever at the time as well as A J Burnett, won 87 games and finished 18th in attendance.

We have had one losing season in the past 6.
We had the reigning home run champ and arguably the best player in baseball last year. Yeah, I wouldn't want to see Babe Ruth if Corey Patterson is in the starting lineup.

92-93 - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 03:16 PM EST (#251510) #

"I agree with you mostly, but a major difference now is the team's farm system is magnitudes better than it ever was under JP. Everyone has it as a top 3 system, and a lot of baseball people have it as the best system overall right now."

These rankings mean zilch, but if they're going to be touted they should be refuted too. The 2012 BA Handbook ranks the Jays farm system 5th, behind WSH TEX KC ARI. I believe that was before WSH traded for Gio and before TEX added Darvish. Soler & Cespedes are likely to have an impact on the rankings as well and I doubt the Jays will be players on either of them.

bball12 - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 03:30 PM EST (#251512) #

Rankings by the media really dont mean much at all.

When they are right, they tout it.

When they are wrong - they bury it and start all over again with new touts.

Silly game - but it does generate cash - so it has a purpose.

No different than the blogosphere - with every mouth in the world throwing in his 2 cents.

Problem is - most have never even seen the players play. They read a couple stats - read other mouth's stuff - and then designate who will be the next Chipper Jones.

I am now reading blog stuff that has the Blue Jays competing for the World Series in 2012.

The reality - the team looks better than it did at this time last year - and anytime you do not have a Rivera/Patterson/Wise on the field - your team is better. Even if you leave the position vacant.

That being said - we have lots of holes on defense - we have lots of holes with OBA - and we have alot of questions on the pitching staff and "bounce back" seasons

How that translates into a World Series appearance is beyond me.

greenfrog - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 03:32 PM EST (#251513) #

Nats have signed Jackson to a one-year deal rumored to be in the $8-12M range:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/nationals-to-sign-edwin-jackson.html

Ryan Day - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 03:33 PM EST (#251514) #

2) You put the likes of Juan Rivera/Corey Petterson/DeWayne Wise (just to name a few) in the starting lineup. Seriously - who is going to pay anything for that?

Lots of people. Even the best, and most popular, teams end up starting some terrible players. The Tigers let Brandon Inge play 100 games, and he made Juan Rivera look like an All-Star. Even the Yankees, who spend about a billion dollars on players, let Eric Chavez and Chris Dickerson into the starting lineup.

If you have enough good players, no one cares about the lousy ones. No one reminisces about the 1992 Jays and talks about how terrible Tabler & Griffin were.

And Dewayne Wise? he started all of seven games for the Jays. He had as much impact on Toronto's attendance as Pete Orr did on Philadelphia's.

greenfrog - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 03:39 PM EST (#251515) #

Rivera, Patterson, Nix and Reyes were just fill-ins during what was pretty clearly a rebuilding year. It's ridiculous to get worked up about their temporary presence on the roster.

jgadfly - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 03:53 PM EST (#251516) #

The one comment that intrigued me was Beeston's offer for AA and himself to respond to any and all questions sent to them. Perhaps, we should create a topic/post of "Questions for the Beest and AA from the Blogosphere" and see if we get any nibbles ?

bball12 - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 04:03 PM EST (#251518) #

Its obvious you just dont get it.

Never mind.

greenfrog - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 04:13 PM EST (#251519) #

Jgadfly, that's an interesting idea. It would be great if through discussion (and perhaps some sort of vote) we could distill all of our questions into a handful of focused and cogent (a.k.a. rational and reasonable) ones that we could then "present" to Beeston and AA on behalf of Bauxites. Who knows, they might just generate a nibble or two.

John Northey - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 04:20 PM EST (#251520) #

And in 2007, after the Jays signed BJ Ryan and AJ Burnett the team proceeded to spend exactly 3 days (3) in first place, the last of those being on April 28th. In the end they did finish 2nd but that was thanks to a last minute collapse by the Red Sox leaving the Jays 10 out of 1st place.

The Jays were 10 or more out in 2007 from August 30th to the end.

The last time the Jays were within 5 games was July 28th. Shortly after that (after a 5 game losing streak including 3 soul crushing losses to the division leading Yankees) they had a 6 game homestand with just 2 games sub-30k despite the opponents being the White Sox and Orioles (neither a big draw) and the team now being 9-9.5 games out at that stage.

Just before that losing streak they had 4 vs the Yankees during July and had over 40k per game for all 4 (50k for one), winning 3 of those 4 and losing one by just 1 run.

The fans are here and you put the team in eyeshot then they will come out. But if the team falls apart as soon as it gets close, or fails to stay close until September it should not be a shock to see support vanish.

Now, a better comparison would be to Baltimore. They've been 4th or 5th in all but one season since they last made the playoffs (1997) and that one year they were 3rd. 79 wins is their peak during that stretch and, like the Jays, they are trapped in the AL East.

Their owner has been known to spend freely at times ($93 mil peak payroll, over $80 mil the past 2 years) but poorly. Their park is a very nice one (the first of the retro-parks) and located well. They started at 42k per game in '98, hit the 30's in 2001, 20's in 2006, dipped below 2 mil a year in 2008, and now are at 21k per game. Last year the Jays beat the Orioles in attendance by about 60k, 2008 was the last time the Jays did better than the Orioles (2.39 mil here, 1.95 there).

In the 35 years both teams have existed the Jays have won 39 more games, averaging about 83k fewer fans per year. In the 14 years since the Orioles last made the playoffs the Jays have had more fans in the seats just 4 times. However, those 4 times happened in the last 6 years despite the Orioles outspending the Jays in 4 of the 6 years.

Now, this is kind of like saying 'my kid struck out less than yours did' but it is the most direct comparison available. Neither team had any real hope in any of those years once the summer arrived. Both had to look up to the Yankees & Red Sox blowing millions while the Rays were the smartest kid on the block.

The fans are here and still are here despite the nearly 20 years of frustration. All we need is one season where the Jays are in eyeshot come the final week and you'll see the crowds come back. Toronto is desperate for a winner (as evidenced by the big crowds for lacrosse) and hockey & basketball are not going to provide it. Should the Jays become playoff contenders again we will see 30-40k+ a game with many sellouts. Should they keep it up for a few years then seats will be hard to get again.

Sal - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 06:33 PM EST (#251522) #

"The Jays could have made an outrageous bid to get Darvish, and should have. Offers to Fielder and / or Pujols and possibly a closer. Heck, I would have kept Scott Downs but they were too cheap to pay him. It's not that they would have gotten all these guys it's that they don't even consider trying yet they have plenty of money to do so. I guess they are saving it so they can offer me a discount on my cable bill (oh wait, that just went up too)."

The Pujols and Fielder signings are investments that a lot of fans, including myself, are happy they didn't make. These are most likely extremely bad investments long term. Darvish was a blind bid and any opinion stated now is in hindsight.

We were rebuilding last year and keeping Downs would have been a very irresponsible decision. We got Jacob Anderson and Daniel Norris for him which, I am sure, many are extremely happy about.

The Blue Jays are investing responsibly and are being smart about it. Remember, it has been only two years since rebuilding started, and it is a testament to how well the team is run that we already have a young team that is only a couple of pieces away from being a playoff team. I never expected such a fast rebuild in April 2010.

[ Reply to This ]

Rich - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 08:28 PM EST (#251525) #

Sal, reasonable people can disagree about the merits of one free agent or the other. My point is that the Jays aren't serious players for ANY elite talent on the market, year in and year out, despite the fact that they have a deep-pocketed owner. The Jays act like they can't afford to after elite talent on the open market but they can and choose not to. This is selling the fans short.

Shane - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 10:25 PM EST (#251526) #

The Jays act like they can't afford to after elite talent on the open market but they can and choose not to. This is selling the fans short. Well, they seemingly went after Beltran for a deal larger than 2yr/$26 MM.

TamRa - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 10:39 PM EST (#251527) #

I am not. I am saying it is better than last year's.

Romero, Morrow, Cecil, Alvarez, Jennifer Lopez is better than Romero, Morrow, Cecil, Reyes, Last Year's Drabek
___
But how much better? Enough to win 15 more games?
________________________________

that bar is far too high. 10 more games and you are VERY much a contender, 12 and you are a WC favorite.

in fact, 8 more games means you can spend September hopeful.

So, is it good enough to win 10 more games?

I shall analyze (as with all my napkin-back discussions, this could be hard to follow - gird up your loins):

For the sake of the discussion, I shall assume Romero's turn is still Romero's

Morrow's is still Morrow's

Cecil's is Cecil (including the pitchers who filled in for him during his Vegas vacation)

Reyes and his successors is McGowan, (with the understanding that if/when McGowan is hurt it's Drabek or maybe Hutch)
and Drabek and his successors is Alvarez (the last two are kind of reversed since Alvarez had 10 of the Slot 5 starts last year anyway)

Also we have to note that the opposing team and etc will obviously be different this year but I'll get to that shortly.

Slot #1: Romero started Opening day and had 32 starts. The team went 18-14 in games he started.

Slot #2: Listch unofficially filled this for 3 starts before Morrow came off the DL and held it the rest of the year getting 30 starts. The Jays went 18-15 in those games.

Slot #3: Was initially Cecil's for 4 starts; when he was demoted (around the same time Morrow was activated) Listch slid into his spot and took 5 starts, then Villianueva took it and went for 7 turns then Cecil was back and he finished out the year in this turn posting 16 starts. Collectively 15-17

Slot #4: Reyes had 20 turns before they gave up on him, followed by 4 apiece from Mills, Perez, and McGowan in that order. 15-17

Slot #5: Initially Drabek for 14, Stewart for 3, Villianueva for 6 and Alvarez for 10. 15-18

Romero is directly equivilant so I'll skip Slot 1.

In #2, Listch had an ERA of 3.63 in the first three and combined with Morrow's work produces a 4.62 ERA for this slot.

Slot #3 combined for a 4.69 ERA

#4 works out to 6.04

#5 to 4.71
______

Morrow's xFIP was around 3.5 both of the last two seasons. It's safe to assume it's POSSIBLE that the ERA for #2 could drop by one full run. The two pitchers combined for 196.2 IP, and they gave up 101 earned runs, if we assume an ERA of 3.52 for the same number of IP that's 77 runs or 24 runs saved. that's not even assuming Morrow actually pitches better, just that he gets the results that the internals suggest.

#3 is 193 1/3 IP and 101 ER; Cecil's ERA in 2010 was 4.22 and his xFIP in 2011 was 4.41. His ERA after the recall was 4.30 and I'm guessing his xFIP over that span was similar to the 4.15 he had in 2010. If his ERA in 2012 for the same number of innings was 4.14 he'd give up 89 runs, saving the team 12.

#4 164 IP, 110 earned runs. Alvarez's 2011 ERA, applied to the same # of IP works out to 64 runs, or 46 saved.

#5 is the hardest to figure, so I'll just assume that McGowan and his successors (if any) match last years results for that turn.

Net runs saved (potentially) 82
----
In the 2011 bullpen, there were thrown 494 IP, yielding 213 runs for a 3.88 ERA

295.66 of those innings were thrown by pitchers no longer in the organization, or those who do not project to be in the 'pen on opening day. they gave up 152 runs. (4.63)

The remaining 198.33 were pitched by relievers still potentially available. they gave up 61 runs. (2.77)

So, we need to account for the departing pitchers. the three imports threw 184 innings in 2011, and gave up 49 runs, for a 2.40 ERA

that leaves 111.33 innings to be distributed across the new pen. Combining the results from 2011 for those two subset yields an ERA of 2.59, and that ERA applied to 111.33 IP works out to 32 earned runs.

61 + 49 + 32 is 142 or 71 runs less than last year.

that's a total of 153 fewer opposition runs scored than 2011

That drives the runs allowed all the way down to 608 which is second best in the 2011 league. That is, even for me, ridiculously optimistic and it won't be THAT good. It puts the differential at +135 which is almost exactly the same as last year's Red Sox.

This doesn't define what WILL happen of course, but it is a conservative - no, really - suggestion of what these pitchers CAN do.

It doesn't factor in that if the starters are that successful they will throw more Innings, or that the defense stands to be considerably improved, it's simply a "quick and dirty" look at potential ERAs

It also doesn't look at the potential for the offense to be somewhat better at all.

Of course, romero and alvarez could regress, Morrow and Cecil could fail to progress, McGowan could blow up in March and his replacement struggle, any number of reversals could befall the bullpen.

As is often noted, the problem here is not lack of talent, but just a lot of uncertainties. but we tend to focus more on the Jays' uncertainties and not those of other teams, which may or may not be as numerous.

The conclusion of this whole exercise in time wasting - yeah, I firmly believe this pitching staff is capable of carrying their weight on a 91, 92 win team.

I have no idea if the WILL - but they certainly CAN, and without asking for any wild leaps of improvement from anyone.

TamRa - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 11:45 PM EST (#251530) #

"I'll be very interested to see what BP's projections on Alvarez look like. 150 innings with an ERA below 4 seems pretty optimistic to me."
----
what do you think would be "too optimistic" a projection for Michael Pineda?

The only difference in sample size is 108 IP, and he's moving to what most would consider a considerably tougher environment.

TamRa - Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 11:53 PM EST (#251531) #

"I'm not particularly high on either Cecil or Hughes, "

Here's another example:

Pitcher A at 23-

76 IP, 93 H, 57 ER, 41 BB, 72 K, 6.75 ERA, 1.76 WHIP, 69 ERA+

Pitcher B at 23-
78.2 IP, 87 H, 53 ER, 55 BB, 51 K, 6.06 ERA, 1.81 WHIP, 70 ERA+

B is, of course, Kyle Drabek
A is Clay Buchholz.

Yes, you worry a bit more when the problem is missing the zone so badly but still, food for thought.

TamRa - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 12:01 AM EST (#251532) #

"1) You lose as many - if not more - games than you win. Year after year afyer year."

In the last six years the jays have finished .500 once, and under .500 once.
------------
"You put the likes of Juan Rivera/Corey Petterson/DeWayne Wise (just to name a few) in the starting lineup. Seriously - who is going to pay anything for that? "

Look at the Tigers.

Ramon Santiago, Brandon Inge, Brennan Beosch...weak players on good teams are more common than most realize.

92-93 - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 02:07 AM EST (#251536) #

"The only difference in sample size is 108 IP"

What about all their other, actual differences? Like the fact that Pineda is probably 5 inches and 75 pounds bigger than Alvarez, that he's a year and a half younger, that he throws much harder, and that he already has a developed breaking ball? I'm pretty confused by the comparison.

katman - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 02:35 AM EST (#251537) #

If it's over $10M, the Nats can have Jackson. If it's under $10M, this is the sort of deal where I agree with the Bauxites who pushed for the Jays to do it.

At this point, I'd say... the Jays should really sign Oswalt, and solidify their rotation for 2012. Otherwise, there are so many chancy pieces that 2012 could be a really, really long year. Though, on the bright (?) side, we'd finally have a pretty good handle on Cecil, Morrow, Alvarez, and McGowan, plus a few of the kids.

Is that information worth essentially writing off the year, and finishing below .500? To me, that's the question. And yes, I've read the arguments above. All of which use stats in isolation - but this is a team sport, with a big mental element. Variability/ non-dependability in key areas has a way of affecting the team as a whole. There isn't a stat for it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And the division is better this year. So, the gang we have now I see as a sub-.500 team in 2012.

did we do a predictions thread? Because there's mine, for all to see.

greenfrog - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 06:05 AM EST (#251538) #

"B is, of course, Kyle Drabek
A is Clay Buchholz."

I thought we were debating the merits of Cecil versus Hughes and whether Bauxites were overrating Hughes and underrating Cecil...? I guess you've moved on.

I remember Buchholz's down year at age 23. It was surprising given his outstanding minor-league numbers (significantly better than Drabek's across the board, including WHIP, K/9 IP, BB/9 IP, H/9 IP, HR/9 IP and K/BB).

In their age-23 seasons in the majors, both pitchers suffered something of a meltdown. Drabek had 6.3 BB/9 IP, while Buchholz had 4.9 BB/9 IP in his down year at age 23. The following year, Buchholz re-established himself, first at AAA, going 7-2 (2.36), 99 IP, 67 H, 7 HR, 30 BB, 89 K, and then rebounding strongly in the majors. While control is still somewhat of a concern (3.7 BB/9 IP career in the majors), Buchholz clearly got back on track in his age-24 season.

Like Buchholz in 2008-09, Drabek in 2011-12 looks like a good buy-low candidate. But in a head-to-head comparison, I would again give the edge to the other team's pitcher (in this case Buchholz), who had superior minor-league numbers and who did turn it around in the majors. Drabek still has to effect that turnaround. While Buchholz (like Halladay) offers hope that a young pitcher can rebound from a very poor year early on, doing so is by no means a sure thing.

I'm happy that AA has refused to sell low on Drabek, though. He has great stuff and is young enough to turn it around and become a solid SP.

Matthew E - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 09:19 AM EST (#251540) #

What about all their other, actual differences? Like the fact that Pineda is probably 5 inches and 75 pounds bigger than Alvarez, that he's a year and a half younger, that he throws much harder, and that he already has a developed breaking ball?

Time out.

Pineda throws "much harder" than Alvarez?

I didn't think anybody threw much harder than Alvarez. I thought that was the whole point of Alvarez!

92-93 - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 09:34 AM EST (#251541) #

Mike Green - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 09:53 AM EST (#251542) #

I like both Pineda and Alvarez, but their projections would be quite different. Aside from the scouting differences 92-93 alludes to, their performance is quite different. While Alvarez throws hard, his game at this point is built on efficiency while Pineda is a classic power pitcher, but one who at this stage gives up more home runs than one would like. Pineda will strike out many more and give up many more home runs than Alvarez and likely walk a few more.

Alvarez would be more sensitive to ground ball defence- his numbers would probably be quite a bit better if the right side of the infield was Robbie Alomar and John Olerud rather than Kelly Johnson and Adam Lind. Pineda may find that he has quite a few fly balls flying out of Yankee Stadium. The interesting question is how they adapt, and that is something that no projection system can really tell you.

greenfrog - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 10:50 AM EST (#251543) #

Alvarez avg FB: 93.3 MPH
Pineda avg FB: 94.7 MPH

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5669&position=P
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5372&position=P

Assuming I'm reading these charts correctly. There are different values under pitch velocity for vFA, vFT, vFC - not sure what this means. The numbers quoted above are set out in parentheses under "pitch type" - I assume they mean average velo.

And yes, Alvarez and Pineda are two very different pitchers, as Mike points out. For one thing:

Pineda: FB 62.2%, SL 31.5%, CH 6.3%
Alvarez: FB 71.8%, CH 18.3%, SL 9.9%

I would love to see Alvarez in front of a great infield defense (including a great defensive catcher).

John Northey - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 11:42 AM EST (#251544) #

An interesting thing Mike Green points out by accident there.

In 1993 the team had a killer defense. Infield was weak at 3B with Sprague (converted catcher) but strong elsewhere with Tony Fernandez, Roberto Alomar and John Olerud - all multiple gold glove winners (Olerud 3, Fernandez 4, Alomar 10) while the outfield had Devon White (7 GG) and Rickey Henderson (1 GG) plus Joe Carter (never won a GG but did play a lot in CF pre-Toronto). Funny that all 4 infielders were in All-Star games at some point (Sprague with Pittsburgh in '99). The regular outfielders all made all-star teams at times too (Henderson, White, Carter) as did the DH (Molitor). Of the lineup only Pat Borders never made it to an all-star game (although he did get a WS MVP in '92).

Wow, looking at Borders he played until he was 42 (2005) but those last 3 years he had an OPS+ of 39 over 239 PA. Now _that_ is bad.

So the 1993 team had a killer defense and all-stars at nearly every position but just a 103 ERA+ - boy was that staff weak in retrospect (imagine that staff with some of the defenses we've seen lately).

Anders - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 12:18 PM EST (#251546) #

Well if you want we can quibble over the word "much", but Pineda's fastball is one of the hardest in the league, right up there with Price & Verlander. He gained substantial velocity as he grew into his body after his 2009 injury. I don't think there's any reason to compare him to Henderson Alvarez other than them both coming from Latin America.

At the risk of misinterpreting, I think the point was not so much that they were the same pitcher, just that their performance in 2011 was similar.

You can basically find a comparable to illustrate your point about anything, goodness knows there have to be some 25,000 people who have played in the majors at this point, so I am not sure how instructive it is just to pick someone. BBRef similarity scores do an alright job, but I wouldn't necessarily rely on them for their predictive value. Alvarez doesn't have enough data for one, and interestingly Pineda's through 22 are Josh Beckett and Roy Halladay (Jesse Litsch is on there too, go figure.)

With that being said, I am still very optimistic about Alvarez. He doesn't throw as hard as Pineda, who is near the top of the leader board, but still nothing to complain about. And 92-93, Alvarez is 15 months younger than Pineda, not the other way around.

92-93 - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 12:25 PM EST (#251547) #

Wait, 1990 comes after 1989? Crap.

chips - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 12:25 PM EST (#251548) #

Regarding Katman's comment.

"At this point, I'd say... the Jays should really sign Oswalt, and solidify their rotation for 2012."

mlbtraderumors reported today that Oswalt said no to the Jay's. Location of team is the most important factor for him.

It's easy to comment, "sign this player or that player", but they have to want to come here to play. Some may, but many others won't.

John Northey - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 12:35 PM EST (#251549) #

Until the Jays are playoff contenders signing free agents will be tough. Getting BJ Ryan and AJ Burnett was a domino situation - get one to sign on the dotted line and you should be able to convince the other. However, it still took a lot of money and years and giving player rather than team options.

Back in the 80's it was the same - trades were needed, not free agents until the Jays were consistently near the top and even then they needed trades more.

greenfrog - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 12:40 PM EST (#251550) #

If I were Alvarez, I would be eating, sleeping and breathing breaking ball this off-season. If he can solidify that pitch, he's going to be a very valuable SP.

TamRa - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 02:40 PM EST (#251557) #

"What about all their other, actual differences? Like the fact that Pineda is probably 5 inches and 75 pounds bigger than Alvarez, that he's a year and a half younger, that he throws much harder, and that he already has a developed breaking ball? I'm pretty confused by the comparison."

Size doesn't always matter, younger is an edge to Alvarez, the difference in their fastball isn't all THAT much, and Alvarez has MUCH better control.

Plus, Alvarez will be in the same park and division his previous numbers were accomplished in and Pineda won't.

The comparison is not to say "look, these two guys are very much alike" - rather, it's to say "look, these two guys are both rookies of a similar level of experience, do you consider both equally prone to regression?"

-----------------------
"I thought we were debating the merits of Cecil versus Hughes and whether Bauxites were overrating Hughes and underrating Cecil...? I guess you've moved on. "

Not at all, various illustrations of the same point. Cecil v. Hughes, Drabek v. Buchholz, Alvarez v. Pineda - all different illustrations of the same basic point....many jays fans seem to not judge Jays players by the same measure they judge players on other teams.
------------------------
"doing so is by no means a sure thing."

Nothing involving pitching (or baseball in general) is even close to a sure thing.

dalimon5 - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 02:46 PM EST (#251558) #

Hey Bauxites,

Long time lurker, minimal poster. This year I'm looking to buy season tickets for the Jays. I really believe they're close. I'm looking for anyone who's interested in sharing season tickets. Ideally, I'm looking for seats behind home plate with a 50/50 split. That's roughly 40 games a year. Can I get an idea of anyone who may be interested? I'm also open to further splits. say 3 or 4 ways. Let me know if anyone is interested. If not, no problems.

Thanks again!

greenfrog - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 03:18 PM EST (#251561) #

"Nothing involving pitching (or baseball in general) is even close to a sure thing."

Sure, but Drabek's chances of attaining Buchholz's post-meltdown level of performance is lessened by (1) the fact that Buchholz's minor-league stats are a pretty significant cut above Drabek's; and (2) Drabek's particularly awful 2011. It's fine to both be hopeful about Jays prospects *and* face facts about probabilities of success. The latter doesn't negate the former.

John Northey - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 03:37 PM EST (#251565) #

Just because player A had a great rebound from a basement doesn't mean player B will. So true.

For the most extreme, Roy Halladay set a record for worst ERA over 50+ innings in a season then proceeded to almost immediately become the Cy Young Halladay we all know. I sure wouldn't expect any other pitcher to do the same if they had a 10+ ERA, even if they got a personal pitching coach the following season.

greenfrog - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 04:03 PM EST (#251567) #

I wonder if Drabek could eventually succeed in short relief. One inning, air it out with his FB and cutter, drop the hammer, focus completely on a few batters. If he could develop the right lockdown mentality, he could do it (assuming his control/command comes back).

Ryan Day - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 06:29 PM EST (#251572) #

Manny Ramirez is apparently considering an offer from the Blue Jays.

Signing Manny seems like a pretty terrible idea at this point, but it might make life more interesting.

John Northey - Friday, February 03 2012 @ 08:53 PM EST (#251574) #

Eh, it would be a backup to Lind basically. Manny has to miss the first 50 games, then at that point we should know if EE and Lind can play well. If they both are then Manny becomes trade bait, if not he can step in and fill in for one of them (at DH while EE or Lind is at first). Odds are any contract would be non-guaranteed thus no real risk.

TamRa - Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 03:57 AM EST (#251578) #

" It's fine to both be hopeful about Jays prospects *and* face facts about probabilities of success. The latter doesn't negate the former."

Indeed. but it's also true Drabek does not HAVE to replicate Buchholz's level of success to be an improvement over what the jays were getting at the back of the rotation last year.

The eternal question is "is this rotation good enough for the team to add another 10 wins?"

Given the better bullpen, the better defense, and the potential for better offense (Lawrie all year, Rasmus being better than Patterson/Davis/etc, Johnson being better than Hill was) the rotation doesn't have to carry a 10 win improvment, just do it's part and not give any progress back.

so you want Romero to hold in the same range, you want Morrow and Cecil to take a step forward (Morrow less so because he hasn't actually been bad), Alvarez to not regress too much, and whoever pitches in the fifth turn to be a good bit better than last year's offering - You don't really need McGowan/Drabek/Hutch - whoever it is - to turn into a Cy candidate back there.

I have virtually no doubt that the 2012 rotation will be measurably and note-ably better than the 2011 squad was. If Drabek's not better, then he won't be part of it, but someone will be. other than Laffey, all the stop-gap filler is gone now. The candidates have real talent.

greenfrog - Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 11:52 AM EST (#251582) #

I don't know, it sounds to me like the rotation as seen through a romantic haze - sort of the "if everything breaks right" that has been the off-season refrain for years now. Yes, the rotation could be better in 2012, but on paper, it still looks thin: Romero was very good in 2011 but is not among the league's very best; Morrow is still unproven (especially as a #2); Cecil may be in the best shape of his life, but he has been mediocre to date (career ERA+ 92); and while McGowan and Drabek have a lot of promise, there are question marks surrounding their health and/or effectiveness. Alvarez is off to a great start (I think he'll be successful in 2012) but is still unproven and will likely be subject to an innings cap.

There are reinforcements coming (Hutch, McGuire, Jenkins) but they are probably not ready yet and will likely need time to adjust to the majors in any case. Most of the Jays' top pitching prospects are in the lower minors.

greenfrog - Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 12:06 PM EST (#251583) #

All that said, I do like the direction the team is going in. And as I've said before, I think AA is doing a brilliant job. But to really have a legit shot at contention in 2012, I think the team is two or three pieces short (frontline starter and solid LF/DH/1B bat). Had the team acquired Darvish or Latos, I would be more sanguine about their chances).

Parker - Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 02:24 PM EST (#251587) #

Ramirez has to be on the 25-man to serve his suspension, right? Even if he was FREE, would it be worth tying up a roster spot with zero value for almost a third of the season on the extremely remote chance that a 40-year-old PED-free Ramirez can produce more than a platoon of Lind/EE?

Parker - Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 02:30 PM EST (#251588) #

Check that. He'll actually be 41 by the time he's eligible to play a game. Of his BBRF historical comparables only Ted Williams was even still in the majors at age 41, and Manny Ramirez is no Ted Williams.

TamRa - Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 07:56 PM EST (#251592) #

I don't know, it sounds to me like the rotation as seen through a romantic haze - sort of the "if everything breaks right" that has been the off-season refrain for years now.

It's the off-season refrain for EVERY team EVERY year.

No team has the resources to deal with it if 2 or 3 of their counted-on starters go south.

Take one year ago today, if you were a Yankee fan you have to squint REAL hard to say "if Hughes does well, and Garcia is ok and AJ & Colon doesn't suck TOO bad maybe our offense can carry them."

Hughes sucked, but Nova didn't, and Garcia and Colon did far more than anyone might reasonably have expected.

That's just one example.

One year ago, if you are a Rays fan, you are asking yourself how bad it's going to hurt you if James Shields repeats his 5+ ERA, what happens if Hellickson take a little bit to get going in the majors (like Drabek did, as it turned out) and whether or not Wade Davis would step up (he didn't)

Where would they have been if Shields had had another bad year and Hellickson had struggled like Drabek did?

there was exactly zero proof one year ago today that that wouldn't happen.

In fact, take a look at the 91 win TB staff last year, and compare it to reasonable expectations for 2012 in Toronto.

Romero had a higher ERA+ than Shields

Morrow is not getting the results of Price, but it's not a wild idea that he could pitch as well as Price did in 2011

Cecil was marginally better than Wade Davis

Alvarez pitched as well as Hellickson though in a much smaller sample

Can McGowan put up a 92 ERA+ to match what Jeff Neimann gave them? I don't see why not.

there's no need for rose-colored glasses to see that as POSSIBLE, it's not outlandish at all.

but that doesn't mean anyone is asking for everything to go right, unless you think everything went right for the Rays, in which case i have to ask - why can everything go right for them and never for us?

greenfrog - Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 08:31 PM EST (#251593) #

"It's the off-season refrain for EVERY team EVERY year."

Only in the most superficial sense. The fact is that some teams do have better rosters than others. There is room for debate as to which teams are currently the most competitive, but all teams are not created equal. LAA has a better chance of making the playoffs than Houston does (ditto Texas over Oakland, TB over Baltimore, etc). Yes, if "everything breaks right" the White Sox could make the playoffs. And if everything breaks right the Yankees could too. But this doesn't mean the two teams are equally strong.

greenfrog - Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 08:56 PM EST (#251595) #

"No team has the resources to deal with it if 2 or 3 of their counted-on starters go south."

I'm not sure what the significance of this comment is. It doesn't change the fact that some pitching staffs are better than others. And I'm not sure the Rays wouldn't be in a position to cope if, say, Niemann and Davis went down with injuries or performance issues. They would still have Price/Shields/Moore/Hellickson/McGee/Torres - possibly still the best rotation in the majors.

"Where would they have been if Shields had had another bad year and Hellickson had struggled like Drabek did?"

The Rays had all but conceded contention by the July trade deadline, when they were virtually out of the race. I think their FO viewed 2011 as a developmental year (keeping Moore and Jennings in the minors until late in the year), but they excelled nonetheless and made the playoffs. I guess if Shields had struggled they could have recalled Moore (or maybe Torres) earlier or tried McGee in the rotation. And Hellickson (career 2.1 BB/9 IP and 9.8 K/9 IP in the minors) was never likely to struggle the way Drabek (3.8 BB/9 IP career) did.

Thomas - Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 10:57 PM EST (#251596) #

No team has the resources to deal with it if 2 or 3 of their counted-on starters go south

I'm with Greenfrog. Not only is that incorrect in that some teams do have the resources to deal with 2 or 3 of their counted-on starters going south (or at least are far more likely to be able to deal with that than others), but it also ignores the fact that some teams are far more likely to have 2 or 3 of their counted-on starters going south.

Do you really think the odds are equal that two pitchers in Tampa and Toronto's rotation, as they're projected on opening day, will go under perform or spend much of the year injured? I mean, a GM couldn't go into a season with a rotation of Bedard, Harden, Mark Prior, Brandon Webb and Aaron Cook and then, when three of them are on the DL on June 30, throw up his hands and state innocently that, well, no team can deal with more of their rotation suffering injuries.

greenfrog - Sunday, February 05 2012 @ 01:24 PM EST (#251600) #

I might be a bit off in my SP depth chart for the Rays (failed to mention Alex Cobb). Maybe something like:

Price
Shields
Hellickson
Moore
Davis
Niemann
Cobb
Torres

However you slice it, that is a great front four with pretty impressive depth 5-8. Not sure if I'm missing anyone. Maybe Alex Colome if you're willing to count a 22-year-old who just made it to AA. Jake McGee looks interesting but seems to have switched from starting pitching to a relief role over the last year.

TamRa - Sunday, February 05 2012 @ 03:52 PM EST (#251601) #

"Do you really think the odds are equal that two pitchers in Tampa and Toronto's rotation, as they're projected on opening day, will go under perform or spend much of the year injured? "
-----------
Not identical, but similar.

Price underpreformed hisskill set last year (even though he was still above average)

Shields was a mess in 2010 which is not the distant past

Moore is a rookie and no one know whether a rookie will dominate or not

Hellickson got good results but the secondary stats don't support those results and there'as obvious potential for them to normalize

Neimann and Davis are, to this point, "just guys." Not the sort you count on to carry too much of the load.

WILL these things happen? I dunno - but i'm certainly not predicting it, just noting the possibility.

Romero could regress towards his xFIP, Morrow could fail to progress towards his, Cecil could not step up, Alvarez could regress due to youth and inexperience, McGowan could fail to make it out of ST, Drabek might never get his groove back.

All likewise possible - but i don't see that one set is dramatically more likely than the other to happen.

As they say, "it's why they play the games"

I don't disagree with your last sentence, (about Harden et al) but there's no one in either set here of that sort except McGowan

greenfrog - Sunday, February 05 2012 @ 08:12 PM EST (#251602) #

Well, if the Rays have an A/A- rotation on paper, they could of course meet, exceed or fall short of that level. If the Jays have (depending on whether you believe in grade inflation - I don't) a B- rotation, same deal. It is possible that the stars could align and the Jays' quintet could surpass the Rays' group. Not likely IMO, but you do have to play the games.

State Of The Franchise | 155 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.