Nice that one of them won.  Dunedin only had 690 people see their final game - guess there really isn't much of a base there, the local Thunder Bay team (made up of US college players who didn't go pro) gets better crowds than that.

It is good that Sanchez got some playoff experience - even if it was in a loss. At 20 this season he was the youngest to play for the Jays. Gustavo Pierre just ended his age 21 season as did Jorge Flores.  Any others who are still prospects there who played?

Vancouver's starter Jeremy Gabryszwski is just in his age 20 season, but that 4.7 K/9 figure will limit how far he goes. Interesting that two of the pitchers, Chase DeJong and Brady Dragmire, didn't throw a single inning in Vancouver before the playoffs. Both pitched for Bluefield this year. Smart to get them some playoff experience - 2 innings between them with just 1 walk given up.  Odd that Dawel Lugo batted 5th with his 605 OPS this year in Vancouver (786 in Bluefield), but at 18 (season age) I'm sure he sure has potential. Justin Atkinson hit after him, the other teenager on the team, despite his 611 OPS.

dissappointing end to a dissappointing season for Aaron Sanchez. too bad.

nice to see Mitch Nay carry his hitting up with him to Vancouver, having a couple of good games in a row. another guy who if you squint right might look like our best hitting prospect.

Law, Olney and Bowden just posted their MLB Future Rankings. The Jays ranked 24th in baseball. The rest of the AL East:

Boston: 2nd
Tampa: 5th
Baltimore: 10th
NYY: 11th

It's not a pretty picture.

#AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Meaningless........I wonder where they ranked Boston last year?

At this time last year? 6th, actually.

This really has been a cruel season. Since leaving the Jays, Emilio Bonifacio is hitting: 304/378/392 for an OPS of 770. In his 91 plate appearances with the Royals, he has stolen 13 bases, and not been caught once. In his 282 PA with the Blue Jays, he managed to steal only 12 bases, and was caught 6 times.

Small sample blah blah blah.

Bonifacio had a 13/66 W/K in 282 PAs in Toronto, significantly worse for both W/PA and K/PA rate than his career norms.  He is at 10/18 in 91 PAs in Kansas City, significantly better on both counts.  If he has a K rate under .2, he ought to be a serviceable player with his speed.  Maybe it is a sample size illusion, maybe it is a slow recovery from the injury and maybe it is the influence of George Brett.  It's probably a bit of everything.

If you were going to project him for next year, you would probably just start with his career line of .262/.322/.342 and make a small adjustment to that.  At the beginning of the year, he was making an unseemly number of errors.  The injury may have contributed to that (in addition to the poor stolen base record, the bad bunting...).  It has settled, and over his career he has decent to pretty-good range at second base with a few more errors than typical and decent but no more on the pivot.  It all adds up to an average defensive second baseman, and a so-so player. 

What I find puzzling is why the Blue Jays gave so much major league playing time to Bonifacio early in the year when he was obviously not right on so many fronts.  The ideal, of course, would have been a DL stint followed by some rehab time in the minors.  Failing that, he should have been used sparingly and treated as Rule 5 type player until he recovered some.

Bonifacio is arb eligible. My guess was that the Jay's plans for him were not much. So probably non tendered.

I believe in luck. Sort of. Does it even out? I do not think so.

IMO Jays luck:-

Bautista: V good
S Downs : V Good

JJohnson : V bad.
Luke Procopek : Bad.

There are many examples. T Redmond & N Wagner this year seem like potential keepers. J Jeffress may become something.

Boni is a good gamble for the Royals. He's still in his prime (unlike Izturis) and could be a useful utility player and sometime starter for KC. Given his age and previous track record of success, there might be some room for him to consolidate his overall game and create a bit more value than in the past (the fresh start might also help). One aspect of his game that doesn't show up in his slash line is his speed, which gives him some extra versatility.

It really has been a debacle on the baseball front in Toronto this year.

It has been a tough year. But bright spots do exist...
110+ OPS+ from Encarnacion (149), Reyes, Rasmus (120), Bautista and Lind (125).  Lawrie getting up to a 97 after a horrid start.

Pitching sees Buehrle up to a 107 ERA+ which is shocking given he had a ERA over 6 as late as May 17th, but just 2.88 since then over 131 1/3 IP.  Sweet eh?  Dickey was at 5.15 for ERA on June 21st, but since has had a 3.36 ERA over 91 IP, far more like what we expected.
The subs for starting have looked good at times but overall not so good.  Rogers has a 4.90 ERA as a starter overall (86 1/3 IP in 16 starts), Redmond a 4.53 ERA in his 10 starts.  An interesting contract is Johnson has 16 starts and Morrow 10 - Johnson & Morrow = 90 ER, Rogers & Redmond = 72 ER.  JM IP 135 2/3, RR IP 136 - weird how closely those pairs match right now for IP and starts but 18 more earned runs for the expensive two.

Btw, Jays up to 13 starters, 7 with 10+ starts, 6 with 6 or fewer.  Meanwhile the Rays have used 9 starters, 6 with 17+ apiece and 8 starts by 'others'.

Another silver lining is that of the prospects we got rid of, Syndergaard is the only one to take a big step forward. D'Arnaud and Marisnick both recieved promotions to the big leages, but both are off to poor starts. Nicolino has hit a road bump at AA with an ERA close to 5. Hech has done what we knew Hech would do (hit for low average and field very well). Becerra hit only .243 in his second stint in the Gulf Coast league (First stint was only 30 at bats).

Apart from Syndergaard, Henderson Alvarez is looking like the one we might miss the most.

I know that he is not a prospect, but don't forget that Yunel Escobar has had a better year than Jose Reyes and that would probably still be true if Reyes had been healthy. 

And may well be true for the next few years. Each player will probably be a 2.5-4 WAR player per year for the next few years. The difference is that Reyes will cost a lot more (and probably be a more congenial teammate).

Escobar is one of those guys who drive you nuts.  His bWAR range has been 2.4 to 4.7 (3.2 this year) while playing pretty much everyday - a guy who should be valued highly by his team.  Yet twice now he has worn out his welcome.  Reyes meanwhile seems loved by teammates but his bWAR range is (300+ PA) 1.4 to 5.8, with the 1.4 being this year.  Both are in their age 30 season.

Via WAR there really isn't much of a reason to pick Reyes over Escobar (higher highs, lower lows) yet I suspect most, if not all GM's in MLB, would take Reyes first all else being equal. It makes sense that the Rays, who need to work on a tight budget, would go for the cheap guy with a high WAR.  It is odd how some players just seem to be worth less than most methods would value them.

Kelly Johnson, who the Jays were sick of too I think, is now in LF for the Rays after fighting it for years. His OPS+ is back to 108 and he certainly has been more valuable than, say, Cabrera has been to the Jays at less than 1/2 the cost.

Hechavarria is at -1.7 WAR, a 60 OPS+ doesn't help.  Mathis is at 0.5.  Marisnick is up over 100 PA now and has a 0.1 WAR (higher than one would expect with a 34 OPS+).  Alvarez is at 1.0 WAR after 12 starts with his 99 ERA+.  Sam Dyson has 2 IP and allowed 3 ER. 

So the Miami trade guys have 3.2 + 0.1+1-1.7 WAR if I caught them all = 2.6 WAR overall (Hech hurts a lot).  Reyes is at 1.4, Buehrle 2.8, Johnson -1.4, Bonifacio -0.1 = 2.7 WAR overall.  Geez - who'd have thunk that would be a near perfect match, or that the Jays despite Johnson would be slightly in the lead right now?  Escobar being the #1 guy in the entire trade so far is depressing, Buehrle being 2nd is no shock, Hechavarria dead last followed by Johnson might be though.

Since when did one good season in a career become a track record of success? Reading comments here, you would think Bonifacio's 2011 was his career norm and in Escobar's case that 2010 and 2012 never happened.

d'Arnaud and Marisnick have had so few PAs - you can't really read anything into their performance so far.

I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing any more five-win seasons from Reyes in the future, especially after his injury. I like Reyes quite a bit, but $22M a year from 2015-17 is a lot of money. I do think the injury has been devastating for him this year - he was off to a spectacular start, offensively at least, when he got hurt.

I realize that Bonifacio has had only one really good year, but it's enough to make the trade a worthy gamble for KC, in my view. He may well regress to his terrible play of earlier this year, but he might just turn out to be a reasonably valuable player (if only in a utility role). He's more than just a fast, toolsy 28-year-old who has never managed to do anything in the majors.

John, what evidence do you have for your view that some players (Escobar, implicitly) seem to be worth less than the sabermetric stats suggest? The Rays seem to be doing well with him on the roster.

Since when did one good season in a career become a track record of success? Reading comments here, you would think Bonifacio's 2011 was his career norm and in Escobar's case that 2010 and 2012 never happened.

Couldn't agree more.  After all the criticism that Boni received, and rightly so, it's perplexing to find the Box suddenly bemoaning his loss.  Far too much emotion permeating the 'analysis' floating around her from some fronts right now. 

And I say this as one frustrated, unhappy, Jays fan.

Jairo Labourt will start for the C's in Game 1, which is about to get underway in Boise. I thought Kyle Anderson would get the call. I believe Tom Robson will start Game 2 Sunday.

I'm not bemoaning the loss of Bonifacio. I'm applauding the Royals for picking him up. It was a good buy-low move. It doesn't mean that Bonifacio is anything close to a sure thing, even as a utility player. He might end up being a valuable pickup, or he might end up being below-average for the rest of his career.

I admit, however, that I've wondered how a player who looked awful all season long in Toronto has suddenly been a good all-around player since the trade. I wondered the same thing about Hill (and before you flip out, I fully concede that they're very different players). Maybe it's just SSS or a fluke, but I'm asking the question.

greenfrog - the 'worth less than he appears' is due to two organizations getting pretty much fed up with him and a third trading him before he played a single game for them. For Atlanta to trade him as quick as they did was a shocker, the Jays not as much due to getting Reyes in return but did you read a single person saying 'Escobar is worth more than Reyes' or even 'Escobar could be worth more than Reyes'?  WAR suggests they are reasonably close, but no one seems to see it that way. The being traded multiple times mixed with the general perception suggests something is wrong that isn't easily measured. Checking the old trade thread a few said Escobar could do well, but as far as being better than Reyes only a couple of 'maybe combined with Hech' type comments.  Thus few saw Escobar as likely to be a really good player even though he really has been.  Weird eh?

Could it be that many observers are conflating their dislike of Escobar's personality/antics (and underachievement at least some of the time) with their perceptions of his net contributions on the field? (Mea culpa on this score.) Lots of good baseball players have been jerks.

I did not particularly like Escobar as a player, but he seems to be doing well in Tampa (first place in the wild card race). And remember that he did quite well in his first season-plus with Toronto, to the point where the Jays extended him. Miami and Tampa evidently wanted him (Miami flipped him because they were going cheap and had Hech to play for the league minimum).

You can certainly argue that Escobar's perceived worth (by fans and at least two teams) is or was less than the stats indicate. But then, a lot of people have had trouble accepting sabermetric evaluations of players when they clash with more conventional perceptions of worth (as in the Cabrera/Trout MVP race last year).

As Joe Maddon said recently, a lot of teams look at a player and see what he can't do; we look at a player and ask what he *can* do...

The Cabrara Trout thing is almost alway miscast as a debate between unintelligent people who have trouble grasping advanced statistics (Keith Law often obnoxiously dismisses these people as those who "hate math"), and those who embrace them. The real disagreement though, is an interpretive one about the meaning of value, and specifically about whether team success should factor into a determination about a player's value. It is a perfectly legitimate debate, but the saber crowd don't seem to recognize this.

Maybe Beyonder, but last year Trout's team was better than the Tigers, so I have a hard time buying that argument. 

My recollection of the Cabrera/Trout debate is that it was largely about whether conventional notions of worth (Triple Crown winner, player who had "paid his dues" in the majors, etc.) trumped the leading sabermetric indicators (Trout's 10.9 bWAR in 2012 versus Cabrera's 7.3 bWAR).

As far as team success, the Angels won 88 games last year, while Oakland and Texas won 92 and 91 games. You could argue that LAA might well have made the playoffs had they promoted Trout earlier than they did.

The heart of the debate is recognition of a value placed on defensive contribution.

And baserunning.

Paul D. The tigers made the playoffs, while Anaheim didn't. That's arguably the success that matters, although this is also part of the interpretive concept on which reasonable people can disagree.

I don't think there is any baseball fan that discounts the importance of defence, or good base running. I think there is some justifiable skepticism about how even the most current statistical measures capture those qualities.

So, what you're saying is that Cabrera arguably deserved the MVP because he led his team into the playoffs, even though Detroit won one fewer game than LAA did and played in a significantly weaker division?

As far as the difficulties of measuring defensive performance and baserunning, do you really think that in quantifying Cabrera and Trout's respective "net worth," bWAR was off base to the tune of 3.6 WAR (the difference between the two players in 2012)? Basically, you would have to be arguing that Trout was massively overrated last year in these two areas.

These two arguments seem weak to me.

Worth tossing in is that fWAR also had a big spread - Trout 10.0 vs Cabrera 6.9 - a 3.1 WAR difference with Cano being inbetween at 7.8 WAR. 

Basically if the triple crown was ignored I suspect Trout would've had a better shot, but the triple crown has been something that was viewed as a near lock (unless you are Ted Williams who most in the media of the day disliked strongly) for winning an MVP. 

FYI: Ted Williams won the triple crown twice and was 2nd in MVP voting both times.  Once he missed just the RBI part and again was 2nd (the year he hit 406), and actually won the MVP in a year he led in HR, RBI, R, 2B, OBP, Slg, OPS+, ... and in 1946 when Boston actually made it to the World Series.  The media disliked him so much one of the MVP's was lost by 1 point due to a writer leaving him off the 10 man ballot entirely.   His first triple crown year he lost to Joe Gordon who hit 322/409/491 (vs Williams 356/499/648).  His 4 second place finishes in MVP voting were all to Yankees - Joe Dimaggio twice, Mickey Mantle once (legit, Mantle had a 11.3 WAR vs WIlliams 9.74 when Williams was 38) and Joe Gordon once.  Imagine how the net would react to all of that now - 3 times with 10+ WAR, another 3 in the 9's plus an 8.5 but just 2 MVP's.  Led in WAR 6 times, 10 times in OPS, 9 times in OPS+.  Must've drove him nuts getting to the playoffs just the one time.

This year's MVP race will be similarly interesting.  Cabrera is a better hitter than Trout; the difference is significant but not huge.  Cabrera is slow and a poor defender at third base.  Trout is fast and a fine defender in centerfield.  In this particular case, the statistical measures are  consistent with each other and over two seasons, and match up easily with what one sees.  The issue is how much weight does one attach to contributions to a winning team.  I am pretty sure that Cabrera will win easily, but I'd like to be wrong.

The real disagreement though, is an interpretive one about the meaning of value, and specifically about whether team success should factor into a determination about a player's value. It is a perfectly legitimate debate, but the saber crowd don't seem to recognize this.

But the logical end to the 'team success determines player value' is that the MVP should always come from the team with the most wins. If team success is a determining factor in a player's value, then the team with the most success should have the player with the most value. That means the MVPs last year would have been Robinson Cano and Bryce Harper.

It's not that the saber crowd doesn't recognize the debate, it's that the saber crowd tries to look at the most valuable player in a vacuum. The individualistic nature of baseball, as compared to the other major sports, makes it much easier to separate player value from team success.

Greenfrog. If you think that the ultimate value in baseball is team success, then it is easy to make a case for Cabrera over Trout. If you accept that the MVP award is a historical practice, and you are concerned with continuing that practice, you will find that team success has factored prominently into who wins the award. Other sports follow this practice as well. You don't ever hear in basketball, for example, of high performers on poor teams being discussed as MVP candidates. In fact what you do see is the opposite: players with middling statistics on high performing teams (but usually the best player on that team) discussed as MVP candidates.

So imagine two players with identical stats, tied for the league lead in WAR. One is on a last place team and another on a playoff team. Do you give the MVP to the player on the better team? Or is it a tie?

I guess it would be easier if baseball had two awards: MVP1 (most valuable overall individual performance) and MVP2 (most valuable regular-season contribution to a winning or playoff team).

Until then, I suppose this debate will be revisited in many, if not most, years.

Perhaps someday they'll be referred to as the Mike Trout Award and the Miguel Cabrera Award, respectively.

SMCS. As I've explained below, I don't think there is anything about the "contribution to team success" model that makes it logically necessary to use regular season wins as a barometer of value. I think you can argue that success in baseball is making the playoffs.

The debate will go on every year, but most of the debate concerns people talking past one another. Keith Law is great, but he doesn't do a lot for the quality of the dialogue surrounding The MVP debate, the value of RBIs, pitcher wins, etc.

Not sure what you're arguing here. "Making the playoffs" is entirely dependent on regular season wins. And now, also on winning a final Bud Selig game as well.

It is not dependent on s set amount of wins. It is dependent on winning enough games to win your division, or a wildcard spot. Hence, Cabrera's contribution to an 88 win playoff team being seen as greater (by some) as Trout's contribution towards an 89-game-winning also-ran.

It is not dependent on s set amount of wins. It is dependent on winning enough games to win your division, or a wildcard spot. Hence, Cabrera's contribution to an 88 win playoff team being seen as greater (by some) as Trout's contribution towards an 89-game-winning also-ran.

Then they are talking about marginal value. Detroit won their division by 3 games. Without Alex Avila's 3.3 WAR, they wouldn't have been in the playoffs. Therefore, Alex Avila is the MVP. On the other side, it's Mike Trout's fault that Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson weren't worth 4 or 5 more wins combined?

That argument wants you to pay attention to some context (playoff or no playoff, quality of teammates) but ignore other contexts, like strength of schedule and other teams in the division. Why not toss in the context of salary? Cabrera is paid like a superstar; Trout isn't. Trout is providing far more value, when comparing performance to salary.

I'd much rather just focus on absolute value provided to a team in determining the Most Valuable Player.

According to Joe Posnanski and Tom Tango (http://joeposnanski.blogspot.ca/2013/08/explaining-cabrera-trout-and-war.html), Cabrera is an above average baserunner this year, and both Trout and Cabrera are below average fielders. Trout ranks ahead of Cabrera in both categories.

The real difference appears to be in park factors. Comerica's slightly a hitter's park and Angel Stadium is a pitcher's park.

I think the problem is because of the word 'valuable.'  That brings certain baggage to the MVP debate.  It really should just be the Best Player Award

I think the problem is because of the word 'valuable.'  That brings certain baggage to the MVP debate.  It really should just be the Best Player Award

No matter the wording, the debate would be the same.

I don't think so at all.  Countless times I've come across people saying that candidate A might be the best player in the league, but he's team didn't make the playoffs so he wasn't really 'valuable', could not be the league's most valuable player, therefore the MVP should go to candidate B, who's team actually won. 

The real disagreement though, is an interpretive one about the meaning of value, and specifically about whether team success should factor into a determination about a player's value. It is a perfectly legitimate debate, but the saber crowd don't seem to recognize this.

Exactly. 

I think if it had been called the best player award we would have seen very different outcomes over the last 30 years of MVP voting. If you call it the best player award it becomes much more difficult to import notions of team success into the voting.

I just read that Melky had a tumour removed from his spine. Apparently for three months he had been playing with extreme pain, and the tumour had been sapping much of the strength from his legs. It's been removed and he should be fully recovered for spring training.

Generally you give a bit of weight to playing in the pressure of a pennant race but not tons of it.  IE: if it is close give it to the guy on the winning team.  But as far as giving it to guys on losers, that bus left a long time ago.  1987 was the year of worst possible cases in MVP voting.  Andre Dawson getting it despite being on a last place team and being inferior to many other players on winners, while George Bell won it despite the massive Jay choke vs Trammell's Tigers who won it thanks in large part to Trammell.  In the final 3 games for the two teams, which was to decide who made the playoffs and who went home, Trammell hit 1.205 OPS while Bell hit for a 361 OPS in that final horrible week (3 for 27).  Each and every writer who voted for Bell over Trammell that season should've had voting privileges removed - Trammell fielded better, hit better, and did it in the 'clutch' at the end.  Sigh.