Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

The first thing I look at when assessing the immediate prospects for a team in the coming season is the quality of its core. I define the core of a team as the players whose performance would be most difficult to replace. I settled on seven as the number of players in the core, even though stronger teams tend to have a larger core and weaker teams a smaller one.

I like to keep this a subjective exercise, which hopefully will lead to an interesting discussion as other bauxites produce their own lists and justifications. The only qualifier is that players must have at least some major league experience. I will start here with what I consider the core talent of each team in the AL East.

Baltimore Orioles:

The basement dwellers have had a difficult time converting prospects into quality major leaguers for a long time now.

Adam Jones, Matt Wieters, JJ Hardy, Nick Markakis, Mark Reynolds, Zach Britton, Tsuyoshi Wada
(Others) Jim Johnson, Jake Arrieta, Wei-Yin Chen, Brian Roberts

Once upon a time Roberts was by far the best player on the team, but injuries and his status as an over-30 middle infielder have bumped him off the list.

Boston Red Sox:

Dustin Pedroia, Adrian Gonzalez, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Josh Beckett, Kevin Youkilis, Carl Crawford
(others) David Ortiz, Clay Buchholz, Daniel Bard

The Sox' core seven is wall to wall all-star. The most difficult decision was to include the injured Crawford over the aging but productive David Ortiz

New York Yankees:

Robinson Cano, Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia, Curtis Granderson. Mariano Rivera, Alex Rodriguez, Brett Gardner
(others) Michael Pineda, Ivan Nova, Nick Swisher, Derek Jeter, Russell Martin, Hiroki Kuroda

The first 5 spots are locks, but the last two are up for grabs. It is without doubt an aging core - but we have seen the Yankees in this position before and they are always able to produce that one key player along with a handful of free agents to revitalize the team.

Purely on potential one would have to include Pineda, but he did not perform especially well in a pitcher's park. Burnett should be an ace pitcher but has underperformed and I'm not yet a believer in Nova.

Tampa Bay Rays:

Evan Longoria, David Price, James Shields, Jeremy Hellickson, Desmond Jennings, Matt Moore, Ben Zobrist
(others) BJ Upton, Wade Davis, Matt Joyce, Sean Rodriguez

No team in the league has a larger share of talent invested in their starting rotation than the Rays. All seven are homegrown products. BJ Upton should be on the list but he has only rarely lived up the promise of his impressive athleticism.

Toronto Blue Jays:

Jose Bautista, Brett Lawrie, Ricky Romero, Yunel Escobar, Sergio Santos, Colby Rasmus, Kelly Johnson, Brandon Morrow
(others) Adam Lind, JP Arencibia, Henderson Alvarez, Brett Cecil

The first four are easy. Santos is included because of his remarkable strikeout rate. Morrow has shown flashes of brilliance and gets the nod over the talented but flawed Lind and Arencibia, I expect Alvarez to be on the list next year.

Posted by robertdudek on Saturday, February 11 2012 @ 11:26 AM EST.

Core Talent | 106 comments | Create New Account

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

Alex Obal - Saturday, February 11 2012 @ 12:28 PM EST (#251761) #

Not that it matters, but If the players are in order I'd probably put Sabathia and Granderson well ahead of Teixeira. I might also put Wieters ahead of all the Baltimore guys. Also, I might rank Zobrist over some or all of the pitchers - Tampa has been the easiest pitchers' park in the AL three years running, and his versatility is a nice intangible to have.

My adopted NL team:

New York Mets

David Wright, Johan Santana?, Lucas Duda, Ike Davis, Andres Torres, Ruben Tejada, Daniel Murphy
Others: Frank Francisco, Josh Thole, Jason Bay, Matt Harvey

Duda, Davis, Murphy and Bay are all first basemen stuck in the non-DH league. If they all stay healthy, the Mets will hit, but the defense is going to be really bad. I'm buying Duda; he hits with authority and has a much shorter swing than, say, Josh Phelps. I also love Tejada. No power, but he was an extremely tough out for a 21-year-old last year, and an above-average fielding SS to boot. However, I mostly love pitchers, and I am dreading the prospect of watching this team try to keep runs off the board.

Alex Obal - Saturday, February 11 2012 @ 12:32 PM EST (#251762) #

I also totally agree with the Jays' seven. I would consider Alvarez #8, but I'm not sure who I would bump for him before seeing whether he finds a breaking ball (or needs one?).

Alex Obal - Saturday, February 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM EST (#251763) #

One more. On deeper contemplation, the Jays' core is particularly agreeable because it has eight players. My instinct would be to punt Johnson rather than Morrow or Rasmus. I'll shut up now. Welcome back, Robert.

Mike Green - Saturday, February 11 2012 @ 04:00 PM EST (#251776) #

The Jays' effective core is, in my view, the first four players. Santos may or may not be one. Johnson would be difficult to replace because the organization is short both on middle infielders and batters who are able to reach base. By the end of the year, it may very well be that Alvarez, Thames, d'Arnaud and Gose are all part of the core. I would guess that two will be.

92-93 - Saturday, February 11 2012 @ 04:13 PM EST (#251777) #

Under the stated criteria I understand Johnson > Arencibia in light of d'Arnaud, but I don't agree with this method. Arencibia is a core piece with 5 more years of control at affordable prices; Johnson is a 30 year old on a 1 year deal and it's been suggested the Jays were disappointed when he accepted arbitration as they were looking at other solutions for 2B and wanted the draft pick. There was a reason AA talked about LF the day KJ accepted arb.

robertdudek - Saturday, February 11 2012 @ 05:30 PM EST (#251780) #

I like Arencibia more than most, it seems, but I am looking at a player who has barely more than a year in the majors, a low OBP with concerns about him sticking at catcher. And he's already 26. And that's after a year in which he exceeded most people's expectations.

If JP is one of the core seven, the Jays are really more pretender than contender at this point.

greenfrog - Saturday, February 11 2012 @ 06:40 PM EST (#251782) #

Baseball Prospectus ranks a team's top ten talents 25 and under (born 4/1/86 or later), which I suppose is a way of looking at what the core might consist of within the next few years. Here is this year's list:

1. Brett Lawrie, 3B
2. Travis d�Arnaud, C
3. Jake Marisnick, OF
4. Henderson Alvarez, RHP
5. Kyle Drabek, RHP
6. Daniel Norris, LHP
7. Colby Rasmus, OF
8. Travis Snider, OF
9. Anthony Gose, OF
10. Noah Syndergaard, RHP

I might have Hutch and Nicolino ahead of Drabek and Snider, but I can see the argument for preferring the latter. Either way, it's an interesting exercise.

Anders - Sunday, February 12 2012 @ 03:01 AM EST (#251786) #

Baseball Prospectus ranks a team's top ten talents 25 and under (born 4/1/86 or later), which I suppose is a way of looking at what the core might consist of within the next few years

It's kind of ridiculous that Colby Rasmus is so low, if one considers the probability of major league success as one of the variables.

Richard S.S. - Sunday, February 12 2012 @ 11:10 AM EST (#251789) #

To one degree or another, people are either optimists or pessimists, there is no middle ground. Optimists like to be right, while pessimists need to be right. And then there's me.

The Core: Jose Bautista (RF), Ricky Romero (LH/SP), Brett Lawrie (3B), Yunel Escobar (SS), Sergio Santos (CL). Jays have these players long term, so consider them Core.

Thought to be in the Core: Colby Rasmus (LH/CF), Brandon Morrow (SP), Kelly Johnson (LH/2B). These players were acquired to be in the Core, some might make it.

Could be in the Core: Adam Lind (LH/1B), Henderson Alvarez (SP), J.P. Arencibia (C). Brett Cecil (LH/SP). These players can be on the way in to the Core, or on the way out of the Core.

There is no ranking order to these lists, just groups 1, 2 and 3. I cannot see anyone else making their way here. The Bullpen is very good, but no-one else here is good enough to be core. The most encouraging thing about this team is there are no re-treads occupying a roster spot.

ayjackson - Sunday, February 12 2012 @ 11:20 AM EST (#251790) #

Is that a sense of humour I see creeping out of that post, Richard??

Fair assessment of the core and potential core. My only objection is Kelly Johnson. If he has a rebound year, as I think he will, AA will take the two draft picks and run. If he continues his downward trend, AA will just run.

hypobole - Sunday, February 12 2012 @ 12:00 PM EST (#251791) #

ayj - how high will Kelly Johnson have to rebound for AA to offer him $12 million plus to get the draft picks? I agree it MAY happen, I just see it as a highly unlikely scenario.

ayjackson - Sunday, February 12 2012 @ 12:28 PM EST (#251792) #

KJ will be looking for a three year deal. I think he saw Toronto as a good park to try to rebound. An .800 OPS would easily suffice. He need one more long term deal. I think it's a low risk move by AA to offer an .800 OPS 2Bman a one year $12m deal, especially given the lack of options.

Flex - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 10:37 AM EST (#251804) #

Has everyone seen this piece on aging players and the effect of age on greatness? It's fascinating � I recommend it.

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2012/02/10/aging-with-chart/

BlueJayWay - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 10:53 AM EST (#251805) #

Is there anything that amazing about the Posnanski piece? As players age, they get worse. I think we all knew that. I guess the only thing surprising is that so many people constantly forget that.

ComebyDeanChance - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 11:56 AM EST (#251808) #

ayj - how high will Kelly Johnson have to rebound for AA to offer him $12 million plus to get the draft picks?

I don't understand the theory underlying this question. If the team puts forward its arbitration proposal, it means the player has already accepted arbitration so there are no draft picks.

Mike Green - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 11:57 AM EST (#251809) #

Posnanski's article is quite superficial. Ted Williams hit .315/.451/.641 (OPS+ of 190) at age 41, but had only 390 PAs. Luke Appling hit very well and played a couple of full seasons at age 40 and 42. Both had seasons in the 4.0-6.0 WAR range. What we know is that the combined loss of durability and defensive ability makes it well nigh impossible for a 40+ year old to be an MVP candidate, but there is plenty of room for a 40+ year old to be a very good player. The real story is how many great players are unable to make a useful contribution by that point. For every Rickey Henderson (who was very good at 40), there are two Mike Schmidts (who could not contribute much by 39).

John Northey - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 12:21 PM EST (#251811) #

One of these days I'll revisit a study I did years ago. Basically checked how many players at each age had 300 PA or more, and what their OPS+ was vs their (eventual) career total. IE: 100 = their average season, 120 = 20% above their average, etc. IIRC the norm was to have 2 years that had OPS that were 20%+ higher than your average and 2 that were 20% below while the rest were in the middle. It was a long time ago so it would be interesting to revisit it using only guys who played a long time (ie: 10+ years of 300+ PA). The reason for 300 PA is to get guys who had injuries but still played regular and guys who were platooned. The bigger the base the better.

For an example, Barry Bonds had a 181 lifetime OPS+ (gulp!). To be 20% above he'd have to have to have a 217 OPS+, while 20% below was 145. Years above 217 = 4 (we all know these years), years below 145 = 3 (ages 21, 22, 24).

Glevin - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 12:27 PM EST (#251812) #

"If JP is one of the core seven, the Jays are really more pretender than contender at this point."

The Jays aren't contenders at this point. I think that's pretty obvious. They are clearly the fourth best team in the division.

Core, for me has a different meaning than "guys that are hardest replace", it means "guys you want to build the team around". For me, that's Bautista, Lawrie, Romero, and maybe Escobar.

Also, wouldn't consider Tsuyoshi Wada part of the O's core. He's 31 and signed a very modest contract (2 years $8.15 million).

Glevin - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 12:30 PM EST (#251813) #

A's just signed Cespedes which is odd considering their small budget and the relative log-jam already in the OF. Reddick, Crisp, Seth Smith, Johnny Gomes, Michael Taylor...I suppose the real surprise is why the re-signed Crisp.

hypobole - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 12:35 PM EST (#251814) #

CDC - The new CBA requires a team to offer it's Free Agent a one year contract for at least the average of the top paid 125 players to be entitled to draft pick compensation. The number I've heard as being that average was $12 million plus. Arb offers no longer apply.

Not quite sure why people are so dismissive of the Pos article. Yeah, we know players decline with age, but his numbers seem to show peak production at age 25, which is earlier than most people believe.

ComebyDeanChance - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 12:54 PM EST (#251816) #

hypobole. Thanks for the explanation.

Mike Green - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 01:23 PM EST (#251817) #

The fact that there are more players with 6 WAR seasons at age 25 than at age 27 does not provide much evidence that peak production is at age 25. In fact, if you take a pool of players at various levels of playing time and value at age 25, they will on average be a little better at age 27. It is probably closer than imagined because the offensive gain is likely almost completely offset by the defensive loss.

Anyways, the Posnanski study is much shallower than many other previous efforts. Chone Figgins may be a decent player in 2012, but age is only one of the issues. Coming off two bad seasons in a row, he is only a slightly worse bet than Adam Lind to rebound. Albert Pujols will almost surely not be a great player after 40, but he does have a chance to be a very good player who can help his team win.

hypobole - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 01:54 PM EST (#251818) #

In fact, if you take a pool of players at various levels of playing time and value at age 25, they will on average be a little better at age 27.

Where is the research that makes this a fact?

BTW, I used the term "seem to show" rather than being more definite, because there are other, possibly better, ways of finding players peaks, e.g. average WAR at at each age.

uglyone - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 02:04 PM EST (#251819) #

Firstly - great article.

Secondly - I agree with your player selections pretty much perfectly, according to your criteria.

Thirdly - my thoughts are more in addition to yours, not an adjustment to them.

Basically, I'm just breaking down the categories a little further to see why the Jays may not stack up with the other guys at the moment (but might have the potential to).

1) "Proven Core Players"

For the Jays this would include Bautista, Romero, and Escobar (3). Unfortunately, that's where the list would end, IMO.

2) "Maybe Core Players" (awkward title I know)

For the Jays, this would include a bunch - Morrow, Rasmus, Johnson, Lind, Santos.(5)

Basically, these are all guys who have performed at a "core" level in their careers, but not consistently.

Santos likely deserves to be a group up but his short track record isn't yet enough to put him up there, IMO.

Guys like Johnson and Rasmus might be slighted a bit by being here, because just looking at their average offensive career performance makes them core players at their positions - they fall to this group only because of their huge inconsistencies, and their clearly non-core performance last year.

Morrow has the problem of looking like a core guy in many ways, but not looking like a core guy in arguably more important ways.

Lind is hanging on to his place here by his fingernails - he has been a flat out replacement level player for the last two years, but his huge season three years ago still shows some core potential...but barely.

3) "Rookie / Sophomore Core Potential Players"

For the jays, this includes Lawrie, Thames, Snider, Arencibia, Alvarez. (5)

These guys don't have the track record to be anything more than question marks, but still I think they might be a strength for this team - there's a lot of core potential there, and for the most part just continuing what they've already done, with maybe a slight improvement from some over their rookie years, and they're all in the argument to be called core players.

When you break it down like this it may help show the separation between the Jays and the other AL East teams a little more clearly.

Yankees:

Proven Core (6): Sabathia, Granderson, Cano, Texeira, Gardner, Rivera
Maybe Core (7): Swisher, Rodriguez, Jeter, Martin, Kuroda, Garcia, Robertson
Kiddy Core (2): Pineda, Nova

Red Sox

Proven Core (7): Pedroia, Gonzalez, Ellsbury, Youkilis, Lester, Beckett, Buchholz
Maybe Core (5): Ortiz, Crawford, Bailey, Bard, Salty
Kiddy Core (0): None

Rays

Proven Core (4): Longoria, Zobrist, Price, Shields
Maybe Core (5): Upton, Joyce, Pena, Scott, Niemann
Kiddy Core (4): Jennings, Hellickson, Moore, Cobb

(I have a feeling I've missed some names so don't yell at me too much).

Not sure if the "pure talent" level on the Jays is so far behind those other teams', but with the lack of Proven Core guys, it's clear IMO that there's many more question marks on the Jays' roster.

robertdudek - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 02:15 PM EST (#251820) #

What we know is that the combined loss of durability and defensive ability makes it well nigh impossible for a 40+ year old to be an MVP candidate

You mean except the Barry Bonds way. In 2004 he turned 40 and sure was an MVP candidate.

greenfrog - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 02:21 PM EST (#251821) #

Jays nearing two-year deal with Janssen, buying out one year of FA. It sounds as though there is an option year as well.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/blue-jays-nearing-two-year-deal-with-janssen.html

http://twitter.com/shidavidi

Mike Green - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 02:22 PM EST (#251822) #

Yeah. Barry was treated as a 39 year old in 2004 because he was born after July 1. Among 39 year olds, the Runs Created leaderboard goes as follows: Barry Bonds- 203, Paul Molitor- 119, Ted Williams- 112, Hank Aaron- 104...One of these things is not like the others!

robertdudek - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 02:33 PM EST (#251823) #

A few responses...

I only use crystal balls when I'm in the mood, therefore, how long I expect the players to be Jays is not factored into my analysis here. This is a snapshot of current talent. It's as if I am asking myself: if I had a pickup basball game to manage on April 1st, who would be the first 7 guys I'd choose.

In regard to Lawrie as a question mark... I don't think the gulf between proven and unproven major leaguer is as large as the above poster implies. The analytical systems for projecting minor league stats is solid enough that I have as much faith in Lawrie's ZiPS projection as I do in Yunel's or JoeyBats'.

And that Lawrie ZiPS projection says:"You know what you are. You're gonna be a star."

John Northey - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 03:09 PM EST (#251827) #

Gotta say, Lawrie is the biggest hype (with some proven reason) we've had here since Delgado. Delgado came out of the shoot pounding HR after HR, then slumped and the Jays of that time (Ash/Gaston) decided to leave him in AAA for a lot longer than made any sense (Carter just kept going out there - he made a lot of money off that big home run - also could've traded Molitor during/after '94 or early '95 once it was obvious the Jays weren't winning anymore).

Wells had a ton of hype, as did Snider but neither showed ability right off the bat like Lawrie or Delgado did and only Snider had opportunity like Lawrie does right now and even then it wasn't as much opportunity.

TamRa - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 03:20 PM EST (#251828) #

when i look back at where the Jays went off the rails after the '93 season there are to me some critical wrong choices that happened both before and after.

I'd have kept Cone and Key and never signed Morris and Stewart for example.

But one of the big things was spending money on Carter that guaranteed him a job to the exclusion of Olerud/Delgado.

Carter should have been allowed to leave and Alomar kept.

I'm confident such a team would have been a legitimate contender into the late 90's

TamRa - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 03:30 PM EST (#251830) #

"The Jays aren't contenders at this point. I think that's pretty obvious. They are clearly the fourth best team in the division."

I don't know how "clear" that is. I think there's a reasonable argument that 2-4 are reasonably close (say within 5-7 games top to bottom) and while I agree the Jays start the year as #3 in that set, it's more a function of being younger and less established in several places than lacking compareable talent.

robertdudek - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 03:30 PM EST (#251831) #

I don't think they had the option to keep Alomar or Cone.

TamRa - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 03:38 PM EST (#251832) #

"Has everyone seen this piece on aging players and the effect of age on greatness? It's fascinating � I recommend it. "

It is but the one thing I wonder about, that seems not to be addressed, is the difference modern conditioning and medicine makes.

I wonder what it would look like if you charted everything up to, say, Tommy John's surgery (just as a milestone of modern medicine) and after. Would the top of the curve shift to the right at all?

Or if you did several charts giving yourself the ability to sort out the steroid era (the usual claim is that steroids help prevent the natural decline of aging) along the way.

It's a good starting place for a study but I could see room for more detail.

TamRa - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 03:41 PM EST (#251833) #

"I don't think they had the option to keep Alomar or Cone."

I thought so at the time, but they spent on other players what it would have cost to sign those guy and Alomar has talked recently about the idea that he never really wanted to leave.

John Northey - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 03:48 PM EST (#251834) #

Cone at the time was clearly after the most cash (nothing wrong with that and the Jays clearly had the most at the time). Alomar though the Jays had the ability to sign but Ash said in interviews at the time that he was waiting until after the strike to see what would happen. Then a lot of ugliness happened in 1995 (Alomar sitting out a game in protest over the team writing the season off for example) which pushed him out the door pretty much. Pre or even early in 1995 they could've resigned him but Ash really, really misread the market.

Key also wanted to stay (the look on his face after his last post-season start said it all), but was told in no uncertain terms that he wasn't wanted. We all knew it during the 92 World Series that he was gone after it.

In the end though it would've taken a lot to hold it all together I suspect. Still, one can't help but wonder about a team in the late 90's with Olerud-Alomar-Fernandez (3B or SS)-Gonzalez (SS or 3B) in the infield with Delgado DH or LF and Stewart & Green emerging in the outfield.

92-93 - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 03:49 PM EST (#251835) #

Here's what Vegas thinks about TamRa's "reasonable argument" (that the Jays, Red Sox, and Rays are "reasonably close"):

Odds to win the AL Pennant:

BOS +400
TB +750
TOR +2500

robertdudek - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 03:57 PM EST (#251836) #

There is a lot of value to be had in the current baseball betting odds. Just saying.

hypobole - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 04:38 PM EST (#251838) #

Odds to win the AL Pennant: TOR +2500

Maybe we can all chip in 5 bucks and ask Mike McCoy to lay the bet for us the next time he's in Vegas :)

92-93 - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 04:49 PM EST (#251839) #

Indeed there is, robert. The Jays are always underrated by Vegas because there's probably very limited action on them. I made a few bucks last year pounding the over on the Jays, I believe I got in at 76.5. I am curiously waiting to see what this year's will be, considering they won less games in 2011 than they did in 2010, when 85 wins still led to an O/U around 76.

Mike Green - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 05:00 PM EST (#251840) #

Returning to the aging issue, here is Mitchel Lichtman's 2009 article. As you can see, it does appear that the offensive peak is getting a little later (whether that is due to PED use or improved training methods is open to question), and is now 27-28.

The method of simply counting 6+ WAR players by age over the decades, as evidence of what may happen to Chone Figgins or Albert Pujols, has a number of very serious problems. Seasonal WAR is an inherently unreliable measure, reliant as it is on defensive measures suited to 3 year evaluations. I might add that aging curves are undoubtedly different now than they were 80 years ago, for the simple reason that it is now extremely unlikely that a player will die or become extremely debilitated in their 20s of some infectious disease.

Kelekin - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 05:34 PM EST (#251842) #

I try not to view things with blue-tinted glasses. While I believe we are reasonably close to Tampa solely due to their lack of an offensive core, between Hellickson, Moore and Price I am scared for my life of facing that in a playoff series. I will argue that New York is quite formidable this year with the addition of Pineda and Kuroda. Boston will rebound, though their rotation is still a concern.

I don't know, no matter how I try to reason it out, I see us fighting for being the 3rd best team, but better than those three? Not -quite- yet. We're getting closer, and I don't want to people to lose sight of that, but we do need patience. Look how long it took Tampa to build up its' core. Even Boston built up a pretty big core before they brought in a ton of FAs.

Dewey - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 07:37 PM EST (#251843) #

Key also wanted to stay (the look on his face after his last post-season start said it all), but was told in no uncertain terms that he wasn't wanted. We all knew it during the 92 World Series that he was gone after it.

Not sure about that, John. I�m not at all sure Key wanted to stay. He pretty much said so. I remember an interview (TV) in which the interviewer asked about him staying. Another couple of players who were standing nearby �kidded� him, �You�re a lifer, Jimmy� . �No way�, he snapped at them, almost immediately. I think he had his eye on the Yankees for some time. Not terribly unlike Shawn Green later, who couldn�t wait to leave. (But don�t mistake, I was a big fan of Key.)

bball12 - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 08:32 PM EST (#251844) #

I think the team is vastly improved versus last season.
That didnt exactly take a genius to accomplish - but I believe it is true.

That being said - there are holes and question marks littering almost the entire lineup.

1) Pray that Bautista stays healthy
2) Pray that Escobar stays healthy.
3) Pray that everyone else plays alot better.

Defense is sub par - OBA is pretty much same as last year - but you will see lots of homers - as always.
If the pitching can pick it up a notch or two - you could have a respectable season with budding talent.
And alot of it - D'Arnaud and Marisnick - yes sir - bonafide.
Gose - needs alot of work to play MLB offensively. - but he has some skills that are freakish.

Get away from the Beer league softball homer thing - and get amore balanced team on the field.
They are not there yet - but inching closer.

On the other hand - 2012 could be ugly with one or two injuries to the aforementioned.
That is the key for me when it comes to the betting odds.

Las Vegas odds - currently - are a suckers bet - give me +3500 and Im in for a fin.

Otherwise - no deal.

Either way - enjoy!!!

TamRa - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 08:43 PM EST (#251846) #

"Here's what Vegas thinks about TamRa's "reasonable argument" (that the Jays, Red Sox, and Rays are "reasonably close"):

Odds to win the AL Pennant:

BOS +400
TB +750
TOR +2500"

That's swell and all - but one can contend for the playoffs (which is not what I specifically suggested anyway) without winning the division.

I did not imply nor do I contend that the Jays are all that close to the Yankees. But then i don't thing Boston and Tb are either.

what I said was that top-to-bottom, Toronto Boston and TB are something like 5-7 games apart at most (on paper) - the best of them, though, is easily 5-7 games worse than the Yankees.

So what Vegas says about winning the division is of no use to me.

Now, if one looks as that as a relative comparison of the three (in terms of clseness to the Yanks) then that flows almost directly from historical performance. Teams loaded up with players who were just in the playoffs in the last couple of years tend to be regarded (by the better) as much more apt to to return. That said, I expect the odds are over-rating Boston and TB in relationship to the Jays.

As pointed out, the lines do not reflect a professional evaluation of talent, but an evaluation of what the betters THINK which is loaded with all kinds of caveats.

James W - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 09:03 PM EST (#251847) #

Odds, of course, are not set to predict future outcomes, but to encourage betting in a way that the bookmaker guarantees a healthy profit. Also, these odds are to win the pennant, not the division.

uglyone - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 09:32 PM EST (#251848) #

"OBA is pretty much same as last year "

Disagree with this one:

Last Year's OBP: .317

OBPs from last year that are gone:

J.Molina: 191pa, .342obp
J.Rivera: 275pa, .305obp
C.Patterson: 341pa, .287obp
J.McDonald: 182pa, .285obp
A.Hill: 429pa, .270obp
J.Nix: 151pa, .245obp

Career OBP of this year's roster:

3B B.Lawrie: .373 (171pa)
SS Y.Escobar: .366
RF J.Bautista: .362
2B K.Johnson: .343
DH E.Encaracion: .336
CF C.Rasmus: .322
1B A.Lind: .316
LF E.Thames: .313
C J.Arencibia: .275

UT B.Francisco: .332
OF R.Davis: .319
UT T.Snider: .307
IF M.McCoy: .280
C J.Mathis: .257

we only have one starter and two bench guys whose career OBP is significantly less than last year's Team Total OBP.

TamRa - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 09:40 PM EST (#251849) #

"1) Pray that Bautista stays healthy
2) Pray that Escobar stays healthy.
3) Pray that everyone else plays alot better."
---
Well sure, that's true of everyone:

"pray that CC stays healthy" or "pray that A-Gone stays healthy" or "Pray that Longoria stays healthy" - in each case, who steps in and isn't a black hole as a replacement?

Plays better? That's not quite as much an issue with TB and Boston but there are concerns.

Boston is going to need a miracle at SS, good results from the kid who ends up in RF and Crawrod to rebound while Elsbury does't regress too far. they are going to need a lot of good fortune in the back of the rotation too.

TB has a real problem at SS, they need Jennings to live up to the hype, then need Upton to finally figure out how to step up, and they are most likely to have big offensive problems behind the plate. Meanwhile they need Sheilds v.2011 not v. 2010, they need Moore to live up to the hype (which, like Jennings, one assumes he will but the roadside is littered with those who should have and didn't - we need look no further than Drabek and Snider)
----------------------
"Defense is sub par - OBA is pretty much same as last year - but you will see lots of homers - as always."

Anthopoulos believes, and I agree, that the defense is MUCH improved and I don't know you could call it sub-par. Assuming Snider is in LF (and not Thames) he's a plus defender, Rasmus and Esco are plus-plus, Johnson doesn't have a bad defensive reputation, and Lawrie (in a small sample) did not give us reason to worry. Lind is, by most accounts (though I've heard some negative views expressed here) at least average in most respects. A case can be made they are sub-par in RF and at Catcher, but without looking for details i'm sure you can find a couple of sub-par defenders on our competition (Boston's SS looks to be Aviles for example)

As for OBP, I think you are seriously mistaken.

OBP by position in 2011:

C -- .302 (likely to go down some)
1B - .309
2B - .290 (Johnson as a Jay = .364)
SS - .355
3B - .322 (Lawrie = .373)
LF - .295 (Snider career = .307, Thames .313)
CF - .255 (Rasmus career OPS = .222, .361 in 2011)
RF - .390 (JB alone was .447)
DH - .338

There's fully 1/3 of the line-up that's likely to take a step forward, 2 of the 3 potentially a major step.

greenfrog - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 10:13 PM EST (#251851) #

Purely subjectively, I wouldn't call Rasmus and Escobar plus-plus on defense. Maybe above-average to plus (Rasmus makes some great plays, but also some questionable ones, while Escobar might be losing a bit of range and occasionally loses focus). I'm not a big fan of Lind's defense, although he did better last year than might have been expected. I don't have much of a read on Johnson's D, although Keith Law thinks he's below-average at 2B.

uglyone - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 10:40 PM EST (#251852) #

I think it's fair to call the Jays a below average / average defensive team

CF - average / above average
RF - below average / average
LF - bad / below average
3B - average / above average
SS - average / above average
2B - average / above average
1B - bad / below average
C - bad / below average

though I think Snider would upgrade the LF defense considerably if he wins some playing time.

92-93 - Monday, February 13 2012 @ 10:53 PM EST (#251853) #

Add Casey Janssen to the list of extensions AA has handed out where I don't really see the value from the team's perspective. It's never enough $ to actually be concerned about, but it's becoming a trend. The Jays have now guaranteed 49m in 2013 to Bautista, Lind, Escobar, Romero, Morrow, Santos, Janssen, and Hechavarria (as well as 500k each for the buyouts of Oliver and Davis). Let's hope there's flexibility in the payroll parameters.

85bluejay - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 09:33 AM EST (#251855) #

Under the old CBA, the jays would probably be happy to let Janssen leave via FA and collect the draft pick after this year - with the new CBA relievers are not going to be getting qualifying offers ( except for the very elite) so having Janssen under a 2 yrs plus contract makes Janssen more attractive at the trade deadline/offseason - I think you are going to be seeing more of these type contracts going forward.

Moe - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 09:42 AM EST (#251856) #

Add Casey Janssen to the list of extensions AA has handed out where I don't really see the value from the team's perspective.

I think it makes a fair bit of sense. Janssen is a good 7th/8th inning guy who could even handle the 9th if needed. From this year's pen Frasor and Codero are FA at the end of the season and have salaries in that neighborhood. If the Jays believe he is healthy, this is a solid contract with some upside, especially if the FA market continues to go up. The key risk is injury and there the Jays have all the info we don't have.

John Northey - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 10:02 AM EST (#251857) #

Janssen is interesting. His first 3 years he was used as both a reliever and starter - 106 ERA+ 2.4 BB/9 4.7 K/9 0.9 HR/9.

The last 2 years he has been exclusively in the pen and has produced a 139 ERA+, 2.5 BB/9 8.4 K/9, 0.7 HR/9. The biggest changes are ERA+ and K/9. From a guy with a K rate so low he was a marginal ML'er to a guy with nearly a K an inning. That is big, even bigger than one would expect for a starter to reliever conversion. At his past 2 year pace he is easily one of the better set up men around (not elite, but very solid).

It also says something about W-L record and how ignored it is as I don't recall anyone mentioning how he was 6-0 last year. When Lamp went 11-0 it was noticed in '85 (as was Tom Filer's 7-0) as was Henke going 0-6 while leading the league in saves in '87 (iirc).

greenfrog - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 10:27 AM EST (#251858) #

With draft compensation eliminated, the extension could also make Janssen more attractive on the trade front in July, should AA decide to go that route.

Janssen has done a nice job of rebounding from the shoulder surgery that caused him to miss the 2008 season and likely contributed to his ineffectiveness in 2009.

Anders - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 10:49 AM EST (#251859) #

Add Casey Janssen to the list of extensions AA has handed out where I don't really see the value from the team's perspective.

This is a ridiculous thing to say, the Jays have only signed about five players to extensions and the Bautista and Escobar deals have to be two of most team-friendly extensions of the last ten years,

bpoz - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 10:59 AM EST (#251860) #

RobertDedek...Topic is a winner.

Uglyone...You said what I wanted to, but much better. I too wanted to separate the unproven like Lawrie from the proven. also we have the most room on the roster to give to unproven high ceiling talent. TB has to trade pitchers to make room in their rotation. NYY & Boston take it slow with kids because they try to avoid risks.

92-93...Congratulations on that bet. For those who don't understand, the odds are adjusted so as to somehow balance the books. The bookie does not want the result to force him to pay a lot because the 2 outcome bets were lopsided. If it is not against da box, talking gambling, a 10 year gambling study, could show that betting the over is a pretty good bet. How about betting the under with the recent Phillies.

bball12... I love your high standards. I don't want to see Gose hitting under 200 with the Jays, let him improve his eye. How do you know about Marisnick, are you watching him on TV/computer. I want to subscribe to something, just to confirm the high velocities of our top power pitchers, for starters.

Excellent opinions by all.

Richard S.S. - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 01:03 PM EST (#251861) #

I think it's fair to call the Jays a below average / average defensive team...

That's as pessimistic an evaluation I've seen in a while, so I must disagree.

The only below average Outfield position is in LF. Ben Francisco will get more playing time in Left than you think, as a defensive replacement that can hit. As for Travis Snider, as long as he's got an option year left, he starts in AAA. Eric Thames is a defensive adventure, he might improve, but he hits. Time to establish Thames' value, with Gose in the wings. How much above average defensively this Outfield is, depends on how much of LF can Colby Rasmus can cover.

Neither Lind, nor Arencibia, are as bad defensively as you suggest. No-one, and I mean no-one knew Adam Lind could be that good a First Baseman. He plays 1B because he can. At the start of last season, no-one believed J.P. Arencibia could be as good defensively as he became. The talk was getting a full-time Catcher to mentor J.P., not letting him start. I would suggest a slightly below average to just barely average rating for both.

Even the Bench has been upgraded defensively. Defensively E.E. is a DH, Aaron Hill and John McDonald were traded, Jose Molina signed somewhere else. We don't have Corey Patterson, Juan Rivera, Jayson Nix, Mark Teahen and others defensively this year. We finished last season and are starting this season with 2 new players in the OF (Rasmus, Thames), 2 new players on the IF (Lawrie, Johnson), 3 new Bench players (Mathis,Valbuena, Francisco), 3 new Relievers (Santos, Oliver, Cordero) and 2 new Starters (Alvarez, McGowan). Twelve new faces on our team in less than 1 full year and you are saying this team didn't get better. I disagree.

Intricated - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 01:07 PM EST (#251862) #

Add Casey Janssen to the list of extensions AA has handed out where I don't really see the value from the team's perspective.

Peaked my curiosity. As much as WAR is not as overly worshipped around here, using my valuations and a weighted average approach on napkin-math, the value of the seven extensions AA has dished out look as follows:

Casey Janssen (2 yrs / 5.9M guaranteed): 0.5 WAR/yr (50%) + 1 WAR/yr (50%) = 7.5M
Brandon Morrow (3 yrs / 21M guaranteed): 1.5 WAR/yr + 3 WAR/yr (50%) = 33.75M
Yunel Escobar (2 yrs / 10M guaranteed): 1.5 WAR/yr (50%) + 3 WAR/yr (50%) = 22.5M
Jose Bautista (5 yrs / 65M guaranteed): 2 WAR/yr (50%) + 5 WAR/yr (50%) = 87.5M
Rajai Davis (2 yrs / 5.75M guaranteed): 0 WAR/yr (50%) + 1.5 WAR/yr (50%) = 7.5M
Ricky Romero (5 yrs / 30.1M guaranteed): 2 WAR/yr (50%) + 3.5 WAR/yr (50%) = 68.75M
Adam Lind (4 yrs / 18M guaranteed): 0.5 WAR/yr (50%) + 2 WAR/yr (50%) = 25M

I ignored option years for simplicity, and assumed my low/high WAR/yr estimates are equally likely, assuming 1 WAR = 5M. What does this mean? Nothing really (we're talking about WAR here), but a good distraction for me on a slow Tuesday afternoon.

Anders - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 02:04 PM EST (#251866) #

I ignored option years for simplicity, and assumed my low/high WAR/yr estimates are equally likely, assuming 1 WAR = 5M. What does this mean? Nothing really (we're talking about WAR here), but a good distraction for me on a slow Tuesday afternoon.

It's a good start, though things get a little weird with these calculations because a lot of the years being bought out are arbitration rules where player's earning potential is artificially limited. Also, don't tell Jose that his optimistic upside is a 5 win season! Going strictly by $/WAR conversion whatevers Bautista's paid off most of his contract so far already after his 2011.

92-93 - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 02:16 PM EST (#251869) #

You know what's even more ridiculous? Calling the Bautista extension team-friendly. I suggest you read up on the analysis of the contract.

Equally ridiculous is evaluating extensions through WAR, without looking into the context of each one given and whether it should have been done at a later date or for less guaranteed dollars.

uglyone - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 02:49 PM EST (#251870) #

"You know what's even more ridiculous? Calling the Bautista extension team-friendly."

er....no.

uglyone - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 02:54 PM EST (#251871) #

Richard....

I dunno - I struggle to call any of Thames, Lind, or JPA "average" defensively....at least not yet. I think all three have so far clearly been below average, with flashes of really bad. I think at this point a bad to below average is pretty fair. Luckily, LF and 1B are the least important defensive positions so it's not a killer - and moreover there's reason to believe that both Thames and JPA can improve there. I also think Snider is an above-average to good LFer, so if he can earn some playing time he's an upgrade. (francisco and davis are probably competent LFers, too).

I also don't see any real defensive standouts on the field - Rasmus, Escobar, Johnson, and Lawrie are all likely good, but not great, fielders. Bautista is probably average, but some metrics rank him pretty poorly out there.

I don't see fielding as a major weakness this year (like it was last year), but it's probably not a strength, either.

Glevin - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 03:40 PM EST (#251876) #

"what I said was that top-to-bottom, Toronto Boston and TB are something like 5-7 games apart at most (on paper) - the best of them, though, is easily 5-7 games worse than the Yankees."

Strongly disagree and the Vegas odds reflect what non-Jays fans tend to think about the matter. The Jays are not as good as Boston or Tampa. The Jays #2 starter is Brandon Morrow. Their second best hitter is probably Yunel Escobar or Edwin Encarnacion. (For example, on Boston these two players are Beckett/Lester and Ellsbury/Pedroia and on Tampa it's Price/Shields and Zobrist) This simply not a contending team. In Pythagorean terms, the Jays were 12 games back of Tampa and 15 back of Boston last year. They are not going to bridge anything close to that gap this year.

"pray that CC stays healthy" or "pray that A-Gone stays healthy" or "Pray that Longoria stays healthy" - in each case, who steps in and isn't a black hole as a replacement?"

This is one of the differences between contenders and pretenders. Things do go wrong. Longoria missed 30 games last year. Arod missed 70. Youkilis and Bucholtz both had serious injuries. All those teams had disappointing years from key players. Injuries and disappointing production happen to every team every year. And those teams still managed to contend. The only way the Jays will contend is if everything goes right for them and something always goes wrong.

TamRa - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 03:48 PM EST (#251878) #

"You know what's even more ridiculous? Calling the Bautista extension team-friendly. I suggest you read up on the analysis of the contract.

Equally ridiculous is evaluating extensions through WAR, without looking into the context of each one given and whether it should have been done at a later date or for less guaranteed dollars."

I sometimes get the impression that if we traded Mike McCoy for Clayton Kershaw and gave him a 10 year extension for $1 million a year you'd be too busy grumbling about hos stupid it was to sign a 10 year deal to even mildly appreciate how good a move it was.

I mean generally I try to bite my tongue and just overlook it when you bang that drum at every conceivable opportunity. but just this once I'm forced to ask - do you realize how you sound?

Here's a team that, on the one hand, you strenuously argue ownership is irrationally cheap on, and yet in the next breath you criticize every last contract for - in your view - excessive spending. It gives the impression of being one who can never be pleased no matter what happens.

Richard S.S. - Tuesday, February 14 2012 @ 03:50 PM EST (#251879) #

You know what's even more ridiculous? Calling the Bautista extension team-friendly... ...whether it should have been done at a later date or for less guaranteed dollars.

Giving Bautista the $10.0 MM he and his agent were after last off-season, or going to arby instead means negotiating with them this off-season. Pujols, Fielder and Bautista would be the big Free agents this past off-season and Bautista earns $17.5 MM - $18.0 MM per year over 6 - 8 years. I cannot see how our present contract could be signed for less. (Of course, someone might say - just walk away.)

Acquiring Yunel Escobar was a good deal for this team. Signing him to a very team-freindly contract guarantees Adeiny Hechavarria (who may never hit well enough to be a MLB SS) will not be rushed. I cannot see how our present contract could be signed for less. Who, by the way, is the # 3 most-ready SS in our system? (Of course, someone might say - just walk away.)

Compare Brandon Morrow arounds the league and see where he fits in the Rotations of other teams. Then ask, if the Contract value of him staying the same, not improving, ever, is worth paying what we are. I think yes. Then ask, if we ever think he will improve (as most pitchers do) and by how much. I think yes and by a lot. I cannot see how our present contract could be signed for less. (Of course, someone might say - just walk away.)

Some people complain when you do something. Some people complain when you don't do something. Some people complain for no other reason than just to complain. (Why don't those someones - just walk away?)

Adrock - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 10:08 AM EST (#251905) #

This article bodes very well for the future: http://espn.go.com/espnw/more-sports/7572546/espnw-danielle-brett-lawrie-take-sibling-rivalry-new-level

I think it provides a lot of insight into Lawrie's attitude and how he rubbed a bunch of people the wrong way. He'll be a great part of the core.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Jays lock him up with a Longoria-style extension some time this year, albeit for a lot more money.

Sal - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 10:53 AM EST (#251908) #

Bautista extension is not team-friendly? Really?

You were demanding ownership to spend on this year's top FAs and accusing them for being cheap because you thought Fielder would be signable for a reasonable amount. The moment Fielder signed for 214M/9years, I specifically asked the people complaining if they'd still want Fielder at that price and, well, nobody seemed to want anything to do with him anymore.

What do you want? There is too much critisizm and very few ideas coming from you. Can you tell us what you'd do differently? Give us concrete ideas not general ones. Say I would offer player X for player Y or give us actual dollars you'd offer to a particular player instead of the "ownership should spend more" and "AA is not trading for that superstar so he fails". If your ideas are reasonable, perhaps we'd be able to see where you're coming from, because right now, I certainly don't.

92-93 - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 11:29 AM EST (#251909) #

People seem to think the early returns on the Bautista extension means it was a good one. I'm countering that by pointing out that the deal was questioned by many of the analysts at the time it was signed, and by saying that if you're going to use the results let's at least wait and see what comes of the extension. I don't think people had a problem with it because of 2011, when even with a severe decline it was reasonable to assume Bautista would be worth around 2 WAR and a year in which the Jays had Bautista under team control anyway.

I never thought Fielder would be signable for a reasonable amount, and I hardly think pointing out that I don't see the value in the Janssen extension should be labeled as criticism.

As for what I'd do differently - I'd control the message. You can't have the President and manager talking about the future all day but with the same breath pretending they can compete in 2012. If you need the fanbase to be patient with a rebuild, just let them know. Throwing up lie after lie just to get you to tomorrow starts to wear on fans.

92-93 - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 11:40 AM EST (#251910) #

Here's a team that, on the one hand, you strenuously argue ownership is irrationally cheap on, and yet in the next breath you criticize every last contract for - in your view - excessive spending. It gives the impression of being one who can never be pleased no matter what happens.

Those things go hand in hand, as my original comment suggested. If the team is going to cry poor and that fans need to show up before payroll can approach the MLB average, every $ is of the upmost importance. I wouldn't be criticizing the Yankees for giving out these extensions.

I mean generally I try to bite my tongue and just overlook it when you bang that drum at every conceivable opportunity. but just this once I'm forced to ask - do you realize how you sound?

I assume it's similar to how you sound every time you explain to us why the Jays are just as talented as the Red Sox or Rays.

greenfrog - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 11:44 AM EST (#251912) #

FWIW ESPN is compiling its "Future Power Rankings" for the next five years, ranking each team according to five categories (MLB roster, farm system, finance, management, mobility of roster) - great idea IMO. The results are based on votes by Jim Bowden (hmmm), Keith Law and Buster Olney.

They've posted the bottom 30-11 teams and the Jays aren't listed. So they'll be one of the top ten (to be posted tomorrow). Should be interesting to see where they fall.

Sal - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 12:24 PM EST (#251913) #

"As for what I'd do differently - I'd control the message. You can't have the President and manager talking about the future all day but with the same breath pretending they can compete in 2012. If you need the fanbase to be patient with a rebuild, just let them know. Throwing up lie after lie just to get you to tomorrow starts to wear on fans."

Why can't the Jays compete in 2012? While the rotation and bullpen only slightly improved from the expectations of 2011, the lineup seems to have far fewer holes and much greater potentional now. I find it amazing that we have a team with this much potential in the MLB after only two years of rebuilding.

I see no reason for the management to tell the fans "Our team sucks, we will have a good team in a couple of years though".

Chuck - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 12:36 PM EST (#251914) #

I find it amazing that we have a team with this much potential in the MLB after only two years of rebuilding.

Now that's a short memory!

Alex Obal - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 01:28 PM EST (#251919) #

Thread jack!

Why is 'subjective core' a particularly good way to gauge a team's prospects for the upcoming season?

John Northey - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 01:52 PM EST (#251920) #

Actually, the Jays in 2009 were _supposed_ to be contending. In fact, I'd say from the time AJ Burnett/BJ Ryan were signed up until the end of 2009 the team was supposed to be in 'contention mode' but they failed. Many reasons - the Rays moving up, the Yankees & Sox avoiding the usual drop after a few years of contending, the pure bad luck from runs scored/allowed which kept saying they were better than they were but never getting there.

A full rebuild really didn't happen until AA took over. 2012 should be the first year the team is in eyeshot (meaning 88-92 win territory) while 2013 should be the first full 'we want it' year. If they don't do that then the next few years will probably be depressing.

hypobole - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 03:22 PM EST (#251926) #

FWIW ESPN is compiling its "Future Power Rankings" for the next five years....They've posted the bottom 30-11 teams and the Jays aren't listed. So they'll be one of the top ten (to be posted tomorrow). Should be interesting to see where they fall.

Glancing through the lists, I noticed the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays will be in the top 10 also. God help Baltimore and their (deserved) #30 ranking.

92-93 - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 04:06 PM EST (#251928) #

Why can't the Jays compete in 2012?

They can, if everything goes right. But the same can be said about nearly every team, every year.

When the GM and manager get up at the end of the season and announce that the biggest holes are a frontline SP and a big bat, and the team fails to address either of them, it's hard to categorize the offseason as much of a success, regardless of how good a trade Molina-Santos was. And when the reason for the stated inertia is that AA is a total value whore and refuses to pay market value for a player, it's legitimate to wonder why he's handing out extensions that do just that.

Sal - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 04:08 PM EST (#251929) #

"I find it amazing that we have a team with this much potential in the MLB after only two years of rebuilding.

Now that's a short memory!"

I find your reply ironic :)

JP was not in rebuild mode in his final years, and it started with AA.

uglyone - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 04:13 PM EST (#251930) #

"People seem to think the early returns on the Bautista extension means it was a good one."

only because it does.

greenfrog - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 04:57 PM EST (#251933) #

"it's legitimate to wonder why he's handing out extensions that do just that."

IMO this is likely because he's doing it strategically: acquiring assets that may be convertible into other, more valuable assets down the road (AA did this by paying market value for Dotel and Frasor and later dealing them for Rasmus, and by paying well above market value for Teahen to make the trade happen). Or anticipating that a certain move will make sense given the future construction (and budget) of the team.

It makes sense to step back and evaluate each acquisition or extension in context, rather than demanding to know why each deal was or wasn't made strictly on its own merits (ie, whether it is above, below, or precisely at "market value"). He's already shown he can think two or three steps ahead. If you want to evaluate his performance seriously, you need to widen your lens and try to think along with him.

bpoz - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 05:18 PM EST (#251935) #

Re: Jays competing in 2012.

If the Jays compete & make the playoffs with 93+ wins...
1)The following teams should still be considered good NYY, TB, Boston, LAA, Texas & maybe Detroit. Is this a NO arguments statement.
2)The Jays are a good team too, because 93+ wins cannot just happen, especially with our tough schedule.

I may be wrong but is not AA's goal harder now with LAA & Texas being stronger. They also have a better shot at the WC based on their schedule.
I have to admit that I am cynical and say that I strongly believe that the Jays record will be the worst of NYY, Boston, TB, Texas & LAA. Which leaves the Jays & 1 other of these teams out of the playoffs.

That was painful to write but you never know.

BlueJayWay - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 08:24 PM EST (#251937) #

Now that's a short memory!

Zuh? This rebuild kicked off with the Halladay trade, which was December 2009. So it's been just over two years.

TamRa - Wednesday, February 15 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST (#251939) #

"I assume it's similar to how you sound every time you explain to us why the Jays are just as talented as the Red Sox or Rays."
----
You assume that a fan of a team saying "hey guys, it's not as bad as you think, these boys have a chance to actually be pretty good and get into the race!"

sounds like a fan saying "I can't believe they did it wrong AGAIN"

mmm...okay?

China fan - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 07:50 AM EST (#251941) #

"...pretending they can compete in 2012.... Throwing up lie after lie...."

Really? This is your evidence of a lie? Farrell said the Jays can be contenders this year, and you become outraged at this "lie"? As every baseball fan has noticed, every manager makes this statement, every year. You have to claim that you can win a lot of games and be a contender, or there's no point in playing the games. It's not a "lie" -- it's what a manager HAS to say. Or do you think a manager would tell his fans and his players that the team will definitely NOT be a contender this year? No manager ever says this. Because if he did, the fans wouldn't show up, and the players wouldn't bother trying.

"....when the reason for the stated inertia is that AA is a total value whore and refuses to pay market value for a player...."

It's unfair and ridiculous to say that AA "refuses to pay market value" for players. Sure, he refused to pay market value for Fielder and Darvish, but he certainly pays market value for a lot of other players. And he offered market-value contracts to some of the better free agents this year, but they didn't accept because they didn't want to DH or play on turf (unless you think AA is lying about this -- maybe you do).
As I've said many times, I personally think the Jays should be spending more. I would have preferred it if AA had been more aggressive in his pursuit of some free agents. So I have a lot of sympathy for your basic argument that the Jays payroll is too low. But to make the blanket statement that AA "refuses to pay market value" is absurd.

"...I assume it's similar to how you sound every time you explain to us why the Jays are just as talented as the Red Sox or Rays..."

I've read a lot of TamRa's posts on this subject, and I've never had the impression that she's claiming that the Jays are "just as talented" as the Sox or Rays. Instead she is arguing that the difference is less substantial that some people think. You're misquoting her.

hypobole - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 12:57 PM EST (#251955) #

ESPN Insider posted their top 10 teams in their power rankings for the next 5 years. Texas comes in #1, followed by New York, Tampa, St. Louis, Boston and Toronto #6.

John Northey - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 01:07 PM EST (#251957) #

Boy does it suck having the Jays in the AL East at times. 3 of the 5 teams ahead are NY, Tampa and Boston. Sheesh. If only the Jays would shift to the central it sure would make reaching the playoffs a whole lot easier - maybe let Cleveland 'enjoy' the AL East for awhile.

92-93 - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 01:43 PM EST (#251960) #

When I was talking about lying I was referring to the constant double speak that emanates from Beeston's mouth. One minute the Jays are all about the future, the next they can contend this year. At the State of the Franchise he talks about the possibility of getting grass, perpetuates the myth for a few weeks, and then throws cold water on it before anyone takes it as a given that change is coming.

Sure, he refused to pay market value for Fielder and Darvish, but he certainly pays market value for a lot of other players.

Name one.

Gerry - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 01:51 PM EST (#251961) #

Casey Janssen

greenfrog - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 02:52 PM EST (#251964) #

Oliver, Dotel, Frasor, Francisco, Rauch

greenfrog - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 03:04 PM EST (#251965) #

Part of Buster Olney's comment on the Jays in the ESPN piece:

"Not only do they have arguably baseball's best hitter (Jose Bautista), phenom (Brett Lawrie) and farm system, they have virtually no long-term commitments. They are probably one or two pitchers from winning this division and have the payroll flexibility and trade chips to make it happen."

The Jays might have some payroll flexibility, but perhaps not as much as Olney suggests (the myth of the Jays-flush-with-cash seems to be persisting among some members of the media).

hypobole - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 03:12 PM EST (#251966) #

Sure, he refused to pay market value for Fielder and Darvish
Could someone who knows economics explain to me how these deals were market value? When one individual pays more, possibly far more, than anyone else is willing to pay, would that not be greater than market value?

Beyonder - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 04:18 PM EST (#251968) #

Fair market value = the highest price that a property would bring in an unrestricted market between a willing buyer and seller who are both knowledgeable, informed, and prudent, and who are acting independently of each other.

So the price paid for Fielder, even if it had been 500M, would still be the market price -- even if the next highest bidder would only have paid 100M

hypobole - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 05:05 PM EST (#251969) #

Thank you, Beyonder.

Prudent:Acting with or showing care and thought for the future.

The Darvish deal could arguably be called prudent.

The Fielder deal? I don't think I've read any analysis that even suggests it was prudent.

Thomas - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 05:21 PM EST (#251971) #

Texas comes in #1, followed by New York, Tampa, St. Louis, Boston and Toronto #6.

As much as wading through the challenge of the AL East will make Toronto's first playoff berth since 1993 particularly meaningful, the prospect of said challenge never ending is ominous.

John Northey - Thursday, February 16 2012 @ 11:28 PM EST (#251979) #

I was going to post about how the Jays will see a bigger crowd if they start winning = flush with cash in the event of winning thus strong incentive.

Then I checked the numbers... hrm...

Since 2000 within x games of first...
Month 2 games 5 games Overall
April 22,567 21,615 22,053
May 23,093 22,096 21,323
June 23,127 23,541 23,581
July 24,192 24,907 26,199
August N/A 25,023 27,426
September N/A 24,203 23,951

So basically the attendance was NOT affected by games out - they could be 2 games out, 5 games out or worse and the spread was only over 2k per game for 2 games vs overall in July - THE WRONG WAY!

Now, July only had 9 games since 2000 where the Jays were within 2 games of first, and 18 more within 5 games. 7 more in August & September within 2 1/2 - 5 games or less than 1 day a year that the Jays were in eyeshot in the final 2 months of the season.

Y'know, that just might be the biggest issue of all. I didn't notice it was _that_ bad.

To make it worse - the Jays were within 10 games of 1st in September for just 19 days in the past 12 years. Could be worse I'm sure - but not a heck of a lot worse.

ayjackson - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 01:17 AM EST (#251980) #

beyonder, you left out one component of the definition of FMV - parties can be under no compulsion to act. That could be an important factor here. We don't know if there was a compulsion to act on the part of the Rangers, but if they did bid far more than any other team, it might support the theory. As any good valuator knows, price does not necessarily equal FMV.

ayjackson - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 01:18 AM EST (#251981) #

Sorry, said Rangers, meant Angels.

James W - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 08:44 AM EST (#251984) #

What if you remove Boston and New York home games from this study? Those will skew the attendance, no matter where the Blue Jays are in the standings.

Beyonder - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 09:24 AM EST (#251986) #

Ayjackson. You're quite right. I streamlined the long-winded definition because most Bauxites are not business valuators, and I thought the "no compulsion" point was inherent in the concept of a "wlling" buyer. Just to clarify though, the "compulsion" you are talking about refers to compulsion by force or some sort of non-market authority -- not compulsion by market forces. So long as the deal was made between independent parties who are attempting to act in their own self-interest (no matter how misguided), the price is indeed market. The same principles apply to art auctions and real estate bidding wars.

I only say this because I find it hard to envision a circumstance where the Angels or Tigers are improperly compelled to enter the deal.

John Northey - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 10:08 AM EST (#251988) #

Good point James. I still have the raw data at home (I'm at work now) so maybe I'll dig in and write a full article detailing attendance at home vs place in standings, distance from first, and opponent since 2000.

Btw, outside of it being a nice even year 2000 was also the bottoming out post-92/93 of attendance. I figure that indicates the last of the bandwagon fans had left (given up) and the team was now one working without 'newness' of team or park as a factor. 2010 was lower (just shy of 1.5 million) but that was the only season worse than 2000 since 1982 (the last year of the Jays being dead last to start off the franchise - they were dead last for 6 years to start, then 86+ wins for 11 years). Btw, after those 6 last place finishes at the start the Jays have been in last just 3 more times since (1995/1997/2004).

greenfrog - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 10:17 AM EST (#251989) #

"a willing buyer and seller who are both knowledgeable, informed, and prudent"

I'm wondering about the 'informed' criterion. Presumably the Tigers didn't know what the next-highest bid for Fielder was. Let's say in desperation to contend for the WS during the owner's lifetime, the team bids 9/$214M, fearing that the Nats or some other team had offered, say, 9/$200M, when in fact (hypothetically) none of the competing teams offered much less (topping out at, say, 8/$160M). If an aging, eccentric and spendthrift owner lacking information about the lower bids blows everyone out of the water, does the higher amount still represent FMV?

This would seem to be different from buying a stock (where you can see the current price at any time) or participating in an auction (where you've just heard the amount of the last bid and can decide whether it makes sense to exceed it).

BlueJayWay - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 10:38 AM EST (#251992) #

So basically the attendance was NOT affected by games out - they could be 2 games out, 5 games out or worse and the spread was only over 2k per game for 2 games vs overall in July - THE WRONG WAY!

Now, July only had 9 games since 2000 where the Jays were within 2 games of first, and 18 more within 5 games. 7 more in August & September within 2 1/2 - 5 games or less than 1 day a year that the Jays were in eyeshot in the final 2 months of the season.

Y'know, that just might be the biggest issue of all. I didn't notice it was _that_ bad.

To make it worse - the Jays were within 10 games of 1st in September for just 19 days in the past 12 years. Could be worse I'm sure - but not a heck of a lot worse.

This is interesting, but I don't know if it's that surprising.

In my view there are two scenarios where you'll really see attendance increases:

-being in a playoff race in August/September (and as you note, come those months the Jays are just playing out the string year after year),

-or a team that people really believe has a shot right from the beginning of the year. At this point, that would probably take being in a playoff race/being in the actual playoffs the previous season or two, and a team everyone expects to contend that year. Then you'll see a good attendance bump right from April, I suspect.

The problem is year after year the Jays go into the season without any kind of realistic hope of playoffs, so the attendance is just not there. There's just a general expectation that they have no chance. Being within a few games of first in May or something just won't be enough to really get the fans out.

Beyonder - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 11:48 AM EST (#251995) #

Any market works best (most efficiently) when there are many sellers of the same (or similar) item, and a large pool of prospective buyers. The difficulty we are having in understanding how the price paid for Pujols (or Fielder) is market flows from the fact that the market for their services is thin: there are very few sellers of elite first basemen (Pujols and Fielder themselves), and only a handful of real buyers (5 or 6 teams with deep pockets).

When a market is thin like this, the agreed upon price is far more likely to be influenced by the idiosyncracies of a single purchaser (like the eccentric and spendthrift one you posited greenfrog).

The stock market on the other hand, is a "thick", robust market. Lots of buyers and sellers for precisely the same good. The presence of a few eccentrics won't have much effect on the market price of a stock.

All this to say, just becasue something is the market price, doesn't imply that it is a reasonable price.

bpoz - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 12:09 PM EST (#251997) #

92-93, I believe you have a valid topic in mentioning Lying & Market value. Actually very valid.

IMO your choice of language is making you a martyr. IMO. IMO.

In the long history of Beeston with the Blue Jays, do you acknowledge some value & leadership? Is he so different now? Maybe he is. I believe someone said that he said that he or any accountant could take $1mil and legitimately allocate it towards showing a profit or loss. I don't speak for you, just myself, so if it favors our team I will call him a genius. Baseball finances have changed, KC & Pittsburg can almost be called farm teams.

OK. Since I am on your side. Lets be honest, all of us, Mkt value for all those relievers mentioned. IMO, AA is very smart so he could have got cheaper replacements & fewer.I don't know why everyone but K Gregg turned him down for bullpen jobs for 2010, Accardo & Valdez were really unwise gambles toward the goal of acquiring draft picks. Maybe he had something up his sleeve. Wink!!
Also I believe he turned over every stone in trying to move M Teahen.

Lastly, expensive FAs, if we win 96+ games and the Jays don't sign an expensive FA, well... if they also let one of their own FAs go because the $ did not make sense then we can shout that chess word that I cannot think of right now.
81 wins fits his a consistent reason for not getting expensive FAs.

Richard S.S. - Friday, February 17 2012 @ 09:12 PM EST (#252006) #

In April 2011, Toronto was 13-14, with #2 Starter: Drabek, #3 Starter: Cecil, #4 Starter: Reyes and #5 Starter: Litsch. Morrow didn't return from DL until 23 April (2 starts, replacing Cecil), a 6-4 loss. Romero was 2-3 in 6 starts, with a 2-1 ND team loss. Morrow was 0-1 in 2 starts, with a 5-2 ND team win. The Bullpen was 6-3.

In May 2011, Toronto was 15-13, with Litsch, Reyes, Drabek and Villanueva (replacing Litsch - 23 May) as Starters. Romero was 3-1 in 5 starts, with a 5-4 ND loss. Morrow was 2-2 in 6 starts, with a 7-5 ND win and a 3-1 ND loss. The Bullpen was 5-4.

In June 2011, Toronto was 12-15, with Drabek, Villanueva, Reyes, Stewart (replacing Drabek - 16 June) and Cecil (replacing Stewart - 30 June) as Starters. Romero was 2-3 in 5 starts. Morrow was 2-1 in 5 starts with a 3-2 ND loss and a 5-4 ND win.

This is usually where GM's take a look at their team and decide contender, pretender or dead in the water, and the smart GMs look to be dealing early in the month of July. At the end of June, Toronto was 40-42, falling out of pretender status, finishing 81-81, a distant 4th.

The Starting Staff will be better. Brett Cecil in 2012, will improve his numbers this year as he's replacing Drabek, Stewart and himself from 2011. Possibly a 3-5 game improvement: 84-78 to 86-76. Henderson Alvarez in 2012, replaces Reyes, Mills and himself of 2011. Possibly a 2-3 game improvement: 86-76 to 89-73. Dustin McGowan in 2012, will replace Litsch, Villanueva and himself from 2011. Possibly a 1-2 game improvement: 87-75 to 91-72. This team needs Romero to be Romero. This team needs 1 of Morrow, Cecil, Alvarez, McGowan to be the pitcher they should be. In addition, this team needs one of the remaining three to be average. This will contend.

scottt - Saturday, February 18 2012 @ 01:56 PM EST (#252014) #

It's not quite that simple.

Boston had a streaky year and at times looked like a 100 win team.
NY was getting Cy Young performances out of washed up pitchers.
Toronto looked completely outmatched in a home series against Boston.

2011 was already written off.

Richard S.S. - Saturday, February 18 2012 @ 05:09 PM EST (#252018) #

Oh!
Frank Francisco starts 2011 healthy and in shape, ready to pitch.
Brett Cecil starts 2011 in the shape he is now and ready to pitch.
Brandon Morrow starts 2011 like he finished his last 3 starts in 2011.
Any one of those pitchers doing that much better in 2011 could have changed everything. Instead of being 40-42 and out of contention after June 30th, the Jays could have been 3 games better, 43-39 and still in contention. What does A.A. do now having underestimated the team for two years running?

Core Talent | 106 comments | Create New Account

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