A test of how good the new regime is at dumpster-diving which I believe is what the Jays will be doing this week. Henderson Alvarez seems to have attracted too much attention for the jays to get him - I also liked toolsy minor-leaguer Orlando Calixte but he has resigned with KC.

If the price is reasonable I'd take a shot at Neftali Feliz, Elian Herrera, Cesar ramos and see if Aaron Crow is healthy

MLB Trade Rumours says Zobrist is probably going to one of Mets, Nationals or Giants with the Dodgers a dark horse in the race. While he is a very good player who can play pretty much anywhere with that 117 OPS+ lifetime I'd be nervous as he is probably getting 3-5 years and over $15 per year. Glad he doesn't appear to be coming to the AL East and probably is going to the NL.

Marlins are talking trade with Jose Fernandez and the Dodgers & Diamondbacks. Seems they are asking a kings ransom as they should for him.

Hisashi Iwakuma signed with the Dodgers for $15 per for 3 years. Great deal for the Dodgers but odds are he never consided any teams not on the west coast given he is from Japan - long enough flight as is without adding 3 or so more hours to it.

Seems few are after Yoenis Cespedes and Alex Gordon - Tigers and Royals being the main ones chasing them. The Jays should get in on it as that'd solidify LF and make it so only one kid is needed in 2017 not 2 to fill the outfield. Not to mention it makes for a killer offense.

nice to see ZIPS. always makes much more sense than steamer.

since i think projecting playing time and injuries is for the birds, here's how ZIPS looks projected to full seasons:

650pa

Donaldson 138ops+, 6.6war
Martin 107ops+, 5.1war
Bautista 147ops+, 5.0war
Tulowitzki 114ops+, 4.9war
En'cion 140ops+, 3.9war
Travis 110ops+, 3.8war
Pillar 96ops+, 3.4war
Saunders 104ops+, 2.6war
Smoak 103ops+, 1.0war

Colabello 105ops+, 0.5war
Revere 91ops+, 1.9war
Goins 68ops+, 0.4war
Thole 70ops+, 0.0war

Pompey 80ops+, 1.3war



32 starts

Stroman 93era-, 3.2war
Estrada 99era-, 2.4war
Chavez 106era-, 2.0war
Dickey 108era-, 1.8war
Happ 107era-, 1.6war
Hutch 115era-, 0.9war

65ip

Cecil 72era-, 1.1war
Osuna 76era-, 0.9war
Sanchez* 96era-, 0.7war
Loup 91era-, 0.4war
Rowen 96era-, 0.2war
Delabar 101era-, 0.1war
Tepera 101era-, 0.1war
Schultz 104era-, 0.0war
Venditte 114era-, -0.1war

* Sanchez is the one that doesn't project neatly as his projected innings are split almost evenly between the rotation and bullpen (14 starts, 41 relief appearances). actually that would mean most of his projected 108ip come as a starter now that i look at it.

Projecting playing time and injury is for the birds?  Really?  At a certain point, it does seem reasonable to project that Josh Donaldson (say) will get more PAs than Michael Saunders (say) in 2016, based on their respective injury histories and the fact that Saunders hasn't actually come back from his injury yet at all...

On the other hand, projection of playing time for rookies/players competing for jobs (like Colabello/Smoak) does seem to be pretty speculative.

I don't really understand it, because ZiPS certainly seems to project playing time, but every year Szym is quite explicit that ZiPs is not a playing time projection.

I see Madson and Soria are gone. Chapman is a Dodger...

I can see why AA left....

I think what Mr. Szymborski meant is that ZiPS projects playing time based on depth at that position and relative merit, rather than the player's projected health and ability to actually stay on the active roster.

"I see Madson and Soria are gone. Chapman is a Dodger...

I can see why AA left...."

This is a joke, right?

yeah zips projects playing time independant of mlb team depth chart. the playing time iirc is determined just on that player's usage and injury history. that's why prospects are mostly projected to full seasons even though they won't even be in the bigs.

"Projecting playing time and injury is for the birds? Really?"

yup really. for me at least.

projecting performance is hard enough with thousands of data points. projecting health based on only a handful of data points is close to meaningless to me.

projecting stroman to a full season last year meant nothjng when he went down in spring, and projecting him to only half a season of games this year due to that injury is similarly meaningless imo.

i'd rather just look at the raw performance data and then try to factor health status and history into the error bars around that projection, along with factors such as age and sample size.

I see Madson and Soria are gone. Chapman is a Dodger... I can see why AA left....

Are you saying that you'd be happier with the Jays owing $47M to a couple of non-elite bullpen pieces? Chapman would look great in a Jays uniform, but he's only under control for one more season, so assuming Cincy would even go for it, the Jays would be trading their #2 and #3 prospects for one year of a lights-out closer and a supplementary draft pick. I dunno, maybe this isn't a horrible trade given how weak the Jays system is, but I personally am VERY tired of seeing the Jays trade away actual assets for bullpen help.

I see Madson and Soria are gone. Chapman is a Dodger... I can see why AA left....

It's all good boys, Jays apparently are going to be major players for 2nd tier bullpen arms: http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/blue-jays-likely-to-pursue-2nd-tier-bullpen-arms/

I can't wait to welcome the likes of Neftali Feliz into the fold.

Something interesting from Tim Kurkijan at ESPN

Chapman: 100 k's in relief four years in a row. The only others: Dick Radatz, Rob Dibble, and ????.

Anyone know the 4th guy?

Based on that, I'm really interested to see if Revere, Saunders and Pompey are all still with the organization on Opening Day 2016. Carrera could presumably fill the "5th OF" role that Pompey currently is in. Not saying you move Pompey, but gotta think one of Revere or Saunders is a reasonable bet to move.

Anyone know the 4th guy?

BJ Ryan?

Shapiro/Atkins are not going to trade prospects, at least short-term. They are clearly trying to win in 2016 within their budget while not compromising future assets to do it. It may not be the popular way of team building after AA's 2015 moves, but that's the reality of the situation, and they are going about it the right way, IMO. The bullpen, with how volatile relievers are in general, is the last piece of the puzzle. Sure it would be nice to have a Chapman type, but if the price to acquire that type of player in AAV or prospects or both is too high, then the pen is the one spot you can take a gamble or two with a probability of high reward. Mark Lowe was awful pre-2015. Hendriks was a "failed" starter. And so on.

I would be interested to see if the Jays can trade for a long-term pen piece (someone like Randall Delgado). If not, try to find some cheap options, and pick the best of the bunch. The team still has Osuna, Cecil, and Sanchez to fall back on if all else fails.

BJ Ryan?

Go back a few more years.

Not Ryan, he only had 2 consecutive 100K seasons

duane? with all the innings he pitched it wouldn't surprise me.

This is a joke, right?

I like to think many of these League of the Perpetually Indignant sulksters are parody accounts.

duane? with all the innings he pitched it wouldn't surprise me.


uo, you got it. From 89-92: 122, 112, 132, 103 K's.

I legitimately lol'd at "League of Perpetually Indignant sulksters".

To further SK in NJ's point, Madson of the bloated FA contract was signed a year ago by Dayton Moore for 1 yr/$850,000.

Make your pen deep enough and signings like this make perfect sense. If it fails, it's not crippling and there are alternatives inhouse. If it succeeds, you end up with a nice bit of surplus value.

and even better than signing guys like madson for 800k is giving guys like Lowe and Hendriks shots without even giving them a guaranteed roster spot.

this may be simplistic but bastardo is the guy i really want as he is the one FA i can point to and say if he had been on the postseason roster we'd have likely gone to the world series. once cecil went down we needed another big lefty. it will take an overpay, say 3/25 but i'd do it.

The Jays are apparently in "serious contact" with Crush Davis. I don't see the fit but he'd fit nice in their lineup.

Agree that if the Jays do pay real money for a reliever, it should be a lefty. Tony Sipp is another name I'll mention.

Probably makes little difference, but he was a Cleveland draft pick while Shapiro was GM.

Sipp - great against both port and starboard hitters. Make it so Scotty...

League of the Perpetually Indignant sulksters

The competing League of Indignant Perpetually Sulksters does have the better acronym though.

I am glad to see the club passing on high-cost relievers.  They've got Osuna, Sanchez and Cecil.  There's no point in spending a lot of money on relievers to fill lesser roles.

Sipp is reportedly looking for a three year contract.

Italics?

The Red Sox have traded Wade Miley to Seattle for Carson Smith. That Red Sox pen is going to be tough to beat (Kimbrel, Smith, Uehara).

I see the Red Sox just added another power arm, Carson Smith to the BP - that's going to be an excellent pen.

I like to think many of these League of the Perpetually Indignant sulksters are parody accounts.

Who else to debate with the Association of Rogers Apologists?

I like to think that fans who, for some inexplicable reason, staunchly defend ownership's thriftiness are actually shareholders.

This isn't the NBA, the NHL or the NFL. There is no salary cap. All many of us want to see is spending that is commensurate with the market that the Jays have in a year where the team can legitimately be considered one of the favorites for the World Series. You could always move those contracts should things not work out (eg. the Marlins); not having a cap makes the player market far more liquid than other leagues.

As for players I hope to see targeted, I agree with Monkeyman that Bastardo would be a nice get. He crushes lefties but is also highly effective versus righties with a .626 opponent OPS and a roughly equivalent K-rate against both sides of the plate.

There's a difference between being a Rogers apologist and thinking that Shapiro/Atkins aren't crazy with approaching the offseason the way that they have, considering the obvious budgetary restraints.

I say this as nicely as possible to those who want to cheer for teams that don't have said restraints: you can buy Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers hats anywhere. And even those teams have internal budget restraints. They are just higher than the Jays.

I think only the Association of Rogers Apologists would put any stock in the Chris Davis rumour.

I say that hoping every day that the Jays are bought by someone like the Stienbrenners. But until that day, I won't blame Shapiro or Atkins for not operating like the Yankees/Dodgers/RedSox.

Who else to debate with the Association of Rogers Apologists?

Awesome.  Couldn't agree with you more Vulg.

I rarely prefer the reliever in a starter for reliever swap, but I think the Sox win that one.  Dipoto is active and at least seems to have an approach - get as much starting depth as possible - but I think he might have lost the Karns trade with Tampa too.   

Carson Smith to me represents one of the great value opportunities left in the draft - minor league relievers.  An 8th round pick in 2011, he never started a game in the minors and is an elite reliever after four years in pro ball.  Lots of effective relievers fit this profile - Tony Sipp was a 45th rounder with 5 pro starts, Kenley Jansen was unsigned and has 7 minor league starts (5 on rehab), David Robertson, 17th rounder, 1 minor league start, Cody Allen, 23rd rounder, 0 starts, Shawn Tolleson, 30th rounder, 0 starts, Mark Melancon, 9th rounder, 0 starts - there are dozens of these guys (and of course hundreds who miss), they get to the bigs quickly and they are often effective quickly - meaning while still paid at the minimum. 

I wouldn't want to do this in the first few rounds, but I'd love to see the Jays pick some college relievers in the next draft. 

Dollar is at a 11 year low compared to the USD. There is your budget increase, entirely swallowed by the canadian dollar. Just be happy the Jays aren't decreasing their US payroll.

sox trade a depth SP on a healthy contract for a slightly riskier but similar SP plus a great RP, both dirt cheap.

smart roster depth.

"I say this as nicely as possible to those who want to cheer for teams that don't have said restraints: you can buy Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers hats anywhere. And even those teams have internal budget restraints. They are just higher than the Jays."

the budget is fine.

its the corporate mindset that hires guys who worship at the altar of low risk mediocrity that's the problem.

"....guys who worship at the altar of low risk mediocrity...."

Mediocrity is not a "low-risk" strategy.  It's actually very risky.  If you acquire mediocre players, there's a big risk that you'll end up with a losing season or a bland .500 season.  And in the case of the 2016 Jays, anything less than a playoff appearance will result in a decline in revenue, a loss of reputation, a fan backlash, and lots of other bad things.  So the new executives will get punished very fast, in financial terms at least, if they fail to make the playoffs.  I don't think "mediocrity" is a safe strategy or a low-risk strategy at all.  It has a very high risk of backfiring and alienating the fans and costing a loss of revenue.  There's no incentive for Shapiro and Atkins to aim for a .500 season or a 3rd place finish or any other mediocre result.  I think they are aiming for the playoffs.  At the end of the season, if they fail to make the playoffs, we can then accurately attack them for acquiring mediocre players.  But let's at least admit that we don't know yet if their current strategy will succeed or not.   It might succeed, even though some fans are already hostile to it.  I'd rather wait and see what happens, rather than profess any crystal-ball foreknowledge.

"....the Association of Rogers Apologists....(versus) ...the  League of the Perpetually Indignant sulksters..."

Isn't there a reasonable middle ground, where we can say:  1) we believe Rogers should boost the payroll and try more aggressively to acquire an ace free-agent;  2) since it unfortunately seems likely that the payroll will NOT increase very much, what's the best way to allocate the existing payroll?  And let's debate the various options for spending the existing payroll without being apologists or sulksters.

That's my two cents anyway.

They had a lot of holes to fill and not a ton of money to do it. Which makes those sexy free agent picks not exactly viable. We might wish they could afford those guys, but there is very real reasons why Toronto can't.

"Mediocrity is not a "low-risk" strategy. It's actually very risky."

hmmm, you may be on to something there.

I think only the Association of Rogers Apologists would put any stock in the Chris Davis rumour.

As I recall, the Association of Rogers Apologists is a splinter group of the Rogers Apologists Association. Or perhaps the People's Front of Judea. (This thread needed a "Life Of Brian" reference.)

I can't imagine the Jays signing Chris Davis. Of course, I couldn't have imagined them trading for Troy Tulowitzki, so you never know. If the A-of-RA happen to actually have gotten it right, then either (a) the Jays are trying to Score All Of The Runs in 2016, (b) they plan on moving EE since they plan not to resign him, or (c) some other plan that is beyond my comprehension at present.

Isn't there a reasonable middle ground

Hear hear!  There's some sort of weird false dichotomy going on - you are either a member of the ARA or the LIPS (BTW, you guys are awesome for these acronyms).

I truly think it's a positive sign that so many engaged fans are debating the Jays right now, but something about online discourse is dividing us into these either-or camps. 

Boy so negative around here. The Jays have a top tier offense without any doubt, a guy who should be an ace who is early in his career, two solid young guys who could be solid starters and the league MVP yet people act like this is a last place team.

For the pen remember, Mark Lowe was the ultimate in dumpster diving last year - a guy who had missed a few seasons.

Speaking of dumpsters - Washington is desperate to dump Jonathan Papelbon on someone - he is still a very good pitcher and if they pick up most of his tab might he be worth grabbing?

The exchange rate is a non-factor. If you are a Canadian business like Rogers with US-dollar obligations coming due, it is a straightforward matter to protect yourself against these fluctuations through the purchase of insurance.

If you elect to forbear from buying some form of insurance to cover swings in currency value, then you have decided to be in the business of currency speculation.

As a practical matter we will never know whether Rogers has covered off their currency risk exposure.

Sorry, no amount of insurance will make up the $25 million spread from last year to this or the $50 million spread from a few years ago. The Jays are a multi-multi-million dollar business and the currency fluctuations will hit them no matter how hard they try to avoid it. They can do all kinds of stuff to make it stable for a season but not for 2 or 3 or more years. Our dollar going down a ski slope will not be something the Jays could've protected themselves from.

^ It's in their annual report if you are interested. Summary on Page 60 and detailed on Page 114. Over $1 billion of expenditure derivatives on USD.

As far as the Jays are concerned, this is managed closely and there should be no "exchange rate shock". But it's still an important factor for planning -- many revenues are in CAD and most expenses are in USD, so it definitely matters whether you are hedging or not.

Question:  why did the Jays agree to tender Delabar for $700,000?  He doesn't seem likely to crack the Jays bullpen -- he couldn't make the bullpen in September and October, and he seems behind even Tepera in the depth chart, and his career seems in decline, to say the least -- so $700,000 seems a lot to pay for a Buffalo reliever.  Do the Jays have the option of dumping him in March for a small fraction of his salary?  Even if they do, it seems like an over-payment.  Unless the Jays are planning to acquire nobody good to replace Lowe and Hawkins, and just use organizational filler and waiver claims.  That can't be the plan, surely?

There's a difference between being a Rogers apologist and thinking that Shapiro/Atkins aren't crazy with approaching the offseason the way that they have, considering the obvious budgetary restraints.

I say this as nicely as possible to those who want to cheer for teams that don't have said restraints: you can buy Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers hats anywhere. And even those teams have internal budget restraints. They are just higher than the Jays.

Oh boy. There is a very good reason that Bob McCown, who is easily the most business savvy of Sportsnet stable of media personalities, has been highly critical of the approach his bosses have adopted. The issue, Jevant, is that the budget restraint you allude to is significantly lower than what Rogers could afford, even while maintaining profit margin.

Let me try to provide some context. Here is a link to Rogers most recent earnings summary (Q3): http://netstorage-ion.rogers.com/downloads/IR/pdf/quarterly-results/Rogers-2015-Q3-Results-Release.pdf

Some highlights for you:

- Overall corporate revenue of $3.4B for the quarter; $10B for the year (up from $9.5B)
- Overall operating profit of $1.3B for the quarter; $3.8B for the year (also up)
- Media division (of which the Jays are a part) operating revenue of $473M for the quarter; $1.5B for the year
- Media division operating profit of $58M for the quarter; $116M for the year

Some choice quotes from the report. You see, Rogers is very proud of how the Jays are doing and quick to tell shareholders how this has helped their bottom line ... just don't ask them to increase payroll please:

"Media adjusted operating profit more than doubled with the Toronto Blue Jays’ on-field success and as Sportsnet continued as Canada's #1 sports brand on TV"

(as a bullet under 'Higher Operating Revenue' - "Cable revenue increased due to continued Internet revenue growth and Media revenue increased primarily as a result of growth at Sportsnet and the Toronto Blue Jays. "

- (for those concerned with US currency fluctuations: "This quarter, we entered into US dollar-denominated foreign currency forward contracts to fix the exchange rate on US$360 million of Rogers’ US dollar-denominated gross forecasted expenditures for 2016. The US$360 million of anticipated expenditures was hedged at an average rate of $1.32/US$, which fixes the cost in Canadian dollars for these expenditures over the term of the contracts to $474 million.

What fans need to understand is that Jays team payroll is a pimple on the ass of the Rogers empire. This is one of the wealthiest owners in all of MLB.

When members of the ARA argue on behalf of Rogers and their "financial restraint", please understand that you are arguing for a level of profit margin that Ed et. all have deemed desirable to shareholders. They can afford more and not be ANYWHERE CLOSE to losing money. Much more.

So yes, when Rogers cheerfully points out how the Jays are Canada's team and demonstrates in their financial reports how much more shareholder value they've added to the empire as a result of the team's success ... you'll excuse me if I scoff a little bit when they set a budget in 2016 that was equal to the one we saw at the end of 2015.

I'll keep my Blue Jays hat, thank you. I'll also hope that Ed eventually puts one on. :)

Hey, the Jays should reclaim Lefty Jayson Aquino - can try to sneak him through waivers later if 40 man spot needed.

i prefer to keep my criticisms to the baseball people. rogers spends enough money, and they keep a fairly hands off approach


my issue is with shapiro, and his decision that right now, with an amazing roster an a legit chance to win for the next 3-4 seasons, we should instead worry about "sustainability".

newsflash, most of us don't care about sustainability, we care about winning. we will glady except years and years of teardown rebuilds for a few years of elite contention every now and then.

moreover, we all know that there's only one way to actually be a sustainable winner, and that there are no shortcuts to it. if you do it well you will contend no matter how many bad contracts you sign, if you do it poorly you will lose no matter how much you diversify your risk. And what is this key - DRAFTING AND DEVELOPING. That is what makes you sustainable. nothing else.


Now AA as we've seen inherited a crapshow of a system, and has managed to almost completely build up an elite stable of kkds not once but twice in 6yrs. I have no reason to think this was fluke, and my hunch is that the next wave of kids in rookke ball will once again exceed expectations just like the others have.

this is why AA had no problem signing big contracts or trading prospects - he knew how to replenish the young cheap assets and keep that steady stream of valuable talent coming.

can shapiro match him there? i dunno. he was in charge for 2 decades and the young talent was hit and miss. if he can't, then we'll get nothing other than sustained mediocrity under his leadership.

it's also good business. during the rebuild fans follow the prospects and when the winning comes enjoy it even more. plus some pent up cheering for a winner blows the roof off like this fall. ask atlanta fans how they felt about the '90s. by the end, attendance fell sharply even though the team was still winning. this team is capable of greatness. not goodness, greatness. it's a crime if they don't spend on the pen for this window.

here's a tentative list of the young talent AA brought into the organization in his first 5yrs. I didn't include the 2015 draft or IFA signings cuz it's too soon.

I think i got most of them but feel free to correct me.

I've included:

1) guys who have become mlbers
2) guys who have been used as trade bait
3) guys who are current top prospects

M.Stroman
N.Syndergaard
R.Osuna
A.Sanchez
D.Norris
J.Hoffman
A.Desclafani
K.Graveman
M.Castro
J.Nicolino
S.Dyson
M.Boyd
S.Nolin
C.Greene
S.Reid-Foley
J.Tinoco
N.Wells
J.Labourt
A.Tirado
A.Wojchiechowski


CF Pillar
CF Gose
CF Pompey
CF Alford
OF W.Becerra
3B Lawrie
SS Hechavarria
SS Barreto
SS Urena
2B Travis
1B R.Tellez
C D'Arnaud

thay's 5yrs worth. did I miss anyone?

It is still a corporation that is responsible to shareholders. Unlike other sports teams who are owned by individuals, they need to make sure it makes sense to the people who own the business. Steinbrenner or Ilitch can do whatever they want, it's their own money. Ed Rogers can't do the same.

This isn't a last place team, but they could end up last after a month or two and I wouldn't be shocked.

By the way, what's the plan for the outfield? Is Saunders healthy now?

The sky is not falling, the Jays have a good team.

Can't a person vent?

I wished it was us that had Carson Smith, Uehera and Kimbrel in the bullpen. (it hurts for the Red Sox to get all the players!!!)

If the Blue Jays do sign Chris Davis, look for either Edwin to be traded for either a #2 starter or prospects that are close. Of course they could play with Edwin and let him walk at the conclusion of the season

EE is a 10/5 guy, so trading him might not be easy.

If I'm him I'd want to stay in the comfortable hitting environment that he's currently in (dome, inflated runs/rbis) and cash out at the end of the year.

The sky is not falling, the Jays have a good team.

Can't a person vent?

Vent away Lylemcr.  Some people like to gang up on posters that they disagree with.  You haven't said a damn thing wrong. 

Ugly, I've been saying that same thing for the past year. 

It is still a corporation that is responsible to shareholders. Unlike other sports teams who are owned by individuals, they need to make sure it makes sense to the people who own the business. Steinbrenner or Ilitch can do whatever they want, it's their own money. Ed Rogers can't do the same.

Makes sense?

Did you catch that Revenue for the year is projected over $13B with Operating Profit of over $5B? Maybe you missed the part where Rogers plastered the Jays all over the Q3 financial results and highlighted how much extra $$ the Jays created for shareholders in 2015. You don't think some of that should go back into payroll?

If Rogers made $4.96B in Operating Profit instead of $5B (i.e. if they increased payroll to $180M, just below where the Red Sox and Giants were in 2015) would there be a shareholder riot? Exactly how much into the black "makes sense"?

It's Rogers' money. They can spend it however they want to. Who are we to tell them how to spend their money?

ie. Who am I to tell you guys how to spend your money.

If you want the Jays to spend $200 million on payroll then buy the team and spend $200 million on payroll.

Until then just try to enjoy the game and embrace that you have no control over what happens.

I would add Jake Marisnick to your list, Uglyone, just off the top of my head.

'Buy the team'.

Come on man, this is stupid. I'm trying to enjoy the offseason and continue to be a fan but that doesn't mean I can't be pissed of at indifferent corporate ownership.

So youre trying to enjoy the offseason by being pissed off at a corporation?

My whole point is for people to sit back and enjoy the Jays and quit complaining.

EE's Agent: "Contract extension b4 the season start or we test the FA market."

seems like guys aren't begging to stay.


Atkins Response: "we're going to be open and honest"

sweet.

ISLAND BOY iirc AA was promoted after that 2009 draft where we picked jake.

Pubster, every offseason this board celebrates Festivus with the airing of grievances against Rogers. Might as well set up up an aluminum pole and enjoy Festivus with the rest of us.

'Quit complaining'

Pubster, I've broached plenty of topics for discussion that have nothing to do with Rogers. The only topic that seems to entertain half the box is how stupid the dissatisfied posters are. It's a stance that is elitist and unpleasant, self-congratulatory and in some cases blatantly classist.

But enough of independent thought.

Oh, I didn't realize that. Like I said, I didn't look it up. It is an impressive list of talent over 5 years though, Uglyone.

Jerjapan, good feedback!

Well I for one am pretty excited for Spring Training to roll around. I think the Jays are going to have a solid season.

However Jerjapan I think you should also take your own advice. I plan to I think its good advice.

You're complaint was: "It's a stance that is elitist and unpleasant, self-congratulatory and in some cases blatantly classist. "

Yet your response was to say that my opinion was stupid. I was surprised actually to see that the same poster made both comments!

For interesting names on the trade front... Adam Lind is apparently being made available by the Brewers right now with the Mariners the top team chasing him. Seattle also just grabbed Wade Miley from the Red Sox. Interesting to see musical chairs going on. The Red Sox are big time active as they should be - when you come in last no one is safe. The Red Sox got Roenis Elias who looks like a 'meh' #6/7 starter, and Carson Smith - who was an excellent reliever last year for Seattle, his rookie season at 25.

Clearly the Red Sox are going bullpen nuts after blowing the wad on David Price. I can understand why, as that is the big thing right now - to have at least 3 lock down relievers to 'shorten' games. I remember how nice it was in the early 90's with Henke & Ward, and the Nasty Boys in Cincinnati in the 90's (3 guys who all would be closers at different times - Dibble, Myers, Carlton).

It'll be interesting to see how Kenley Jansen and Chapman do next year.

Seeing how much bullpen aces are costing makes me think Sanchez/Osuna in the BP might be better than them pitching in the SP and only being average starters.

What fans need to understand is that Jays team payroll is a pimple on the ass of the Rogers empire. This is one of the wealthiest owners in all of MLB.

Any argument that Rogers should spend more needs to make the case that that spending will increase -- not decrease -- profits. (That's the argument, by the way, that Bob McCown makes, not the one you're making. ChinaFan, among others, has made the same case here, and I agree with it.) To argue that they shouldn't care so much about profits doesn't fly. It's not your money, it's theirs, and they have plenty of shareholders who couldn't care less about the Blue Jays except as it affects their share price. Heck, a lot of these shareholders, if they're baseball fans at all, probably root for other teams; they aren't going to be interested in subsidizing a Blue Jays playoff run. Sure, I'd rather have Mike Ilitch (probably) but them's the breaks.

every offseason this board celebrates Festivus with the airing of grievances against Rogers. Might as well set up up an aluminum pole and enjoy Festivus with the rest of us.

Wins the thread.

Yet your response was to say that my opinion was stupid. I was surprised actually to see that the same poster made both comments!

so 'buy the team' and 'quit complaining' are not insults?

i didnt call you stupid, btw, i suggested that 'buy the team' was stupid.  i guess i should have said insulting, its more accurate.

i also think the team will be good next year, but i do find the unpleasantly smug attitude of a lot of the 'you dont have the money for seasons tickets' types to be gross.  i prefer sitting in the 500s with people that dont look down on me.

hillarious to read northeys link and see the same people saying exactly the same thing 7 years ago when AA was hired.  congrats on the evolution of your thought.

That was my point with the link. That AA coming in had tons of naysayers even people who I strongly respect were negative as we all thought LaCava was getting it and we were mostly 'who is this AA guy'.

For fun trying to figure out the start of the Ash era you need to go to alt.sports.baseball.tor-bluejays and set a filter. I had no luck finding when Ash was hired (all I get online is 1995 but I recall him being named it in 1994 as they worked on Gillick 'retiring'). I'd bet he had a lot more favorable reaction since A) he was Canadian and B) was endorsed by Gillick and C) the Jays had 2 WS wins in their pockets at the time with top prospects coming up, how could anyone screw that up? Oh yeah.

Jerjapan i dont think you read my post correctly. Probably related to why you watch games from the nose bleeds.

It's amazing - Sportsnet sent a boatload of people down to the winter meetings apparently to watch paint dry.

of course - fly down everyone and make sure to capitalize on the renewed fan excitememt which would surely carry over to the offseason and winter meetings! smart business decision - what could go wrong?

People can talk about the Defense, but it might be hard to improve it now. Next year, however is next year. Or people can about the Offense, but it's already world-class, so nothing need be done. There are upgrades that might be considered but are not needed. People can talk about the Rotation, but with Marcus Stroman, Marco Estada, R.A. Dickey and J.A. Happ as locks and enough good alternatives for 5th/6th Starter options, anything more could be premature. The Offseason is long.

Talking about the Bullpen, however, is germane. Gibbons wants another really good quality LH Reliever to pair with Cecil on the Back End. Considering how few are available, spending here is necessary. Dumpster diving is well and fine for some acquisitions, they are all risk anyway, but not for your #4 Reliever. The sudden run could eliminate Toronto if they wait too long.

If you want the Jays to spend $200 million on payroll then buy the team and spend $200 million on payroll.

Until then just try to enjoy the game and embrace that you have no control over what happens.

I mean, I also have no control over how the players perform on the field. Nevertheless, when there are games, we all come here to praise, critique, celebrate and commiserate.

Sadly, there are no games now. However, we still live through the team. Success during the offseason comes down to how well the front office deploys available resources. In that equation, you hope for a) an abundance of resources and b) smart evalations of, and investments in, players.

Believe me, I started the offseason thinking of the players I'd love to see in blue. It's way more fun thinking about trotting out reinforcements. I thought the Jays would be outbid on Price and Greinke, but I was really hopeful for Zimmerman, as I like his makeup and think he'll survive the AL transition well (NOTE - he'll be 34 at the end of his 5-year deal, Happ will be 36). I was also very hopeful we could retain Lowe. His $6.5M annual tag sure seems reasonable.

But the reality of offseason maneuvering is that success or failure is determined by those two factors I listed above, and the Jays are committing WAY less on the available-resources front than I thought they would (and had been implied by the "if the fans come, the money will be there" claims from the previous regime).

Of course I'd prefer there were games to talk about instead of contracts, but we are where we are, with the team's budget really driving the kind of players we end up talking about. Next up - I'm hoping for Antonio Bastardo.

I was also very hopeful we could retain Lowe. His $6.5M annual tag sure seems reasonable.

You can save $6M by getting someone else. Do that two or three times and you can get someone who's actually productive.

Papelbon... might he be worth grabbing?

I think he prefers to do the grabbing. No thanks.

"...."Media adjusted operating profit more than doubled with the Toronto Blue Jays’ on-field success....   Cable revenue increased due to continued Internet revenue growth and Media revenue increased primarily as a result of growth at Sportsnet and the Toronto Blue Jays...."

Thanks, Vulg, for spotting these lines in the Rogers report.  My optimistic interpretation is that Rogers now understands that the Jays can contribute significant profit to the company when they are a playoff team.  This, in turn, increases the pressure on Rogers and Shapiro to maintain the Jays as a playoff team.  Having attained this higher level of profits, the company won't be happy to lose it within 12 months.  Shapiro must understand that he needs to keep the Jays in the playoffs.  And while that doesn't necessarily require David Price, it does require more than cheap low-cost mediocre talent in the rotation and bullpen and lineup. 

One possibility is that Shapiro will keep some money set aside for the trade deadline, duplicating AA's successful strategy of last season. But it might be more difficult to pull off that strategy in 2016, since every team saw how spectacularly it can work.

"....That was my point with the link. That AA coming in had tons of naysayers...."

Some of those comments in 2009 were stunningly stupid.  My favorites were from Craig B, who issued the following words of wisdom:  "Young Squire Anthopoulos is Gord Ash Mark II, absolutely true to life....  Like Gordo, the Squeaky-Voiced Teen will work very, very cheap..... Alex Anthopoulos wouldn't know who the best player is if you lined up Cookie Monster Ortiz alongside the cast of the Muppets. And he's depending on the "input" of many, many people who are similarly underqualified for the jobs they are performing. This is the guy who always made sure he put the right cover page on his TPS Reports.   Would Rogers hand over one of their TV stations to a 32-year-old kid who had been in the serious part of the business for four years? Would they hell. Before '05, Alex Anthopoulos's most important duty was arranging for plane tickets for fat old men...."

Spending for three pitchers - dickey -$12 Mm, Happ-$10 Mm , and Estrada is $11.5 MM. Was acceptable , however , I wish for another controllable young arm such as Salazar, Paxton and the Jays if successful in this aspect . I believe their off-season would be considered a success for off-season starting pitching.

If Tony Sipp is added to the bullpen, than this transaction should be concluded as successful off-season for the bullpen.

The signing of Davis and the trading of Pillar, Colabello and Hutchison for Salazar + Cody Allen would leave a formidable offensive lineup and Solid Starting pitching and relief Corps.

Revere, Donaldson, Joey Bats, EE , Davis, Tulo, Martin, Travis / Goins and Pompey/ Saunders.

Stroman, Dickey, Salazar, Estrada, Happ with Chavez as your swing- man.

Thole catches 32 games of Dickey and Martin catches 130 games.

Bullpen looks like : Chavez, Loup, Sipp, Cecil , Allen, Sanchez, and closing with Osuna.

That would conclude this season - there should be little complaining and $160 MM payroll for 2016.

In 2017 , Rogers would have $180 MM payroll. PS your ticket prices would increase.

Not surprised about EE's agent giving the Jays a deadline to extend & I expect JB to do same - which is why I've been saying either extend them or find a trade partner that will extend them now (allow team 72 hours to negotiate) - these guys rightfully want to be paid and I don't think it matters to them if it's Toronto or Timbuktu that's paying them - I could see this becoming a distraction especially if the team gets off to a slow start - Also, I think this offense can withstand the loss and maybe we can get some pitching help.

On the issue of the Canadian dollar, are we sure that the compensation programme that once existed no longer exists? There's no trigger point, or sliding scale, that's permanently in place? And if not, why hasn't it been revived?

(We're too good -- is that it?)

Like I said, I'd love to have an owner who says "I want a World Series trophy, and I'll spend whatever it takes to do it". But that's not the reality we are living in. I'll all for bashing Rogers for not spending more, but I also understand why they won't. And I don't hold Shapiro accountable for that.

No, it really isn't. The Dodgers, A's and Royals are all doing the same thing this offseason. And those teams seem to be doing okay for themselves, on the whole.

TUIB with the zing!

Rogers has provided a top 10 payroll in baseball for the past 3 seasons despite the CAD/USD discrepancy. In 2 of those 3 seasons, the team was middling (74 wins and 83 wins). Those two seasons, plus the first four months of 2015 that looked remarkably similar, likely contributed to their scale back. If they feel more comfortable being in the lower end of the a top 10 payroll to maximize profits, then yes it sucks for the fans who want more money invested in the team, but all the front office can do is work within their parameters. If they know that payroll is either going to remain around the same spot or get lower in future years, then it would be irresponsible to continue with the AA method of team building (heavily backloading contracts, acquiring $100M players, etc). Fans will buy hype, but they'll stay for success. Sustainable success cannot be gained doing what AA did unless the farm system is in amazing shape, and clearly it isn't. The payroll is still more than enough to build a quality/sustainable team long-term.

I honestly don't know what the complaining is about. If any of you were expecting the same type of wheeling and dealing that we saw in 2015 on a $135-140M payroll given the team's current/future financial obligations, where they sit on the win curve, and the current state of their minor league system, then I'm not sure what to tell you. The Jays currently have a management team that wants to build a sustainable winner and is ready to make radical changes to the way the entire organization runs. They recognize the value of wins. They recognize win curves. They value cost effectiveness as it relates to young players. They know they have to build differently if they have to build on a budget. None of that is going to sell hype, but it's the better long-term solution to team building.

Whether they execute it effectively remains to be seen.

Spending money on Chris Davis instead of pitching would be ridiculous.

UNLESS it indicated that Encarnacion had waived his no-trade clause and had been moved for a strong #2 starter.

Davis would be great to get, even if it meant trading Edwin for pitching. But EE has one year on his contract, so there is no chance of getting anything back of great long-term value, unless it's a prospect that works out. Teams with #2 starters on one year deals aren't usually trading them for other players on one year deals. Which teams need a 1B/DH, already have a lot of pitching and a terrible offense?

Maybe EE to Pittsburg for Liriano (2 years left on his contract), plus the Jays throw in a good prospect?

Some of those comments in 2009 were stunningly stupid.  My favorites were from Craig B, who issued the following words of wisdom:

CF, that was an entirely gratuitous shot. We've all said things that (in hindsight) turned out to be wrong, but "stunningly stupid" should be reserved for the worst moves of Jimy Williams.  Feel free to poke fun at me for my advocacy for Joel Collins, or one of your own faux-pas.  It's a lot more fun when people are in the spirit of a pena.
 

And as for Chris Davis, he wouldn't be my first choice because it would mean Bautista back in the outfield in 2016.  Still, if the money is right (with Boras, hmm?), his acquisition would significantly strengthen the club.  It does not matter if you blast the opponents into submission or beat them ticky-tacky.  I'm kind of fond of the brute force method, and the prospect of Donaldson, Bautista, Encarnacion, Davis, Tulowitzki and Martin in the 2-7 slots would be very, very hard on pitchers.  Davis has a significant platoon split- he absolutely kills RHPs.  He would get the same advantage in this Blue Jay lineup as Duke Snider did in the old Brooklyn lineup, with all those RHBs around him. 

It's a big day in Blue Jay birthdays- Josh Donaldson, Vernon Wells, Kyle Drabek and Reed Johnson share this day.  Happy birthday, gentlemen.

Josh Donaldson turns 30 today, but I still trust him.

Ugh. Anyone else a little tired of this back and forth about Rogers and payroll? I long for a Hall of Names post. Here's a quick shot at a list:

A Team That'll Make You Feel "Roger"ed

C Roger Bresnahan
1B Roger Connor
2B Rogers Hornsby
SS Roger Peckinpaugh
3B Louis Rogers "Pete" Browning

OF Roger Maris
OF Roger Cedeno
OF Roger "Doc" Cramer

SP Roger Clemens
SP Kenny Rogers
SP Steve Rogers
SP Roger McDowell
SP Esmil Rogers

Spending $100M on Chris Davis and then trying to trade a player with 10/5 rights who likely won't accept a trade (EE) seems pretty foolish. Just extend Encarnacion for 3-4 years instead if you're willing to spend that much. It will probably be cheaper and doesn't cost a trade pick.

Great idea, Chris. I suspect Mick might have tackled this one back in the day, but it's a perfect time to revisit it.

Roger Pavlik and Roger Moret can join the rotation allowing McDowell and Esmil Rogers to join the pen along with Roger Craig.  Roger Repoz (hello BTF) will surety make the bench.

Kenta Maeda is being posted today. Do the Jays pony up $20 million to negotiate?

"....that was an entirely gratuitous shot..."

We've all occasionally made erroneous predictions and stupid mistakes in our comments here, but Craig B's attack on Anthopoulos in 2009 was something quite different: a nasty personal assault, intended to belittle him, portraying him as an office boy and a "squeaky-voiced teen" with no understanding of anything except "cover pages" and "arranging plane tickets." 

I still don't understand why some baseball fans can dish out the nastiest attacks on management or players, and then cry foul if anyone uses even a mild form of the same language in a critique of them.   (Not you, Mike, but a few others.)

I think the most surprising development this off-season is the significant price increase for relief pitching. O'Day (4/$31), Soria (3/$25), Madson (3/$22), Lowe (2/$13), Motte (2/$10), Chris Young (2/$11.5), Qualls (2/$6), Cahill ($4.25). Guys like Clippard, Cishek, Sipp, Bastardo will get big multi-year deals. Even a scrub / fringe pitcher can expected to get $2 to $2.5 million. It's bad news if the Jays are planning on dumpster diving for bullpen arms. It's also bad news for signing Brett Cecil, who is going to command a big, long-term deal in the next 12 months (probably at least 4 years).

Keeping Osuna & Sanchez in the pen in 2016 seems more and more likely everyday. And because of that, I think they Jays SHOULD be interested in Maeda. But I think a lot of teams are going to be interested in Maeda, so it's very unlikely to happen.

"The Jays currently have a management team that wants to build a sustainable winner and is ready to make radical changes to the way the entire organization runs"

corporate nothingspeak.

every single management team in the universe wants to "build a sustainable winner". using this as praise is meaningless.

but yes, you are correct - they do want to make "radical changes" to an organization which not only had arguably the best roster in baseball last year and could have this year as well both on very affordable payrolls, but also one of the most impressive and steadiest influxes of young talent of any orginazation in baseball the past 6yrs or so.

now why they want to make "radical changes" to that is the question that needs answering.

there are organizations that need radical changes - but you find them at the bottom of the standings, not the top.

the criticism at the time of the AA hire means nothing to today, imo.

when he was hired the team was in dissaray. a bad team with no stars and no prospects and lots of bad contracts. AA was an unkown with no track record.

this is nothing like the current situation, where the jays are one of the best teams in baseball, with great talent young and old, and one exec with an established track record has been replaced with another.

Mike, I was also on the Joel Collins bandwagon back in the day and I sided with you when the prospect rankings were being discussed. His career finished up in 2011 in independent ball after his halcyon days in 2007 and 2008. Oh well!

Bob Elliott has a piece saying the Jays are interested in Jonathan Lucroy and Jean Segura of the Brew Crew.

The cost of pens is a big surprise this winter, but it really shouldn't be. Top middle men were getting $3 mil a year a decade ago so $8 mil a year for them now is logical it just held steady for along time as there were lots of bad contracts given out in the early 2000's to middle men who collapsed so I suspect many teams decided 'screw this I'm not wasting my budget there' and with KC having a strong pen people now are going 'I need a strong pen'.

The smartest teams now will see the skyrocketing cost of relievers and be looking for what isn't skyrocketing. Defense was briefly the flavour of the month, now relievers, starters always have tons of value. Maybe chasing the sluggers is the bargain way to win? I'd be kicking tires on Davis (latest rumours are his agent told the Yankees he wants a deal like Teixeira's ... 8 years $180 mil which is far too much for a guy with just 2 great years on his resume).

An interesting name on MLBTR is Cliff Lee looking for a ML contract and a shot to start with a winning team. Heck, I'd kick the tires there and see what he is after. If he can make a comeback he'd be a potential ace, if not you can just release him.

Well, to be more like now look at Gord Ash. The internal option who got the job, liked by all and seemed to know what he was doing. And we saw the worst flop in Jays history with tons of embarrassing moments during his time at the top.

Btw, since many here are younger than me I assume they have no memory of the George Steinbrenner years in NY or Harold Ballard here in Toronto. Both had tons of problems, dragging down big brands to feed their egos. The 80's were the only decade no Yankee team won a World Series and the Leafs went from #2 all time in Stanley Cups to a total joke. Having an active owner who wants to win does not always help. I much prefer Rogers & Labatts who leave it to the baseball people to run the team.

Cracka i don't think the RP money is unusual.

last offseason:

Robertson 4/$46
Miller 4/$36
Uehara 2/$18
Gregerson 3/$18.5
Romo 2/$15
Rodriguez 2/$13
Neshek 2/$12.5
Duke 3/$15
Soria 1/$7
Hochevar 2/$10
Grilli 2/$8
Janssen 1/$5
Motte 1/$4.5
O'Day 1/$4.25

Ugly, so in your mind, what AA did from 2013-15 was a way to build a sustainable winner? You don't honestly believe that, do you? Come on. Some of the things AA did during that time included: gutting a large chunk of his prospect base to acquire players in their 30's on free agent contracts. Promoting two pitchers with practically no pro innings in their careers to the Majors straight from A-ball so they can pitch out of the big league pen (that's the opposite of a long-term vision). Showing no regard for options and service time based on his rapid promotions/demotions of prospects (Pompey, Norris, Sanchez, Osuna, etc). Leaving Shapiro with 2 starters in MLB and AAA combined entering this off-season. Do any of those things point to a management team that cared about long-term, sustainable winning?

Isn't it far more likely, based on his behavior, that he saw how many years he had left with Bautista/Encarnacion under contract (in 2013), and acted accordingly? That seems far more realistic based on the contracts and age of players he's acquired since then, combined with less emphasis placed on player development from the minor league system.

So to answer your question, sure, all GM's want to build a sustainable winner, but in this case, AA did not try to. Shapiro is trying to.

As far as your second point, the radical changes were necessary. I'm not going to do too in depth since we've argued this enough already, but the payroll was not as flexible as you keep making it seem, and the roster had a ton of holes heading into the off-season in a market where SP's/RP's are way overpriced and prospect capital is required to acquire clear upgrades (which the Jays don't have and/or can't afford to trade). If anything, contracts in baseball have made player development far more important, and some of those "radical" changes involve trying to improve the development of the minor league system (better trainers, psychologists, etc). Shapiro's regime is very long-term driven, at least based on what they've done so far.

Your third point about influx of talent, you're right in that it's an impressive list, but many of those players were traded for veterans (that darn "sustainable building philosophy" at work obviously), and more importantly, look at the CBA in 2010-12 and compare it to today. No more Type B free agents. A cap on how much you can spend in each round. A cap/penalty for international spending. The system AA's regime accumulated in 2010-12 is simply unrealistic to duplicate with the new CBA, at least as quickly as he did it. Even if AA stayed on, that wasn't going to fix itself in a snap of a finger.

I went on longer than I wanted to, but to summarize: No, AA was not concerned with long term sustainability based on the moves he made, while the current regime is (to this point), and yes, radical changes were required for this team to change the way it constructs an MLB roster and develops talent in the minors. I don't see how any of that is disputable.

AA built all that prospect depth he "gutted". Not only was he great at building prospect depth, but was smart enough to know that most often prospects have more value in trades than they end up having as players. He used that great prospect base he built to go out and get the best players he could.

Is that sustainable? you bet your purple butt it is.

Looking at last year's relief signings, I can't say that I don't mind any of them. Most of them paid off, IMO. They might be expensive, but they are not for 7 years. Look what happened to the Yankees bullpen with the signing of Miller.

That being said, as these guys get signed, there are going to be lots of guys available for less money. Maybe a Cliff Lee will be willing to sign with the Jays to get on a winning team.

So... I will try to be patient... (But it is so hard when all the players are going to the Red Sox!!!)

yeah Lyle that list of RP signings did turn out much better than i would have guessed.

Having an active owner who wants to win does not always help.

You referenced Harold Ballard as if he were an Ilitch or Moreno. Ballard did nothing to help the team win. He meddled far too much and sucked massive amounts of money out of the Leaf franchise. The comps in recent baseball are the worst traits of Jeff Lauria and Frank McCourt.

"a bad team with no stars and no prospects and lots of bad contracts"

We will have to wait until farm system rankings come out, but I would not be surprised to find that AA inherited a better farm system than the one he left behind. BA ranked the Jays system 19th overall in April of 2009. Keith Law ranked the team 18th earlier that same year. BP had them 10th overall in March of 2009. My own (possibly idiosyncratic) view is that we are in considerably worse shape than any of those grades.

Is that sustainable? you bet your purple butt it is.

uo, you seem to have a different definition of sustainable than a lot of other posters here..

"My favorites were from Craig B, who issued the following words of wisdom: "Young Squire Anthopoulos is Gord Ash Mark II, absolutely true to life.... Like Gordo, the Squeaky-Voiced Teen will work very, very cheap..... Alex Anthopoulos wouldn't know who the best player is if you lined up Cookie Monster Ortiz alongside the cast of the Muppets. And he's depending on the "input" of many, many people who are similarly underqualified for the jobs they are performing. This is the guy who always made sure he put the right cover page on his TPS Reports. Would Rogers hand over one of their TV stations to a 32-year-old kid who had been in the serious part of the business for four years? Would they hell. Before '05, Alex Anthopoulos's most important duty was arranging for plane tickets for fat old men....""

I stand by every word of that, by the way. Anthopoulos was underqualified if not totally unqualified on hire.

To the extent China fan wants me to say I was wrong: I certainly got Anthopoulos wrong. He wasn't and never has been a great general manager, but he's done some very fine deals and has been a very big help in convincing the club's owners to try a more investment-driven approach. My skepticism over him has proved unfounded, and he deserves his thanks from the fans.

He's received mine privately.

pubtser, you're being a dick and adding nothing to the site with your snobby snark. Comments telling people that's why they sit in the 500 seats... who raised you? You owe an apology.

The site has a comments section for... comments. If a comment's subject doesn't interest you, move on to the next. If a post about the Jays bothers you, offer arguments without putting people down personally. You aren't doing those things, and you're making yourself the problem.

Do any of those things point to a management team that cared about long-term, sustainable winning?

SK, i continue to be surprised when people dis AA for trading prospects that he acquired with the intent of trading them!  its entirely possible that this approach was sustainable since his regime routinely had some of the best drafts - seriously, id put his draft record against any other team from 2010-15 - and proved his ability to unearth talent and prospects from unconventional sources.  great drafter AND a great dumpster diver?  strong with IFAs?  am i missing an avenue to acquiring controllable talent here, or was he objectively excellent at all of them?

ive written about this before, but its highly debatable that promoting osuna and castro was 'the opposite of a long-term vision'.  osuna was huge for us last year and is clearly benefiting from much better talent than in A ball- coaching, teammates, opposition, nutrition/training - you name it.  his innings are being managed well, and TINSTAAPP exists because minor league pitchers wash out via injury all the time.  better to get those innings in mlb.  i can literally find no fault in his quick promotion - it seems like a groundbreaking innovation to me.  and i think castros profile rose with the promotion, despite his struggles. 

i do agree with you that AA could be too cute with options and service time - sam dyson continues to bug me (yes, im an obsessive nerd).

where in the world do you get the idea that there was less effort on player development?

you list a variety of regulations that limit AAs ability to game the draft.  you do know that some of those changes - specifically yhe type B free agent comp pic - were because AA had IDed such a competetive advantage, right? he then went on to game the draft by punting picks 5-10 to clear more money for the rowdy tellez types.  who had a better record of gaming the system?  id guess that he'd have continued to innovate.

i do agree with you that shapiros investment in development - training, the mental game - is very wise.

Shi Davidi reports that Max Pentecost just had another shoulder operation. The Jays are looking to play him at first base to start the season in 2016.

We will have to wait until farm system rankings come out, but I would not be surprised to find that AA inherited a better farm system than the one he left behind.

beyonder, pardon my bluntness, but zero chance. 

for one thing, prospect evaluation is much better these days.

secondly, did you look at Northey's links to the box's top prospects?  check out JPRs 2010 top ten.

http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20101003221106571

drew hutch, henderson alvarez, the recently non-tendered, and a-hech are the best names.  marisnick and i guess farquhar are the other JPR hits.  in 2011, after 2 drafts, aa has ELEVEN talents either in the bigs or traded for mlb players.

the JPR strategy - College players who require less development - has basically been discredited.

and i think we can all agree that the strength of the jays farm is lower level guys - we are likely the 20th best system or so, but that will most likel improve significantly by next year.

"we are likely the 20th best system or so"

So doesn't that mean you agree with me?

"For one thing, prospect evaluation is much better these days."

It is not clear to me how that would either prove or disprove your theory or mine.

For better or worse, I think those historical rankings are the closest we are going to be able to get to an objective assessment of things. It's difficult to look at the names on the lists without allowing hindsight to creep in. We can laugh at some of the names now, but at the time they were all regarded as legit prospects. Much like our current crop of prospects. Five years from now we will probably laugh at some of the names on the 2015 list.

Shi Davidi reports that Max Pentecost just had another shoulder operation. The Jays are looking to play him at first base to start the season in 2016.

It'll be hard for Pentecost to make it as a first baseman.  He doesn't have much pop, so it'll have to be in the Sisler/Hernandez//Grace vein.  Nonetheless, it's probably the right starting point for him and it might be where he ends up.

"....all GM's want to build a sustainable winner, but in this case, AA did not try to...."

I think this is a ridiculous accusation.  Anthopoulos inherited a mediocre team with albatross contracts and a poor minor-league system, and he took a lot of long-term steps to make the team far more sustainable.  He expanded the scouting network.  He acquired an above-average hoard of draft picks and international signings.  He improved the Latin American side of the development operation. He got rid of the massive contract to Vernon Wells that was badly handicapping the organization.  He drafted a huge number of good prospects and built the minor-league system into one of the top systems in baseball (by 2013).  Then, via the trade route, he built a proper balance between veterans and young talent, so that the Jays would have a good chance of reaching the playoffs.  He did not "gut the system" as some have alleged.  He brought the team to the verge of the World Series.  When he left, the team was in excellent shape, with a reasonable payroll and a great balance of top veterans and young players.  This is the very definition of a "sustainable winner." 

"....Promoting two pitchers with practically no pro innings in their careers to the Majors straight from A-ball so they can pitch out of the big league pen (that's the opposite of a long-term vision)....."

I disagree.  It was a smart move for the long-term and short-term.  Osuna was crucial to the team's great success in 2015, while Castro was one of the keys to acquiring Tulo and Hawkins, both of whom were very important to the Jays success in the playoff drive.  Your statement is also factually wrong, since Castro had 190 professional innings in his career before arriving in Toronto, while Osuna had 140 innings, including high-level competition in Mexico.  And pitching in the major-league bullpen is not inflicting any damage on Osuna's long-term development.  It actually helps his development, since he is learning about major-league competition at an early age -- and his success in 2015 shows that he is adapting very fast.  If the Jays want him to be a starter, there are many ways to stretch him out, and there's no evidence that this path to the majors will damage his long-term development in any way.

"....Showing no regard for options and service time based on his rapid promotions/demotions of prospects (Pompey, Norris, Sanchez, Osuna, etc)....."

Osuna and Sanchez were major-league-ready, and they were valuable pieces of the playoff team in 2015.  Would you really keep them in the minors for the sake of "options and service time" when that would have destroyed the Jays bullpen in 2015?  Imagine the Jays bullpen without Osuna and Sanchez in 2015 -- they never would have made the playoffs.  As for Norris:  he helped them acquire David Price, which was another key to the playoff drive.  As for Pompey:  he was widely believed to be major-league-ready, but the consensus was wrong.  It often happens.  This is certainly not evidence that Anthopoulos was somehow sacrificing a "sustainable winner" as you claim.

"....Leaving Shapiro with 2 starters in MLB and AAA combined entering this off-season...."

Again this is not correct:  Stroman, Dickey and Hutchison is a total of three major-league starters, not two.  And don't forget that Estrada was eager to return to the Jays, so that makes four major-league pitchers.  And it was relatively easy to acquire Happ and Chavez to fill the other holes.  It would be unfair to blame Anthopoulos for the departure of Buehrle and Price -- every team has a few veterans who retire or who depart as free agents.  That's normal, not proof of unsustainability.  As for the AAA level: are we really mourning the departure of Randy Wolf, Felix Doubront, Jeff Francis, Scott Copeland etc?  Yes, it's true that Norris and Boyd are gone, but the loss of two pitchers from Buffalo is not some huge disaster -- it's the result of acquiring high-calibre veterans like Tulowitzki and Price.  (And by the way, Boyd and Norris are not guaranteed to be major-league starters -- especially Boyd.)

"....Isn't it far more likely, based on his behavior, that he saw how many years he had left with Bautista/Encarnacion under contract (in 2013), and acted accordingly?...."

Again this is the false myth that the Jays under Anthopoulos had only a brief "window" for success.  Let's revisit this question at the end of the 2016 season, or even in 2017. 

BA ranked the Jays system 19th overall in April of 2009. Keith Law ranked the team 18th earlier that same year. BP had them 10th overall in March of 2009. My own (possibly idiosyncratic) view is that we are in considerably worse shape than any of those grades.

beyonder, i read 'considerably worse' than 18th or 19th as bottom 5.  if you think 20th or so, than we agree - but IMO, with the caveat that A ball-heavy systems are somewhat undervalued.

i feel that the historical rankings were overly favourable to the JPR regime - the moneyball era really did undervalue HS talent, and I think that's an objective statement.

Hindsight is for sure a factor, but that's why I included the link to 2011 - to show that AA produced a ton of prospect capital in a short period of time.

that said, i do think his 2015 draft might have been his worst.  but even so, i think this years top ten will beat JPR's top 30 from 2009 in career WAR.  i really like Tellez, Alford and vlad jr. - but time will tell!  maybe brian dopirack has a collabello-type future ...

and bad news about pentacost - if he cant catch, thats a huge blow to the system.  he's more of a mcbroom than a tellez at 1st.

Maybe Pentecost playing first is to get him AB's till his shoulder is ready to go back to catching?

"and i think we can all agree that the strength of the jays farm is lower level guys - we are likely the 20th best system or so, but that will most likel improve significantly by next year."

Why exactly? No top level IFA's can be signed, due to overspending last year. Jays will have a modest bonus pool due to their draft position. and no comp picks (the only extra pick from the failure to sign Singer).

I think the big issue for AA was something happened in 2012 which forced him to switch quickly from growing the farm to buying a winner. Up to that point there is no question he was adding prospects but in mid-2012 he did the Happ trade then came the big trades that winter.

Happ cost: Joseph Musgrove, Francisco Cordero, Ben Francisco, Carlos Perez, David Rollins, Asher Wojciechowski, and Kevin Comer. Of those Perez just reached the majors last year and did OK (82 OPS+ in 86 games), Wojecski who many loved made it last year but with a 57 ERA+ in 16 1/3 IP (4.05 FIP). Rollins got to the majors 51 ERA+ in 25 IP in relief. So far only Perez might have had value to the Jays. Maybe.

The Marlins trade cost Henderson Alvarez, Anthony DeSclafani, Yunel Escobar, Adeiny Hechavarria, Jake Marisnick, Jeff Mathis and Justin Nicolino. Alvarez was just released, DeSclafani had a 98 ERA+ last year in 184 IP (for Cincinnati), Marisnick has a lifetime 70 OPS+, 81 last year. Nicolino had a 97 ERA+ in 74 IP last year. Hechavarria reached 90 for OPS+ last year (big deal for him) but has been negative on defense two of his 3 years in Miami. Escobar has been traded 3 times since then - think he still has issues.

Nicolino & DeSclafani both would be serious rotation candidates here with Alvarez also a solid potential rotation member if the Jays held him when the Marlins didn't (few are as cheap as they are).

Then the ugly one, Dickey for Wuilmer Becerra, John Buck, Travis d'Arnaud and Noah Syndergaard. Syndergaard might be an ace (114 ERA+ in 150 IP). d'Arnaud had a 128 OPS+ last year but in just 268 PA due to injuries (might never be able to be a star due to repeated injuries), Becerra did well in A ball with a 765 OPS in his first full season at 20. No question the Jays would like a 'do over' on that trade.

So from those 3 big trades what do we get?
Rotation: Syndergaard, DeSclafani, Nicolino, Alvarez, Wojciechowski
Lineup: CA: d'Arnaud & Perez; Middle infield: Escobar, Hechavarria; OF: Marisnick

jerjapan, the Jays spent $11.6M on the amateur draft in 2010, and $10.99M in 2011. In 2010, they got 2 compensation picks for Scutaro and 1 for Barajas. In 2011, they got 2 comp picks for Downs, and one each for Buck, Olivo, and Gregg. In 2012, they got 1 comp pick each for Francisco, Rauch, and Molina. If those players were free agents today, the only one that had a chance of being offered the QO would be 2009 Scutaro.

While he was smart to exploit the system that way, it just can't be duplicated with the new system in place. He can't spend as much in the draft anymore (the 2010 draft in particular was nearly $12M) and actually had to trade prospects to the Dodgers for international bonus slots to avoid heavier penalties when signing Guerrero this summer. The rules have changed. He took advantage of a system that no longer exists. You can't assume he would have built the system the same way had he stayed in 2016.

Also, to suggest he drafted purely to create trade assets (which I don't believe is true...it just ended up that way) would also go against long-term building.


"but its highly debatable that promoting osuna and castro was 'the opposite of a long-term vision'."

No, it's entirely the opposite of a long-term vision. The Jays not only started both of their service clocks too early, but burned an option on each as well (obviously it doesn't matter with Castro now). One year in the pen vs. a season of building up innings as a starter while not starting the service clock or option clock was the better long-term move, even if Osuna did succeed out of the pen. I'd rather have Osuna coming off a 120 IP minor league season as a SP where his future looks to be in the rotation than 75 IP relief innings in the Majors when it looks like they may have to keep him in the pen long-term. The Jays not being able to find a decent reliever to put in the pen last off-season so they could avoid putting Osuna there was their own fault. As good as he was in 2015, Osuna was not the difference between making the playoffs and not making it, and it wasn't worth potentially stunting his career (though it remains to be seen how they use him going forward).


"where in the world do you get the idea that there was less effort on player development?"

In addition to trading a large quantity of quality prospects (2013-15), the rapid promotion/demotion of prospects combined with a complete lack of foresight when it comes to options/service time paints that picture pretty clearly.

Beyonder:

1) AA took over after the 2009 season, so we should be looking at the 2010 prospect lists - but of course we shouldn't count the top guys on that list Wallace Drabek D'Arnaud because AA got those guys.

2) prospect rankings are nice but reality is a better gauge, and AA's prospects have already turned out much much better than what he inherited.

Let's look at the prospects he inherited, and i'll add in young players too - let's just say anyone 25 or under as of AA's first year in 2010:

(I'm trying to do a deep dig here, but let me know if i missed anyone)

CF J.Marisnick (25): 727pa, 67wrc+, 2.1war/650
RF T.Snider (28): 1971pa, 93wrc+, 1.0war/650
LF M.Sierra (27): 449pa, 85wrc+, -0.6war/650
3B B.Emaus (30): 42pa, 20wrc+, -3.1war/650
SS R.Goins (28): 742pa, 66wrc+, 1.1war/650
2B T.Pastornicky (26): 268pa, 68wrc+, -3.4war/650
1B D.Cooper (29): 226pa, 101wrc+, -0.9war/650
DH E.Thames (29): 684pa, 96wrc+, -0.1war/650
C Y.Gomes (28): 1340pa, 105wrc+, 4.1war/650

UT B.Glenn (29): 16pa, -51wrc+, -12.2war/650
OF D.Mastroianni (30): 306pa, 55wrc+, 0.9war/650
C C.Perez (25): 283pa, 82wrc+, 2.5war/650
C J.Arencibia (30): 1687pa, 78wrc+, 0.3war/650


SP H.Alvarez (26): 563.0ip, 96era-, 2.3war/200
SP J.Litsch (31): 417.2ip, 96era-, 2.1war/200
SP Z.Stewart (29): 103.0ip, 161era-, -2.0war/200
SP B.Mills (31): 79.0ip, 195era-, -1.9war/200

RP B.Cecil (29): 619.1ip, 100era-, 0.7war/65
RP A.Loup (28): 211.0ip, 77era-, 0.8war/65
RP T.Collins (26): 211.0ip, 87era-, 0.4war/65
RP M.Rzepcynski (30): 345.1ip, 99era-, 0.4war/65
RP D.Farquhar (29): 179.2ip, 104era-, 0.4war/65
RP C.Jenkins (28): 100.2ip, 81era-, 0.4war/65
RP L.Perez (31): 112.0ip, 108era-, 0.2war/65
RH J.Carreno (29): 37.2ip, 96era-, -0.2war/65
RP D.Webb (26): 109.0ip, 114era-, -0.3war/65
RP R.Tepera (28): 33.0ip, 80era-, -0.4war/65
RP C.Beck (31): 18.0ip, 130era-, -0.4war/65
RP T.Magnusson (31): 14.2ip, 155era-, -0.7war/65
RP E.Crawford (29): 8.0ip, 160era-, -1.6war/65


So one starting position player and a handful of decent bench guys plus 1-2 middling starting pitchers (both cut down by shoulder injuries after 2-3 seasons) and a decent group of relievers.

That's the group of young talent AA inherited.

I'd put some rather large money on this group of young talent faring better:

SP Stroman
SP Hutchison
SP Osuna
SP Sanchez
SP Greene

SP Reid-Foley
SP Harris
SP Hollon
SP Maese
SP Perdomo
SP Espada
SP Meza

CF Pompey
RF Alford
LF Smith/Davis
3B Nay
SS Urena
2B Travis
1B Guerrero
DH Tellez
C Pentecost/Jansen

not to mention the entire group of young talent that AA brought in himself and has used in trades:

SP Syndergaard
SP Desclafani
SP Graveman
SP Nicolino
SP Norris
SP Hoffman
SP Boyd
SP Nolin
SP Tinoco
SP Wells

RP Dyson
RP Castro
RP Tirado
RP Labourt
RP Wojciechowski


CF Pillar
RF Gose
LF Becerra
3B Lawrie
SS Hechavarria
2B Barreto
1B
RH
C D'Arnaud

When did Kevin Pillar get traded?

Kidding Ugly, nice summary.

Hutch was a JPR pick.

I think it's silly to evaluate AA on just prospect status. You have to look at overall asset base.

MLB has a very liquid market compared to the other major leagues. When you look at a player like Donaldson or Tulo or anybody else who is currently on the roster and who cost "prospect currency", you have to ask, what would they fetch in return today?

AA significantly raised the overall talent bar for the team. Yes, some of that is gone in the way of rental deals (eg. Price), but a lot of that still remains in some form. The team has a buttload of above-replacement talent at the MLB level and this gives Shapitkins (they are essentially one person; Atkiro?) great flexibility in terms of where he'd like to take the roster.

In other words, sustainability isn't just about youth (though even on that front, I would argue that there is a very nice collection of it in the majors with Pillar, Pompey, Travis, Goins, Osuna, Sanchez, Stroman), it's about all of the pieces you have to play with.

I also have to wonder whether part of the AA's sustainability thought process was proving to his masters that if he built it (i.e. a winner), they (i.e. the fans and money) would come. At the very least, Beeston and Alex believed that because it's what they communicated openly. Whether Rogers reneged on an understanding or Beeston and Alex overestimated this commitment, clearly there was a disconnect once Alex converted hope into reality. The whole discussion around sustainability changes a lot when you can escalate your spending up to Red Sox / Giants levels (or even Tigers levels, which roughly equates to a #2 starter in 2016). And as much as some would like to ignore the facts, Rogers could easily invest another $40M in their 'Media' division (which includes the Jays) and still be wildly profitable on the team, currency fluctuations (which as I illustrated via their Q3 report they hedge against, like all large, smart corporations) and all.

While he was smart to exploit the system that way, it just can't be duplicated with the new system in place. He can't spend as much in the draft anymore (the 2010 draft in particular was nearly $12M) and actually had to trade prospects to the Dodgers for international bonus slots to avoid heavier penalties when signing Guerrero this summer. The rules have changed. He took advantage of a system that no longer exists. You can't assume he would have built the system the same way had he stayed in 2016.

Also, to suggest he drafted purely to create trade assets (which I don't believe is true...it just ended up that way) would also go against long-term building.

SK, for sure the draft game changed - in part because AA was so good at it!  My optimism for AA's ability to replenish the farm comes from the fact that after the game changed, he found a new competetive advantage - he punted later rounds to free up bonus money for late round steals.  check out 2013 - he went well over on 2nd rounder hollon, who looks like a steal - and went way under slot for picks 3-10.  despite that, he scored greene (top 5 in our system),  graveman, boyd and girodo.  with the punted picks!

http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2013/6/10/4414442/2013-mlb-draft-signing-table

that extra money got us tellez and brentz - who was key in the mark lowe deal.

with osuna, we differ in our risk management.  promoting him aggressively IS long-term if you are more concerned with TINSTAAPP.  if you think he wont face serious injury risks in the minors, you are correct.  I think he did. 

as for development, I thin we define that concept differently.

Hutch was a JPR pick.

Probably his best pick! i never liked JPR, but that was a great move.

Vulg - you are killing it right now.  Agree with pretty much everything you say. 

I like Shapitkins.

though i might shorten it by a couple more letters myself.

I think i just have to accept that some people would quite literally rather see us trade all of donaldson tulo martin bautista ee cecil dickey happ estrada for kids and prospects and start the rebuild right now.

even though we have one of the best rosters in team history.

There is a middle ground out there as well, one that is more than happy with our current roster but worries about the future with JB & EE's future after 2016 unknown.

The Jays should see if they can trade Dickey for Syndergaard.

One FA name i havent seen in relation to the Jays is Zobrist, but if he can be had for 4x16. id say do it - we've got injuries at 2b and LF - zobrist is insurance for both.  revere gets swapped for a reliever and we improve our offense AND our depth.  some are speculating that zobrist might be a relative bargain this offseason.

and YES to taking a flier on cliff lee.

I think I'd pass on Zobrist.

I like what I saw out of Goins and Travis last year.

I'd rather spend that money on pitching.

"and YES to taking a flier on cliff lee. "

Thats just stupid.

I kid :)

ha!

Pubster, I hear you - i just figure there is better value on position players, and Im fascinated by that fangraphs article about stacking an already strong lineup - sorry i forgot who posted that?

BTW, John Northey is right about that old listserve.  fascinating stuff!  even then the fanbase wanted vets traded for prospect ... but whoever it was that wanted hinske playing 2b was a bit off ...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.sports.baseball.tor-bluejays/blue$20jays

I don't think anyone can conclude AA left the farm in better shape. We know the results of the players he inherited by now, but we don't know whats going to happen with the players currently in the system. Despite some people's rosy outlook on it, the vast majority of the prospects are never going to be productive MLB players.

AA's biggest impact here was two things, the EE/Jose resignings and how he got a ton of talent out of Latin America and drafts before they changed the rules. The trades imo were neutral at best. The state of the pitching in the majors/AAA is also pretty bare going forward. I don't think he left the team in a good situation for that. If you want to blame anyone for why we picked up Chavez/Happ/Estrada/Dickey blame AA. He left the current management no choice.

In the current system, if you're interested by a free agent to be you can trade for him and not lose a draft pick. With Price, the Jays subsidized the Red Sox.

KC did the same with Cueto, but at least they have something to ease the pain.

Again this is not correct:  Stroman, Dickey and Hutchison is a total of three major-league starters, not two.  And don't forget that Estrada was eager to return to the Jays, so that makes four major-league pitchers.  And it was relatively easy to acquire Happ and Chavez to fill the other holes.

When AA took the team, the rotation was:
Halladay, Romero, Marcum, Cecil, Scrabble, Purcey, Janssen, Tallet and Robert Ray. Anyone remember Robert Ray?

It was relatively easy to trade Brandon League for Brandon Morrow. Jesse Litsch still look like a starting option. And it was relatively easy to acquire Dana Eveland to fill the other holes and they still had Brad Mills and Shawn Hill in AAA.

It did look like a farm, not a desert.

Halladay could have brought back a better starter. It would have better to trade Romero than Marcum. AA had tons of options.

One way to look at it is how much WAR did each draft produce for JPR vs AA so far?
2002: 8 reached, total 1.5 WAR, best is Dave Bush 3.5
2003: 7 reached, total 41.3 WAR, best is Aaron Hill 23.4, Marcum also reached 13.4
2004: 7 reached, total 21.6 WAR, best is Adam Lind 11.3
2005: 3 reached, total 9.9 WAR, best is Ricky Romero 9.7
2006: 5 reached, total 2.3 WAR, best is Travis Snider 4.6
2007: 7 reached, total 8.6 WAR, best is Brett Cecil 6.6
2008: 6 reached, total -2.6 WAR, best is Danny Farquhar 0.3
2009: 10 reached, total 24.2 WAR, best is Yan Gomes 8.7
---------- end of JPR ----------------
So that sucked. 1 star quality, only 2 others reached 10 WAR so far.
---------
2010: 8 reached, 13.3, best Kris Bryant 6.0 (did not sign), next is Aaron Sanchez 3.2
2011: 5 reached, 8.6, best Kevin Pillar 5.9
2012: 1 reached, 3.2, best and only is Marcus Stroman 3.2
2013: 2 reached, -0.1, best is Kendall Graveman 1.3 other is Matt Boyd
2014: none reached yet, but Jeff Hoffman used to get Tulowitski and Sean Reid-Foley is a top prospect.
2015: none reached yet.

So a few potential stars but far too soon to know much about AA's years. The only years that could be duds though are 2014/15 and I doubt they will be.

I don't think anyone can conclude AA left the farm in better shape.

Kasi, I struggle to think of how else I can state this - uhhh - 'you're nuts'?  jokes, BUT I  guess it's your turn to go through the drafts and the prospect lists to prove your point?

I get it - there a number of thoughtful posters who feel that prospects are more valuable than market-priced talent, and AA did trade a bunch of quality prospects.

But until I see comments about specific prospects, farm rankings and drafting philosophies, I'm just going to have to conclude that you guys don't follow the minors that closely.   This is more about the concept of not trading prospects than it is about the specific minor league systems being discussed. 

Just to give you some stats,

JPRs 2009 top 30 (via the box) in career WAR (leaving out the negative WAR guys - trust me, brad mills alone produced plenty of negative WAR) - 13.4 WAR - nearly half from henderson alvarez.  unless you think chad jenkins is going to be an impact player, there are no prospects in the minors off that list remaining

AA's 2013 (a random year I choose from an earlier post) - 12.3 WAR.  four years later, and with prospects like Norris, Urena, Tirado, DeJong, Smoral, Hollon, Tellez, Barreto, Lugo, Davis and Sean Nolin yet to make an impact.  half these guys brought us MLB talent, half remain in the system.

we obviously cant be definitive on the current crop of prospects, but AA's track record is clear.

AA inherited a dramatically worse farm then he left, and the balls in your court to show otherwise. 

It was relatively easy to trade Brandon League for Brandon Morrow.

What does this even mean?  League for Morrow was considered a great move at the time, and remains one - Morrow gave us 9.5 WAR vs. 0.7 for League. 

It did look like a farm, not a desert.

so you are a big zach stewart fan?  the best prospect off that years top 10 just got released. 

Halladay could have brought back a better starter. It would have better to trade Romero than Marcum. AA had tons of options.

Halladay was only going to the Phillies with his no trade.  we got d'arnaud (who is clearly dearly missed round here) drabeck who couldve but didnt, and taylor / wallace / gose / travis.  not a win, but by no means a loss.

"...Halladay could have brought back a better starter...."

No.  Anthopoulos really had no choices there, since the Jays were obligated to trade Halladay and he had a contractual clause giving him approval of the team where he would go, all of which meant that the Phillies were the only team that could afford him.  The Phillies had the Jays over a barrel, and AA had to make the best of a bad situation.  He was good enough to leverage the trade into a couple of useful prospects, one of whom was eventually bartered into Gose (and thus Travis), and another of whom was one-half of the trade price for Dickey.  To have two useful players on the 25-man roster today who can be traced back to the Halladay trade is a pretty good return from a bad situation.

"....It would have better to trade Romero than Marcum...."

Marcum was parlayed into Lawrie, who was parlayed (with 2 or 3 prospects) into Donaldson, so that's not a bad trade.  And at the time, Romero was a rising young pitcher who had just had a good season in 2010.  By keeping Romero, the Jays did benefit from his excellent 2011 season.  Nobody expected Romero to implode a year later.  It's easy to say, with 20-20 hindsight, that the Jays should have traded Romero, but at the time Romero was an excellent young pitcher who was improving.

jerjapan. You realize that the points you made in the body of you post don't go to the conclusion you finish with right? The question wasn't whether JP drafted better than AA-it was whether the farm system was better at the point in time AA started as GM, or when he left. I just pointed out that the farm rankings in 2009 ranked the system in the 10 to 19 range. I think we'll be lucky to finish higher than 25th this coming year.

Even if you don't agree, surely that position isn't "nuts" right?

well, 'nuts' was my poor attempt at humour ....  I take full responsibility for being less funny than I think I am :)

but no im gonna stick with my guns here ... the farm is definitely better now than it was when AA came into the GMs chair.  IMO, GM draft records are the best indicator of the current state of the farm for our discussion- unless you have a different idea?  I'm no stats guy, so I mean that  sincerely ...  we can't compare WAR since the 2009 crew that I described will have more than the 2013 as it's a counting stat.  but even with that caveat, it's close. 

I have already listed the WAR of the JPR regime's top 30 in 2009 ... do you actually think our current top 30 will provide less WAR value than this?

full stop I don't think the 10-19 ranking (not sure where you got his?) means much since prospect evaluation has improved so dramatically since 2009 ... again, just look at those prospects! 

I'm stuck ... you don't want to consider draft records, nor do you want to consider the  WAR of the prospects - is industry ranking the only measure you believe in?  then I need to know who's rankings you are citing, and whether or not you agree with me that prospect evals have improved to the point where 2009 rankings are less significant. 

Marcum to Donaldson wasn't intentional. AA thought he was dealing from a strength (pitching) to a weakness (hitting).

They could have brought a third team into the Halladay trade. Any team.

I'm not saying AA made bad deals. I'm saying he had tons of options.

The 2009 Jays were in first place until May 24. They kept sending guys like Tallet, Purcey, Burress, Richmond and Janssen to start games. They could have  emptied the farm for a decent pitcher, a good reliever and an extra bat and they might have made the playoffs instead of ending the season 75-87.
The pythagorean record was 84-78.

The Shelby Miller trade of a secondary outfielder , a AAA pitcher Aaron Blair and the last year 1st round pick Swanson.

What is Salazar worth? Pillar + Coonor Greene or Jon Harris?

Checking the Jays ranking by Baseball America top 100 lists

2010: #81. Travis d'Arnaud, #27. Brett Wallace, #25. Kyle Drabek - all acquired by AA in the Halladay deal (Wallace was via Taylor being traded, he'd end up traded for Gose who was traded for Travis so the Halladay deal still is providing returns).

2015: #18 Daniel Norris (traded), #27. Aaron Sanchez (in majors), #30. Dalton Pompey (in majors), #69. Jeff Hoffman (traded)

So we'll have to see what this years top 100 lists for the Jays. I thought there was still a player or two left but they all either graduated to the majors or were traded last year.

tbh i don't see how 2010 rank is relevant. we know how those players turned out. we know there was no stroman there.

Stroman - Alvarez
Hutch - Litsch

Osuna - Cecil
Sanchez - Loup
xxxxx - collins

Travis - Gomes

and that about does it for worthwhile inherited youth.

our current youth has pretty much already beat what AA inherited, without even looking at our prospects.

That was a haul for Shelby Miller, which makes somebody like Salazar worth more than we can afford to give up (or more than we have?).

The value for starting pitching is crazy. That is a haul for Miller... especially considering they got him for Heyward last year.

It is a good time to be a seller.

What a haul for Shelby Miller - kudos to Atlanta - Arizona's motto is "we don't need no stinking prospects"

Very nice job by the Yankees, getting Castro as a salary dump - along with getting Aaron Hicks earlier - the Yankees are retooling very quickly - add the fact that they kept their prospects at the trade deadline - and with all that money coming free in the next few years - look out.

The Mets lost out on Zobrist - wonder if they're interested in Tulo - he was rumoured to be interested in going to the New York teams when he was in Colorado.

2010 rank is relevant when trying to see if the Jays system is better or worse now vs then unless you have a time machine and know who will develop and who won't. Not 1 player in the top 100 was a JPR product that was left behind for AA. All AA got prospects from was trading Halladay at the time, which was limited due to JPR screwing around.

We know how players turned out from 2010 but no way of knowing 2016. Thus I see this as the only Apples to Apples method.

As a point of interest, what was Gord Ash left with?
1995: #6. Shawn Green, #8. Alex Gonzalez, #33. Jose Silva, #72. Shannon Stewart,#77. Sandy Martinez, #100. Chris Carpenter. Wow, that doesn't even list Carlos Delgado who used up rookie status in 1994 but was left in the minors for most of 1994/1995. Quite the farm for a team that was at the end of a success cycle. I've said it before but it bears repeating...how the heck did Gord Ash blow that?

Ash left for JPR...
2002:#36. Josh Phelps, #70. Jayson Werth, #75. Gabe Gross, #81. Orlando Hudson, #98. Dustin McGowan

So JPR left 0 top 100 prospects, we'll see soon what AA left behind, Gillick left the motherload (7 including 2 top 10's), Ash left 6 but none were top 25 and just one was top 50 - many worked out though although not as well as hoped.

No question JPR left the least - you don't get lower than 0. AA we'll see when the rankings come out.

I still don't see the relevance.

we know how those guys turned out. we don't need to guess. their rank is irrelevant.

we also know that our kids in the majors now are already as good or better than anything AA inherited....and then there's an entire system of kids on top of that to tip the balance.

“I like the type of pitchers the Toronto Blue Jays like,” Atkins said, somewhat redundantly. “So I want to be collaborative in thinking about that. Just my input is a part of it, but two things that come to mind are durability and outs. I like pitchers that can get outs and can take the ball.”


somebody shoot me.

Before we acquire anyone by trade, LaCava and Shapiro must decide that trading assets is they only way to acquire high end talent. A.A. always knew this, now Shapiro must accept it too. If the Jays can pick up a Salazar by trading Pillar and some prospects they should do it, because this is the talent that costs $20.0 - $30.0 Million a year to sign.

If LaCava and Shapiro are unwilling to part with assets and/or prospects, they'd better ask Rogers for a lot more money because Free Agency is the only other way to acquire what the Jays need. Dumpster diving and scarping to bottom of the barrel may not be good enough. Just to get a good enough caliber player will cost money that must get spent.

Let's hope he never posts here.

Imagine next year when there''s basically no good starter available.

Didn't AA inherit Hutch? What about Snider? He was the youngest position player in 2008? At the end of 2009 he's no longer a youth?

I included Snider on my original list. But I removed all the career bench guys from that last post.

but you're right about hutch. my bad.

so it's hutch v hutch in that matchup, with the current system needing to come up with a match for the career of one Jesse Litsch.

somebody shoot me.

OK, but can you tell me why first? I don't see what you're taking issue with there.

The Jays are not going to get Salazar for Pillar or a package where Pillar is the best players. The Indians have been apparently asking for AJ Pollack from the DBacks and both Panik and Belt from the Giants. Cost-controllable starters are the most valuable asset in baseball right now (look at how much starting pitchers cost as FA) and a 27 YO mediocre offense/amazing defense OFer is not going to get you that. Defense is simply not valued in trades as much as offense or pitching (with the occasional exception of an elite SS or C).

When AA took over, the system was bare but he also was tasked with trading one of the most valuable assets in baseball. D'Arnaud, Drabek, Gose, and then Travis were all from that trade which pushed the Jays from probably the worst system in baseball to somewhere in the middle. If the Jays were .500 again and the Jays were instructed to trade Donaldson, you can be certain that the Jays would go from a weak to a very good system very quickly. AA didn't inherit youth, but he inherited the means to start to rebuild the system immediately, a MLB system that allowed willing teams to get lots of draft picks, as well as a team committed to spending money to rebuild the system.

OK, but can you tell me why first? I don't see what you're taking issue with there.

I think that's what UO likes to refer to as "corporate nothingspeak". Sadly, it's a phenomenon I'm all too familiar with in my career.

Translating loosely:

“I like the type of pitchers the Toronto Blue Jays like” - I like what everybody else here likes!
“So I want to be collaborative in thinking about that" - I want to work with people at work on what we like!
"Just my input is a part of it, but two things that come to mind are durability and outs" - Call this a wild personal preference but I love pitchers who don't get hurt and can get people out!
"I like pitchers that can get outs and can take the ball” " - You're still looking at me, so please refer to my last sentence.

I think Shapiro bought his shiny new robot with pre-programmed responses.

Would you prefer honesty?

I think Atlanta took advantage of the fact that Arizona desperately needed another quality arm to compete in that division after going all-in with the Greinke signing & Arizona didn't have the budget to get that arm in FA - very reminiscent of the Mets making AA way overpay for Dickey after he went all-in with the Marlins trade - hope it turns out better for Arizona than it did for Toronto.

Well, still pretty thin gruel, I'd say. Don't know if I want to be offing Uglyone over something like that.

AA was basically the champion of corporate nothingspeak, so business as usual then?

Yeah, the Atkins interview was rather pathetic. At least AA could articulate well enough that he at least made it seem like he was actually saying something.

I'd love it if we could get off the endless and pointless debate on everything Rogers/Management and discuss the options for the team on the field.

"AA was basically the champion of corporate nothingspeak, so business as usual then?"

I'm sure we'll get revisionist history saying AA was the best corporate speaker in the history of pro sports, with the way this off-season has gone so far. Greatest drafter, greatest trader, greatest long-term builder. What a man.

I removed all the career bench guys from that last post.

I don't think that's fair. We don't know if all the guys AA left behind are career bench guys.
Snider was ranked 6th best prospect in baseball in 2008.
AA valued JPA more than Gomes.

I pay very little attention to what the FO says - it's what they do that matters - so I have no problems with the interview.

Hear, hear.

SO: Joe Blanton's name's been thrown around a lot by the Jays insiders. Thoughts? Can he be the reborn RP that he appeared in Pittsburgh?

Anyone else up for just hiring Ray Searage as well? If only we could create a "senior pitching coach" role, so it could be a promotion...

I like the type of pitchers the Toronto Blue Jays like

What does that mean? What do Estrada, Chavez and Happ have in common? Almost nobody think they can repeat last year's performances.

So I want to be collaborative in thinking about that.

I think I get it. Sometimes I like the stuff my wife likes because it saves me a lot of grief. I definitively want to be collaborative in thinking about that., yes.

Just my input is a part of it, but two things that come to mind are durability and outs.

Outs? That's probably how they describe pitching in Cleveland. Getting outs. Durability is possibly not getting injured. The Jays have drafted several pitchers who fell in the draft because of injury or perceived durability--like Stroman. Maybe we go back to pitchers with projectable frames or maybe it was just nonsense.

I like pitchers that can get outs and can take the ball.

Who likes pitchers who cannot get outs and who cannot take the ball? Not me.

I think we need this guy on one of our comedy show to promote the Jays brand.

I never bother listening to interviews of players or front office people because it's always the same dance.

REPORTER: Request for comment on a controversial issue that has been talked about a lot lately, hoping for an inadvertent admission that can make good column material.

BASEBALL PERSON: A pleasant but meaningless response that successfully dodges the question.

George Bell was fascinating because he never really learned the interview dance - he tended to actually say what was on his mind at any given moment.

Let me try to provide some context. Here is a link to Rogers most recent earnings summary (Q3): http://netstorage-ion.rogers.com/downloads/IR/pdf/quarterly-results/Rogers-2015-Q3-Results-Release.pdf

I had a look at this so-called "earnings summary". It isn't an "earnings summary", or an earnings report, at all. It's an advertising release from Rogers' PR department to attract investors, institutional and otherwise. It's a 3rd Quarter advertisement, when the Blue Jays were topical, so it's no surprise at all that it mentions the Blue Jays. To claim that an expressly non-GAAP advertisement (cue the furious googling of GAAP) to attract investors is an 'earnings summary' brings to mind Humpty Dumpty's famous statement in Alice in Wonderland. As for these 'massive' profits, Rogers shares are in the same place they were three years ago. I know this well as a villainous Rogers shareholder, because the guy who mismanages my RRSP bought some.

Other than the money, the League of Indignant Perpetually Sulksters will have an issue with the optics (why are idiots Shapiro and Atkins chasing hitting when the rotation sucks? Davis instead of Price? What a joke, I'm burning my season tickets, etc.

Parker, I strongly doubt very many, if any, of the League members are season ticket holders. Season ticket holders, I'm one, tend to think we get a pretty good deal. As I've noted before, Blue Jays tickets are considerably less expensive than those of large market teams because of the lower demand. We get perks because of the market, such as being able to defer payment without interest until January/February/March, or in lieu of deferment, a $200 gift card for concessions or merchandise. I used to get free parking as well. We also know that if there is huge bump in payroll, there will be a big bump in ticket prices and some will have to rethink our commitment. That's how the market works, though it's obviously of no concern to people who don't buy tickets at all. I don't see League members as folk who shell out on ticket, season's or otherwise. I suspect they're more like the guy who goes into the news stand, takes the top paper, reads it for a while, then puts it back dishevelled.

It's a stance that is elitist and unpleasant, self-congratulatory and in some cases blatantly classist. But enough of independent thought.

Oh please. "Classist"? "Elitist"? Someone who disagrees with you is trying to stomp out your "independent thought"?

One of the lowest forms of argument is trying to take the offensive by claiming 'victimhood'. No one disagrees with you because of your 'class' or cares about it. As for 'independent thought', I don't see any difference between what you call 'independent thought' and the predictable, annual complaining that because of Rogers, the Blue Jays didn't sign some free agent or other to a mega-contract. This week's cued rant, stemmed from the Blue Jays not making David Price an offer that they knew he wouldn't accept, for "optic" reasons. I don't think the real world works that way. I don't think teams call free agents and make offers that they know will be rejected for purely optical reasons.

Would you prefer honesty?

Sure.  Is anyone going to be offended with:

a. Good pitchers come in all shapes and sizes, but I still like a well-located fastball best of all.  Nothing beats the sight of bat missing ball.  You can call me old-fashioned if you like.  (Chuckles)
b. Good pitchers come in all shapes and sizes, but with the players we have out in the field, I want to make sure that all our pitchers trust our defence to make plays.

I realize that no GM is going to say: "I like the dude with the high hard one."  (Deadpan)

I can't believe how much the Braves for Miller who is a good pitcher but an elite prospect, a good starting prospect and a capable OFer. Wow. It shows once again how important it is to get young, cost-controlled starters. Interesting to see the D-Backs go for it. I don't think it's a particularly good strategy because I think they are still the second best team in their own division and I would never give up that much for Shelby Miller, but I guess they see Pollack, Goldschmidt, and Peralta who are all 28 and see the next 5 years as a window to win which I do understand.

I have seen the idea put forth about season ticket holders. Unlike the NHL, MLB is, last I read, not a gate-driven sport. Season ticket holders support the team far less than the crowd of eyeballs on screens around the world. Your and the sum total of season ticket investment is a pittance and I suspect your seat would be filled by the crowd if the Jays put a winner on the field as the did at the end of last season. Heck, I suspect all those cheap seaters paid more than the season ticket holders combined when they filled the dome during the final two months of the season. The power of the crowd is enormous.

That said, I agree with your take on the classist argument - it is weak, but I think your position is even weaker.

Before I get painted with the brush of a 500 level newspaper reader (who even reads newspapers anymore?) full disclosure -- when I get back to Toronto I buy a ticket in the 100 level and enjoy the game and am happy to shell out for the experience. If I lived in Toronto I would go to many more games (I went to over a dozen games last season here in Boston where the price of one box ticket runs the price of at least two 100 level seats). I watch the Jays on mlb.tv and saw every blacked out game the Jays played here in August.

I like the plan have going forward except for the fact that I think it'll take an investment at the deadline and given the current regime's reluctance to trade prospects, that means taking on what the seller deems a bad contract.

Would you prefer honesty?

Nah, too boring - I'm guessing it would be along the lines of "I like the pitchers that pitch better than expected and don't break our budget".

(warning: no morning coffee yet!): I would have preferred something really crazy like:
When Marcel from the stats group has too many Steamer beers, he forgets to zip up, and all the other guys declare war on him.. After that, they usually have some pretty good suggestions for which pitchers to sign..

At least it would have been fun, and spawned endless rounds of debate on here..

Inciarte had a phenomenal year last year too (if you like Fangraphs WAR, there isn't that much difference between him and Miller). Stunning deal.

Regardless of what you thought about AA, or think about the current regime, or even thought about JPR's time here, at least we can all agree that it could be a lot worse if someone like Dave Stewart were running things. Wow. Horrible, horrible trade.

Hard to believe that Gord Ash and Dave Stewart were once in this organization together. No wonder the late-90's did not produce as well as it should have despite the talent on the roster.

AA was basically the champion of corporate nothingspeak, so business as usual then?

I'm not sure why we have to draw a comparison.

I recognize that executives need to be careful with responses at times so things don't get taken out of context, but that was a hilarious non-answer. Revealing just a small amount of colour to your values as an evaluator is ok. For instance (and since the name has been invoked!), over the last year of his tenure, AA emphasized how his thinking had shifted to value clubhouse fit, leadership and how good a teammate a player is over strictly the numbers.

I had a look at this so-called "earnings summary". It isn't an "earnings summary", or an earnings report, at all. It's an advertising release from Rogers' PR department to attract investors, institutional and otherwise. It's a 3rd Quarter advertisement, when the Blue Jays were topical, so it's no surprise at all that it mentions the Blue Jays. To claim that an expressly non-GAAP advertisement (cue the furious googling of GAAP) to attract investors is an 'earnings summary' brings to mind Humpty Dumpty's famous statement in Alice in Wonderland. As for these 'massive' profits, Rogers shares are in the same place they were three years ago. I know this well as a villainous Rogers shareholder, because the guy who mismanages my RRSP bought some.

In fact, RCI closed on December 7th, 2012 at $39.21 compared to yesterday's close at $49.30. It almost touched $54 in October. I'm an indirect shareholder as well (i.e. mutual fund). I thank them for the their financial might and the growth of my portfolio :)

The Earnings Summary comments are meant to augment the financial results. Sure, there's some element of cheerleading involved when discussing how awesome you are with Bay Street every quarter, but it's rooted in numbers. I didn't want to completely bore people with details, but Rogers included those comments about the Blue Jays to explain, at least in part, why they were doing well for the year compared to the same period last year. The most pertinent increase was in their Media division, where YTD adjusted operating profit through September 30th rose from $53M in 2014 to $116M this year. They list the Jays as a driver for the new profitability as well as a source of new operating expense.

I'm not sure people are grasping the vast and growing wealth of Rogers. They are tracking to about $5B in profit in 2015 alone.

Some context in terms of net worth (according to most recent Forbes data):

John Henry (Red Sox) - $2.2B
The Steinbrenners (Yankees) - $3.8B
Mike Illitch (Tigers) - $5.5B
Rogers Communications - $18.7B (just looking at the NYSE today; this is all USD).

This is why I'm just a little bit surprised and puzzled when people are so defensive about the size of Rogers' profit margin. An extra $20M - $40M in salary would still leave the corporation, and even the specific department to which the team belongs, extremely profitable. It's perfectly sustainable, but even then, as a fan all I'd really like to see in the short term is merely a 1 year spike in expense (which seems to be offset by increased revenue when they're doing well anyway) to take advantage of the current core before some hard decisions are made.

Yes, I know ... not my money.

I don't think this trade was horrible for Arizona. It's hard to know what the prospects will turn into. Swanson could become an Evan Longoria type, or he could become Tim Beckham. Hard to tell. With Shelby Miller, you know what you have; a #2 pitcher on a very good deal. Grienke, Pollock and Goldschimdt...the window is now.

I think AA discovered the new market inefficiency, the value of prospect. It would be interesting to see the statistical analysis of prospects reaching their perceived MLB expectations, in their prime years. More often then not, it seems as if these players are bust vs. expectations.

"....hoping for an inadvertent admission that can make good column material...."

Not really.  The winter meetings are a traditional media event, which the fans expect to be covered by the media, and this expectation is exploited by MLB to create publicity for their teams.  At the winter meetings, the GMs and managers are usually available to the media every day.  Daily availabilities are scheduled.  That's a lot more often than they are available in the rest of the off-season, so a lot of the media feel they have to be there.  In a reversal of traditional economics, the supply creates its own demand.  The GMs are speaking to the media daily, so the fans demand coverage.  The reporters are assigned to cover the winter meetings because the fans want coverage and the media outlets don't want to be left behind their competitors if a trade is announced or if a GM says something interesting.  Nobody really expects that a GM will make an inadvertent admission.  The whole thing is a ritual exercise in publicity and public relations.  Personally I prefer the approach of someone like Andrew Stoeten, who doesn't attend any of these ritual events but does make an effort to analyze the rumors and comments if there's anything significant.  You don't really need to go to the winter meetings for that. 

"John Henry (Red Sox) - $2.2B
The Steinbrenners (Yankees) - $3.8B
Mike Illitch (Tigers) - $5.5B
Rogers Communications - $18.7B (just looking at the NYSE today; this is all USD)."

Now one of these is not like the others...Rogers being a publicly traded corporation makes it quite different than a single private owner with a desire to win at whatever costs they deem is appropriate. Having to answer to shareholders changes the comparable quite a lot.

"I think AA discovered the new market inefficiency, the value of prospect. It would be interesting to see the statistical analysis of prospects reaching their perceived MLB expectations, in their prime years. More often then not, it seems as if these players are bust vs. expectations."


You might find exceptions, but if you look at some of the best teams in baseball currently (Mets, Cubs, Pirates, Cardinals, Royals, Astros, etc), those teams not only held on to their top prospects, but built around them. Even the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox (pre-Dombrowski) do not trade top prospects for veterans anymore, as they have the resources to sign players while keeping their stud prospects.

Outside of the Donaldson deal (where the Jays traded surprisingly little in terms of prospect capital), the Jays are one of the few good teams that believed in trading top prospects for veterans. Trading prospects is one thing, trading top prospects is another.

The Arizona deal would have been more justifiable if they were getting a stud (ex. Fernandez), but Miller is not worthy of that package.

Now one of these is not like the others...Rogers being a publicly traded corporation makes it quite different than a single private owner with a desire to win at whatever costs they deem is appropriate. Having to answer to shareholders changes the comparable quite a lot.

Yes, which is why the majority of my summary in the previous post (and in much of the one you partially quoted) was on profitability and highlighting how inconsequential the expenditure would be in the proper context - EVEN IF you assume no corresponding increase in revenue, which of course was not the case last year (as Rogers bragged about in their earnings summary).

Oh please. "Classist"? "Elitist"

well, i could be paraphrasing you incorrectly, but I do seem to recall one of your central arguments being that those who complain about corporate ownership don't spend enough on the team to have a legit opinion.  You have no idea about my social class, true, but I have some idea as to yours, and it seems to be a key factor in your credibility as you present it.  dismissing people for not having as much to spend as you, and  then making blanket statements about this group seems to be classist by definition?

Fair call on the 'independant thought' comment - I was too hyperbolic.  we may disagree, but you are certainly willing to engage with my ideas - that's all I can ask for.  you are clearly frustrated with the LIPS (really a genius acronym).  Not sure where the victimhood point comes from - I'm not claiming any such status.  Rogers owes me nothing.  I can still call something classist without being a victim.  And of course, another of those 'lowest forms of argument' is to misrepresent an entire group as being homogenous.  I certainly don't predictably, annually complain about this topic, and I do feel my arguments are independent - as are pretty much everyone who posts on the Box.  I'd say your frustration might be better directed at sports show call-ins and twitter trolls who may not enjoy the type of behid-the-scenes discourse that happens around here.  The box is certainly not a typical fan site!

Anyway, im more than happy to agree to disagree and go back to complaining about how effectively the Yanks seem to be rebuilding without breaking the bank for once - It's gonna be a tough division again!

And I love the Zobrist deal for the Cubs - perhaps the steal of the winter thus far?

This morning, I was thinking about the price that was paid for Miller. I think the market value for a quality starter is incredibly high. High in $$$ for free agents and for acquisition. I think the mindset is that you need pitching to win.

Also, prospects are not as valuable as they once were. It is truly a crapshoot. I wonder if all the sabermetrics and statistics has caused teams to realize that prospects are really not that valuable..statistically speaking.

Last thought, it is mentality of win now. Going all in. When Arizona signed Greinke, they needed to get another starter and they could get to the next level. They paid more than they wanted, but they got what they wanted.

Trading prospects is one thing, trading top prospects is another.

SK, STL for sure -you also cite KC - but they don't really fit - the Shields deal was slammed by just about everyone at the time it was made but it turned out to be a great move, despite involving two elite prospects in Meyers - who could be a travis snider type bust - and odorizzi - who could be a star.  montgomery was also a former top 100 guy but has bounced around a bit.  the last prospect  is a mediocre, low power AA 1B in patrick leonard.

KC got 2 years of quality starting from Shields, a comp pick, 2 years of elite relief from Davis with 2 more of affordable control - and of course 2 WS appearances, one win.

KC gave up the As third prospect according to MLB in Sean Manaea in the zobrist deal, and three more young arms for Cueto including brandon finnegan, another top 100 talent who's already contributing at 22 years old in the bigs after being drafted last year.

would you undo those deals?

agreed though that arizona lost that deal - dave stewart always makes me scratch my head with his moves.

"I wonder if all the sabermetrics and statistics has caused teams to realize that prospects are really not that valuable..statistically speaking."

I think it's the opposite. Stewart and LaRussa are old school guys, highly doubt sabermetrics had anything to do with this deal whatsoever, at least from 'Zona's standpoint.

They paid more than they wanted, but they got what they wanted.

Which is what most of us said when we acquired Dickie.

Lind traded to the Mariners. Wonder if he's going to talk about how he can finally get the chance to hit LHP in Seattle.

The Shields trade completely slipped my mind, so I'll concede that one, but still a lot of their core players were either homegrown or developed on that team. The other examples (Cubs, Pirates, Cardinals, Astros, etc) fit that mold better than the Royals. Wouldn't shock me if the Indians look like one of those teams next season given how their rotation looks.

To the poster who said the game has changed and prospects have less value, it's the opposite. GM's with mandates to win right away would disagree and maybe that's why Stewart did what he did and why AA did what he did in 2013-15, but prospects now have more value than ever, especially as more teams lean towards analytics. Those first six years of a player's career is the most surplus value you are going to find (assuming they are good).

Royals still are mostly homegrown. One trade doesn't change that. That's what bugs me about arguments here. That we're just some prospect hoarders who don't care about the MLB team and just about prospects. The thing is we care about both, and like SK said prospects who grow into young productive players are the most productive assets you had. Just because the Royals traded for Shields doesn't negate the fact that most of their team is homegrown. Just as is most of the Cards, Giants, Cubs, Pirates, Astros, etc.

There is nothing new about the idea of prospects being capital for acquiring major league players. The Yankees did that very thing for a decade. Except of course most of those trades didn't work out and their team's world series was mostly built on players they drafted like Jeter and Rivera. Even the Yankees don't trade prospects much anymore, which tells you something.

But the Jays traded prospects and achieved their greatest success of the past 21 years -- both on the field and financially.  So that tells you something too.

"but still a lot of their core players were either homegrown or developed on that team.

Except for one big trade Moore had made earlier for a bunch of prospects.

Greinke to the Brewers netted Cain, who finished 3rd in MVP voting this year, Escobar and Odorizzi.

Brewers did make the playoffs Greinke's 1st year there, but no such luck the next year - ended up trading Greinke at the deadline to the Angels.

Sure, that trading 20-40 players over a 3 year period can give you a good expensive team with a lot of 30+ year old players and little in the way of players coming up to help the team in the coming years. Look at that list of players uo posted. We could be there with the Cubs and Astros and be loaded up on young controllable contracts with room to use our 145 million payroll to get a few expensive FAs/resignings/extensions. But instead we've had to fill with players like Chavez and Happ and so on because we have no internal depth.

There is nothing novel about this approach. Phillies and Yankees have both done it. Yankees though have the payroll to do it and well the Phillies have been paying for years for what they did. I don't want to be like the Phillies (minus the WS they did win) but it seems like a lot of you guys want us to be them. Filled with expensive contracts to 30+ year old declining players having traded off most of our impact prospects to get them. Stroman is great, and Osuna and Travis could be, and not sure on Pillar and Pompey but they have potential, but that's not a lot to build around for the next 2 years.

"....trading 20-40 players over a 3 year period can give you a good expensive team with a lot of 30+ year old players and little in the way of players coming up to help the team in the coming years...."

The vast majority of those 20 to 40 players had little value.  They were marginal prospects.  Their best value was as a trading chip, and that's how they were correctly used.  As for the supposedly "expensive" team, it's easily affordable by the owners, and it's not even a top-five payroll.  As for the 30+ players, the Jays have a good balance of veterans and young talent.  There are a lot of 30+ players and there are a lot of 20+ players.  As for the "little" number of players coming up, that's a very strange definition of "little" -- especially if you review any list of the Jays top prospects, such as the excellent list produced by the experts at Batters Box recently.  To use the word "little" is to expose your bias. There are many excellent prospects coming up in the system.  Your despair is unwarranted.

With prospects it is a constant lottery going on for teams. Sometimes you hit the jackpot (Marcus Stroman for example) but most of the time you get crap (Travis Snider, Chad Jenkins). Yeah yeah, if only they were given a 'real chance' or more minor league time or whatever. But really I think people way overvalue prospects & draft picks due to the lottery nature (he might become the next Roy Halladay or Mike Trout, just wait another year).

One way of looking at it is to look at first picks in the draft. All-time for the Angels (to grab a team at random) you get 6 guys with 20+ WAR, 7 more with 10+ out of 62 draft picks. That includes 2 first overall picks, and 19 more top 10 picks. For each Frank Tanana, Troy Glaus or Mike Trout they had 3 who never made it like Billy Taylor (7th overall pick in '73). They had 17 who had negative WAR value too.

First overall draft pick should be an automatic star after all he should be the best player available each year, especially now that there are caps on pick dollars. But of the 51 first overall picks you still have 6 who didn't make it to the majors and 7 more with negative WAR value lifetime. Those 6 include the 3 most recent picks including Brady Aiken who didn't sign (which seems bizarre to me).

There are no guarantees in baseball. If you are at the 'we can win it all' stage of the win cycle then trading lottery chips for a shot at winning makes a ton of sense. If you are rebuilding then you want to hold as many tickets as you can like AA did early on. I suspect the new team in charge is going to try to build up a few lottery chips while still trying to win this year as they know if the team tanks in 2017 and beyond they are in trouble, but if the team doesn't contend in 2016 they could be too. Thus why I thought a Chapman trade could work out as it gets a draft pick if he leaves after 2016 and in 2016 he'd help the team win as he is about as good a closer as there is.

What I think they are trying to do is find good players who are early in their ML career thus under team control reasonably cheaply for up to 6 years.

Guys currently on the Jays who are under team control in 2019....
Martin

until 2020...
Tulo
Colabello
Stroman
Goins
Pillar
Jenkins
Sanchez
Osuna
Travis
Shultz
Pompey
most minor leaguers

That still is a decent base which will grow as some A ballers climb the ladder.

Yeah I view it like John. Young players are lotto tickets. By my count we've given away more jackpots that we kept. We've kept Stroman, but Gomes/D'Arnaud/Syndergarrd are hard to get over, not to mention the number of other players who are playing in the majors now like Dyson, Marisnick, Hecharverria, D'Sciafani, etc. I'd be curious if someone did the value of the prospects we kept to those we traded. Defintely will be interesting to see those numbers 3 years down the road once we know more about how they develop.

Regardless of what you thought about AA, or think about the current regime, or even thought about JPR's time here, at least we can all agree that it could be a lot worse if someone like Dave Stewart were running things. Wow. Horrible, horrible trade.

Yes, THIS. Why do you think I keep advocating the Jays go after Goldschmidt? Stewart might actually be dumb enough to trade him. Maybe Goldschmidt/Pollock for Pillar/Smoak/Delabar. Get er done, Ross Atkins.

"Sure, that trading 20-40 players over a 3 year period can give you a good expensive team with a lot of 30+ year old players and little in the way of players coming up to help the team in the coming years. Look at that list of players uo posted."

you mean "a great elite team on a slightly above average payroll with only 2 medium term committments chock full of multiple controllable MVP, CY, and Rookie of the Year candidates."

"...with only 3 core players older than 30."

"When AA took over, the system was bare but he also was tasked with trading one of the most valuable assets in baseball. D'Arnaud, Drabek, Gose, and then Travis were all from that trade which pushed the Jays from probably the worst system in baseball to somewhere in the middle. If the Jays were .500 again and the Jays were instructed to trade Donaldson, you can be certain that the Jays would go from a weak to a very good system very quickly. AA didn't inherit youth, but he inherited the means to start to rebuild the system immediately, a MLB system that allowed willing teams to get lots of draft picks, as well as a team committed to spending money to rebuild the system."

and AA has left shapiro with 4 or 5 Halladays to trade.

Stewart and LaRussa are old school guys, highly doubt sabermetrics had anything to do with this deal whatsoever, at least from 'Zona's standpoint

LaRussa used statistics as much as any manager after Weaver and was, of course, innovative as a result (Carlton Fisk batting second, the bullpen usage...). I know he has disparaged modern sabermetrics, but you'd have to dissect what he does and does not like about it to understand where he is coming from.

Gawd this is fun being an armchair GM For sure we are all better than Big Dave in Zona and most of us are for sure smarter than AA the ninja or the new guy(s) shapkins or whatever the name is. Keep it coming though. I may not post much but this is sure as heck good reading. :)

7/150 on the table for Chris Davis from the O's.

Here's hoping they keep him and he's closer to the 1.3 and 1.8 WAR player he was in 2012 and 2014 versus the guy he was last year and 2013.

That is a lot of money for a mostly one dimensional type player but probably gives us a bit of an idea what Edwin will be looking for other than term i guess.

"I think AA discovered the new market inefficiency, the value of prospect. It would be interesting to see the statistical analysis of prospects reaching their perceived MLB expectations, in their prime years. More often then not, it seems as if these players are bust vs. expectations."

agreed with this 100%. I would argue that on average you get mlre value from a prospect in trades than on the field. this might be especially true of highly ranked prospects, especially ones with significant flaws (like Snider's K rates or Drabek's very mediocre numbers).

that being said, when you have something special you have to hold on to it (moreso when they aren't getting the public hype) and the biggest strike against AA imo is that he didn't see something special in Syndergaard, when both the upside and performance were there in spades. if he had subbed the higher ranked sanchez into that deal instead, even most of AA's critics wouldn't be critics.

7/150 on the table for Chris Davis from the O's.

I guess the market is up.  What's Heyward being offered?  9/240 or something like that?

"You might find exceptions, but if you look at some of the best teams in baseball currently (Mets, Cubs, Pirates, Cardinals, Royals, Astros, etc), those teams not only held on to their top prospects, but built around them"

can't go thru all of them now, but the royals for example only became good once they stopped hoarding prospects, and started trading the likes of myers odorizzi lamb finnegan reed montgomery jeffress Ka'ahue giavotella etc.

in fact only a handful of their core championship players were homegrown:

IFAs: Perez, Ventura, Herrera
Draft: Hosmer, Moustakas

Alex Gordon was drafted 2nd overall by the Royals behind Justin Upton.  I remember the draft well because I thought the world of Gordon.  Like Heyward, he hasn't turned out as I imagined he would (a hitting beast with decent defence) but still very valuable.

"I'd be curious if someone did the value of the prospects we kept to those we traded"

The prospects/young talent traded in 2013 were: Syndergaard, d'Arnaud, Alvarez, DeSclafani, Hechavarria, Marisnick, Nicolino, and Gomes.

Those 7 players, from 2013-15, have accumulated a 26.0 WAR and $/WAR of $202.9M. Of those players, only Alvarez ($4M as 1st year arb in 2015) and Hechavarria ($1.75M in 2013 as part of original signing and $1.95M in 2015) made above the league minimum in any of those seasons.

I'll look at the other prospects traded and kept later (unless someone else wants to do it).

By comparison, from 2013-15 the Jays spent ~$146.7M on Dickey, Thole, Reyes, Buehrle, Johnson, Bonifacio, and Rogers. Their combined WAR was 19.0, for an $/WAR of $145.0. Yeah, those were bad trades. Really bad trades.

Luckily, the Donaldson deal was enormous surplus value so that helps his overall tenure, but then there are a bunch of trades that will be determined later (Hoffman, Castro, Norris, Boyd, etc).

right Mike - any other guys from last year that are FAs this year so aren't listed on the B/R team page now?

"Luckily"

heh.

I meant 'luckily' for his overall body of work, not for the deal panning out. That trade was robbery the moment it happened.

I mentioned earlier about the trades...
Happ cost: Joseph Musgrove, Francisco Cordero, Ben Francisco, Carlos Perez, David Rollins, Asher Wojciechowski, and Kevin Comer. Of those Perez just reached the majors last year and did OK (82 OPS+ in 86 games), Wojecski who many loved made it last year but with a 57 ERA+ in 16 1/3 IP (4.05 FIP). Rollins got to the majors 51 ERA+ in 25 IP in relief. So far only Perez might have had value to the Jays. Filling in for d'Arnaud when hurt (often).

The Marlins trade cost Henderson Alvarez, Anthony DeSclafani, Yunel Escobar, Adeiny Hechavarria, Jake Marisnick, Jeff Mathis and Justin Nicolino. Alvarez was just released, DeSclafani had a 98 ERA+ last year in 184 IP (for Cincinnati), Marisnick has a lifetime 70 OPS+, 81 last year. Nicolino had a 97 ERA+ in 74 IP last year. Hechavarria reached 90 for OPS+ last year (big deal for him) but has been negative on defense two of his 3 years in Miami. Escobar has been traded 3 times since then - think he still has issues.

Nicolino & DeSclafani both would be serious rotation candidates here with Alvarez also a solid potential rotation member if the Jays held him when the Marlins didn't (few are as cheap as they are).

Then the ugly one, Dickey for Wuilmer Becerra, John Buck, Travis d'Arnaud and Noah Syndergaard. Syndergaard might be an ace (114 ERA+ in 150 IP). d'Arnaud had a 128 OPS+ last year but in just 268 PA due to injuries (might never be able to be a star due to repeated injuries), Becerra did well in A ball with a 765 OPS in his first full season at 20. No question the Jays would like a 'do over' on that trade.

If AA didn't do those 3 big trades what do we get?
Rotation: Syndergaard, DeSclafani, Nicolino, Alvarez, Wojciechowski
Lineup: CA: d'Arnaud & Perez; Middle infield: Escobar, Hechavarria; OF: Marisnick

A few useful pieces. A few core as well. I don't think straight adding up WAR and comparing is the best method, but it isn't unreasonable either. Gomes I don't mix in as he was part of a minor trade, a mistake, but still minor - remove his 8.9 WAR of value and the deals look a lot better.

can't go thru all of them now, but the royals for example only became good once they stopped hoarding prospects, and started trading the likes of myers odorizzi lamb finnegan reed montgomery jeffress Ka'ahue giavotella etc.

Royals became good once their young core matured, including the youngsters acquired by trading Grienke. Royals were the best team in the AL at the trade deadline this past year. What exactly did that list of prospects/non-prospects above yield to get them to be that good? Wade Davis?

"can't go thru all of them now, but the royals for example only became good once they stopped hoarding prospects, and started trading the likes of myers odorizzi lamb finnegan reed montgomery jeffress Ka'ahue giavotella etc.

in fact only a handful of their core championship players were homegrown:

IFAs: Perez, Ventura, Herrera
Draft: Hosmer, Moustakas"

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


Gordon was drafted by the Royals. So was Holland, Hochevar, and Dyson (8.8 WAR since 2012). Cain and Escobar were two young players they acquired for Greinke.

Instead of signing guys to big money, they "diversified risk" by signing vet stop-gaps to value deals. They only took the next leap forward when their young talent got better (Gordon, Hosmer, Moose, Cain, Escobar, etc).

They did trade Wil Myers, who was a top prospect in all of baseball, but in hindsight they guessed right on him.

Not quite the "use prospects as trade capital" plan that someone mentioned being the new way to exploit the market (which is crazy).

well, two years of shields, one of which got them to a WS. not to mention a first round comp pick. 

last season they got zobrist and cueto - who clearly helped them win the WS.

jeffress was basically given away by the royals (to us) - since you can't just keep all your prospects with options, the rule v, etc.

can we please, please stop pretending that donaldson was an accident?  AA was a gambler, you win some trades, you lose some trades. 

The Mets won the dickey deal.  the jays won on donaldson. 

and frankly, the miami deal is not quite the loss it's presented as - alvarez was just released.  A Hech was considered oneof the worst regulars in MLB until this season.  Escobar keeps getting dumped for peanuts because he's a bad character guy.  Marisnick is a 4th OF, Nicolino a back of rotation starter at best. 

DeSclafani was a throw in who did okay, a back of the rotation starter at best with bad peripherals. 

SK, you know that 4 of the guys you mentioned were picked 1st to 3rd overall, right?  that's a pretty unique opportunity - unless you are advocating an NBA-style tank job?

and frankly given the draft position for those guys, only Gordon was a clear win.  Hosmer has 6.1 career WAR, Moose 9.3, Hochevar 7.9.

Myers wasn't the only top prospect in that deal either - Odorizzi was top 100, and McDonald had been the year before.

On a different note - any rule V predictions?  burns and smith were both listed as candidates on fangraphs, and I hope we make a bullpen pick ourselves - or why keep all the open space on the 40 man?

1.Escobar 28 trade
2.Zobrist 34 trade
3.Cain 29 trade
4.Morales 33 FA
5.Hosmer 25 draft
6.Moustakas 26 draft
7.Perez 25 IFA
8.Gordon 31 draft
9.Rios 34 FA

UT Orlando 29 trade
OF Dyson 30 draft
IF Infante 33 FA
C Butera 31 trade


SP Cueto 29 trade
SP Volquez 31 FA
SP Ventura 24 IFA
SP Guthrie 36 FA
SP Vargas 32 FA
SP Medlen 29 FA
SP Duffy 26 draft

RP Davis 29 trade
RP Holland 29 draft
RP Herrera 25 draft
RP Madson 34 FA
RP Hochevar 31 FA
RP Morales 29 FA
RP Young 36 FA
RP Blanton 34 trade
RP Frasor FA

royals were older than the jays, with about the same payroll, and have lost 4-5 key pieces to free agency already.

so there goes their sustainability.

Nice summary UO, you beat me to a similar list.

It's largely a myth that the World Series version of the Royals are comprised mostly of young, controllable assets that they raised themselves. Looking at who they have, it's similar to the crop that the Jays have graduated, sprinkled with some smart trades and signings.

Unless you're advocating something like trading Encarnacion for prospects or unproven young talent, it doesn't seem right to refer to rebuild trades for prospects (Cain and Escobar) in the same way as Win-Now trades. Those two had to take time to develop further at the major league level before they became part of the current core.

Also, Hochevar was a retained free agent - he was drafted by the Royals (and the Dodgers the year before, but that's another story).

homegrown talent comp:

LF Gordon (31): 422pa, 122wrc+, 4.3war/650pa
SP Stroman (24): 4gs, 41era-, 7.6war/32gs

3B Moustakas (26): 614pa, 124wrc+, 4.3war/650pa
CF Pillar (26): 628pa, 93wrc+, 4.9war/650pa

1B Hosmer (25): 667pa, 125wrc+, 3.5war/650pa
SS Goins (27): 428pa, 84wrc+, 3.2war/650pa

SP Ventura (24): 28gs, 100era-, 3.0war/32gs
SP Sanchez (22): 11gs, 87era-, 1.9war/32gs
RP Sanchez (22): 26.1ip, 59era-, 1.4war/65ip

C Perez (25): 553pa, 87wrc+, 2.2war/650pa
RP Cecil (28): 54.1ip, 61era-, 1.6war/65ip

RP Herrera (25): 69.2ip, 67era-, 1.0war/65ip
RP Osuna (20): 69.2ip, 63era-, 1.5war/65ip

RP Holland (29): 44.2ip, 94era-, 0.9war/65ip
RP Loup (27): 42.1ip, 109era-, 0.2war/65ip

SP Duffy (26): 24gs, 107era-, 1.6war/32gs
SP Hutch (24): 28gs, 134era-, 0.6war/32gs


slight edge to the royals.

Hey, I like Stroman a lot (who doesn't), but that seems like stacking the deck to project out 4 starts to 32, doesn't it?

There's also the Prospect Hoarder trade category, which I'm going to effectively call Cain and Escobar vs Travis. I'll let you do the WAR calculations on that, since I can't what you have above doesn't really match fangraphs or baseball reference. If I had to guess, though, it'd be baseball reference just due to the positive Sanchez numbers.

Wow, some seriously disengenuous posts about how the Rotals were built. Cain, Escobar, and Odrizzi were all from the Grienke trade. they were developed in KC . pretending that trading for prospects is the same as trading prospects for veterans is ludicrous.

the Royals were built the way many winning teams are built. mostly around a core of players from their system combined with some good free agent signings and then a couple of deadline deals to help put them over the top. And their three best offensive player WARs and three best pitchers WARs were all from players under 31. The top Three offensive WARs and top four pitching WARs for the Jays were all from players at least 29. the Jays were only a younger team because they had a bunch of really young relievers. The Royals have a much younger important part of the team which is why average age is a meaningless stat. A team with Mike Trout and two 40 yo relievers has an amazing future and a team with David Ortiz and two 22 YO non prospects doesn't. It's silly that I even have to write this because it is so obvious but you are trying so hard to force a narrative that doesn't exist. The Royals were built primarily through trading Grienke and high draft picks. They didn't overspend on free agents, they didn't trade away all their prospects, they are likely not going to resign Gordon either.

Dayton Moore did a couple of very smart things. Tried to have a plus defender at every position and his strong deep bullpen.

He did also have built-in advantages over AA, and that's his location and park.

Don't know if anyone saw the Nolasco tidbit this morning on MLTBR. He has a 3 team no-trade clause - Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays. When is the last time you read details of a no-trade clause that didn't have Toronto on it?

Being in the same boat as the Yankees and the Red Sox is bad now?

Barney is back...one year...major league contract.

disingenuous?  you guys can hammer on uglyone all you want, i feel like ive made valid points here too- again, four of the big name 'home grown' stars were picked first to third overall.  is finishing bottom 5 for years a reasonable way to develop a team?

I've walked through the development path of the royals in many posts this thread - this team has traded numerous top prospects for veteran talent - and they have two WS appearances, one win to show for it.

Glevin, who were the good FA signings on the royals? 

a couple of great dumpster dives in the pen and K morales - who was utterly not a sabremetric signing. 

and again, let's address that donaldson was not a 'lucky' move.  AA badly lost  the Dickey deal, and won when he got the MVP for peanuts.

And those WAR numbers are ludicrous. Aside from Stroman, there is not a single Jays player who is better than the equivalent Royal. It's not even close. You can't take unsustainable small portions of one season and then prorate that and pretend it is equivalent to years of quality. Look a streamer for a better comparison. Those Jays homegrown players project for around 9.5 WAR. Those Royals players project to around 17.9 WAR. That's not even close and much more accurate. And that is without including the prospects traded for which you should.Including them and you have:
Jays- 10.3 WAR
Royals-23.1 WAR

The Royals were fielding Alex Rios. He was worth -1.1 WAR and we still lost. They even paid him $11M.

They were at least sustainable enough to go to the World Series 2 years in a row.

It's not like the Royals are some dynasty set up for years to come. They play in a weak division and over the last two years and had a pythag of 174-150. The Jays were 187-137 in a much tougher division. KC were a pretty lucky team.

Barney is good depth until Travis returns.  Not a bad move.

Yes, disingenuous. Completely so. Trying to force narratives that simply aren't there and making comparisons that are deliberately dishonest. Aaron Sanchez was mediocre in one year and he is made to look like he is close to the equivalent of Yorando Ventura? Comparing Ryan Goins to Eric Hosmer? Brett Cecil to Salvador Perez? I mean, it's just so far beyond the pale of serious baseball discussion it's impossible to take seriously. The Royals did trade prospects. Every team does, but they were also built around homegrown talent and supplemented with other players.

Morales and Volquez were both very good signings. Neither were very expensive. And yes, the Royals did get lucky to win as well. They had some amazing things work out for them. And actually, finishing bottom five is a pretty good way to build a team and I think one of the issues the Jays have had. It is better if you're going to be bad to be really bad for a few years, get some elite prospects and rebuild. The Rays , Nationals, and Astros have all gone that route in the last decade or so and helped build strong teams from it. The Jays, despite not being good for a long time, haven't had a top five pick since 1997. I'm not suggesting to tank just that I prefer complete rebuilding when needed to spinning wheels at .500 ball for yours. I'd rather be the Phillies or Braves now than the White Sox.

I don't know about luck. The Jays didn't perform well in the playoffs.
They had lots of chances.

I think it's tough to evaluate AA's record as a whole because he was trending strongly upwards over the last year or so, during which he made a slew of excellent moves to improve the ML team. It may well be that Anthopoulos had been learning from his mistakes and that he'd been getting significantly better as a GM.

I'm going to reserve judgment on Shapiro and Atkins for a while, but it would have been interesting to see what moves AA would have pulled off this off-season, starting with the decision whether to bid for Price.

"The Jays didn't perform well in the playoffs."

Should do better in the playoffs this year now that we've gotten rid of that Price guy. :(

is finishing bottom 5 for years a reasonable way to develop a team?

The way baseball is going, it may well be. Cheap talent is constricted by bonus pools in the draft. I'm sure an international draft with similar pools will be in the next CBA.

When we learned that Travis needed surgery, I asked who the Jays would acquire, and I suggested that Kawasaki wasn't the ideal solution for middle-infield depth with Travis out.  Barney was one of the options that I wondered about.   Glad he is signed.  I think he's an upgrade on Kawasaki and the internal alternatives.

Shapiro & Atkins should be judged on performance regardless of how they got the job - one aspect I like about Shapiro is that he's very experienced - Gillick,Ash,Ricciardi & AA were all rookie GMs who suffered growing pains that hurt the club - Gillick became great but he was lucky in that few were paying attention during his first few years.

From the Winter Meetings:

Jaime Campbell:
Shapiro getting calls on Drew Hutchison.

Mike Wilner:
Many Teams have been calling on Drew Hutchison. Seen across the game as a big bounce-back candidate.
Shapiro indicated Blue Jays were very close to signing a free agent and closing in on another. Believed to be Barney (signed) and Petit.

Ben Nicholson-Smith:
Mark Shapiro said Blue Jays' 2016 payroll will be up from 2015.

Gregor Chisholm:
Shapiro said Blue Jays do not have a projected payroll for the next several years. That will depend on team success/revenue generated.

Mike Wilner:
Source: Blue Jays very likely to make at least one selection in tomorrow's Rule 5 draft, though picking 21st will be a hindrance. (5 Teams ahead of them have full 40-Man Rosters.)

"Unless you're advocating something like trading Encarnacion for prospects or unproven young talent, it doesn't seem right to refer to rebuild trades for prospects (Cain and Escobar) in the same way as Win-Now trades. Those two had to take time to develop further at the major league level before they became part of the current core."

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

A team doesn't have to draft a player for that player to be considered one of their developed talent. The Indians did not draft Carrasco and Kluber, but both came to the team either as prospects or players with limited MLB time, and developed with the team. The return for Greinke fits that model. If Lawrie turned into a star and the Jays kept him, then he would have been developed by the Jays as well.

The narrative being thrown around here is that trading prospects for MLB talent is some sort of market deficiency that good GM's should be exploiting rather than developing their own talent (either ones they drafted or acquired in other ways), which is absolutely absurd. GLevin explained it very well.

No one is suggesting to never trade prospects, or a team should field an entire 25-man roster of homegrown guys. That will never happen even for the best run teams. However, establishing a core of young players before making moves to "put the team over the top" is generally the smarter and more sustainable way to construct a roster. The Jays were a middling team in 2012 (and .500 the year before), and then decided to trade a crazy amount of prospects to Miami and New York to climb into respectability, and when that didn't work, they doubled down and did it again. To AA's credit, the 2nd time he did it he at least acquired much better players (Donaldson, Tulo, etc), but that still doesn't change the short-term nature of those moves.

Anyone suggesting you can build a sustainable roster with AA's style of roster construction is fooling themselves. Underselling the Royals in order to make the Jays look better doesn't help the argument either.

"There's also the Prospect Hoarder trade category, which I'm going to effectively call Cain and Escobar vs Travis. I'll let you do the WAR calculations on that, since I can't what you have above doesn't really match fangraphs or baseball reference. If I had to guess, though, it'd be baseball reference just due to the positive Sanchez numbers."

for hitters I average fwar and bwar.

for pitchers, since B/R won't split WAR into SP and RP splits, I average fwar with ra9war, both available on fangraphs.

Giles for Velasquez, Oberholtzer, Derek Fisher plus another prospect. This offseason has been one giant closer run. Somehow I doubt history will be kind to it.

Not a shock that Huchison is seen as a bounce back candidate with his FIP being more than a run less than his ERA. In theory he could drastically improve quite easily. Of course, right now he is a lot like a kid in the minors - valued by what he might do vs what he has done. He has 3 years of control left before free agency. I could see making him a key part of a trade if someone will give up something good (ie: top reliever). Now that Aroldis Chapman being dealt to LA has collapsed it seems I wonder if Cincinnati might be interested in a deal involving Chapman and Hutchison plus other parts.

Regardless of the arguments around improving the team, I do miss the nonchalance of the AA administration to making big trades. It makes listening to Shapiro speak so weird and anti-climatic. When Shapiro goes in front of media and speaks about "making headway" on a major hole (paraphrasing) and then we find out the team signed Darwin Barney it seems like such a letdown compared to what we used to experience. I'm fully anticipating that his comments around "constructive and creative trade dialogue" amount to the Jays trading for Christian Bergman for a player to be named later.

"And their three best offensive player WARs and three best pitchers WARs were all from players under 31. The top Three offensive WARs and top four pitching WARs for the Jays were all from players at least 29. the Jays were only a younger team because they had a bunch of really young relievers. The Royals have a much younger important part of the team which is why average age is a meaningless stat."

meh.


Top-10 fWAR rate

1. Donaldson (29) 8.0 - Cain (29) 7.1
2. Price (29) 6.4 ----- Gordon (31) 4.3
3. Travis (24) 6.3 ---- Cueto (29) 4.1
4. En'cion (32) 4.7 --- Moustakas (26) 4.0
5. Pillar (26) 4.5 ---- Hosmer (25) 3.4

6. Martin (32) 4.5 ---- Ventura (24) 3.1
7. Bautista (34) 4.4 -- Volquez (32) 2.6
8. Stroman (24) 4.0 --- Zobrist (34) 2.6
9. Tulo (30) 2.8 ------ Morales (32) 2.1
10. Goins (27) 2.3 ---- Davis (29) 1.9

The Jays don't have the depth to get rid of Hutch. Also getting a reliever (what else?) on the Rule 5 might be difficult. Unless there is a Castro/Osuna candidate somewhere out there. There is room on the 40 roster, but probably not on the 25.

would be hilarious if Shapitkins dumped dirt cheap pitching depth like hutch.

but not surprising.

"Anyone suggesting you can build a sustainable roster with AA's style of roster construction is fooling themselves."

AA built a sustainable elite roster.

It's a stance that is elitist and unpleasant, self-congratulatory and in some cases blatantly classist. But enough of independent thought.

Oh please. "Classist"? "Elitist"? Someone who disagrees with you is trying to stomp out your "independent thought"?

One of the lowest forms of argument is trying to take the offensive by claiming 'victimhood'. No one disagrees with you because of your 'class' or cares about it. As for 'independent thought', I don't see any difference between what you call 'independent thought' and the predictable, annual complaining that because of Rogers, the Blue Jays didn't sign some free agent or other to a mega-contract. This week's cued rant, stemmed from the Blue Jays not making David Price an offer that they knew he wouldn't accept, for "optic" reasons. I don't think the real world works that way. I don't think teams call free agents and make offers that they know will be rejected for purely optical reasons.

I like that CBDC! What's funny is he called me "classist" and "elitist" and in his post before he said my opinion was "stupid".

Anyways I think I got some insight as to why he watches games in the 500 section!

Pubster, learn to read before you spout off.

I was actualy refering to a post by CBDC  when I used the phrases 'classist' and 'elitist'.  I really didn't know who you were until you decided I had an axe to grind with you. 

And I stick by those terms - CBDC said that those who don't spend money on seasons tickets should shut up.  which if you had bothered to read my response to him, (or her? not to assume), would have been clear that this was not about you.

and I hate to have to say this for the THIRD time in this thread, but i called your statement (not you) 'buy the team then' stupid.  Because it is stupid - in what context is that a possibility?  It's an insult, not a comment.

and why is it again that i sit in the 500s?  im not sure if you are implying that Im drunk? or poor?

I tend to sit in the 500's because I'm cheap.

The Shap on Encarnacion:

“a multi-year contract is about sharing risks and can you find that sweet spot where the player feels good about the risk he’s taking, giving up what could be out there in the open marketplace?” shapiro said. “and the club has to assess what risks exist for them — health, performance — or the other circumstances which is team performance, revenues, all the things that come together with building a team. It’s not about having one player. You have to be able to build a team.”


somebody get their gun.

Richard, thanks for the beat writer info on Hutch, etc.

Hutch is an enigma to me. His ERA was slightly worse than his FIP in 2012, over half a run worse in 2014 and over a run worse last year.

Per PITCHF/X his 4 seamer was his best pitch in 2014, but his worst last year. His slider was also a plus pitch in 2014, but also a big minus last year.

His 2 seamer and change were both poor in 2014, but pretty average last year. So his best pitches became his worst and vice versa.

I do know his slider was plus pitch in 2014 because he added 2 inches of drop in the the second half of 2014, but that drop vanished last year. Why? Did that extra drop start causing issues with his surgically repaired elbow?

Last year the average AL pitcher's K% dropped from 20.8% with bases empty to 19.1% with runner(s) on. that's a 1.7% drop.

In 2014 Hutch's K% went from 25.4% to 20.4%, and in 2015 the difference was massive - 22.5% to 15.5%.

His ineffectiveness out of the stretch at least explains a good part of his ongoing issues of underperforming his FIP. Plus it explains why the Jays didn't use him in the pen where pitching out of the stretch is much more crucial.

Is he fixable? Guess that's the big question, though it seems other teams think it doable.

uglyone,

The human mind can only take so much...move on...please...onto anything else... so you can end both your misery and ours...honestly...you're searching for Shapiro quotes at close to midnight to post here...we get it...he is inferior to AA and the elite team that AA built, and now we have to suffer through the Shapiro era...but can we do this without the running commentary? We get it...Please, move on...is there nothing else of interest to you about this team aside from the misery it appears to inflict on you?

Ugly, I enjoy your posts, and you always back them up with solid points. I'm looking for fresh material to read, and you're usually always there to offer ideas on what the team will be doing next. I guess I've been spoiled with some of the posts here in the past, and now, as most of us have noted, we've been going in circles since the AA turnover.

I guess I just want to say...the horse is dead...nothing against you or any other poster personally.

When A.A. took over as G.M., he was a Rookie who had to trade the Ace of the Rotation, one of the best Pitchers in Baseball to the only Team he would go to. His return on that trade was amazing in what eventually it turned out to be.

His Minor League Teams had decent College guys who might eventually become useful, but lacking in high value assets. His MLB Team was basically average, not bad enough to draft well nor good enough to get anywhere. So he started doing everything possible to acquire draft picks for as long as the system let him. All his early trades and signings were high upside, high risk players and average guys who played a little better.

In 2012, his assets were not valuable enough to acquire who he wanted, so he traded less than the best to get what he could. Despite losing three Starters to basically season-ending injury, the Jays didn't fall out of the race until the Batters started having big injuries. The Team was actually pretty good and A.A. thought so too.

A.A. went into the offseason wanted two front-line Starters and a Big Bat to backup Jose and Edwin. What happened was very bad luck and changed the history of the Jays. (Everything I talk about is still accessible on the net and in more detail so if you want it all, look for it yourself. This is an opinion piece.) Not in any order:
1) Carlos Beltram OF, signed to play in St. Louis turning down more money and more term from A.A. saying it was a turf issue.
2) A.A. has a agreed upon trade to acquire Jake Peavy, when he decide to accept an extension which voids the trade.
3) Paul Beeston vetoes a good contract with Anibal Sanchez that A.A. signed, because it went against his personal opinion of exceeding 5 years.
In my opinion, if this three incidents change in A.A.'s favor, the Jays are in the Postseason with no one traded and there's a lot of money still available. Because that didn't change, what happened next A.A. had little choice because of that which happened. Miami decide to unload almost everyone.

2013 was the year A.A. discovered the unacceptable risk in having high injury risk players despite their upside. Unbelievable things went wrong basically destroying the season, but that massive increase in salary and equally massive injuries cost A.A. everything, including 2014, when Rogers turned against them. Somewhere in this two year period it was decided they were being replaced.

That disaster with replacing Paul Beeston was the only reason both were back in 2015. With both A.A. and Beeston gone after 2014, does the Jays get into the Postseason in 2015? No, because I expect their replacements would be busily breaking up the team. Russell Martin, Josh Donaldson and Troy Tulowitzki are only Blue Jays because A.A. was so very persistent. Anyone who still blames A.A. for what happened is not really a Blue Jay just someone who must always complain.

I understand what Mark Shapiro and his Team is doing, but whether I might/might not agree, matters not. I'm just very impatient to see what happens next. The Offense and Defense don't need any work. The Big Three in the Bullpen is great but the rest of it needs much work. The Front of the Rotation is fine, as are the three "meat and potatoes" Starters. I'd just like the last guy to be more upside than they'll likely get.

".......the horse is dead..."

If the horse is dead, it should equally be dead for the people who keep attacking AA in every post.  As long as people are going to be repeating in every post the false myth that the Jays were "short-term" and "unsustainable" and "emptied the farm" under Anthopoulos, it's completely valid for UO and others to make their points on the other side.

What's annoying is that the anti-AA mob are making a claim that can never be tested with data.  We'll never know if AA would have sustained a winning team, because he was forced to depart, so his critics will always be able to say endlessly that his team wasn't sustainable.  And if the Jays remain a winning team in 2016 and 2017, the critics will give the full credit to Shapiro. So let's drop the argument. As far as I'm concerned, the huge success of the team in 2015 is the biggest argument-decider that anyone should need, but it seems that it's not enough for some people.

In fact, RCI closed on December 7th, 2012 at $39.21 compared to yesterday's close at $49.30. It almost touched $54 in October.... I'm not sure people are grasping the vast and growing wealth of Rogers. They are tracking to about $5B in profit in 2015 alone.... This is why I'm just a little bit surprised and puzzled when people are so defensive about the size of Rogers' profit margin.

A few scenarios:

Imagine you bought the stock last week. Whatever huge profits the company had already made are irrelevant. All it did was drive up the stock price to whatever level you purchased at. If future earnings look good, that too was already baked in the cake, i.e., part of the price you paid. So no way are you going to be thinking, "Man, this company's made enough." Doesn't matter if you've got two shares in the company or two million.

Or imagine you're a middle-aged bucko who bought the stock on precisely the date you mention, Dec. 7, 2012. So now you've managed about a 25% return. In three years -- great. (I mean, not great great, but, sure, not bad.) That $10,000 investment, let's say, is now $12,500! Add in the $50,000 you've saved/invested elsewhere, and you've got $62,500. No way are you thinking, "Man, I'm set. I'm a-gonna head down the next shareholders meeting and suggest we blow a little bit of that 'surplus' cash we got kickin' around."

The argument you're making is fantasy, akin to saying that your favourite steakhouse really "should" give you a free steak tonight, because .... I don't know, they've made enough money or something.

As I said before, any argument that Rogers should increase spending on the Blue Jays, if it's going to be plausible, needs to make the case that this will increase -- not decrease -- profits.

"What's annoying is that the anti-AA mob are making a claim that can never be tested with data. We'll never know if AA would have sustained a winning team, because he was forced to depart, so his critics will always be able to say endlessly that his team wasn't sustainable"

I don't see an anti AA crowd. I see people who don't think he was a genius but he was not a bad GM. His track record on trades, free agent signings, and high draft picks are all pretty average but after JPA that was a massive improvement. And I think what is happening is actually the opposite. People who are enraptured by AA think that there are magical things he would have been doing now and so if the Jays fail, it will because of Shapiro not performing miracles. Despite a poor record of signing free agents, he would have signed Price for nothing. Despite having almost no prospects left to trade, he would have been able to trade nothing for an impact player.

Trading prospects is fine but you can't win long-term with a weak system and an old core and no depth anywhere. The Jays went all-in last year which was a perfectly acceptable move but I don't see how anyone could think that going all-in repeatedly is possible. It was a shot but now the Jays have to try to build a sustainable system not try to build around declining players.

I have a few concerns about the latest signals from the winter meetings last night:

1) The Jays seemed unable to land even a non-tendered pitcher, Yusmeiro Petit, who should have been easily affordable.  The Jays reportedly offered a two-year deal plus an option.  The Nationals landed him for a one-year deal of just $2.5-million (plus an option for 2017 that vests after 80 innings pitched).  Then the Jays beat reporters were told that the Jays came "a super-close second" in the bidding.  "Super-close second" sounds like terrible spin.  And how are the Jays able to set their sights so low and still get beaten?  They offered a two-year deal and got beaten by a one-year deal?  Either it is very poor spin, or a very poor negotiation.

2) Shapiro was asked about the perception that Rogers is failing to reinvest its higher baseball revenue into the team, and he responds with this: "The perception is wrong. Payroll is increasing a lot from last year to this year."  Then, on closer examination, it seems that the "higher" payroll is purely because of the falling exchange rate.  (Source: http://m.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article/159282146/blue-jays-president-mark-shapiro-talks-payroll)  This is again very bad spin.  The payroll is measured in US dollars.  If it remains the same in US dollars, it can't buy any additional players.  Shapiro is really showing no respect for the average fan if he's trying to spin the exchange rate as an increase in payroll.  For all practical purposes, it's not an increase in payroll, because it doesn't allow the Jays to afford anything extra.  For Shapiro to pretend otherwise is very misleading. (Beeston may have used the same spin in the past too, although not quite so bluntly and misleadingly, in my view.)

3) Shapiro is telling the media that he's getting lots of "calls" about Hutchison from other teams.  Since it's obvious that the Jays are not trading him, and since the Jays are trying to acquire pitching, not trade it away, I can only interpret this as spin again.  Shapiro is trying to convince us that Hutch is a highly desired pitcher that other teams want, so we'll feel better about the pitching depth for 2016.  Of course Hutch might bounce back, nobody can deny that, but Shapiro shouldn't try to spin it so hard.  We know how terrible Hutch's 2015 season was.  Let's not pretend that every team suddenly wants him.

4) Shapiro is making it clear that the negotiations with Encarnacion and Bautista are "not a priority" at this stage of the season.  Okay, so it's still theoretically possible that he will find a way to extend them in February or March, but once again it appears that Shapiro is trying to spin us, by lowering expectations and creating the expectation that he might not be able to keep them.

In summary:  I'm not impressed by Shapiro's spin.  Sure, I'll give him a chance, I'll wait to see what happens by the end of the off-season, I'll see what other players he is able to acquire, but his spinning seems to begin with the assumption that we will fall for anything.

"....Despite a poor record of signing free agents, he would have signed Price for nothing. Despite having almost no prospects left to trade, he would have been able to trade nothing for an impact player....."

Nobody has made those claims.  Most of us have said that Rogers should increase the payroll so that the team could afford $30-million annually for an ace such as Price. (That's not "nothing" -- that's $30-million annually.)  I believe UO has also argued that Shapiro should have signed Price by using the money that he spent on Happ, Estrada and Chavez.  (I don't happen to agree, but I think his argument is worth listening to.)  Again it's not "nothing" -- it's a reallocation of existing resources.

And I don't think anyone has argued that Shapiro should trade prospects for an impact player. Where did you see that?

I tend to sit in the 500's because I'm cheap.

The sight lines are usually good enough in the 500 level, the fans are better, and there are even some OK food and beer options now. And you get aerobic exercise when you climb all those ramps. And, as John says, it's cheaper. What's not to like?

As for the criticism of Shapiro: basically, being a GM (or an Uber GM Club President Thingy) is an exam with one question on it. "Have you built a team that is good enough to win?" If the answer turns out to be "yes", he passes the exam. If "no", we fans get to beat up on him a lot. Them's the rules. I reserve judgement on Shapiro and Atkins until it's time to grade the exam.

It's a fair argument tangled, but I would argue that last year established that quite clearly.

I would contend that doing something- anything- to show ambition would lead to sustained gains in the fan base that are at risk of eroding on the current trajectory.

That said, there is still plenty of offseason left, I actually don't mind the moves so far, and (in fairness) the team could overcome any issues with the optics of the offseason simply by going 20-5 out of the gate.

Not necessarily directed just at you but I am getting awfully sick of the "show me the numbers" argument with rogers. Everyone knows the publicly available statements are useless for trying to calculate this. But common sense is sufficient.

My daughter is three and while she can't tell you that 99-1 equals 98, she can tell you that a lot minus a little does not equal zero.

Interesting thoughts on Shapiro, ChinaFan. Not sure I buy your theory on Hutchison, though I can't see any good reason why Shapiro would be bringing the issue up to begin with. Does kind of sound to me, though, like he's laying the groundwork for trading him.

Re. a possible extension for Encarnacion, one thing to keep an eye on is what the Rangers do with Beltre. He's also signed through 2016, but (per MLB Trade Rumors) the Rangers are looking to extend him this winter. He's about four years older than Encarnacion, though the age difference might be offset by Beltre's still-good defensive skills. I'd guess whatever deal Beltre signs would be more or less the cost for Encarnacion.

It's a fair argument tangled, but I would argue that last year established that quite clearly.

Well, yeah. I'd argue that too.

"....Does kind of sound to me, though, like he's laying the groundwork for trading him....."

I'm not opposed to trading Hutch if they acquire a better starting pitcher, but I think it's very unlikely that they would trade him now.  It would be a classic "trade low" scenario.  Hutch is at the absolute bottom of his perceived value curve after his 2015 season. Of course some GMs will see him as a "bounce-back" candidate, but it's obviously uncertain and risky.  The Jays would logically keep him in 2016 and let him rebuild his value before considering whether to trade him.  He still has options and can be stashed in Buffalo, therefore he has value to the Jays, but less value as a trading chip because any trading partner would have to give heavy weight to his poor 2015 performance.  So I'm pretty certain that Shapiro is just trying to spin the fans about the greatness of Hutch and the depth of his starting rotation -- both of which are dubious claims at this stage, even if there's a chance that they could be true.

I think it's difficult to judge a general manager's tenure until years after he has left. One example is JP Ricciardi insisting on drafting Romero over Tulowitzki. Tulo emerged as a star first while Romero came slower, and everybody lamented picking him. Then Romero looked like he was developing into a star while Tulo suffered some injuries, and JP didn't look like a dunce anymore. Of course, Romero then inexplicably imploded while Tulo maintained star status, so JP's decision looks bad again. Everybody knows this story, but what I'm saying is that the evaluation of AA's time here can't be completed until years from now. If the team wins this year then some of the credit belongs to him since he had a hand in acquiring some of the players. Down the road, if Vlad Jr. or Alford becomes a star,then that will add to AA's record with the team. There have been many arguments on here about AA as a general manager, and even the new regime's early moves, or lack of them, but I think only time can allow a true evaluation.

I'm not anti-AA as much as I am against the route he took to build the team. I understand the logic. He wanted to win with Bautista and Encarnacion, and I can respect a GM that goes all-in rather than half in/half out. So in a way I can see why he chose to make those Miami/Mets trades, and why he went after Price/Tulo. He saw a window and tried to win a championship before it closed.

The issue is what we have been discussing for days/weeks here, which is whether it is a sustainable way to build a team. A team built around 30+ year old's with a weak (for now) farm system and no depth is not something that I would consider heading down a sustainable path. I find a lot of the AA crowd to be romanticizing what he could have done if he stayed.

As someone who probably has been roped into the "anti-AA" crowd, simply because I think Shapiro isn't an idiot and is going into this offseason with a perfectly reasonable plan (although I can see the other side), I'd like to say I completely agree with this characterization.

I was all for the trades in July, and thrilled with AA. I was disappointed to see him leave, although not terribly surprised. And I understand why Shapiro believes he needs to do what he needs to do now. I'm also not convinced that AA wouldn't have been doing the same thing, or something close to it.

1) Or he just preferred to pitch in the NL East rather than the AL East because he assumed he'd have a better chance of doing better financially in the long run. He probably isn't wrong about that.

2)Everyone spins, if that's what it is there. Beeston "you know it's going up". That's worse than spin, since it was flat out wrong.

3) Or, Shapiro is trying to build up Hutchison's value for either a trade, or, you know, building up his player who had a bad year last year.

4) EE/Joey aren't priorities at this point. Let's figure out the 2016 team first before we worry about that.

"I'm not anti-AA as much as I am against the route he took to build the team"

yes, you are against the route that he took to build one of the best teams in baseball, and in franchise history.

"yes, you are against the route that he took to build one of the best teams in baseball, and in franchise history."

The Jays should hire Ruben Amaro Jr.

why would they hire a guy who inherited a world series winner and then systematically destroyed it?

In response to Jevant:

1) Amazing that any AL teams are able to sign any pitchers at all, if the NL is such a magic playground.

2) Fair point about Beeston's comment (which I did allude to in my post as well).  At the time, I found Beeston's comment to be more of a vague prediction, rather than the flat-out statement that Shapiro made yesterday.  But I think it's true that Beeston made a similar spin.

3) I don't think GMs are stupid enough to suddenly boost their trade offer for Hutchison just because Shapiro says he is "getting lots of calls about him."  And for the reasons that I mentioned in a subsequent post, I find it implausible that Shapiro would be trying to trade a 25-year-old pitcher at the very bottom of his perceived value, without giving him a chance to rebuild his value next seasn.

4) I agree that Edwin and Bautista aren't priorities in December, but I think Shapiro came across as being quite dismissive of the Edwin situation in particular, and he gave the impression that it won't be much of a priority in January, February or March either.

poor Amaro was stuck inheriting an old expensive team with a short window and weak system. you should be criticizing that incompetent Gillick who left him that mess.

1) Presumably the money was close, then. I mean, are we really worked up about the Jays not outbidding someone for Petit? If I wanted to build up my value, I'd go pitch in the NL East as well (40 games against PHI/ATL, no DH, bigger parks?)

3) So maybe it's more about pumping up one of your players that had a bad year then?

4) Guess we can agree to disagree. I simply can't imagine that Shapiro is actually of the opinion that sorting out what to do with EE/Joey isn't going to be a priority at some point.

one of the best teams in baseball

The best. I don't even think it was close.

This is not a criticism of the new regime - what I heard from Shapiro yesterday was EE/JB are not priorities now but if the team does well in 2016 and revenues go up, then he'll be able to spend more - that means they're not signing EE/JB before the 2016 season and those 2 are going to FA - I don't see Shapiro paying market value for them - so, we should enjoy EE/JB this coming season as I expect it to be their last in TO - That's fine because I don't think I would pay market value either - if the team isn't contending at the deadline I can see Shapiro moving both and they would probably agree to trades because it would remove the QO from their FA - My gripe as it is - I would have tried to move them this offseason to teams that would have extended them now and taken the PR hit for I think a better return. Again, this is not an anti-Shapiro post.

In the spirit of Satchel Paige's rule that "don't look back, something might be gaining on you", here is Mike Wilner's preview of the Rule 5 draft. In many years, there is a position player out there with looking at (Mark Canha, Mike Napier would be recent examples off the top of my head).  Is there anyone like that out there in 2015?  A catcher who can hit (like Napier) would be interesting.

"....are we really worked up about the Jays not outbidding someone for Petit?...."

No, we're not worked up about Petit specifically.  I'm more concerned about the broader implications of the specific example.  Petit might have been a good acquisition, but he was also a non-tendered pitcher, which indicates that his value was relatively low.  (Otherwise he would have been traded, surely?  He could have been traded to a team that was willing to tender him.)  So it suggests that the Jays are fishing in the very shallow end of the free-agent pool.  If you go any shallower, you're into the waiver claims and minor-league contracts.  Yeah, I know that relief pitchers are sometimes considered "fungible" and "buy-low" candidates etc, but a team can waste a lot of major-league time in figuring out who is worth keeping and who is not.  There are 3 open positions in the bullpen and I don't want them to go by default to waiver claims and the likes of Hynes and Schultz and Delabar (who was inexplicably given a $700,000 contract for 2016). 

Chris Mitchell's KATOH projections for some Rule 5 possibilities include among the catchers Taylor Davis and Jin-De Jhang.  Jhang is interesting, but unfortunately probably not ready. He made strides last year, and I would be interested at a different stage of the competitive cycle. 

"why would they hire a guy who inherited a world series winner and then systematically destroyed it?"


He traded prospects for Roy Halladay. He acquired Cliff Lee in the 2009 deadline (they made the World Series that year, too!) by taking advantage of a value driven nutjob like Mark Shapiro in Cleveland by giving up Carlos Carrasco, and then later signed Lee as a free agent. He extended Howard to a monster contract to cover his prime to mid-30's, and extended Rollins and Utley in their mid-30's as well, keeping that core offense together. He traded prospects for Roy Oswalt. The Phillies won 93, 97, and 102 games in his first three seasons on the job, and that 102 win season was a franchise record.

Values stars? Check. Trades prospects for vets? Check. Signs players into their 30's? Check. GM of one of the best teams in franchise history? Check.

Sounds good to me.

(and yes, I'm fully aware that AA was a way better GM than Amaro....tongue is firmly in cheek here, for those who miss sarcasm easily).

Free agents can choose where they go. Just because a player/pitcher went to a certain team for a certain price (whether it's Petit, Iwakuma, Lackey, or whoever), it doesn't mean they would have signed with the Jays for a similar amount. Maybe they don't want to play in Canada. As a pitcher, maybe they don't want to pitch at RC. It could be any number of reasons. Justin Smoak took less money to sign with the Jays last year precisely because he felt the park could boost his numbers (and it did). Players have reasons. Everything is not equal in free agency.

Petit would have been a good signing, but he chose the Nats. It happens. Not a big deal.

I would take those 3 great years any day, along with being able to see Roy Halladay pitch a perfect game and a no hitter in the playoffs. What is your idea of sustainable winning anyway? Eternity? With the way the draft works, winning is cyclical. Amaros failure was recognizing when the window was over, not going for it when he did.

The rule 5 gamble is so cheap & the Jays have roster spots that I hope they draft 2 or 3 players - Guduan/Perdomo/Tirado and I hear they are likely to draft a positional player.

Well said SK. And that's one thing that is undermentioned when arguing AA's methodology in trying to build a winner. Sometimes you have to trade players to acquire what you need because it is just too difficult to do so otherwise. And even the trade market is limited somewhat due to players with no-trade clauses simply not wanting to play here.

The Toronto GM job is a lot tougher than for other comparable spending teams. There are worse though; imagine trying to convince a sought-after FA pitcher to call Coors Field home. Yeesh.

I agree, SK, Gillick was a terribly misguided GM who left Amaro in an awful mess.

though i'm sure that Amaro wakes up in cold sweat everytime he realizes that a couple of the kids he gave up to get the two best pitchers in baseball actually turned into regular mlbers.

"Free agents can choose where they go. Just because a player/pitcher went to a certain team for a certain price (whether it's Petit, Iwakuma, Lackey, or whoever), it doesn't mean they would have signed with the Jays for a similar amount"

which makes it extra weird that both Price and Lowe actually complained that the jays didn't even make them offers. for some crazy reason players actually wanted to sign here.

p.s. yusmeiro petit is an absolutely unremarkable middle reliever.

"I agree, SK, Gillick was a terribly misguided GM who left Amaro in an awful mess.

though i'm sure that Amaro wakes up in cold sweat everytime he realizes that a couple of the kids he gave up to get the two best pitchers in baseball actually turned into regular mlbers."


You are talking out of both sides here. On one hand, you described Amaro as someone who 'inherited a World Series winner and systematically destroyed it', clearly implying that he wasn't good. However, his way of extending that window was to do the EXACT SAME THING as what you laud AA for. His way of team building was exactly what you describe as a viable long-term option for the Jays despite the fact that there's evidence suggesting it crashed and burned when the core players aged/declined/got hurt (like all players do eventually).

Your response for every reasonable argument that supports Shapiro's plan and questions the sustainability of AA's is that "AA built one of the best rosters in baseball". Well, so did Ruben Amaro. If Amaro resigned after 2011, maybe he'd look like a hero in Philly, too. He just happened to stay long enough to become the villain when his philosophy predictably caught up to him.

Someone will have to explain to me what the Jays see in Joe Biagini, whom they spent $50,000 on today.  He's already 25 and has only managed one season above A ball.  His K/9 last season was just 5.8.  Now he has to spend the entire 2016 season on the Jays 25-man roster, or else he has to be offered back to the Giants.  One hopes that Shapiro doesn't plan to fill out the bullpen with these kinds of guys.  No matter how mediocre you might think Petit is, he's at least had some success in the majors.  Of course it's always worth taking a flyer on any prospect, and maybe the Jays will spot something in him in spring training, but so far I am unpersuaded.

The Jays selected Joe Biagini (RHP) from the Giants in the Rule 5 draft.

Petit signed for 1 year and $3M with the Nationals. It's weird to characterize a team as "in the running" for a player with such a low market value.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/source-blue-jays-were-finalists-for-yusmeiro-petit/

If you really like the guy and his flexibility as a potential starter, don't you just offer $4M? (especially if you're willing to add an extra year). If Shapiro is citing risk, allocation of resources and a 'tough market' (all quotes from the article) in the context of Yusmeiro freaking Petit, I can't imagine they're contemplating going anywhere close to somebody like Maeda, or any player who may cost $5M or more.

I don't know Biagini but he might be a candidate for a starter to reliever conversion. The stuff picks up and he might work better in one inning stints.

"....It's weird to characterize a team as 'in the running' for a player with such a low market value...."

Not just "in the running" but "a super-close second."   I'm excited!

Joe Biagini (RHP):
H/9 has dropped over last three years (355 IP): 9.5 - 7.7;
HR/9 has dropped over the last three years: 1.1 - 0.3;
BB/9 has dropped over last three years: 7.7 - 2.3;
SO/9 has not increased over last three years: 9.5 - 5.8;
but his SO/W has increased over last three years: 1.24 - 2.47.
He' a 25-year old (AgeDif: 0.4) Starter doing well in AA, who might have figured it out, or not. That' a decent pickup.

Regarding Biagini: the Jays will need to keep one pitcher to serve as a mop-up man - to pitch three or so innings in a game in which the starter got clobbered, or to keep the bullpen from being burned out in a long extra-inning game. It won't cause much harm to give this role to a Rule 5 guy.

As for Petit: the Jays have the top three spots in their bullpen covered (or top four, if Loup returns to form). They could use another good reliever for the seventh inning, but good free-agent relievers will be looking to pitch later in the game if possible, I would guess. And it's not like Petit is anything special.

"....the Jays have the top three spots in their bullpen covered (or top four, if Loup returns to form). They could use another good reliever for the seventh inning...."

One problem with this is that the Jays might need Sanchez or Osuna to help in the rotation.  At a minimum, they would like the flexibility to shift Sanchez into the rotation if he seems like a stronger option than Hutchison or Chavez (which is very possible). In fact, with Shapiro's emphasis on a "sustainable" roster, the Jays really need to find out if Sanchez and Osuna are capable of being good starting pitchers, to maximize their value.  So therefore they need another one or two relievers who are capable of high-leverage work.  And even if Sanchez and Osuna remain in the bullpen, along with Cecil, they won't always be available for the 8th and 9th innings of every game.  So, again, the Jays need one or two new acquisitions who can do more than just a middle-relief role.  Sure, you can put a marginal pitcher into the mop-up role as the 7th man in the bullpen, but you need much better than that for the 4th, 5th and 6th men in the bullpen.  (And the Jays see Loup primarily as a LOOGY at this point, so he doesn't qualify for the late innings, except for one or two batters.)

"In fact, with Shapiro's emphasis on a "sustainable" roster, the Jays really need to find out if Sanchez and Osuna are capable of being good starting pitchers, to maximize their value. "

Yes, but here is the problem that the Jays now have in a nutshell. Do you want to try to win now or try to build for the future? What would be best for the future is trying Sanchez and Osuna out as starters but what's best for this year is keeping them in the bullpen. Sanchez could be given a shot in the rotation but then you have to get a late inning reliever and Sanchez probably doesn't make the Jays rotation out of the gate and starts in the minors. Osuna makes even less sense. If he is going to be a starter, to figure things out. Even if he is a good starter right away which is unlikely, he has never pitched 70 IP in a season so his innings cap would be very low. Additionally, you would need to go get another closer which is extremely expensive.

So, yes, long-term it would be better for both to be starters as they have much more value than closers, but short-term, it creates more issues than it fixes. It is quite possible that neither would contribute much in the majors this year at all as a starter.

"...Sanchez probably doesn't make the Jays rotation out of the gate and starts in the minors...."

Not necessarily.  He made the rotation out of the gate in 2015, and now he is a year older, with an additional year of major-league experience (and even high-level playoff experience). He was pitching very well as a starting pitcher in May and June last season, before his injury.  He can be stretched out in spring training.  I don't think he needs to start in the minors if he is pitching better than Hutch and Chavez.  Of course he's also valuable as a set-up man, and the Jays would keep him in that role if they are confident that Hutch or Chavez are good enough for the 5th-starter job.  But why remove Sanchez from the competition for a rotation job if he's the best guy?

You're right about Osuna, however.  He would be more difficult to transition to a starting role without some time in the minors.  So I suspect he remains the closer in 2016.

Another issue with Sanchez is that he needs to develop/refine his secondary stuff. His control as a starter was not good and he still wasn't generating many swings and misses. The heavy GB emphasis is great, but he'll need to work on a dependable 2nd pitch and improving his command. I wouldn't count on him to be a better option than Chavez or Hutchison by the end of Spring Training 2016. A lot of development would have to occur in ST for that to be realistic. I think starting him in AAA is a great idea, but then they'd have to get a reliever to replace him.

Guess the new team did something right - didn't lose anyone in the draft which is always nice. The Yankees lost 2 guys, Rays 2, Orioles 1, Red Sox 0.

New guy looks like a decent pickup. AA starter who had a 2.42 ERA but the 5.8 K/9 is a lot lower than I'd like. Entering his age 26 season so he is a 'now or never' player.

"He was pitching very well as a starting pitcher in May and June last season, before his injury."

He had a good ERA but he also had a 28/23 K/BB ratio in those May/June starts. His FIP as a starter overall was 5.21. He has excellent potential but he needs to get his walks under control and to be able to strike guys out better to be a major league starter. It's possible he could win the 5th starter job straight out of spring but for the short-term Chavez/Hutch as 5th starter and Sanchez in bullpen likely makes more sense than Sanchez as 5th starter and ? in the bullpen.

"You are talking out of both sides here. On one hand, you described Amaro as someone who 'inherited a World Series winner and systematically destroyed it', clearly implying that he wasn't good. However, his way of extending that window was to do the EXACT SAME THING as what you laud AA for. His way of team building was exactly what you describe as a viable long-term option for the Jays despite the fact that there's evidence suggesting it crashed and burned when the core players aged/declined/got hurt (like all players do eventually)."

no, my friend, not all big free agent signings are THE EXACT SAME THING, and not all prospect trades are THE EXACT SAME THING.

you are a slave to philosophy, unable to judge individual transactions on their own merits, nor the entirety of those transactions on their own merits.


Amaro inherited an elite roster, and systematically destroyed it through bad signings and a complete inability to draft or otherwise acquire young talent - whereas AA inherited nothing, built an elite team, has never signed anchor contracts and has acquired a crapload of young talent. And in fact, Amaro's two prospect trades for Halladay and Lee were his 2 best moves, and were wildly successful, even despite the fact that one or 2 of the prospects traded finally became regular starting mlbers for the first time 7 years later.

No, if we're looking at the Phils, AA's tenure is clearly and unarguably most similar to Gillick.

although on 2nd look, that's still not a fair comp for AA, given that Gillick took over an 88 win team stacked with young star talent already.

Shapiro has inherited from AA a team very very similar to the one Amaro inherited from gillick, in every way. Amaro managed 3 more consecutive 1st place finishes and playoff runs....let's see if Shapiro can match Amaro.

The Jays could use Hutch for a trade chip for something they need... Like pitching... Oh...

I still have hope for Hutch.

I do wonder about Sanchez though. He did prove that he can be a starter in the majors last year. I like his ceiling in that role.

why would Osuna need time in the minors to transition to starting, exactly?

"let's see if Shapiro can match Amaro."

The Phillies' owners gave Amaro a lot more money to throw around than Rogers gave AA and (just wild speculation on my part) will give Shapiro/Atkins.

I don't know what the club saw in Biagini.  Maybe there was a lot of weak contact due to the amount of movement on his pitches.  He hasn't had any platoon differential over the last 3 years, for what that's worth.

My guess is that they are paying 25K (net) to have a look at him in the spring.  There's a pretty good chance that he is returned to the Giants.

Sanchez 22yrs 1st 11 rookie starts

Gms 1-3: 4.2ip/gs, 18.8bb%, 5.14era, 7.21fip, 5.58xfip
Gms 4-7: 6.0ip/gs, 15.7bb%, 3.75era, 4.72fip, 5.10xfip
Gms 8-11: 7.0ip/gs, 7.3bb%, 2.57era, 4.63fip, 3.78xfip

ranked 6th highest GB% and 15th lowest hardhit% of all SP (min 50ip).

"The Phillies' owners gave Amaro a lot more money to throw around than Rogers gave AA and (just wild speculation on my part) will give Shapiro/Atkins"

fwiw, Brunt says $160m payroll this year.

"I would take those 3 great years any day, along with being able to see Roy Halladay pitch a perfect game and a no hitter in the playoffs. What is your idea of sustainable winning anyway? Eternity? With the way the draft works, winning is cyclical. Amaros failure was recognizing when the window was over, not going for it when he did."

yep.

Amaro's first few years were great. it was a few years in when he extended the entire core well past age 35 that screwed him. along with his poor drafting.

And i'm sure Phils fans even then will gladly endure their current situation after 5 glorious years of elite contention.

Gms 1-3: 4.2ip/gs, 18.8bb%, 5.14era, 7.21fip, 5.58xfip
Gms 4-7: 6.0ip/gs, 15.7bb%, 3.75era, 4.72fip, 5.10xfip
Gms 8-11: 7.0ip/gs, 7.3bb%, 2.57era, 4.63fip, 3.78xfip

...which would be great if his best start by far wasn't his last one (8IP, 1ER, 0W, 3K) against the Astros and he went on the DL immediately thereafter. 

Sanchez' best season was his 2012 year in Lansing.  He was in a tandem role and performed well as both the 1st and 2nd pitcher out of the chute.  He did fade at the end of the year and didn't get a playoff start.  My own opinion is that he's ideally suited to 40 appearances, 120-140 innings.  That role doesn't exist on most team's pitching staffs, although you might be able to accommodate it by having Chavez and Sanchez share a rotation spot longitudinally in the season with the other moving to the pen.

"What would be best for the future is trying Sanchez and Osuna out as starters but what's best for this year is keeping them in the bullpen."

True.

But note that it's true only because we decided to spend $42mon dickey/happ/estrada/chavez AND trade away one of our best relievers in the process.

Liam Hendriks does not get traded unless Gibbons approves it. They know he needs a better Bullpen, so they'd ask. They traded their 5th best reliever for a decent Starting Pitcher. Anyone who complains about that isn't as good a judge of talent as they think they are.

Marco Estrada ($13.0 MM AAV) is a very good Mid-Rotation Starter. R.A. Dickey ($12.0 MM AAV) has been an adequate #1 Starter on this team, so he's a better #2 and a very good Mid-Rotation Starter. If J.A. Happ's ($12.0 MM AAV) Pittsburgh-inspired changes stick he's a good #2 Starter, otherwise a good #3/4 Starter. Jesse Chavez ($4.7 MM AAV) is a good 4-5 Starter who fades after about 150.0 IP.

Getting four Starting Pitchers for just a mere $41.7 Million is a massive bargain. Anyone who disagrees could be carrying unnecessary personal debt. Bad decisions get to be a habit.

Richard, on December 6th you said, "Under no conditions does anyone want Drew Hutchison or Jesse Chavez in the Starting Day Rotation."

Why is Chavez a "good 4-5 starter" four days later?

Why? That's what he is.
It was hoped the Jays could do better that Drew Hutchison (for all his potential) or Jesse Chavez (good pitcher with stamina issues) in the Rotation. Some sure thing to comfortably fit in the #2 slot in the Rotation is what people would like. Might not get it, still like it. Drew in AAA and Jesse in Relief are ideal, the Rotation would be getting deeper. The more real MLB starters you can acquire and have available the better.

"Under no conditions does anyone want Drew Hutchison or Jesse Chavez in the Starting Day Rotation."
That means things haven't gone well for LaCava. The better the Rotation gets the better the Team will be. Just don't weaken the Bullpen.

His track record on trades, free agent signings, and high draft picks are all pretty average

Dunno Glevin I think AA had a pretty great trade record:

donaldson, Wells (called the most inexplicable deal of all-time by dave cameron), Morrow, Halladay for prospects, Estrada,  Hendricks, Happ, Rasmus, Lawrie, Delabar, Rajai Davis, Escobar, travis - all good or great deals.

the big losses were obviously the 2013 blockbusters - widely praised on fangraphs and elsewhere at the time.  the package that went to miami doesnt look that hot at the moment, but clearly the dickey deal stings - TDA may not play at catcher though and has real injury concerns, as does Yan Gomes, the other big loss.  napoli had one great year after he was dealt but played the same position as EE and the comp pick for francisco was matt smoral.

that's a strong trade record. 

1st round draft picks are also not average IMO - sanchez, thor, stroman, hoffman, harris?  

and in terms of FA contracts, EE and Bautista were huge wins - resigning your own guys counts right?  Martin was a great deal - only Izturis was a bust I believe?

Also, great read about the cost of a bad move to a franchise at FanGraphs

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/on-the-magnitude-of-transaction-mistakes/

according to dave cameron, not as crippling as mny seem th think - i was certainly surprised by his conclusion.

AA's tenure is clearly and unarguably most similar to Gillick.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"no, my friend, not all big free agent signings are THE EXACT SAME THING, and not all prospect trades are THE EXACT SAME THING."

So signing Cliff Lee isn't similar to signing David Price? Trading for arguably the best pitcher in baseball (Halladay) and another ace (Oswalt) wasn't similar to what you've been harping about (trading for stars)? Re-signing Howard and extending Utley/Rollins in their 30's isn't what you've been suggesting the team does with Bautista and Encarnacion? Hell, you suggested the Jays start 2016 with Hutchison, Sanchez, and Osuna in the rotation with no AAA depth and no money to improve the pen just to fit David Price into the roster. How can you possibly knock Amaro when you feel a team can realistically win doing something like that?

Amaro's philosophy from 2009-11 was pretty much AA's MO since 2013.


"you are a slave to philosophy, unable to judge individual transactions on their own merits, nor the entirety of those transactions on their own merits."

Except I've done nothing but praise the Donaldson trade and liked the Martin signing from day 1 other than the heavily backloaded part (knowing he'd tail off at the end of his deal). The difference between smart moves and franchise altering ones are pretty easy to distinguish for anyone without bias. No one is being a slave to a concept. If anything, the people wanting moves for the sake of moves, big signings for the sake of big signings, are the ones being slaves to a philosophy. You can't win with that philosophy long-term.


"Amaro inherited an elite roster, and systematically destroyed it through bad signings and a complete inability to draft or otherwise acquire young talent - whereas AA inherited nothing, built an elite team, has never signed anchor contracts and has acquired a crapload of young talent."

This is straight up Groundhog's day as I feel like I've been repeating the same stuff for weeks now. Just read one of my previous posts to get an idea of how much romanticizing is going on with AA's tenure (I suggest reading the post where I outlined the $ vs. $/WAR of the prospects he traded in 2013, plus any of GLevin's posts about the age of the roster, etc ,etc). Otherwise we'll keep just repeating the same stuff over and over again.

You think AA was great. I think he was average at best. You obviously dislike Shapiro. We'll agree to disagree.

Ugly, did Brunt say whether this is in U.S or Canadian dollars (big diff)?

taking arbs into account, should be over 120 U.S already so perhaps (hopefully) that is a U.S amount.

AA was great, his results average, and neither is entirely on him. He clearly elevated this franchise in almost all other facets.

The hate for Shapiro and the current regime by pretty much one recurring poster at this point...misery loves company, simple as that. Drive over the bridge, don't wave to the troll, nothing else to see here.

I don't know that Osuna can get you 5 innings. He's got to learn to take some off now with the TJ.
I like him as a closer.

Someone will have to explain to me what the Jays see in Joe Biagini.

Plus fastball. Decent command Good frame. Might be able to dial it over 95 mph out of the pen.
Could develop into a decent middle reliever or the kind of back end starter that can go the distance with run support. You know the type, ERA+ in the 90s, but 200 IP.

Scottt, John Sickels agrees with you:

26.  Blue Jays select:  Joe Biagini, RHP, Giants. Age 26.  Spent 2015 as a starter at Double A where he worked to a 3.35 FIP on the strength of strong walk and homer rates.  As his 84 strikeouts in 130.1 innings suggest, this is not a high ceiling arm, which makes him a curious choice for the contending Blue Jays.  His best bet would seem to be to hang on as a steady long reliever capable of limiting free passes and keeping the ball in the park.

Will be interesting to watch how the Jays approach the JB and EE negotiations. With Chris Davis numbers growing by the day, I doubt the Jays will want to commit the dollars required to retain both of them.

So do you try to extend one in the winter, and alienate the other? Try to extend one during the year, which could be a big distraction? Or wait till season end and risk losing both? Tricky situation when both contracts are ending in the same year.

"So signing Cliff Lee isn't similar to signing David Price?"

kinda similar. Cliff Lee was 2yrs older, though.

That signing gave them 3.5 elite years out of 5. 19war for $120m ($6m/war). An excellent signing.

"Trading for arguably the best pitcher in baseball (Halladay) and another ace (Oswalt) wasn't similar to what you've been harping about (trading for stars)?"

Halladay? absolutely yes. A great trade for Amaro. Targetted the elite of the elite.

Oswalt? absolutely not. A guy being paid like an Ace but who hadn't been legit ace the previous 3 seasons.

"Re-signing Howard and extending Utley/Rollins in their 30's isn't what you've been suggesting the team does with Bautista and Encarnacion?"

Now you're just making things up. I have said clearly that I wouldn't extend them this year, and would let their play this year dictate whether we re-sign them. I've also said that losing one of them is most likely the most affordable significant player to lose, especially since both fit best as DH going forward.

Amaro extending his entire core into their mid to late 30s was a mistake. A mistake AA has never made. All his extension decisions have turned out brilliantly.

"Hell, you suggested the Jays start 2016 with Hutchison, Sanchez, and Osuna in the rotation with no AAA depth and no money to improve the pen just to fit David Price into the roster. How can you possibly knock Amaro when you feel a team can realistically win doing something like that?"

I don't even know what this means. hutchison sanchez osuna would be upgrades to our current staff themselves, let alone adding Price, too. And that would still leave $12 mil to sign another.

"Amaro's philosophy from 2009-11 was pretty much AA's MO since 2013."

yep. 3 first place finishes and playoff runs.

then, he made the mistake of extending everyone further, and paid for his absolute inabilty to draft and develop talent.

I'm guessing that (1) neither player re-signs, or (2) EE signs (more affordable) and Bautista walks. Shapiro seems to be a disciplined fellow. I think he's going to want to rebuild around a younger, cheaper roster supported by a more robust farm system. I don't see him handing out a big contract to a declining player (as wonderful as that player has been for a half-decade) for sentimental reasons.

Amaro's philosophy from 2009-11 was pretty much AA's MO since 2013.

The defining decision of this period was Amaro's extension of Ryan Howard. This came in April 2010, when Howard was already under contract for (almost) two more years. It was a 5-year extension at an enormous cost ($25m/year) and was widely and immediately panned (except, as I recall, from certain Phillies fans who thought his RBIs were worth it) and the results.., well, we all know the results.

Anthopoulos never did anything remotely like that.

"A mistake AA has never made. All his extension decisions have turned out brilliantly."

Ricky Romero begs to differ.

Ruben Amaro Jr.'s True Failure - all of his draft picks (2009 was his first draft - a year before AA's first draft):


1.SP A.Nola (23): 77.2ip, 1.8bwar
2.RP K.Giles (25): 115.2ip, 4.0bwar
3.CF A.Altherr (25): 166pa, 1.7bwar
4.C C.Rupp (27): 377pa, 1.0bwar
5.SP A.Morgan (26): 84.2ip, 0.9bwar
6.SP D.Buchanan (27): 192.1ip, 0.1bwar
7.OF D.Ruf (29): 744pa, -0.2bwar
8.3B C.Asche (26): 1069pa, -0.6bwar
9.1B J.Singleton (24): 420pa, -0.9bwar
10.RP M.Hollande (27): 47.0ip, 0.0bwar
11.RP J.Zeid (29): 48.1ip, -0.4bwar
12.RP C.Murray (26): 7.2ip, 0.0bwar

AA beats that entire group handily with just his 1st 2010 draft alone.

Ricky Romero begs to differ.

Actually Ricky probably thought it was brilliant, too. It was just the rest of us who thought it wasn't so hot.

On the Romero contract extension:  I think a lot of people thought it was a good idea at the time.  Perhaps John Northey can dig up the Batters Box thread from the day of the announcement of the Romero extension?  Would be interesting to see who criticized it and who praised it at the time.

Jerjapan, thanks very much for sharing the John Sickels comment.  But I think it supports my initial skepticism about Biagini, rather than the optimistic projections.  This is the key quote:  "...this is not a high ceiling arm, which makes him a curious choice for the contending Blue Jays....."

As I've said in the other thread, I'm a little less skeptical about Biagini as I learn more about him -- he does seem to be worth taking a chance on, although I still think he is a longshot.

So far, it looks like Shapiro is going to fill out the bullpen with the strategy of "throwing arms at the wall to see which ones stick."  (Sorry for the somewhat gruesome metaphor, but you know what I mean:  the strategy of acquiring 20 marginal arms for two or three vacant positions and trying them all out until a couple of them succeed.)  

It's a strategy that can work.  I'm not totally against it.  And it's certainly cost-effective.  It has a better chance of working if the three top positions (Osuna, Sanchez, Cecil) are already locked down.  My concerns are that:  1) Sanchez or Osuna might be needed in the rotation;  2) the 4th guy in the bullpen should be capable of a high-leverage set-up role, since there will be plenty of days when Sanchez and and Cecil are not available in the 7th or 8th innings, and I'm skeptical that this kind of guy can be found from waiver claims and Rule 5 selections and unheralded minor-league guys. 

"Dunno Glevin I think AA had a pretty great trade record"

Overall, Donaldson was a massive win. Lawrie was a great get and he had some other great trades but the Mets trade and Marlins trades were both awful. Overall, I'd say that makes it average. The Jays have a better present and a worse future because of them.


"1st round draft picks are also not average IMO - sanchez, thor, stroman, hoffman, harris?"

The Jays had so many draft picks so Maguire, Woj, Beede, Anderson, Musgrove, Smith, Comer, Davis, Smoral, Nay, Gonzalez, Bickford, and Penetacost (as a 1Bman, hard to see him as much of a prospect) were all misses in the 1st and supplementary round. Of the Jays 18 picks in first and supplementary, 3 played in the Majors last year. Of the Red Sox 14 picks in the same period, 6 made the Majors last season. The O's had 4 picks before 2015 and three of them were Machado, Bundy, and Gausman. Draft picks are hard especially without top-five picks so it's not a terrible record, just not a particularly good one either.

One thing to remember is that GM's don't have much input in the draft beyond maybe the 1st round. That's what they hire scouts for. Even AA alluded to that at one point. So for those that think AA's drafting was great, unless I've missed something, most of the previous regime's scouting team is in tact. I know the international scout (Cruz?) left for the Dodgers but I don't recall reading about anyone else significant leaving (correct me if I'm wrong).

"The defining decision of this period was Amaro's extension of Ryan Howard. This came in April 2010, when Howard was already under contract for (almost) two more years. It was a 5-year extension at an enormous cost ($25m/year) and was widely and immediately panned (except, as I recall, from certain Phillies fans who thought his RBIs were worth it) and the results.., well, we all know the results."


Even if he didn't extend Howard, that whole philosophy he had was doomed to fail due to its short shelf-life.

AA was a better GM than Amaro, I even said as much. My point was that you can't keep trading prospects for veterans and build around 30-somethings and expect to sustain a consistent winning pattern; something Ugly insisted was a realistic way to build a sustainable team. I mentioned Amaro specifically because he was an example of someone who fit that mold. He acquired great players, extended his core, and did many of things Ugly insisted the Jays should do, but it lead to the inevitable. The only difference here is that if the team does have to rebuild after 2016 that it won't take as long as the Phillies since he was better with contracts. That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't sustainable to begin with.

Judging GM's by draft pick results makes for interesting arguments, but in almost all cases has little to do with the GM himself, because we're judging results over process.

Thor was a great pick in both areas. AA expanded the scouting dep't, and our scout(s) had more views than most, if not all other teams. Even the signing bonuses of both he and Sanchez shocked many.

The same draft, the Cubs previous regime took Hayden Simpson 1st. The feeling at that time was a huge overdraft - he should have been available 3 rounds later. Few if any could argue that was good process.

Pillar the next year was a "great draft pick", except we passed on him 36 times.

Seattle's draft picks keep flaming out. Bad draft picks? Some maybe, but the deeper issue seems to be their player development system. On the other hand the Cards and Giants keep churning out players, both heralded and unheralded, due to what many believe to be among the elite player development systems.

"Even if he didn't extend Howard, that whole philosophy he had was doomed to fail due to its short shelf-life."

philosophy doesn't make bad moves good or good moves bad. Signing a 3war DH to one of the biggest contracts is always a bad move.

The phils finished 1st and in the playoffs 5yrs in a row. I'll take that shelf life any day.

especially since the window could have easily been prolonged even longer with a smarter GM and an even average drafting and developmemt system.

"One thing to remember is that GM's don't have much input in the draft beyond maybe the 1st round. "

AA overhauled and grew the entire scouting staff, convinced ownership that spending more in this area was the smart investment, and was extremely innovative in taking advantage of all the changing compensation rules and regulations in both the draft and the IFA market.

he also did a nice job targetting the right prospects in other organizations such as D'Arnaud and Travis.

I'd give him a bit of credit.

I understand the concept that acquiring a starter is better than acquiring a reliever. But this is being stated, if I understand correctly, as being an automatic win. Morrow for B League for example.

D Ward, Henke, Eck & Gossage among many were too good IMO to be in this Philosophy. Cecil however is a reliever only. But a proven one, that is not elite. So if we traded Cecil for Estrada or Chavez in either off season, we clearly lost did we not?

point #2.

If we had signed M Lowe this off season, IMO he definitely slots in behind Osuna, Cecil & Sanchez. But I do not see him as the clear #4. Look at Delabar, he was pretty good in 2013. I just looked at Lowe's 2015. He was very good, except for about 4 games for the Jays. Ok then, I change my mind. I guess he is #4 or better.

It is so hard to figure out relievers.

the Lowe-Delabar comp could easily be a good one.

Overall, Donaldson was a massive win. Lawrie was a great get and he had some other great trades but the Mets trade and Marlins trades were both awful. Overall, I'd say that makes it average.

Glevin, the problem as I see it with this argument is that most with a critical view of AA's trades list about 2 positives, 2 negatives, and then stop. 

But I've argued that he has only 4 losses on his resume, and at least a dozen wins.  You are ignoring possibly the best - dumping wells - and a number of strong moves both mid-sized - Estrada, Travis, Happ, Escobar, Rasmus and Morrow - and smaller - Hendricks, Delabar, Rajai Davis, etc.

and only one loss really stings at the moment.  Yan Gomes has injury concerns and a guaranteed contract, and honestly - what is the big loss in the Miami deal?  In terms of prospects - a 5th starter and 4thOF.  Alvarez was just non-tendered, a-hech has one good year (this one).  nicolinos K% makes me question his prospect status, and Escobar clearly has character issues.  Naploi for Francisco robbed us of one great year for Nap (who plays EE's position) and we got smoral as a comp pick.

The Jays had so many draft picks so Maguire, Woj, Beede, Anderson, Musgrove, Smith, Comer, Davis, Smoral, Nay, Gonzalez, Bickford, and Penetacost (as a 1Bman, hard to see him as much of a prospect) were all misses in the 1st and supplementary round.

McGuire, Anderson and Gonzalez were busts (although some of these comp picks are basically 2nd rounders), but Woj, Musgrove and Comer got us Happ (not a HR, but value).  Beede and Pickford yielded comp picks - so Stroman and Pentacost.  Smith, Davis and Smoral were all top 15 propsects on the recent Box ranking.  Not to mention the great track record of propspects outside of the 1st round.   Over 20 WAR of big league value already from the draft (not counting signees like Osuna), vs. 10.8 for the Sox.

The O's have roughly the same WAR, almost all from machado - but they also had 3 picks top 4 overall.  our highest was 9th.

"....My point was that you can't keep trading prospects for veterans and build around 30-somethings and expect to sustain a consistent winning pattern..."

I agree that you can't do it every year.  In fact, Anthopoulos did it only twice in any significant way:  once in the 2012/13 off-season, and once in mid-season in 2015.  Both times he believed that the core of the team was good enough that he could put them over the top and into the playoffs if he acquired three or four key veterans.  He tried it twice, and it succeeded once.  That's a .500 batting average for that strategy, which I think is a pretty good success rate. And in neither case did it cripple the team's future, despite some people implying that this is the case.

"Glevin, the problem as I see it with this argument is that most with a critical view of AA's trades list about 2 positives, 2 negatives, and then stop."

Not really. Again, with AA, he made so many moves that if you list things, he made a lot of good and a lot of bad moves. (Napoli and Hill for example both were bad moves) Also, I think people tend to look at trades through hindsight which is important but also incomplete. For example, if the Jays trade Alford and and Stroman for Will Nieves and Stroman goes out for his career and Alford never develops and Nieves gives the Jays 0.5 WAR, was it a good trade? Of course not. It was a terrible trade that worked out well which is why I hate the discussions of the Shields/Myers trade because it still wasn't a particularly good trade by the Royals, it just worked out extremely well. Those two things are not the same thing.

So trading a bunch of players for JA Happ worked out pretty well, but it wasn't a good gamble and I wouldn't trade a bunch of players to try to get a back-end starter again. Whereas I liked Happ for Saunders even though it didn't work out. The Marlins trade was bad even if few of the players worked out well for Miami. The trade was a huge salary dump for the Marlins (surprise, surprise) where the Jays took on a few expensive contracts so it was up to the Jays to get great value from the trade and they didn't.

As for the draft, the Jays success in the first and supplementary rounds was average at best. It looks better than it is because of the sheer volume of high picks. There were a huge number of misses(And AA did use the system well to get them).

Glevin, I suggest reviewing all of AA's moves in the last year or so of his tenure (say, from July 2014 on). It's a pretty impressive run that is perhaps more indicative of his future potential than the years prior.

Especially with a GM who is so young, I think it's important to look at his or her development over time (unless you're more interested in evaluating their overall stewardship of the team for historical reasons). It's like saying Bautista has had some mediocre seasons and some great ones - at this point, do we really care about his early struggles?

"Glevin, I suggest reviewing all of AA's moves in the last year or so of his tenure (say, from July 2014 on). It's a pretty impressive run that is perhaps more indicative of his future potential than the years prior."

Maybe, but they were also certain kinds of moves where the Jays took on a lot of long-term salary and gave up a lot of prospects. Short-term moves will usually look good in the short-term. Will having Martin and Tulowitzki making $20M a year in 2-3 years look good? I wouldn't bet on it but it looked great this year. Would have using the prospects to get a pitcher under contract this year have been better than going after Price? Last year, you'd say no, but it would sure have been nice to have someone like Tyson Ross in the rotation going forward which would have freed the Jays up to do different things with their budget. Even AA trading away all the pitching depth last year rally put the new management in a very difficult position where they had no choice but to spend a lot of money on starters.

I don't hate AA, I don't think he did a bad job at all, I just don't think he was a particularly great GM and certainly not the god-like figure some on here make him out to be and I understand why Rogers wanted to move on to someone who would build the team from the bottom up.

Regarding AA's tenure as GM :-

1) His drafting record looks good. But we have to see how good these players are based on what they produce in the Majors. HS picks take longer than College selections. Looks like he was incredible here. I hope Lacava & Tinnish etc... can continue this good drafting style.

2) I will be kind and say that he learned over time.
His Won-Loss record was bad or unimpressive except for the the incredible run of Wins in the last 2-3 months of his tenure.

Injuries happen, so you need depth.
A win in April counts as much as a win later in the season IMO. JoJo & Dana Eveland were asset acquisition mode. It cost us some wins. Other players that were kept on the team to avoid losing them also cost us wins. Jeffress.

When payroll increased a lot and the wins did not, it looked bad for him.

His miracle finish made him look very good. That belongs to him. It happened.

"which is why I hate the discussions of the Shields/Myers trade because it still wasn't a particularly good trade by the Royals, it just worked out extremely well. Those two things are not the same thing. "

No, you hate those discussions because they force you to reexamine some flimsy assumptions.

Myers trade was a great trade both because prospect value is overrated in general and because Myers in particular was hugely overrated (something the royals finally learned after dreaming on prospects for too long), and because the value of having a legit dependable studhorse top of rotation pitcher and the value of a clear teamwide commitment to winning is undervalued.

Saying thay you "can't look at these trades in hindsight" isn't even close to true - thinking that there is some objective value for these trade pieces instead of acknowleging that talent evaluation is an incredibly difficult skill is actually completely backwards imo.

In addition to acquiring Martin, Tulo, and Price, Anthopoulos added Donaldson, Travis, Estrada, Hendriks, Revere, Saunders (hurt in a fluke injury), Smoak, Valencia and others. That is an awful lot of talent at very reasonable aggregate cost. Pretty much every move Anthopoulos made over his last year worked out, although obviously it remains to be seen how Barreto, Hoffman, Norris, Castro, Tinoco, Tirado and the other players given up in exchange pan out.

"which is why I hate the discussions of the Shields/Myers trade because it still wasn't a particularly good trade by the Royals, it just worked out extremely well. Those two things are not the same thing. "

well that means that AA didn't lose the Gomes trade then.and arguably the miami deal.

"....Short-term moves will usually look good in the short-term...."

If it was so easy to make a short-term move to get into the playoffs, every team would be doing it every year.  Getting into the playoffs is a great thing to accomplish, even if it costs a few prospects.  Most teams would choose the playoffs over the prospects 10 times out of 10.  You make it sound like the non-Jays teams are deliberately rejecting their playoff chances because they prefer to do a long-term rebuild with the hoarding of all of their prospects.  No, it's the other way around -- they do the long-term rebuild because they don't get into the playoffs. 

"....Even AA trading away all the pitching depth last year rally put the new management in a very difficult position where they had no choice but to spend a lot of money on starters...."

Was it really so difficult to give money to Estrada and Happ?  Those weren't particularly costly contracts, and they weren't difficult to negotiate.  The Jays lost Norris in order to acquire Price and get into the playoffs, and then they replaced Norris with Happ, who might actually be better than Norris in 2016 and 2017, if not in the long run.  So where's the problem?  They got into the playoffs, they acquired a free-agent replacement for Norris, and they have other prospects (Greene etc) who might be able to replace Norris in the long term.  It's not much of a cost to pay to get into the playoffs.  Moreover, it's wrong to say that the new management is in a "very difficult position" -- they've actually inherited a fantastic lineup of great hitters and great defenders, plus a bunch of great relievers and starters (Osuna, Sanchez, Dickey, Estrada, Stroman, Cecil).  They only need to fill a couple of holes and they're all set for 2016.  As for the longer term, there are still a bunch of excellent prospects in the system, even if the system is not as strong as it was a couple years ago.
 
"...I just don't think he was a particularly great GM and certainly not the god-like figure some on here make him out to be...."

Exaggeration doesn't help your argument.  Nobody has said or implied that he is a "god-like figure" -- we've only argued that he is an above-average GM who made some excellent moves in 2015 and got the Jays into the playoffs.  You're free to disagree, but please don't say that we "worship" Anthopoulos. 

I find it interesting that the Pirates are still looking for a starter but didn't think Happ was worth pursuing.

Also, PNC Park in Pittsburgh suppressed right-handed power better than any other NL park, according to the Bill James Handbook, unlike the Rogers Centre.

and they just traded Charlie Morton.  as much as i complain about rogers, it's gotta be worse to be a pirates fan ... 98 wins and eliminated in one game for the 2nd year in a row ...

"I find it interesting that the Pirates are still looking for a starter but didn't think Happ was worth pursuing."

By that logic the Jays thought Price wasn't worth pursuing.

Or maybe Happ was out of the Pirates price range, just as Price was out of ours.

Plus when you consider Searage's track record of fixing underachieving pitchers, why pay full price? Get something cheap and try to fix it up, i.e. Allen Webster.

I don't think they are many Pirates fan crying over Morton and his 4.5 ERA.  Hardly worth $8M (9 if they buy back 2017).

Pirates offered Happ two years, the Jays went to three to seal the deal.

I missed that. Thanks.

Pirates offered Happ two years, the Jays went to three to seal the deal.

When I asked Wilner on Twitter how the Jays get outbid on a reliever they liked when his market value ended up being 1 year and $3M, he claimed the Jays weren't outbid, that Petit simply liked Washington better.

I'm actually fine with his homerism much of the time, but this is just willful ignorance. There is no way Petit turns down $4M with a team option for another year, or 2 guaranteed years at $6M (i.e. similar to what they did with Happ). The Nats actual offer was $2.5M in 2016 and a team option for $3M in 2017 with a $.5M buyout.

I would think they must have not cared much about securing him, but Shatkins was pretty open about being a "close second" in the lucrative Yusmeiro Petit sweepstakes.

Does anyone else get the feeling that Shapiro actually thinks we're a bunch of rubes who can't see through his superclever phrases?

Very much like JPR started out.

The low opinion of Canada may not just be a player thing.

Perhaps Shapiro's low opinion of sports fans dates back to his experience in Cleveland. Or must Toronto be slighted at every opportunity?

People have opinions about things about which they are never wrong, despite what is the actual truth about anything. That will never ever change.

Free Agents regularly turn down offers with more term and/or more money for little or no reason. They like what they like. That happens with Toronto 90% of the time.

That non-significant Pitcher turned down (my words) - two year's plus an option and comparable or better money (Mike Wilner).

That non-significant Pitcher turned down (my words) - two year's plus an option and comparable or better money (Mike Wilner).

Where are you getting 'comparable or better money' from?

The only source that has come close to revealing the actual offer was the Sportsnet article where Shatkins could barely contain his enthusiasm on the 'significant progress' they'd made, where 2 years plus an option was confirmed:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/source-blue-jays-were-finalists-for-yusmeiro-petit/

Also, 'non-significant' is an opinion. You know who else would have qualified as 'non-significant' at the beginning of 2015, in terms of role (SP/RP) and salary (3.9M)? Estrada.

If you really want a guy who is available for peanuts, add a raisin or two ... it's still a small amount in the grand scheme.