I dunno. I'm sure Baz Luhrmann would have an opinion about that. Great Gatsby!

Davis to DL. Chad Jenkins recalled.

Is this season over yet? And why not?

Morrow is not ready to start tomorrow, he has been pushed to Wednesday. To replace Morrow the Jays will start a pitcher who was injured, spent time in extended spring training, and has made one start for a full season team....Chad Jenkins.

What could go wrong?

You have got to be kidding.  Jenkins?  Who has all of 5 IP this season?  Really?  Sigh... you'd think they would've learned something from the Romero disaster.  One wonders what is going on in AA's head lately.  He must know it'll take a lot of things to go right for the Jays to do anything of note this season so he is hoping beyond hope that randomly calling up guys will find him that miracle.  But Jenkins?  He of the 4.5 K/9 last year in the majors and 5.9 lifetime in the minors?  Who has seen his K rate drop at each level?

Sigh.  This year had such promise.  My first 'uh oh' was the manager hiring, as Gibbons didn't exactly have the track record of success AA claimed he was looking for.  Then the injuries started.  Then the season started with Romero in A+.  Then Johnson and Buehrle seemed determined to make these Jays be like the Marlins of last season.  Then Reyes went down.  And so on. 

Bring up McCoy to pitch. Get Menechino back. Good Lord, what a clustereff of a season.

This organization's approach to player development is destroying my confidence in the future, as well as the present.

The way this season is going, I'm expecting Morrow to be out for the season. Miguel Batista will soon be here at this rate. Stroman could have been up by now if not for the PED suspension.

Well Jenkins seems to be being lumped in with all those "We don't care if their arm falls off, just need a warm body to pitch" dudes who've been walking in and out of that revolving door lately. Expect a DFA soon?

Jenkins probably falls into a similar file as Dyson did. Useful stopgap but not a guy we expect to be a long term contributor. So therefore if he has tobe thrown under the bus in an emergency, so be it.

I don't expect success, but there's no one in the system right now who's very close who'd be a better choice. At least they are not burning Nolin (yet)

Since the Jays are so short of healthy starting pitching, the obvious solution is for Buerhle and Dickey to work on three days rest.

Nice job by Oliver and Kawasaki to flush that lead down the pooper and a W for Buehrle! Oliver really sucks against lefties this year. Maybe he should have stayed retired.

Kawasaki has done a decent job, but he's tanked a few key plays late in games. Maybe it's a clutch fielding issue?

Calling up Chad Jenkins is not at all as egregious as the Romero call-up. Jenkins' issues were physical, while Romero's were some twisted mess of psychological and mechanical.

The danger is calling Romero up was completely destroying his confidence. I'll call that one a success.

Well I consider that proof Buehrle can still pitch, hopefully he keeps it up. Good win.

Buerhle looked like Glavine today. Away, away, away.

Good on Janssen to maintain his composure after the leadoff double.

As for Zaun and his Lind should be an everyday player mantra, please give it up. In over 700 PAs vs LHP, Lind's OPS is barely over .600, and even that number is heavily bouyed by Lind's terrific 2009 when he did hit lefties. The fact that Lind is starting to heat up against righties (and not just walking) should have no bearing on who gets to DH against LHP.

Casey Janssen had an ERA+ of 576 before today's game. Best player on the team right now.

"Stroman could have been up by now if not for the PED suspension."

I thought Stroman's suspension only applied to the minors and that he could be called up to MLB at any time.

Janssen is indeed the best player on this team right now, and I don't think anybody is particularly close.

I'd rather watch a young arm like Jenkins than an old retread from the waiver wire.

Question: is there some reason (other than luck) why, by and large, the Rays have been able to keep their pitchers healthy and durable in recent seasons and the Jays haven't?

Tampa is like a spa for pitchers, while Toronto seems to be an infirmary ward.

I've been wondering that for a long time, greenfrog.  The only injuries their pitchers seem to get are fluke things, non-arm injuries.  Like the Niemann broken bone against Toronto last year.

Romero with a terrible start in AAA. Three and two thirds, five walks, no strikeouts, ten hits, and six runs, all earned.

And a balk!

greenfrog and BlueJayWay:

Bear with me, these 3 items tie together:

"The late cocking phase appears to be the critical point in the pitching motion," according to a conclusion from a study by Dr. Brandon Bushnell of Rome, Ga., and colleagues and published last year in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, "where higher levels of torque at the shoulder and elbow can result in increased risk of injury."

"Young guys who get to the loaded position late who bear watching include Aaron Crow of Kansas City, Kyle Drabek of Toronto and Mark Rogers of Milwaukee"

"Both Walton and bullpen coach Pete Walker say they saw no alarming signs in Hutchison’s delivery, nor in the deliveries of Kyle Drabek and Luis Perez, the other Toronto pitchers who needed Tommy John surgery this year."

The first 2 items were from a SI story BEFORE Drabek tore his UCL last year.

The last is from a John Lott story after the injuries.

So Kyle Drabek is extremely unsound biomechanically per scientific research. Yet our former pitching coach and our current pitching coach believe there were no alarming signs in his delivery.

I am not surprised at all by the amount and severity of injuries on our team and in our system.

As to the differences between the Toronto and Tampa approaches, read this:

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/10/24/mlb-teams-divided-on-biomechanics/

Thank you, hypobole.  I thought that one difference between Tampa/Baltimore and Toronto was the attention paid to biomechanical analysis, but I had missed the Lott articles.  As Don Cooper's success illustrates, it is possible for a pitching coach to work on these issues without the formal analysis, but it probably doesn't hurt to have it. 

"Calling up Chad Jenkins is not at all as egregious as the Romero call-up. Jenkins' issues were physical, while Romero's were some twisted mess of psychological and mechanical. "

It's not as egregious because Jenkins isn't a former All-Star. So if you screw up, it's not as bad for the future of the team.

But confidence is part of every pitcher's makeup, and a guy with just 5 innings of game experience is NOT ready to face major league hitters this year. Not yet. There's a reason spring training lasts more than 5 days. Why wpuld you do this to any of your players?

This team will need Jenkins. In later 2013, if not next year as well. Destroy him, or harm his development, and an unsustainably low depth system gets lower.

All for what?!? For what? So what if you throw Germano in there and we lose? It's not going to cost us a 2013 playoff spot.

I am losing confidence in the management of this organization.

I agree with you in theory, katman, but I have no idea what Jenkins's makeup is like. If he's anything like Brett Lawrie, he could get hammered six ways to Sunday until the end of the year and still be outraged if he didn't win the Cy Young. Self-confidence does not appear to follow directly from performance on this team.

Edgar Gonzalez has opted for free agency. It appears he and Laffey weren't over the moon with how the Jays were using them.

Yeah, I guess their aim is to hopefully get signed by a different team and probably get used in the same way. Maybe they didn't like Buffalo?

I view Jenkins as filler. In organisations with REAL pitching prospect depth, Jenkins's name would hardly be mentioned.

His minor league strikeout rates are very low, which to me indicates that he has almost no shot of being an effective starting pitcher for more than a few dozen starts (that's when the league will have learnt how to exploit him).

I'll only add that the above does not apply if Jenkins learns to throw a knuckleball (hint: start talking to R.A., kid).

Since the Jays are so short of healthy starting pitching, the obvious solution is for Buerhle and Dickey to work on three days rest.

Maybe. Necessity is the mother of invention after-all, and the 1971-74 Wilbur Wood White Sox showed it could work. I'm also aware of some theoretical studies supporting this usuage pattern.

Both Dickey and Buerhle have long term contracts so you'd think they may actually buy into such a plan. I'm just not sure how does it work for the other starters?

Tandem starters.  The other two slots are occupied by R/L combinations with each expected to go 3-4 innings.  Nevermind.  Too radical.  Better to send out Chad Jenkins or Ramon Ortiz or Edgar Gonzalez or Claudio Vargas or Aaron Sanchez or whomever.

Seriously, the other option is what Whitey Herzog did one year in St. Louis with Joaquin Andujar working on 3 days rest.  Whitey just slotted different pitchers in and out from the pen.  So, a 12 game cycle might look something like this:
Dickey, Buehrle (Johnson in relief), Morrow, bullpen start (Lincoln say), Dickey, Buehrle, Johnson, Morrow, Dickey, Buehrle, bullpen start, Johnson.  Danny Cox or Dave LaPoint would take the bullpen starts for Whitey.

Whitey Herzog did one year in St. Louis with Joaquin Andujar working on 3 days rest. Whitey just slotted different pitchers in and out from the pen...Danny Cox or Dave LaPoint would take the bullpen starts for Whitey.

I remember Bill James writing something like that, but it's not really what Herzog did. (For one thing, Danny Cox made just 2 relief appearances and 150 starts in his 6 years as a Cardinal.) James had to be talking about 1982, and Herzog did use Andujar more often on 3 days rest (13 of his 37 starts) than his other guys, particularly Forsch (just 1 of his 34 starts). Mura made 4 of his 30 starts on 3 days rest, Stuper made 4 of his 21 starts on 3 days rest. But none of those other starters were coming in from the bullpen. They were his rotation. As for Dave La Point, he started the 1982 season in the bullpen, but moved into the rotation in May when John Martin was found wanting. LaPoint remained in regular rotation, but would occasionally provide an inning of LH relief between starts.

Herzog's starting pitchers were always clearly defined - their roles might change during the course of the season, but not from week to week. When they were in the rotation, these guys worked almost exclusively as starters.

By 1984 and 1985, Herzog was still using Andujar more often on 3 days rest than his other starters. But not much more often. In 1984, Andujar made 8 starts on 3 days rest, LaPoint made 5, Cox made 4. In 1985 Andujar made 9 starts on 3 days rest, Cox and Kepshire made 7 and Tudor made 6. Both years he had one pitcher who spent part of the year in the bullpen and part of the year in the rotation (Horton in 1984, Forsch in 1985) - but both times, when the pitcher was in the rotation, he was in the rotation, working exclusively as a starter.

"...Better to send out Chad Jenkins or Ramon Ortiz or Edgar Gonzalez or Claudio Vargas or Aaron Sanchez or whomever..."

Mike, you're using sarcasm to try to belittle this list of pitchers (and tossing Sanchez into the list to make it seem more ridiculous) but Ortiz and Jenkins have pitched well in their outings. I don't think it was entirely absurd to give Ortiz and Jenkins a try, and it's actually worked so far.

It is not belittling the pitchers, CF.  It is the strategy which I think is unwise.  Aaron Sanchez has a decent chance to be a very fine pitcher in 2 or 3 years, but ought not to be rushed into a major league job.  Chad Jenkins might have been a reasonable choice after a few more starts in the minors (I'll grant you that he actually looked pretty good today- I was impressed that he did go up and in to left-handed hitters to keep them honest).  Ramon Ortiz did not pitch well (5 walks and 1 strikeout in 5 innings), but emerged unscathed on that occasion. He won't if they keep giving him the ball.

It is fine for a team if pitchers of the general quality of Ortiz make 2-5 starts a year on an emergency basis, but we are in mid-May and the club has already pretty much exhausted the quota.  The reason for the sarcasm is the unwillingness of major league teams to contemplate anything other than conventional approaches.  If it's working for a club (say the White Sox or the Rays), I understand.  It isn't working for the Jays. 

I can't believe this line of reasoning. Dickey is already battling neck/back issues and he should be going on 3 days rest instead of 4? The Jays org already seems adept at disabling pitchers without help from us.

the 1971-74 Wilbur Wood White Sox showed it could work

Of course by 1974 none of those guys - Wood, Bradley, Bahnsen - were good starting pitchers anymore.

Of course by 1974 none of those guys - Wood, Bradley, Bahnsen - were good starting pitchers anymore. No one is saying Dickey or Buerhle should throw as many innings as Wilbur Wood. What I am saying is that throwing a knuckleball every 4 days is not significantly different than throwing one every five days and it will only be for 5-6 weeks at most. On the neck issue, I maintain that if Dickey is healthy enough to pitch every 5 days, that he can pitch every four if you limit his innings a bit more. The strain on his neck would probably decrease, as he would not have to work as hard each outing.

I echo what Mike Green says about teams not trying unconventional approaches.

Not so long ago (in baseball history terms), it was COMMONPLACE for teams to start their best pitchers on three days rest. It was COMMMONPLACE for the 5th starter to be a spot starter.

There is an obvious advantage to doing that - namely that odds are your two best starting pitchers are much better than your 5th and 6th best starting pitchers.

This method worked in the major leagues for many decades, and there is no evidence at all that, unless taken to absurd lengths, it shortened the careers of starting pitchers as a group.

It is an extremely sad state of affairs that the mere suggestion of going on three days rest for a few weeks draws cackles.

Those pitchers were used to going on 3 days rest. Pitchers nowadays occasionally go on 3 days rest. Asking a starter battling an injury that is impacting his performance to start pitching on 3 days rest is ridiculous and not because it's unconventional.

I don't know about Dickey throwing on 3 days rest.  He is not your average knuckleballer, most of whom were entirely comfortable throwing on 3 days rest, and he is battling an injury.  Buehrle would, I think, be happy and effective throwing on 3 days rest. 

With the days off, a rotation of Dickey, Morrow, Buehrle, Johnson and Jenkins/Nolin/Happ is in sight within two-three weeks.  That is probably what they'll do.  It would be nice if someone had confidence that four of them will be healthy two-three weeks after that. 

Those pitchers were used to going on 3 days rest. Pitchers nowadays occasionally go on 3 days rest. Asking a starter battling an injury that is impacting his performance to start pitching on 3 days rest is ridiculous and not because it's unconventional. Yes they were used to doing it, but there had to be a first time doing it for each of them, correct? You are assuming that three days rest with shorter outings is more taxing that going longer on 4 days rest. I do not agree with this assumption. Assuming for the moment that I am right about that, please show me how it is "ridiculous".

Not so long ago (in baseball history terms),

I dunno. In baseball history terms, it's several generations ago. The four man rotation began disappearing in the 1960s - Gibson and Seaver spent pretty well their entire careers in five man rotations - a process which picked up speed in the 1970s and was thirty years ago. Which only makes sense - as the demands of the game on starting pitchers have increased, the game has adjusted by asking less from them. When the mound was moved back, when the home run came into the game - the demands placed on starting pitchers were reduced. I think the changes in the game in the fifty years since the heyday of the four man rotation have further increased the burden since the heyday of the four man rotation. It makes sense to me that less would be required of them.

That should have read "completed thirty years ago." Anyway, has anybody used a four man rotation, for the season, since 1983? There could easily be a couple, and I just can't think of them.

Gez, I can't seem to write coherent sentences anymore. I should make a Data Table!

It's still very common for starting pitchers to pitch on three days' rest in the postseason, when the stress of pitching is actually higher than in the regular season.

First of all, you assume shorter outings on 3 days rest is less taxing than regular outings on 4 days. This seems to be an assumption shared by zero major league baseball teams.

Now to the ridiculous - I'm not a doctor, but to me more time to rest an injury is better than less time to rest an injury. Also, pitchers have a routine they follow. Back in the days of a 4 man rotation, that routine was pitching on 3 days rest, from the time they were in the minors. That routine didn't begin when they were 38 yrs old.

If some forward (or backward) thinking organization decides to start it with their minor leaguers, and groom them to work on 4 days rest in the majors it would be interesting. I'll eat nothing but cuttlefish for a month if any team trials a 4 man rotation using a couple of 30+ yr olds owed a sizable chunk of guaranteed money. Because in the old days when players got injured, it was "Good luck in your future endeavours. Since you can't pitch for us, we'll plug in someone who will"

It's still very common for starting pitchers to pitch on three days' rest in the postseason

Is it really? I haven't checked, but it seems to me that what usually happens is most teams cut back to four starters in the post-season. But all the additional off-days means that they end up working on their normal four days rest. Last year for example, Verlander and Cain were the aces for the two WS teams, and each man pitched his team's first post-season game. Verlander pitched on October 6, 11, 16, and 24; Cain pitched on October 6, 11, 16, 22, and 28. I kind of think that's how everyone's been doing it for some time now.

But the main thing is - I don't think anyone's willing to take the risk of breaking their best pitcher. The idea of the four man rotation - or even just working your ace every fourth day and juggling the rest of the starters around him - is to take eight starts away from your Josh Towers model and give them all to your Roy Halladay type. Could Halladay handle that load? Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't - but you won't actually know until you try. What if he does break? Then where are you? You're giving all Roy Halladay's starts to Josh Towers. I think that's some roll of the dice, largely because I think pitching is much, much harder than it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

But on the other hand - if she does drown, at least now you know she wasn't a witch.

""I would be willing to dialogue with them what that looks like," Dickey said. "I'm not going to say I'd say yes immediately. I would talk through what that looks like and what the plan was and tell them how I felt about it physically, but I would certainly be open to it."

In my view, Dickey's comments are telling of a guy that wants to be a good team player, but it seems pretty clear that he isn't jumping at the chance to do it."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/r-dickey-pitch-three-days-rest-fans-view-132400344--mlb.html

But the main thing is - I don't think anyone's willing to take the risk of breaking their best pitcher. The idea of the four man rotation - or even just working your ace every fourth day and juggling the rest of the starters around him - is to take eight starts away from your Josh Towers model and give them all to your Roy Halladay type. Could Halladay handle that load? Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't - but you won't actually know until you try. What if he does break? Then where are you? You're giving all Roy Halladay's starts to Josh Towers. I think that's some roll of the dice, largely because I think pitching is much, much harder than it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

But on the other hand - if she does drown, at least now you know she wasn't a witch.

There are all kinds of factors. There is the statistical influence- "give the starter an opportunity to get the win".  A lot of it is habit.  If you are trying to maximize the utility and health of your best pitcher, you would take him out of the game with an 8-0 lead after 5 innings and 75 pitches and bring in a long man to throw the last 4 innings.  Nobody does that, even though a complete game and a shutout are not realistic possibilities, and a win is pretty much in the bag.

It is not clear at all to me that 40 starts, 5 innings per start, is harder on the arm than 33 starts, 6 innings per start.   You would have to restructure the bullpen to accomodate to this- 4 starters, 4 opposite-hand middle relief who go 1-4 innings scheduled after the starter depending on game situation, 2 medium-high leverage relievers, ace reliever.  For what it's worth, you actually have all the statistical goodies to offer a staff- more opportunities for a starter to win, and more saves (by virtue of the 3 inning rule). You also have built-in replacements in case of injury. 

But on the other hand - if she does drown, at least now you know she wasn't a witch.

A good GM would always have a duck on hand.

It is not clear at all to me that 40 starts, 5 innings per start, is harder on the arm than 33 starts, 6 innings per start.

Me neither, but what would be the point? The reason you want to take those starts away from your Towers-type and give them to your Halladay-type is so that Halladay pitches those innings. The whole point of the four man rotation is having your best starters pitching more innings. Not rearranging them differently.