On the plus side, we can be sure that, no matter what, he'll always remain a Jay.

Well, Edwin Encarnacion worked out okay, so...

Bruce could easily hit 30+ dingers playing home games in the Dome

A couple people of said this. Jay Bruce has played all of the home games in his career in the Great American Small Park.

https://rotogrinders.com/pages/ballpark-factors-49556

note: sort by HR

It's a curious move, although adding a lefthanded power bat is a good move in my opinion. Is this a precursor to an Edwin move or just a case of incrementally improving the team?

Last 2yrs:

M.Saunders (29): 299pa, 117wrc+, 1.9fwar, 2.3bwar, 2.1avgwar, 4.6avgwar/650pa
D.Pompey (23): 146pa, 88wrc+, 0.4fwar, 0.7bwar, 0.6avgwar, 2.5avgwar/650pa
B.Revere (28): 1260pa, 95wrc+, 4.0fwar, 3.3bwar, 3.7avgwar, 1.9avgwar/650pa
E.Carrera (29): 265pa, 86wrc+, 0.4fwar, -0.6bwar, -0.1avgwar, -0.3avgwar/650pa
J.Bruce (29): 1194pa, 85wrc+, -0.8fwar, -0.3bwar, -0.6avgwar, -0.3avgwar/650pa

Shatkins.

Michael Saunders plays for 2 months and is injured for 10 months. Ben Revere begat the closer Drew Storen.

EE cannot be traded without his permission. Only would accept a SP that is talented on a 4 year contract or Pre-arb.

Reposting what I put on the other thread: Bruce's BB%, ISO, GB%, and Hard% in 2015 were right in line with his career average (including when he was good), while he actually struck out less than his career average. The low BABIP (.251) might be something that can correct itself. I think it's possible his bat can bounce back. If it's just Saunders for Bruce and the difference is being covered by the Reds, then I'd be fine with it. Anything beyond that would be pushing it. If no money if being covered, then I'd be perplexed.

"It's a curious move, although adding a lefthanded power bat is a good move in my opinion. Is this a precursor to an Edwin move or just a case of incrementally improving the team?"


Edwin has 10/5 rights. He won't be traded. Maybe if it's July and the Jays are out of it, but definitely not now.

As far as this move, if it does happen, then it's probably because they think they can fix Bruce's bat, and because he has a team option for 2017 when they'll need a corner OF/DH/1B.

Based on the last two seasons, it's debatable whether Bruce would be an upgrade. Saunders is a huge question mark due to his injury, and the fact that they are trying to trade him might confirm that, but Bruce has been so bad the last two years that it's hard to consider it anything beyond a reclamation project for Jacoby with some upside if Bruce's offense returns to form.

Buster Olney throwing some cold water on the deal, saying there is some doubt whether the deal will be completed. Looks like we'll have to wait a little bit.

Deal might be dead because of an injury concern for one of the players in the deal.

We might need Miss Cleo to figure out which player that is.

Eno on Bruce. NL pitchers have embargoed his wheelhouse, and he's been hurt. Meh.

... yeah, I'm stumped. Thus continues the winter of laying three dimes down when the machine wants 25 cents. This move would be most interesting for what it would reveal about Shapiro/Atkins, if only they'd tell us what the rationale actually was (as they shouldn't). Maybe they know something concrete about his health and the holes in his 2015 swing, something that portends a bounce-back year. That would be cause for optimism! Maybe they've just run the dumb numbers. That would be terrifying.

Ominous sign for #TeamCarrera, anyway.

Let me think - a guy with only 40% (or whatever %) of the cartilage in his knee did not pass a medical to run on a field chasing balls for a mere 162 games a year! Who'd a thunk it!

if saunders' knee is that bad, they shouldn't have given him a raise.

but it might be Bruce's partial meniscus that's at fault here anyways.

I have to wonder why the Angels just don't acquire Bruce themselves?

This guy hits 30 HR and 90RBI every year. How can it be horrible? He is overpaid, yes. But with this batting lineup, he is bound to have some success.

I see he also has played a little 1B.

But, it looks like the deal could be done. Too bad. I think it is a good deal.

"Last 2yrs:

M.Saunders (29): 299pa, 117wrc+, 1.9fwar, 2.3bwar, 2.1avgwar, 4.6avgwar/650pa
D.Pompey (23): 146pa, 88wrc+, 0.4fwar, 0.7bwar, 0.6avgwar, 2.5avgwar/650pa
B.Revere (28): 1260pa, 95wrc+, 4.0fwar, 3.3bwar, 3.7avgwar, 1.9avgwar/650pa
E.Carrera (29): 265pa, 86wrc+, 0.4fwar, -0.6bwar, -0.1avgwar, -0.3avgwar/650pa
J.Bruce (29): 1194pa, 85wrc+, -0.8fwar, -0.3bwar, -0.6avgwar, -0.3avgwar/650pa

Shatkins."


If you want a lesson on how you can create nonsense stats to show what you want, look at this post. First off, Saunders has been able to play 87 games in two years. Saying 4.6 AVG WAR for a someone whose actual TOTAL WAR was 1.9 in that period is beyond misleading. Pompey has had under 150 ABs in the majors. Making this small sample size in a WAR/650PA is also ludicrous.

Now, also using "last two seasons" is completely arbitrary except it really isn't because three seasons ago, Bruce had a WAR of 4.2 and you don't want to include that because you want to make Bruce look as bad as possible. He had 4 straight seasons of WARs over 2.5 (better than Saunders has ever had). Can he get back to that? I'm not sure but ignoring that part of his career is absurd because it is part of who he is and it's not like he's 37.

WAR/650PAs is a terrible made-up stat. It doesn't tell you anything. If a player has played a lot, you can use their full WAR or WAR over a few seasons or many other stats, if they haven't played a lot, it's bad for two different reasons. Either they haven't played because they are injured in which case, using WAR/650PAs is pointless because they won't get there or they haven't gotten enough ABs in which case WAR/PAs is misleading because of small sample sizes (or only playing against lefties/righties). I can't think of a single instance where this would be a good stat to use never mind as a basis for determining basic player value.

Here are a few examples of how the absurdity of this WAR/650pa "stat".
-Jarret Parker had a WAR of 12/650PAs. Easily the best player in baseball. (Tiny sample size, .500 BABIP)
-J.P. Arencibia was the best catcher in baseball with a WAR/650PAs of over 8 (way bigger samples available to show how bad he actually is)
-Ryan Raburn-Elite player with a WAR of 4.5/650 PAs.(Only plays against lefties, can't hit righties)

I posted the number of plate appearances over the last 2 years, along with the best offensve metric, 3 types of total war, and one paced war.

I don't appreciate you implying that that is somehow being selective or misleading, when it is quite thorough.

as for you implying that the last 2yrs performance is insignificant, I disagree strongly.

espn says we were sending a prospect to cinci in the deal as well.

last 2yrs:

Parker (27): 54pa, 223wrc+, 0.9fwar, 0.5bwar, 0.7awar, 8.4awar/650
Raburn (35): 413pa, 103wrc+, -0.1fwar, -0.5bwar, -0.3awar, -0.5awar/650
Arencibia (31): 295pa, 86wrc+, -0.4fwar, -0.3bwar, -0.4awar, -0.8awar/650

This is a lets see what we have before we spend on Bautista kind of move....even if it does seem to be dead now.

I'm still confused by the team's reasoning in the potential Jay Bruce deal.  The main benefit of the deal seems to be, as I mentioned in the other thread, the fact that Saunders still has some question marks about his health, and Bruce's health would be more reliable.  This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that the deal got scuttled by those very same question marks about Saunders' health.   So then, both of those pieces of information suggest that the Jays don't want to rely on Saunders as an everyday outfielder in 2016, with only the unproven Pompey as the other option.  So why did Shapiro and Atkins trade away Revere?  The Revere deal doesn't make a lot of sense if the Jays aren't sure about Saunders.  All of the rumors from last night suggest that the Jays are not confident in Saunders, yet they previously seemed to have enough confidence in Saunders to trade away Revere.  What's going on here?

It looks like the deal is off because Saunders failed his medical.

Dalton Pompey, this is your opportunity! Seize it!

When Revere was traded, and I mentioned the Jays needing more OF depth, this was why. Expecting Saunders to be 100% back to normal after the type of injury and surgery he had was unrealistic. Possible, but unrealistic.

If they still have enough money left to add something, then I really think they should consider someone like Austin Jackson. Pompey in AAA would be a nice luxury to have. If you start Pompey in left, and the minor league OF is Ceciliani, Carrera, and Lake, then you're asking for trouble if someone gets hurt.

I don't have a problem with Saunders and Pompei splitting left field.
I don't think Saunders should be starting every day, at any rate.

I hope Michael Saunders is not the sensitive type - he now knows he's not the apple of the FO eye.

The plot thickens.  Rosenthal is now reporting that the medical concerns were about the Jays minor-league prospect in the deal, not Saunders.  (Which removes 50% of the question marks in my last post.)  Rosenthal says the deal is off "for now."  You'd think the Jays could easily revive it by substituting another minor-leaguer, especially since it's probably a fringe player.  But the deal might be bigger than just Bruce and Saunders, so we'll have to see.  Intriguing. 

Ken Rosenthal is saying the problem may have been with the medicals of a jays prospect in the deal - I wonder if Max Pentecost was in the deal.

It sounded strange that a deal would collapse based on the medicals of a player that just missed a season to injury. everybody knows that the medicals would show missing meniscus.

and if saunders were that injured, then we should never have given him a raise.

but why the heck are we trading for bruce for any reason, let alone for saunders, let alone for saunders AND a prospect important enough to get the deal scuttled?

I don't know if I should be relieved that it wasn't Saunders with the wonky medicals, or nervous about who the injured prospect is.

One bit of good news from this whole Bruce affair:  Jeff Blair is reporting that the Reds weren't contributing any money in the planned trade.  So this COULD imply that the Jays still have $10-million in payroll to play with.... 

for some reason Shapitkins decided to hold a media availability today, in which he is now issuing No Comments to every question.

It wasn't Atkins who called the press conference today.  After all the news yesterday about Bautista and Bruce, the media asked for a Jays executive to provide a response.  It was the media, not Atkins, who requested the availability. Atkins certainly didn't sound very keen to talk, but he had to.  Otherwise the Jays look even more secretive than they already are.

If the Jays were picking up all of Bruce's salary, then why not just trade Saunders to the Angels, cut out the Reds completely, and sign someone like Austin Jackson for half of what Bruce would cost? If Jackson doesn't want to come to Toronto (possible), and Saunders is healthy enough to pass a physical, then just keep Saunders for a year.

This whole deal makes no sense, and I think Bruce has bounce back potential with the bat.

"for some reason Shapitkins decided to hold a media availability today, in which he is now issuing No Comments to every question."


I highly doubt it was Atkins (or Shapiro) who decided to hold a media session.

Also, watch AA's spring training media session after the Ervin Santana ordeal two years ago. It was the same thing.

GM's are obligated to do these things, they don't decide to do it, especially when they have to answer questions about contract talks and trades that fell through.

I didn't get this sense from Bautista's comments, but I found this Griffin observation interesting:

"There seemed just a slight undercurrent of bitterness and regret about his last contract. It sounded like he had even expected former GM Alex Anthopoulos to replace his option season in 2016 with an extension, just because he had been playing above his contract and never complained."

Would AA have done this? Bautista doesn't appear to be frustrated with the current front office, but he seems clearly frustrated with ownership.

I think the timing of the Bruce rumour is unfortunate - I think it's a coincidence, but with Bruce having an option for next year, it would be easy to see this as a moving on from Bautista type move.

Bautista has been in the organization long enough to know that his next contract is out of the GM's hands. That's probably why he took a shot at Rogers while being complimentary to the new front office. For the type of money he wants, it's going to be an ownership call. Atkins/Shapiro can only work within the budget they are given.

The weird thing is, I'm actually starting to believe that Encarnacion will end up back with the Jays. Not only will his market be more limited in free agency, but it seems like his agent has been trying to force an extension via the media all winter, while Bautista flat out said "it is what it is" if the Jays don't meet his price. If Hanley/Panda force the Red Sox to use the DH spot for one of them in 2017, then Edwin's options dwindle.

I don't see any way the Jays and Bautista agree to a deal, now or in 12 months. I don't think Shapiro/Atkins want to re-sign either one due to their ages, but if Edwin comes as a reasonable price, then I think that's at least a possibility.

Agreed on EE being the likelier candidate SK, and with him being the younger, and Jose's defense in decline, perhaps the value difference between the two is less pronounced than might appear at first.

It would certainly take some of the PR heat off Rogers to sign EE on his timetable.

Bautista clearly sees shapitkins as corporate lackeys representing a return to business as usual for rogers jays after the terrifying vertigo of last year.

as do I.

"Agreed on EE being the likelier candidate SK, and with him being the younger, and Jose's defense in decline, perhaps the value difference between the two is less pronounced than might appear at first."


My gut tells me Edwin will decline more rapidly than Bautista, but I'm basing that off nothing. Regardless, I could see Edwin testing free agency and then pulling an Alex Gordon by coming back to the Jays at an expensive but not too out of line contract. The Red Sox are really the biggest obstacle here. It depends on what they do with the DH spot next year.

My prediction is still that neither one will come back, but I think it's pretty clear now that it's either going to be neither or Edwin. Jose calling out Rogers publicly probably won't be forgotten (see Lind, Adam).

why do people think the red sox have all sorts of payroll room?

they are a luxury tax team already, with payroll $50m higher than ours, but which is all taken up by untradeable albatross disaster contracts. They're already committed to ~$200m in payroll next year even after losing Ortiz, Uehara, and Tazawa.

And still the people pretending to be happy our elite jays didn't sign Price have nothing but awe and respsect for the last place sox signing him.

uglyone, apparently Joey asked for 5/150. Would you sign him to that contract?

Bautista wants 5/150. That's $30M AAV through age 40.

I already have a sense of how Shapiro/Atkins feel, but I'm more interested to know how uglyone feels about that contract demand.

That's why we should have signed Price.

On second thought, that figure comes from a Rick Westhead article on TSN. I'm not sure he's credible enough to believe.

IF Joey asked for 5/150 it's obvious that he has no intentions of signing a contract before now and the end of the season. He wants to become a FA. No team will give a 36 year old 5/150.

Ugh. 5/$150 for age 36-40? I'd say no too. Well, I'd probably also say "good luck with that".

Best Batting Wins (since we can assume a near 0 defensive value for Bautista for this time frame)
Age 36: Bonds 11.4, Ruth 9.0, Ted Williams 5.5 - players since 1960 with 4.5+ wins at this age Manny Ramirez, Chipper Jones, Dave Winfield and Bonds.
Age 37: Bonds 11.4, Ruth 7.0, Aaron 6.4, Everyone else under 5. Over 4.5 - Tony Gwynn, Edgar Martinez, Ted Williams.
Age 38: Ted Williams 8.7, Bonds 8.3, Bob Johnson 5.7 (1944), Ruth 5.3, Edgar Martinez 4.5, Ty Cobb 4.3. No others over 4.
Age 39: Bonds 11.3, Williams 5.2, Aaron 4.2, Ruth 3.6, Thome 3.2, Ortiz 3.2 all others sub 3
Age 40: Willie Mays 4.1, Edgar Martinez 3.2, Winfield 3.1 (his Jays year), all others under 2.8 with just 5 others over 2.

Total Adj batting wins for age 36 and beyond. Dollars are Dollars per Batting Win based on $150 million being paid.
Bonds: 50.7 = $2.96
Williams: 29.0 = $5.17
Ruth: 25.1 = $5.98
Cap Anson: 20.8 = $7.21
Aaron: 18.4 = $8.15
Edgar Martinez: 18.3 = $8.20
Willie Mays: 14.8 = $10.13
Ty Cobb: 14.5 = $10.34
All others sub 14 (worse than $10.71).

So if he hits like Bonds, Ruth, or Ted Williams it would be a good deal. Like Anson, Aaron, Martinez a decent deal. Like Mays or Cobb an endurable deal. If he hits like pretty much any other player in baseball history it would be a poor deal. If he hits like the vast majority at age 39/40 those lat 2 years will be albatrosses. So 8 players in MLB history have hit well enough to justify that kind of deal. I can't blame the current GM/president for saying 'no' and I compliment them for not saying it with a few swear words in front.

Jose Bautista on report he asked for $150m over five years: "False." #BlueJays @shidavidi

Glad to hear that. $100 over 5 I could imagine, but $150 is nutty. At $100 then 3 wins a year = $6.67 mil a year, 2 wins a year = $10 mil a year. That level isn't crazy. Expecting 10 to 15 batting wins (lets not get into fielding) isn't crazy and if he is at the lower end then he is expensive but not insanely so.

I expect a lot of propaganda will be put out by interested parties in the coming year - I will read everything with a large grain of salt.

So Bautista comes out and says what he had to say yesterday, and then one day later this report surfaces. If we have to deal with an entire season of Jose trying to make Rogers look bad while Rogers uses the media to make Jose look bad/greedy, then it's going to get old quick.

Personally, I question the relationship between management and the players now. This does not sound like the same issues when AA was here. Bautista seems to have an us vs them mentality.

I wonder if he is just pissed that the team did not do what it could to go for it all. So, if they are just saving money so Rogers can have more money, then screw them. I don't blame him.

it's going to get old quick.

It's old now.

I wonder if he is just pissed that the team did not do what it could to go for it all.

I wonder if Bautista doesn't feel he is owed some back pay. He and the team both gambled with the 5-year contract and the team won. Bautista clearly outplayed his contract. It's hard not to imagine someone in his shoes thinking that his employer maybe should err on the side of generosity the next time around, to offset the previous bargain.

This sure has the making of a story with legs. Don't see this dying anytime soon.

Not blaming anyone but the Shatkins era is off to a rough start - Imagine if the team gets off to a slow start and all the frenzy about how long of a lease does Gibbons have with Eric Wedge just waiting.

"I wonder if he is just pissed that the team did not do what it could to go for it all. "

I'd say that's clear.

And now that they choose to discuss their personnel moves purely in corporate managenent terms, he's responding directly in kind. if they want to discuss actual corporate valuations, he is more than willing.

I wonder if the deal is a smokescreen for a bigger deal, Sanders and Bruce to the Angels, Prospects to the Reds, Votto to the Jays. When looking at the Votto deal of 20mil/yr it actully starts to look affordable.

Why would the Angels want Saunders and Bruce?

Votto to the Jays.

So all the names in the trade get leaked save for the biggest one (who has a no-trade clause)? Believe this is called wishcasting.

This whole Jay Bruce fiasco has actually exposed TWO serious points - the first is that Shatkins managed to get (an agreement on) nearly 10 MILLION NEW dollars out of Rogers. THIS is SIGNIFICANT - it means come July and we're still in it - there will be some serious money available for "Operation Price Two." Secondly, CLEARLY they are not intending to re-sign JoeyBats - whatever number he gave them - they knew when they got it there was not enough wiggle room to even try and keep him.

after crunching numbers left right backwards forwards I'm comfortable saying that Bautista is likely worth a $100m/5yrs deal after this year like Mr.Northey suggested.

And i'd be comfortable giving him a bit of an awesome bat flippin franchise player premium on top of that.

" - the first is that Shatkins managed to get (an agreement on) nearly 10 MILLION NEW dollars out of Rogers. THIS is SIGNIFICANT - it means come July and we're still in it - there will be some serious money available for "Operation Price Two.""

also means we had the money available for Operation Price One (the one that wouldn't have cost us any prospects).

Bautista give the Jays his number over 2 weeks ago & hasn't heard back from them - so, I think his camp has a good idea that the answer is probably no, why is perhaps why he went public - I can see this becoming the 2015 Washington Nationals.

1). Michael Saunders was not the cause of the deal to collapse. Max Pentecost has been on the D.L. so much, I don't think he's tradable. Until we find out which prospect goes on a the D.L., we won't ever know for sure who, and maybe not even then.

2). When trades are in progress, or on hold, or have failed, names of those involved are never mentioned. I don't see why it should change now. Revisiting this trade might be possible, but unlikely to happen. Expanding this trade might work better, but that is unlikely also.

3). All speculation on how much the Jays have to spend has been 100% Media driven. Any time Shapiro spoke about money, he said they had a Budget, but the numbers hadn't been set yet. I can't remember him speaking anything about an upper limit. I think there is a limit on how much he wants to pay someone, just not a limit on what he can spend.

4). If 5 years and $150.0 Million is what Jose Bautista wants; let him know your limits; give him a Qualifying Offer and let him walk. No matter what the Jays do, this is a 'no win' situation since January 1. Prior, a big signing bonus would reduce the hit.

5). I fully expect both Bautista and Encarnacion to walk, due to excessive demands. Acquiring a left-handed Bat has been necessary all offseason. Acquiring a Big Bat replacement now becomes mandatory.

"Secondly, CLEARLY they are not intending to re-sign JoeyBats - whatever number he gave them - they knew when they got it there was not enough wiggle room to even try and keep him."


The 2017 team option is likely a big part of Bruce's appeal to the FO, but I don't think it means much of anything as far as Bautista/Encarnacion. They'll have a need at 1B next season as well, and possibly a corner OF spot if Pompey doesn't pan out. If they project Bruce to be a bounce back candidate, and clearly they do based on their interest in him coming off two straight poor seasons, then he's likely being brought in for that reason, and not to replace anyone a year from now. Hell, if the trade went through and Bruce bombed in 2016, then the Jays would simply decline the option.

Given JB's ego, I can't believe he'd take a contract with an AAV less than Davis, just fewer years. That would mean around 5/125 for JB minimum, and if so I wouldn't do it. His defence is in decline, his bat may not hold up over 5 years, he will likely fight any move to DH or 1st base, and he'd probably block one of Pompey or Alford.

Personally, I would take the Price deal over that one, though they both have their risks.

Will Jose get $100m? $150m? Will fans finally see the level of spending they crave so deeply? The 99% wait with bated breath as the dramatic tension mounts.

One declining right bat at 1B/DH is fine. Two doesn't make sense.
It's too early to know what the team needs will be next year.
I'm curious to see what Travis does this year, for one.

Bats has only one chance to cash out.
To me, the home town rebate is just giving the Jays a chance to match up any offers he gets in the off-season.
For the rest, Gybby said he can't wait to see what Bats and EE do in a contract year.

Be a pro Jose. Hit 50 HR this season and lead the Jays to the WS. You will cash in we'll get a parade. Jays, this season is likely to be our best chance for a while, spend some money on another bat and a starter at the deadline. We won't be getting 2 superstars for the price of 1 again anytime soon. No shame in telling it like it is and conducting yourselves accordingly.

By mid-June the Jays will have (in my estimation) FIVE spectacular bats: Joeybats, EdWing, The RainMaker, "Donaldson's leg kick" Tulo and Travis. They will lead us to Glory (with a little help from 20 of their best friends).

In 17 the two old(ish) sluggers will be gone. We'll have to rely more on our Three Rotation Amigo's: Stroman, Sanchez and Osuna to return us to Glory. In addition, we'll have THREE picks before the second round of the Draft. Three VERY HIGH picks in one draft, lets say: a home run, a triple and a solid double and that'll go a long way to recharging the Farm.

What can't be changed - must be not only endured - but - turned in a challenge instead of a very high, very thick brick wall...

You've forgotten Russell Martin.

No I haven't - I said "spectacular" - not "inconsistent."

The worst part about this Bruce thing is that it continues to highlight a disappointing shift in the new front office: leaks. No way under AA does this get out so early.

Re: joey- I'm not sure what his number is (5/$150 is doubtful) but there is value beyond performance in having your best players finish their career with you. It engratiates you to nostalgic fans and prevents a narrative spiralling out of control. The media in this market is constantly waiting to pull the "nobody wants to play in Canada/we can't retain our stars" article out of the drawer a fans eat that crap up. You keep Bautista and you can get away with letting others walk for a few years. If If you don't, then you will have a progressively disenfranchised base returning.

The Ottawa Senators are the classic example. They let alfredsson walk and a year later have to trade spezza. They have to overpay to keep Bobby ryan and carry the dead weight of Neil and Phillips just to stop the narrative. It would have been much cheaper/easier to have your superstar finish his career with you (overpaid) and not handcuff the front office.

In the case of the jays, right or wrong the narrative has already started with AA a price. Anything other than re-signing Bautista (including re-signing Edwin instead) will be perceived as a continued negative trajectory.

Unless of course, we continue to win. Which of course in baseball, in our division, is unlikely.

At this point, I am starting to accept that Jose will be gone after the season. If he is serious about not wanting to negotiate from the number he has given Rogers, and Rogers hasn't snapped him up right away, he will want to go to free agency and see what people will offer him. And you can't blame him: there are tens of millions of dollars on the table.

It will be difficult for the Jays to re-sign him because somebody will throw silly amounts of money at him, just as the Diamondbacks did with Zack Greinke (and, before that, the Seattle Mariners did with Robinson Cano). We live in a world where even the Dodgers and Yankees, who have more money than many countries, are outbid for players because even they have some amount of financial sense.

If Rogers doesn't sign Jose or EE, the fans will forgive them if the Jays continue to win. But if they revert to their sorta okay 82-78 records of times past, and focus on maximizing profitability for their investors and shareholders, we could see a return to the Interbrew days.

At least it was easy to get good seats back then, though it was spooky to see the dome so empty just after the gates opened.

""nobody wants to play in Canada/we can't retain our stars" "

remember, this phenomenon is something shapitkins is completely unaware of.

The vast majority of baseball players age in perfectly predictable ways. But there are exceptions, and Jose Bautista quite obviously is one of them.

So is David Ortiz, and Bautista is more or less to the Blue Jays what Ortiz is to the Red Sox.

The vast majority of baseball players age in perfectly predictable ways. But there are exceptions, and Jose Bautista quite obviously is one of them.

True, that - the vast majority of baseball players are barely able to play major league baseball, at best. On or about their 30th birthday, they lose enough speed or strength that they start needing to strongly consider other career options such as mutual funds or marketing.

I find the aging patterns of really good players fascinating, as they age in different ways. Some retain slightly reduced levels of their skills; others are as good as they ever were when healthy, but just can't stay healthy. And some lose it more or less abruptly: one morning, in his 40th year, Frank Thomas pretty much completely lost the ability to get around on a fastball.

Bautista has already aged some, of course. You wouldn't put him at third base now, and he appears to be losing some range in the outfield (though that doesn't show up in the stats, as they never show him having much range). He's had shoulder and hip problems. But his bat speed is so good that he could lose some of it and still be an effective hitter, so I think he has some years left.

For the record, I hope that the Jays re-sign Bautista, and not just because his name is on the back of the only Blue Jays jersey I have ever owned. He really is the face of the franchise, and it would be a horrible blow to see him in a Red Sox uniform next year. (Which is where he will likely be going if maxing out on dollars is his primary motivation.)

I wonder if he is just pissed that the team did not do what it could to go for it all.

He's a smart man and chose his words carefully. He was effusive in his praise for Shapitkins, and I can't blame him; they've done decently given the resources made available. In JB's words: "“It’s been great and I have nothing but praise for everything they’ve done here so far."

Contrast that with his comment on ownership: " I think there’s a direct correlation with the success of their earnings per share after we started experiencing success. Are they going to put it out in the media and say ‘Because of the Jays we made all this money?’ No, but you can read between the lines."

He's more observant than most players, I'm sure it's not lost on him that the Jays have backslid in payroll relative to other teams. Of course, if the Bruce rumours were true then it's possible it can climb from the current $131M to $140M, which was the rumored budget early in the offseason; this would move them back to 10th, behind the O's and where they finished last season, assuming other teams hold constant through the year.

Having said all that, I think he'd be open to returning if the market deems him to be more in Cespedes-territory than what he's thinking - he's just not going to give Rogers a free pass.

"Hearing same as @jonheyman: Bautista asked #BlueJays for more than 5 yrs and more than $150M. But average annual value was below $30M per."

@Ken_Rosenthal

Good read re: the Yankees approach to ST and getting away from the norm of early mornings, which is not the norm in the reg season.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-yankees-message-to-their-players-please-sleep-late-1456241540

Reported: Jays made Lester an offer in 2014 for 125/5.

Also reported that Bautista wants more than a total of $150 and more than 5 years but AAV is less than the reported $30M/year. 162M/6? $27M/year. If that's the case, I'll take 1 year of angry Jose and take the pick. All time great, greatest of all time if they win the WS, but thanks jose, but no thanks.

Wow, more than 5/$150? Glad it was below $30 per year. But signing anyone beyond age 40 is a fools errand.

Adjusted Batting Wins age 40 and up total All Time (BR)
Barry Bonds: 8.3
Cap Anson: 5.8
Luke Appling: 5.3
Ted Williams: 5.0
Willie Mays: 5.0
Carlton Fisk: 4.5
All others sub 4.

So at $8 mil a win (lets be generous) to earn $32 mil or more from age 40 and up he'd have to hit better than all but 6 players in MLB history. For age 41 and up he'd have to outhit all but Bonds, Williams, and Anson. A 6 year deal would cover ages 40 and 41 so his production would need to be historic for that age group to be worth near $30 mil a year.

As an FYI: Age 43 and up only 1 player got even 1 batting win - Cap Anson in over 1500 PA. I'm willing to bet that Bautista knows this stuff (maybe via other numbers but the gist of it) and knows this will be his last big deal. 5 years really is the most any sane team should offer. If raw dollars matter most to him and the Jays want to spread it out then doing a 10 year deal (or something like it) for $150 mil makes a tiny bit of sense but very tiny sense as I still say going over $100 mil is going too far. I could see $120 to get him on the dotted line from now until age 43 just to guarantee he finishes here and if he has any value in his 40's the Jays would get it. Plus by stretching the time frame you get to shuffle cash a bit as I expect payroll to be a challenge until the dollar rebounds.

So the question becomes what is his marketing value to the Jays and how creative are the two sides willing to be? Is the 'Good Will' added enough to justify throwing away money towards the end of the deal? Is Bautista after total dollars or average annual dollars? Everyone involved knows this is his last big contact and that the Jays want him to stay badly. So there is an incentive there but how big and how much do other clubs want him?

It's not our money so why not front load the contract: 35, 35, 20, 12, 10.... something along those lines which would keep his WAR production more realistic to his pay.

"Reported: Jays made Lester an offer in 2014 for 125/5."

so AA would have offered price 7x$30 after all.

I thought AA said that after he left, no?

The vast majority of baseball players age in perfectly predictable ways. But there are exceptions, and Jose Bautista quite obviously is one of them.

So is David Ortiz, and Bautista is more or less to the Blue Jays what Ortiz is to the Red Sox.

Don't quite agree.  I don't see Bautista as a Jose Cruz Jr., the one in a thousand player who is better in his late 30s.  Bautista is obviously very disciplined about his fitness routine which will help him.  On the other hand, he noticeably aged in his early 30s at about the rate you might expect for a fit but note exceptionally durable player.  The odds that he hits over .300 between age 35-37 as Ortiz did is about 0.  Bautista has the old player skills profile and these usually don't age as well.

There are 36 players in major league history who have 12 WAR or more from age 36 on.  Ortiz is one of them.  Most are greats of the game like Mays, Musial, Williams, Ruth, Schmidt, Morgan, Cobb, Speaker, Aaron, Wagner and Bonds. There are a few players who held their own well- Moises Alou, Paul Molitor, Ortiz, Edgar Martinez and Jose Cruz.  The best example I could find for Bautista would be Brian Downing, a fitness nut with old player skills who held them exceptionally well.  Downing became a designated hitter at age 36.  Bautista, of course, starts out a much higher level than Downing, so if he can hold his performance level while averaging 630 PA from age 36-38 and 415 PA from age 39-41 (as Downing did), he'll have a heck of career ending. 

Bautista has the old player skills profile and these usually don't age as well.

Mike Green, this might be a dumb question, but can you explain what you mean by this?

I think 99% of ML executives who use logic will think it through and go 'no way' to taking the chance that Bautista is going to be #37 in ML history to get 12+ WAR at age 36 on. Budget will be based on what is realistic and where the team is in regards to reaching the playoffs in the next 2 years. $30 per for 2 years, $10 per for 2 more and $5 for year 5 to settle it = $85 over 5 years. My $100 mil estimate is adding in a bit of marketing value but I'd be surprised if Bautista is worth $85 over the next 5 years after 2016.

Here's a brief introduction to the topic of old player skills.  Basically, a player with a low batting average and a lot of walks and a lot of power.  Bautista has somewhat better speed than the typical player of the type and most players of the type do not have his defensive value at age 30. 

Thanks Mike, an interesting read!  Eno Sarris nailed it with his prediction of Adam Dunn's decline ...

Interesting to note that a win was worth about $4 million on the FA market in 2010, when the article was written - it's roughly doubled since then. 

Is marketing value or having Bautista retire as a Blue Jays really worth anything, though? Let's face it, at the first sign of decline, the rejuvenated fan base in Toronto will skip out on the Jays just like they did in 1994-2014 whether Bautista is here or not. Maybe from a merchandising standpoint it would hurt, but can't they just market around different players (Donaldson, Stroman, etc)?

I just don't see any reason to pay Bautista from ages 36 to 40 the type of money he wants. There's practically no upside to that. He's not going to improve, and he's not going to remain consistent with his current performance. He's going to progressively decline. That's what happens to every player (except Barry Bonds). His bat will decline, his defense will decline, his body will break down. That's just reality. In the post-PED era, players don't age as well as they used to. Bautista might be an exception, but you don't pay $150M for a prayer that he defies age.

I actually think Bautista coming out and saying this helps in moving on from him after 2016. You saw how butt hurt people were with Price leaving when there was no chance Rogers was going to pay him what he wanted. Why? Because he left on good terms. Bautista's name is going to get dragged through the mud all season now that he's made an enemy out of Rogers, and many fans will probably buy it. We just have to hope it does not distract from the MLB team's performance.

A motivated Bautista for one more season and then a comp pick is fine with me. Thanks for the memories, and he'll still likely be a level of excellence candidate when all is said and done, but some times you have to move on.

How much of Bautista's game is the laser eye and how much of it is bat speed? Like, how long will it be before there's nothing for pitchers to fear, and then how long will it take for the pitchers to figure that out?

You nailed it uglyone - a 5 year deal @ 25m per offer to Lester totally proves that AA/Beeston would've broken the 5 year contract limit and signed Price for 20% more over an additional 2 years, even after trading for over 30m in 2016 commitment (Tulo/Donaldson) since that Lester offer.

The action can't start soon enough.

agreed 92-93.

beeston and his 5yr limit were gone either way, and a gm willing to give $25x5 to a 31yr old Lester would obviously be willing to guve $30x7 to a younger and better Price, who he had already invested in at the deadline.

"Interesting to note that a win was worth about $4 million on the FA market in 2010, when the article was written - it's roughly doubled since then."

Judging by all this Bautista contract talk and the ever-rising $/WAR figure, we may start to see Tulowitzki's deal as a huge bargain, provided he's healthy in 2016.

Beeston (who wouldn't go above 5 years) was replaced by Shapiro (who doesn't like huge free agent contracts), and he has to answer to Rogers (who is very conservative with money). Who exactly was going to approve AA's alleged pursuit of Price at 7 years and above the $215M he signed for?

It's time to move on from Price, ugly. It was never going to happen.

Today's Globe and Mail has an editorial on the Bautista extension question, a Cathal Kelly article on Anthony Alford, and an Associated Press article on the Red Sox and analytics. Baseball is back.

The Kelly article includes some optimistic comments from Tim Raines.  Raines isn't exactly Sparky Anderson, so the comments are encouraging. 

If Bautista walks, I don't think it would hurt the Jays that much, in terms of marketing. Marcus Stroman is the new face of the Jays and from the ads I have seen, they're really pushing Donaldson (obviously) and Tulo. Those are the new faces of the franchise.

The Alford article is nice, thanks for that! If the Jays brass truly believe in Alford's bat (Can we call him AA or is it too soon?), then the should trade Bautista while his comments are fresh in everyones minds. It's good PR business. In a few weeks, everyone goes back to loving him when the games start but now, this is the time to sell high. It'll have to be to a big market team, where they'll resign him for his terms. LA Dodgers come to mind.

Bautista for Either, Urias and Seager. Maybe the Jays need to send something more but does either team say no?

Bautista for Either, Urias and Seager. Maybe the Jays need to send something more but does either team say no?

The Dodgers do, and very quickly. They're not giving up two of the top 5 prospects in baseball unless it's for 3 years of Bryce Harper.

I don't agree James W.

IF it was Bautista for only Urias and Seager, they say no. But that's the cost for taking a huge salary back in Either. Either is owed $18M this year and 2 years of $17.5M but the last year is a mutual option with a $2.5M buyout. It's a great trade for both teams.

It makes zero sense for the Dodgers. Bautista would not net you Seager alone. Bautista + Alford may not net you Seager alone. Same with Urias. The Dodgers are the last team that would worry about salary and dumping it. They could have signed Chris Davis and kept their prospects.

Bautista is an elite bat with avg defence and a great arm at best. Seager is an offensive short stop with a strong bat and huge arm to stick at short. Cost controlled for many years.

Hypothetically, Do you think the Jays would trade Vernon Wells, Marcus Stroman and a young Tulowitzki for 1 year of an elite bat? Get real.

The Dodgers won't give up two of the best prospects in baseball just to get rid of Ethier (who is still good). Friedman knows what he is doing. Twelve years of Urias and Seager is not worth one year of Bautista, and Seager might be as good as (or close to) Bautista's value by 2016.

If you want to buy low on anyone from the Dodgers, then Puig might be your best bet with his domestic violence investigation and overall attitude. From a talent standpoint, I'd rather have 3 years of Puig than one year of Bautista, and the Dodgers probably would too, but they're far more likely to move him for off-field reasons than any of their top young prospects.

hypothetically speaking, a young Tulo, Stroman and Vernon Wells are not on the same team.

Seager is still relatively unknown. I know the majority of your were over the moon with Brett Lawrie's first year. In my post I said and resign SO it's not 1 year year of Bautista, it's resigning him for multiple years.

Too much risk for the Dodgers. Keep Urias, Seager, Ether, sign Bautista in the offseason.

This Dave Cameron blog post is over a year old, but breaks down prospect valuation quite nicely:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/updating-prospect-valuations/

This would peg the surplus value of Seager and Urias at $88.8 million - a lot more than the $55 million owed Ethier, who still has some value.

The surplus value teams get from a player's first six years of control is critical. Syndergaard for example has provided a $24.7M $/WAR and still has six years of control left before he's a free agent. Even teams with unlimited resources like the Dodgers will want to take advantage of that six year window. Veterans should be used to supplement the young talent, not replace it. You will notice the Dodgers are not trading prospects. They are spending in free agency and internationally, but are hoarding prospects. Obviously they have the money to do that, but the same general rule applies to all teams.

The Jays ability to maintain competitiveness beyond 2016 will depend a lot on their young talent. That's why this is probably the only season that I can realistically look at and say I don't mind any scenario that plays out. I want the Jays to win the World Series. Nothing will override that result. However, if they stumble and have to sell off Bautista, Edwin, Cecil, Dickey, Storen, etc, at the deadline, it would make retooling in 2017 a lot easier. So there's really no way to lose this season, IMO. Both scenarios will help the Jays, in different ways.

The point is, teams are favoring younger/cheaper talent. It's the best way to maximize $/WAR. The Dodgers would laugh at the notion of trading one of their top prospects for Bautista, much less two of them.

If the Jays choose to trade Bautista it'll probably be to a team with deep pockets and near the end of a success cycle who just missed the playoffs. Ideally with a big hole in the OF too. The Angels come to mind right away considering they are in the same region as the Dodger and have a payroll that is around $80 mil less and finished just 3 games out last year despite getting only a 592 OPS in LF and 729 in RF from all players at each position. Bautista would have to approve any trade as a 10-5 guy but LA could probably meet any demands financially he has and California is a nice place to play.

The Nationals are another possibility, even with Bryce Harper in RF if Bautista would move to LF (and for the proper deal I'm sure he would). They are paying Werth $21 mil a year this and next but he only had an 84 OPS+ in just 88 games last year.

Eh, doubt anything will happen but those are the 2 best shots imo.

The Bautista replacement is here, Jays sign Domonic Brown to a minor league deal.

He could platoon with Saunders.

Replacement is perhaps the right word, Gerry.  Brown's career to date is a timely reminder of the unpredictability of prospects.  He was the Phillies' top prospect at the time of the Halladay trade. 

He does bat left, by the way.

Thanks for the Alford article Mike. I'm a friend of Raines' wife and she's talked about Tim's love for Alford. I'm really pulling for this kid.

Brown is a Scott Boras client. With Beeston gone, the Jays being in the market for Boras clients and draft picks from now on will definitely open up their potential to acquire talent.

On his BR list of comparables, Brown's number-one similar batter through age 27 is....   Travis Snider.

So there's that.

"The point is, teams are favoring younger/cheaper talent."

are you saying that there is a new trend here?

Brown hasn't played a single game in CF in his career, so he doesn't seem like a good candidate for the 4th outfielder job.  Unless perhaps Saunders or Pompey shifts to CF and Brown simply becomes the LF in that scenario.

He does hit better against RHP (career .737 OPS vs RHP) so perhaps he has some platoon possibilities.  He also has a few stolen bases, so maybe he can be a late-inning pinch runner.  Otherwise the Jays might as well go with Junior Lake or Darrell Ceciliani for the 4th OF, since they have better defensive skills (assuming that Pompey starts in Buffalo).

brown stinks.

"are you saying that there is a new trend here?"


I'm saying teams don't value 30-something's as much as AA does, especially at the expense of prospects, because post-PED era the aging curve has gotten worse for players. Bautista at age 35-36 is not worth the type of prospect value that was suggested here, nor will he be worth the free agent contract he's looking for.

So the Cubs re-signed Dexter Fowler. The O's gonna O.

A+

Brown (21-21): 280pa, 12.1bb%/17.1k%, .330babip/.303avg, .214iso, 157wrc+
Pompey (21-21): 317pa, 11.0bb%/17.7k%, .380babip/.319avg, .153iso, 150wrc+

AA

Brown (21-22): 433pa, 9.9bb%/20.3k%, .349babip/.303avg, .244iso, 147wrc+
Pompey (21-22): 275pa, 9.1bb%/14.9k%, .361babip/.325avg, .187iso, 158wrc+

AAA

Brown (22-22): 118pa, 6.8bb%/19.5k%, .395babip/.346avg, .215iso, 156wrc+
Pompey (21-22): 351pa, 11.1bb%/14.5k%, .350babip/.297avg, .075iso, 118wrc+

MLB

Brown (22-22): 70pa, 7.1bb%/34.3k%, .282babip/.210avg, .145iso, 55wrc+
Pompey (21-22): 146pa, 7.5bb%/24.0k%, .284babip/.226avg, .165iso, 88wrc+


even at the peak of his prospect powers, Brown was basically Pompey without the speed and defense.

"I'm saying teams don't value 30-something's as much as AA does, "

evidence?

I remember when the Phillies wouldn't part with Brown in the Halladay trade - I like the signing as Brown will be in Buffalo and the Jays have shown the ability to develop failed hitters - If the Jays have a fire sale in July, he could get an opportunity and he has 2 years of control.

Given their financial limitations and inability to sign expensive players, I think shapkins have done a solid job of building depth and dumpster diving - hopefully some of these players pan out.

Shi Davidi is reporting that managers/coaches visit to the mound will be limited to 30 seconds - amen to that - now if they could limit the number and length of catchers visit to the mound that would be even better.

Brown looked like he had turned a corner in the first half of 2013: 273/320/535, 23 HR. But then he turned back into his old self and has been stuck there since. He even stunk in AAA.

This is a guy you sign because fans of minor league games like it when there is somebody in the outfield, or else the games take too long.

So the Cubs re-signed Dexter Fowler. The O's gonna O.

Just saw this. Wow. I wonder if it's related to the O's figuring things out with Gallardo, a change of heart in Fowler, last minute wooing by the Cubs... On the surface, doesn't look good on Fowler. Only one year term with a mutual option too.

Good news for the Jays though, so I'll take it.

a change of heart in Fowler

You insult me with that 15.8M QO. But I will take 13M.

"evidence?"


You need evidence to show that teams value younger/more controllable players than older/more expensive ones? Look at the way most of the best run teams are built. Even the Yankees and Red Sox are not trading top prospects for vets anymore. You will have relics like Dave Stewart around who don't believe in it, but even the big market teams are hoarding prospects. The game has changed.

Brown is AAA depth. Maybe if the Jays are lucky they can tweak his approach at the plate and he can turn into something. He certainly has (or had) the talent to be a big league player, but I doubt this is anything beyond adding depth to Buffalo. The Jays need OF depth with Saunders being questionable.

Brown is one of those guys that lands under 'good minor league signing'. One time uber prospect (#4 in MLB in pre-2011 rankings), an all-star in 2013 now a minor league signing. How fast a star can fall. Just 126 games in CF in the minors last in 2012 so LF/RF is it for him except in emergencies (I still remember seeing Shawn Green in CF back in '98). If the Jays can find what happened then he could be great. If he can't be fixed then it is a 'so what'.

Boy, few did well from that Halladay trade in the end eh? Reminds you of why it is so critical to have the best player in a deal (ala Donaldson in the Oakland trade). Prospects come and go but stars can shine very brightly. Of course, never forget the risks (1/2 a season of Mark Langston for Randy Johnson's career and others)

"You need evidence to show that teams value younger/more controllable players than older/more expensive ones? Look at the way most of the best run teams are built. Even the Yankees and Red Sox are not trading top prospects for vets anymore. You will have relics like Dave Stewart around who don't believe in it, but even the big market teams are hoarding prospects. The game has changed."

Yes, I would like to see evidence that the game has changed.

I see good prospects being traded regularly, as always.

But that's the cost for taking a huge salary back in Either. Either is owed $18M this year and 2 years of $17.5M but the last year is a mutual option with a $2.5M buyout. It's a great trade for both teams.

Responding slowly, sorry. The Dodgers have a $7 billion TV contract over 25 years. That $280MM per year. Ethier's (not Either) contract is a drop in the bucket.

The names Corey Hart and Andre Ethier (a local Canrock legend for those not  familiar) have come up in the same week.  What are the odds?  I am still waiting for a ballplayer named Robbie Robertson or Neil Young.  I'd take Bryan Adams in a pinch. 

Domonic Brown is almost a year older than JoeyBat's age when the latter had been traded to Toronto. Given that the Jays had successfully tweaked JoeyBats into someone beyond All-Star, Brown is possible to realize his potential in Toronto. According to the ESPN feature on how JoeyBats tweaked his batting with videos -- technology, can video technology help Brown too ?

The reasoning goes as following:

A1) predestrian JoeyBats + videos + coaching + plate appearance = beyond AllStar JoeyBats
B1) predestrian Matt Hague + playing in AAA Buffalo = IL MVP Hague
B2) Journeyman Matt Tuiasosopo + playing in AAA = Journeyman Tuiasosopo
?3) a prospect Domonic Brown + (?) = at least serviceable Brown
?4) Matt Dominguez + (?) = at least serviceable Dominguez

So what ingredients that Hague or JoeyBats had or met to turn them into somebodies spectacular ?

Man, Dave Cameron had the Cubs as winning the offseason before they stole Fowler back from the O's.  I love everything they did - Heyward, Zobrist, Lackey, Fowler, Warren - and they have a ton of young talent on the MLB roster or knocking on the door (although with all the grads the minors ranking takes a hit).  Speed, depth, OBP skills, versatility for Maddon to play with (Im sure he played a role in the signing of Zobrist), plus defenders everywhere but LF / center, a clear ace and big arms in the pen. 

Proof that you can spend your offseason signing aging veterans and still be amazing.  with Maddon, Epstein and Hoyer, this IMO is clearly the best run team in the game right now. 

Pretty clear that this offseason FA pitching was paid a premium and you could still sign position players at good value. 

And yes, 92-93, I think you are correct that we may start looking at the Tulo contract as good value if the cost of a win on the FA market continues to grow so rapidly. 

All I know is that I would have taken Halladay's last years over the prospects we got for him and that I've always been glad that the Yankees refused to trade Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain for star players when they still had value.

8M this year + a 9M mutual option next year and a 5M buy back option.

Baltimore didn't want to offer an opt-out.  There's the question of losing a pick, to sign him, but if you can make a QO and get that pick back, why not? If you don't think he's going to be worth the QO, why insist on a 3 year deal for 35M?

I can't really think of a scenario in which he plays the second year. He has a bad year and the Cubs decide to double down?

"The point is, teams are favoring younger/cheaper talent. It's the best way to maximize $/WAR."

I'm pretty sure you mean the opposite. Read it out without the symbols: "Maximize dollars per Win Above Replacement". To do that you'd try to spend a lot of dollars to get very little WAR.

"I see good prospects being traded regularly, as always."


Other than AA and Dave Stewart, which GM's are (or were in AA's case) actively building their teams via trading top prospects? Looking at some of the best run or even the highest payroll teams, how many top prospects have the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cards, Pirates, Cubs, Giants, Mets, etc, traded in the past few years? How many expensive older players have those teams traded those prospects for? I do see teams overpaying for free agents, which is fine if you have the payroll room and can afford it, but it's very rarely at the expense of prospects that figure to be big parts of the team. Hell, many teams are shying away from middling free agents due to the cost of losing a draft pick, though there are some exceptions (Orioles - Gallardo, Royals - Kennedy).

I'm not saying no good prospects ever get traded. Of course teams are going to make trades, and some will involve good prospects. My point is, prospects are more valuable now because of the increased awareness of things like $/WAR and aging curve post-PED era. It's ok to have old players on your team, but if they are your best players, and/or you acquired them at the expense of those cheap/young/controllable assets that you should be building around, then it's either going to fail or have a short shelf-life.

"I'm pretty sure you mean the opposite. Read it out without the symbols: "Maximize dollars per Win Above Replacement". To do that you'd try to spend a lot of dollars to get very little WAR."


$/WAR is what FG does to put a $ value on a player's WAR. I wasn't referring to dollars spent per WAR. Maximizing $/WAR, at least the way I meant it to come across, is getting the most $/WAR from a player for the least amount of actual money spent. For example, if Syndergaard is making $500k and he's providing $27M of value, then you're maximizing the value of his cheap years of control, while Tulo last season made $20M and put up an $18M $/WAR (split between Colorado and Toronto) so obviously that's not the result you want.

not sure what league you're watching SK.

Just this offseason we've seen kids like newcomb swanson margot appel and a bunch of others traded. guys like russel and myers and all sorts of others in recent years by smart front offices. the last 5 world series winners traded the likes of myers miller wheeler rizzo and more.

lots and lots of top prospects traded that were more highly ranked than anything AA gave up.

 You want to maximize WAR/$.

If Tulo was worth 2.8 WAR last year he delivered 0.14 WAR/$. You want that number to be higher.
It's easier to look at it as just over 7M per WAR, but you to minimize that as we hope he can go back to 4M per WAR this year.

Fangraph's $/WAR is a coefficient that you use to convert a player's WAR into $. That's a constant for a given year.

You're building a pretty big straw man there, ugly. While I disagree with you about the quality of some of those prospects, look at some of the returns. The Angels traded Newcomb for Simmons (11.8 career WAR, age 26, 5/53 left). Appel was traded for Giles (3.7 career WAR in a year and a half out of the pen, age 25, five years of control left, still pre-arb). Simmons and Giles are young, controllable, and good, and the valuation of the prospects traded are hit or miss at best. They are top 100 prospects with flaws. They are not Mookie Betts, or Kris Bryant, or Corey Seager, or Francisco Lindor, or guys like that. There was a difference between trading Justin Nicolino and Noah Syndergaard. If you want to put both in the same category (like you are with the list of prospects you mentioned above), then be my guest, but it's untrue.

I'll give you Russell (for Shark) and any of the prospects Dave Stewart has traded recently, but I did say smart front offices. Beane has been awful for a few years now, and Stewart has no clue what he is doing. AA's an example of trading prospects for vets, but we obviously disagree about his ability as GM.

I mentioned the Dodgers wouldn't trade guys like Seager for Bautista because smart teams are valuing prospects more, and then you start listing off guys like Newcomb (6 BB/9 in the minors) to dispel that. Clearly not what I was talking about.

straw man? that was off the top of my head of top kids traded. and as for your explanations most of the guys AA traded for have much more value and have controllability as well.

and besides, your only definition of "smart front offices" seems to be "they didn't trade kids".

why is a red sox team that keeps finishing in last place with a $200m payroll an example of a smart front office? why is a Dodgers team that can't dominate with a $300m payroll a smart front office?

and how the heck has Billy Beane, who has made the playoffs 3 of the last 4yrs on a $50m payroll, been awful for years now?

you have twisted reality to fit your philosophy. you don't even see winning as success - for you the only success is hoarding prospects.

The historical awesomeness of our 2015 offense, in chart form:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28535

the article also notes that even with the expected regression of some of the hitters who raked last year:  "there are certainly a lot of ways for this Blue Jays lineup to be nearly as good as it was last year. If they aren't, they're still going to hit a lot of home runs, score a lot of runs— and win a lot of games."

When I said teams don't trade prospects anymore and value young talent over older talent due to age curve, specifically in reference to Corey Seager, how does naming vastly inferior (like not even in the same ball park) level of prospects traded even compare? I never said teams don't trade prospects period, just that they "hoard" the really good ones rather than trade them for vets. If the Jays traded Aaron Sanchez for Andrelton Simmons (the closest Jays comp I could think of for Newcomb), how does that compare to the Dodgers trading Seager for Bautista (for example)? A fringy/flawed prospect vs. a great prospect. There's a huge difference there.

As far as smart front offices, the Dodgers are run by Friedman. He knows what he is doing and has a history of it. I mentioned Boston because they are a team that CAN trade prospects for expensive vets since they have money and a great system, but choose not to. I don't consider Dombrowski a great GM so maybe they'll change the way they build now (i.e. the Kimbrel trade). Same with the Yankees. Beane has been regressing badly. Some suggest it was because Zaidi left, but he's clearly not as good as he used to be. Emptying out his farm system and then trading Donaldson within six months of each other is kind of proof of that.

As far as your last point about me valuing prospects over team success, that's way off base. I was gushing over the Donaldson trade when it happened, and still to this day don't care what happens to Barreto. That was a one sided heist. I do, however, care about what happens to the prospects traded to the Marlins, Mets, and to a lesser extent the Tigers and Rockies. I'm not as hard on GM's who make deadline trades because of the win curve aspect of their decision making.

If trading prospects makes sense, then do it. More often than not, trading Seager types will not make sense, and if you build an entire team on trading prospects, it will have a short shelf-life. My opinion hasn't changed. What AA did in 2015 was great....for 2015. I want a team that can win over many years, and that's where some regard for "hoarding" prospects becomes necessary. The big market teams are doing it too.

The prospects I named are all at least the calibre of prospect you are complaining about AA trading away. You're just backtracking now.

Not to mention the likes of Russell and Myers were most definitely seager calibre and traded by smart FOs.

and your justification for calling the red sox smart makes no sense. and in fact, they traded plenty of prospects on their way to winning world series....and their more recent hoarding has only led to failure in the standings as top prospect after prospect has dissappointed (middlebrooks bradley cecchini ranaudo webster kelly britton etc etc). and if they do succeed this year it will be in part because the new GM has started trading good prospects for expensive elite mlbers.

your narrative just isn't based on facts.

I don't comment often. Mostly because I want to read what's being added by people with a different understanding or opinion of whatever today's news may be. Sometimes I agree with them, other times I don't...which sometimes makes me explore a little further into what formed my opinion in the first place. Having dissent can further the depth of knowledge....and I like that! But -

Prospects get traded for established stars. They did yesterday, they did 100 years ago, and they will 100 years from now. Do you know why that happens? It's because sometimes one team has an immediate need and another team has a long-term need. Because you're dealing with unknowns, you have to make a decision at the time the trade is made...sometimes the prospects overshadow the original MLB player who was acquired, sometimes they're just beans. And even that is subjective - do you value what that player brought to the team that particular season? Or their careers? Arguing either side from a fixed vantage is pretty dumb. Moreso when you add stupid (my opinion...just want to be clear) nicknames to the front office staff that made the deal. This front office, last year's front office, the front office of the Mudhens. If your argument hinges on how clever your nickname is, you should save your breath.

Ugly, did you miss this paragraph from SK in NJ?: "I'm not saying no good prospects ever get traded. Of course teams are going to make trades, and some will involve good prospects. My point is, prospects are more valuable now because of the increased awareness of things like $/WAR and aging curve post-PED era. It's ok to have old players on your team, but if they are your best players, and/or you acquired them at the expense of those cheap/young/controllable assets that you should be building around, then it's either going to fail or have a short shelf-life."


You consistently manipulate projection systems and WAR numbers to fit your arguments then blame others for not basing their arguments on facts. All of your strategies and ideas make little sense when taken in the context of building a perennial contender over years into the future. It's not about succeeding this year only.

I'd tell you to quit while you're ahead, but you've fallen way behind since the Price/AA debacle that you keep circling back to, so I'll just direct my comment now at SK in NJ:

Stop feeding this troll.

Prospects have become more valuable because the price of free agents has gotten so insane. Cost control is now more important because of this. Teams used to be able to balance a roster better with free agency and homegrown talent. Now, many teams will simply not be able to afford any free agents of any quality. This is especially true of starting pitchers whose value in free agency has exploded. It is not possible to build a starting staff from free agency. Look at the Jays, they went cheap but had a lot of spaces to fill so still spent about $35M or 25% of their entire budget on three starters none of whom is all that great. Stroman, on the other hand, will not be a free agent until 2021 and costs the Jays almost nothing. The value in that is enormous.

"so I'll just direct my comment now at SK in NJ:
Stop feeding this troll."


You are correct. Somehow I keep getting suckered into these Price/prospects/veterans/AA debates. A lot of time being wasted repeating the same stuff. Since we are so close to March, I'll let the actual baseball news take over.

"You consistently manipulate projection systems and WAR numbers to fit your arguments then blame others for not basing their arguments on facts"

examples?


"Ugly, did you miss this paragraph from SK in NJ?: "I'm not saying no good prospects ever get traded. Of course teams are going to make trades, and some will involve good prospects. My point is, prospects are more valuable now because of the increased awareness of things like $/WAR and aging curve post-PED era. It's ok to have old players on your team, but if they are your best players, and/or you acquired them at the expense of those cheap/young/controllable assets that you should be building around, then it's either going to fail or have a short shelf-life."

1. There is no evidence that prospects are being treated differently now than they have in the past.

2. There are many smart and successful teams who have recently traded much better prospects than AA did, and for less return.


And thank you for your kind advice, but unfortunately I'll continue to rebut cliches with actual evidence. It's a nasty habit I just can't quit.

For what it's worth, I think both SK and Uglyone make compelling points, and I enjoy reading both their posts and their back and forth. No evidence of trolling IMO.

I second jerjapan's sentiment.  No trolling on either part, just strong(-written) and differing opinions, expressing passion about the Preferred Team of Batter's Box Since 2001.

Yeah, let's try to avoid the "troll" insult.  Even you disagree with someone's opinions, there's no need to get nasty about it.  Personally, I find that uglyone is usually correct in about 80 to 90 per cent of his opinions, and they are generally well-supported with data.  (Your mileage may differ.)  Even if I'm unconvinced by his David Price argument, he has a high accuracy rate.  But regardless of accuracy, everyone has a right to disagree in this forum without having insults tossed.

On to other subjects.  Gibbons says he prefers to have Tulo batting in the 5th slot, and he is leaning towards Saunders or Pillar for the lead-off slot.  Reactions from Bauxites?

Based on his 2015 numbers, Pillar doesn't have the OBP success to warrant the lead-off slot.  Perhaps the thinking is that he is improving and will continue to improve in 2016, and therefore Gibbons has some confidence that Pillar's OBP will rise to a sufficient level to warrant the lead-off slot. 

Or perhaps he is just being polite to Pillar, who has vocally expressed a desire to hit lead-off.  Maybe the real plan is to put Saunders in the lead-off position, and Pillar's name was just added for the sake of diplomacy.

Tulo did seem to hit better in the 5th position.  Still not sure if that was a coincidence or not.

It certainly becomes harder to participate in these threads when discussion shows a lack of civility and revisionist history is presented as fact. Perhaps you could find another way to express yourself Dalimon5? Using 2 of your 3 posts to call someone a troll and advising another to get real doesn't lend much to the discussion in my opinion. But then perhaps that is just my opinion.

Also found this statement curious SK ..."They are top 100 prospects with flaws. They are not Mookie Betts, or Kris Bryant, or Corey Seager, or Francisco Lindor, or guys like that. There was a difference between trading Justin Nicolino and Noah Syndergaard."

I found it curious as Syndergaard was exactly that, a top 100 prospect with flaws when traded. Baseball America had Thor rated the #54 prospect in the game prior to the trade, Nicolino ranked #86. Perhaps the subtly of the rankings is lost on me, but the distance between the Mookie Betts of the baseball world and 2012 Syndergaard seems much greater than that of Syndergaard and Nicolino at the time and seems to run counter to your argument. Please feel free to correct me if I am interpreting that incorrectly.

Myself I would still just move everybody up while Travis is up, and bat Donaldson-Bautista-EE-Tulo as 1-2-3-4.

But really I have a hard time getting worked up about who hits where in the order. It's not a huge deal, especially with this lineup.

Here are what the candidates for leadoff have done the last 2yrs and their projections:

Tulo 909pa, 341babip, 376obp, 201iso (STM 334obp/181iso, 335obp/181iso)
Martin 967pa, 297babip, 364obp, 182iso (STM 331obp/178iso, ZIP 336obp/179iso)
Travis 238pa, 347babip, 361obp, 194iso (STM 324obp/147iso, ZIP 325obp/174iso)
Saunders 299pa, 323babip, 337obp, 156iso (STM 324obp/165iso, ZIP 322obp/172iso)
Cola 580pa, 373babip, 334obp, 180iso (STM 318obp/187iso, ZIP 308obp/186iso)
Smoak 604pa, 249babip, 288obp, 195iso (STM 312obp/181iso, ZIP 313obp/190iso)
Pillar 750pa, 310babip, 311obp, 123iso (STM 311obp/123iso, ZIP 306obp/135iso)
Pompey 146pa, 284babip, 295obp, 165iso (STM 322obp/126iso, ZIP 299obp/118iso)
Carrera 265pa, 343babip, 315obp, 095iso (STM 304obp/09fiso, ZIP 303obp/100iso
Barney 292pa, 262babip, 299obp, 117iso (STM 284obp/094iso, ZIP 287obp/098iso)
Goins 621pa, 282babip, 285obp, 097iso (STM 289obp/094iso, ZIP 280obp/091iso)

Note that a pillar-saunders platoon is a possibility too.

My opinion on these issues (FWIW):

1. Most teams have an analytics department these days, and there is likely more awareness of the $ value of a good prospect
2. The luxury tax regime does create an incentive for some teams to be more aware of this issue
3. The particular proposed trade: Bautista for Ethier, Urias and Seager would likely be quickly rejected by Andrew Friedman, because he has (in my view) a keen sense of value.

When was the last truly one-sided deal with a much better prospect going for an established player?  Murray for Collins/McGriff was in 1982.  Anderson for Bagwell was in 1990.  Colon for Lee/Phillips/Sizemore was in 2002 (but that was a bit special because of the Expos situation at the time).  I guess that I should wait to see how Noah Syndergaard turns out before saying more about that....When was the last really good Rule 5 selection?  I think that it has been awhile. 

While I do not believe the Dodgers would accept the hypothetical trade as proposed, it is somewhat interesting to me that Friedman was a central figure in a trade of this very sort, albeit on the opposite side of the fence and a trade in which the team receiving the veteran had an additional year of control. The financial circumstances of the Rays and Dodgers are obviously different as well, but I can't believe Friedman would be so dogmatic to not at least consider dealing from his prospect capital for a player that would greatly improve their chances in winning that World Series that seems to elude LA.

Let us not forget also that despite their impressive depth, the Dodgers will be in tough this season in the NL West, what with it being an even year and all.

Bedard for Jones/Tillman/Sherill/Butler/Mickolio was one of the most lopsided trades in recent years.

Jones has amassed +25.5 fWAR (and counting) for the O's. Tillman is +8.5 fWAR (and counting) over the last five years for the O's. Sherill was +1.4 fWAR for the O's as a reliever in 2008 and part of 2009.

Erik Bedard posted +2.6 fWAR in 30 starts over two seasons with the M's. He later re-signed with the M's and posted an additional +1.3 fWAR with them over 16 starts in 2011.

When was the last really good Rule 5 selection?

Odubel Herrera was worth 3.9 WAR for the Phillies last year in CF - Kevin Pillar territory.  Steamer has him dropping off significantly this year, but he certainly has a chance to be the best one in a while.

Good responses, one and all.

I agree with Hodgie that Friedman would not likely be dogmatic about trading prospects for established players.

Bedard/Jones/Tillman was indeed very one-sided. The BB initial club has some excellent managerial and GM choices- Bill Bavasi is not one of them.

Herrera was a good Rule 5 pick. We shall see how he turns out in time.

Ahh, Rule 5ers. The extra year added to eligibility in 2006 has really changed the rule 5 quite a bit, but it can still provide a little fun.

The 2012 draft looks like a bullpen bargain bin, with four relievers showing effectiveness (Fields, Rondon, MacFarlane, Pressly). Darrin O'Day only pitched 4 games with the Mets after they drafted him in '08, but Texas still had to follow the Rule 5 rules after claiming him on waivers. He's only had one year in the seven since his draft with an ERA above 2.28. For position players, Shane Victorino ('02 and '04) and Josh Hamilton ('06, same draft as Joakim Soria) were varying degrees of really good. R.A. Dickey became pretty good, but only a few years after his brief trip to Seattle.

Alejandro De Aza has had quite the career for a AAA phase guy in '04, and Alexi Ogando did OK for himself from '05. I think the minor league phase guys that make it are even more interesting than the major league phase guys that stick.

Cathal Kelly has a nice piece on Brad Penny. He's close with old teammate Tim Raines and bicycles 15 km to Dunedin, and sounds like he knows a thing or two about the game.  I'm pulling for him.

Everyone has varying degrees of talent and it develops at different rates. As a result, most people evaluate prospects the wrong way. Evaluate them for their trade value, the higher the value the better. Spend as much time as possible trying to maximize that value, each and every prospects. Occasionally you will find someone good enough to keep on the Team, an asset in some capacity or other. That's a win. More often they have more value in trades bringing in assets. That's a win too.

Who you keep and who you trade will always generate a hot debate. It's when this happens that matters most of all. Every Team, if they are any good, has a time when more needs to be done. To try and fail has no shame, success is so hard to achieve. But to not try at all brings the shame. To misjudge when, is the greatest shame of all. That separates the GMs very fast.

2013 was A.A.'s time to try; despite all the trials and tribulations of 2012, the Offense was good enough and the pitching got better, the Jays stayed on the edges of contention for a long time. How that turned out is really of minor consequence, back-to-back years of crushing bad luck is never recoverable. However, what happened in 2014 was Rogers Corp's disaster and belonged to no one else - shame on them.

2015 and 2016 are the last hurrah's of Jose and Edwin, the final years of their window. Everything was done to try for this window. 2015 was an amazing year, a year of discovery and excitement. 2016 is it's own story, not yet told. It ends an era of Blue Jays that will never be forgotten, but it starts a new one of it's own that will create memories and legends starting now.

Cathal Kelly does a good job of describing the lazy mood of the early days of spring training:

When it was Donaldson's turn to step in against live pitching for the first time, he hesitated. You could see him trying to mentally place the man approaching the mound, Triple-A journeyman Ben Rowen.

“You throw from underneath?” Donaldson wondered.

Rowen, a submarine pitcher, didn’t answer. He leaned down and gestured that he releases the ball about six inches from the ground.

“Alright, I’m out,” Donaldson said, and resumed doing nothing.

"I found it curious as Syndergaard was exactly that, a top 100 prospect with flaws when traded. Baseball America had Thor rated the #54 prospect in the game prior to the trade, Nicolino ranked #86. Perhaps the subtly of the rankings is lost on me, but the distance between the Mookie Betts of the baseball world and 2012 Syndergaard seems much greater than that of Syndergaard and Nicolino at the time and seems to run counter to your argument. Please feel free to correct me if I am interpreting that incorrectly."


Syndergaard was not a flawed prospect. He was only 19 in A-ball, so he wasn't going to be a top 10 prospect in baseball right away, but performance, upside, and stuff all pointed to a prospect on the verge of climbing up the ranks very quickly. The difference between him and Nicolino was a combination of perceived upside and projectability. If you wanted to argue that Nicolino had a higher floor, then that may have been an argument at the time, but from a value standpoint, floor is not seen as more valuable (or even as valuable) as upside.

The Red Sox were not going to trade Betts when he was in A+, just like the Jays aren't going to trade Alford now (not saying they are the same calibre of prospect but just using this as an example). I think if Sanchez were a prospect that he would be tradeable in Shapiro's eyes, for the same reason why I mentioned some of the names ugly brought up as being traded by their teams. He's flawed with iffy performance and there are questions about his future role.

Like I said before, teams are valuing prospects more. That doesn't mean they never trade them, but as more teams are familiar with $/WAR, it makes trading the really good ones that much more rare. Then you have guys like Dave Stewart who openly mock analytics, or AA who views prospects as trade chips, or Billy Beane who has lost his mind, etc. Well run teams like the Mets, Cards, Cubs, Pirates, Giants, etc, operate in a much different manner. The only exception appears to be at the trade deadline, but in cases like that you have to factor in win curve (like the Royals did and even the Jays to some degree with Price), so that makes it a bit more justifiable even if it may hurt in the long run.

I'm not trying to pick on ugly here, since I've sure as hell made wrong predictions and assessments of value before, as we all have. However, here is what uglyone posted right after the Dickey trade, and it's not so much his opinion of the Dickey trade itself, but how what he said in 2012 compares to what he's arguing in 2016.

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

"NinjAA has put together one of the best rosters in baseball, with an affordable payroll, almost all signed through the next 4-5 years, and has kept a solid average farm system intact at the same time."

When a poster said that the prospects given up in those trades will have accumulated similar or more value than the vets coming back, ugly responded with: "I would be extraordinarily surprised if that were the case".

"Dickey is one of the best pitchers in baseball, and likely will be for most of his next few years. The chances of D'Arnaud or Syndergaard ever becoming that kind of player are slim."

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

He's consistent, I will give him that, but how is the above valuation of his any different than what's been arguing all off-season in 2016?

In the above quotes from 2012, he did not factor age related decline when referencing Dickey or the core of the team. He did not recognize the value of prospects over the first six years of their service time (the Marlins and Mets have already gotten more value out of those deals than the Jays did). He did not see how a team of 30+ year old's was not going to have a short shelf-life, as he thought they weren't going to miss a beat for 4-5 years.

My point of bringing this up is not to mock his earlier opinion (I remember being giddy about the Marlins trade when it happened because I was blinded by the big names too), but history has not seemed to change his opinion even when the evidence is right there.

I just listened to the 17 minute(ish) interview with Jose that's circulating on the innertubes. WOW.

I've decided I don't just want to sign him: I want to fire Shatkins and hire Jose for both jobs and to play RF, or 1st base once his body turns 50(ish). The team would be better, Rogers would be better and even AA would approve. IF he wants -  this guy has a job for life in baseball at some very high level. Ironically, when he retires I expect him to go and spend his time watching Football (Soccer to us heathens) in Barcelona.

Our loss - Barcelona's gain.

"The chances of D'Arnaud or Syndergaard ever becoming that kind of player are slim."

But Uglyone was correct when he said that ... Syndergaard had tremendous prospect value and he was the one prospect AA traded whose evolution into a big leaguer went perfectly.  I don't hear you bringing up Nestor Molina, or Jake Marisnick, or Asher Woj, or ... well, my point is clear. 

SK, I guess ultimately what I think makes a great GM is a refusal to see things in black and white, and I fear that your argument might be too rigid, kind of like the no more than 5 year free agent rule of Beeston's.  Teams are valuing prospects more than they used to, meaning you can get more for them.  Letting the fear of a prospect making it stop you from making important trades is worse than swinging and missing on a trade, IMO. 

pick on me all you want.


D'Arnaud is 27 years old, has accumulated 1.6bwar and 3.4fwar in his career (avg 2.5war), and is about be moved off the C position.

Syndergaard just had a nice rookie year of 2.1bwar, 3.1fwar, and 2.4ra9war (avg 2.5war), but with a troubling 2nd half his 2nd time through the league.

Dickey has given the Jays 6.8bwar, 5.4fwar, and 8.6ra9war so far (avg 6.9war)

we gave Rafael Soriano and invite to camp.

Soriano's numbers in 13 and 14 were better than I remembered. Solid above average middle relief numbers, even without his younger velo.

Solid pickup. One disaster year isn't necessarily a death sentence, no matter what the cause.

Soriano gets $750,000 if he makes the major-league team, so there's virtually no risk to signing him. 

He was hampered by shoulder injuries last season and only pitched for a few weeks, so his health is the key question.  If he has recovered, he could be useful.  And there are indications that his health might be better.  He's reportedly been pitching well in the Dominican league recently.  Here's a tweet from a Twins beat reporter in December:

A few teams have checked in on Rafael Soriano, throwing well in Dominican (6 saves, 2.57 ERA, 14 IP, 10 K, 2 BB).

Soriano didn't sign with the Cubs until June last year.  Then pitched 10 innings in the minors, allowing only one run.  Then promoted to the majors in late July, and had just 6 outings (from July 20 to 30).  Did okay at first, then allowed a few runs in the 3rd, 4th and 5th outings.  Then one shutout inning on July 30.  Then got the shoulder inflammation, was placed on DL and eventually released in September.  So, from all that, if his problems were injury-related, and if his Dominican experience suggests he is back to form, he might still have something in the tank for 2016.

jerjapan, I don't think my views are rigid at all. Over this off-season I've been accused of never wanting to sign an expensive free agent and never wanting to trade prospects for veterans, yet I was practically tripping over myself praising Alex when he traded for Donaldson and signed Martin. For me it's about context, not a general ideology.

Not every projection system is going to be correct. Some times it is, some times you get lucky/unlucky, and other times you just go on a gut feeling. For me, there was no upside to the Dickey trade. He was coming off a season that he had no way of repeating given his age and skill set, while the Jays were giving up their two best prospects. The Jays were evaluating a player based on his past rather than what he could reasonably be expected to do in the future. That's why while Ugly was correct that TDA/Noah may have never been as good as Dickey was in 2012, the fact is the Mets were not trading for them to be as good as Dickey in 2012. They were expected to provide more value at a much cheaper rate than Dickey from 2013-onwards. That was a pretty reasonable assumption for them to make, and this coming from someone who thinks Dickey gets too much flack from Jays fans for what he's provided since the trade. It was just too much of a price to pay.

The reason I don't bring up Molina, Woj, etc, is the same reason why I don't bring up Graveman, Barreto, Nolin, etc. They were not top prospects. My point was teams are not going to trade Corey Seager types anymore because it doesn't make sense to do it with GM's being smarter about $/WAR and the cost of free agency. That doesn't mean that all GM's keep every single prospect they have in the system. There will still be trades, but the perception of value has changed with more knowledge being out there (aside from guys like Dave Stewart). What AA did two off-seasons ago probably won't happen too often anymore, at least not from the good GM's.

My point is simply to pick your spots. The Jays won't be trading Alford, but maybe someone like SRF is movable in the right deal since there are questions about his role and secondary stuff going forward. Then again, if someone with Josh Donaldson's contract situation becomes available (established star with 4 years of arb left), then maybe you consider moving Alford if that's the price it costs. It's never black or white. It's about assessing value long-term. If you look at the sheer amount of value lost in the Marlins/Mets deals, it's astronomical. While even if Barreto pans out it's going to be tough for him to out-WAR four "cheap" years of Donaldson. Hell, it will be tough for all the players the A's got to do that combined.

Soriano is a nice cheap signing. He was hurt last season but good in 2014. It really depends on where his velocity is right now, but a minor league deal with a $750k base if he makes the team is a solid risk either way. Hell, the Jays are paying Delabar more than that plus have him on the 40-man roster and he's been bad for two years straight.

I've been very pleased with the depth emphasis by the new regime. The minor league team should have a few players that can help the big league club at some point.

The reason I don't bring up Molina, Woj, etc, is the same reason why I don't bring up Graveman, Barreto, Nolin, etc. They were not top prospects.

But that's just not true ... check out the box's own top 10 for 2011:

http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20110926134613190

Thor is 5th, and right behind him in 6th is Molina, who was traded for Santos a few weeks after the list was posted.  If you want to look at 2012, Sanchez is 2nd and Thor 3rd.  again, shortly after that list was posted, the dickey trade happened. 

http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20121009144539375

I get your overall point, but I fear you are cherry picking a bit.  Teams win some deals, and lose some - if AA is fearful, the Dickey deal doesn't happen, and neither does the Donaldson deal. 

and the Miami deal was not a huge loss overall.  Hech has been worth all of .6 WAR total to Miami, DeSclafani (traded for Latos, -.6 WAR for Miami), Marisnick and Mathis are negative WAR in Miami (although DeSclafani might be a decent back of rotation starter for Cinci), Alvarez was 5.9 and is out of the org, Nicolino managed .6 this year despite a mere 23 Ks in 74 IPs.   Sure Marisnick was part of the package for  Jared Cosart, but Jose Reyes alone had as much WAR for the Jays as the above package generated, and he was part of the package that landed us Tulo as well.  Not to mention Buehrle was worth 6.6 as a Jay, although JJ's dreadful -1.5 WAR in 16 starts hurt. 

Yes, they were expensive players we acquired, but only the Dickey deal has disaster potential IMO, and that's if TDA can stay at catcher or if Thor becomes a legit front of rotation starter for several years - still big ifs. 

these types of spring training invites aren't some new respect for depth.

last year's cheapo depth pickups included Smoak, Santana, Colabello, Santiago, Dirks, Francis, Carrera, Albers, Barton, Lopez, Kawasaki, and others.

the fact these guys are always available is a good reason not to spend guaranteed money on bottom roster slots.

The issue in both the Marlins and Mets trades was not the prospects given up, but rather that the players targeted were not as good as AA thought they were. It was the assessmemt that Johnson, Dickey, Reyes were all star type players that was at fault in those transactions. (and even then, the only player given up that causes any real regret is noah).

AA learned from it, stopped trying to be too clever, and targeted legit stud players like donaldson price tulo martin instead.

"....It was the assessmemt that Johnson, Dickey, Reyes were all star type players that was at fault in those transactions..... AA learned from it, stopped trying to be too clever, and targeted legit stud players like donaldson price tulo martin instead...."

Interesting analysis, and could be true.  But I'd also argue that a lot of this "targeting" and "assessment" was actually just a product of luck and opportunity.  If someone of the calibre of Donaldson had been available from the Marlins in 2013, of course Anthopoulos would have targeted him.  It was a bit of a fluke that Oakland was willing to trade him, and AA leaped at the opportunity and chased it for months.  It's not as if he was refusing to target that kind of player earlier.  Same thing with Tulo -- he wasn't available in 2013.  As for Johnson, nobody knew that he was done in 2013.  A lot of this is just the breaks of the game.  You trade for some players and they don't work out; you trade for others and they exceed expectations.

well remember - nobody knew guys like donaldson or tulo were available. AA forced those doors open.

Not really true.  There were rumors about the availability of Tulo and Donaldson for months in advance.  Here's a thread from Batters Box on Oct. 3, 2014, in which SK in NJ mentions the rumor that Donaldson was available -- nearly two months before AA acquired him:
http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20140830162327629

http://nesn.com/2015/06/report-red-sox-inquired-about-josh-donaldson-in-offseason-were-shot-down/

these types of spring training invites aren't some new respect for depth.

Agreed Ugly, the new FO just seems to have a different sense of what depth is, as we have discussed before - instead of tools, the new team is focusing on veteran talent.  That might be a good fit for this strong veteran team and I like our minor league signings more than I did mid offseason - Soriano in particular - but at the moment I see more value in getting a Cola or a Schultz type, pre-decline, with options and years of control.

No idea how Shapiro did with these sorts of moves in Cleveland. 

One thing I like about the new regime is the bullpen focus. Storen, Chavez, Floyd, Penny, now the interesting Soriano pick up to go with Osuna, Sanchez and cecil, with solid reserves in AAA. This could be a seriously good bullpen.

At this juncture I feel a lot better about the BP than last year's scary group that started the season. If not for the near historic emergence of a 20 year old closer, and an Aussie who turned his career stats on their head, that group could have been big trouble. This one has the potential to be much better, in which case we will likely see our so called "bad luck" in one run games improve significantly.

I hope. ..

jerjapan, I made a post a while back comparing the value/cost of the Miami and Mets deals. I don't have the time to find it now, maybe tomorrow, but the Jays definitely lost a lot of value on that deal. It wasn't even close, actually. The Dickey deal just compounded it.

Again, I never mentioned anything about fear of trading prospects. AA traded a lot of prospects prior to 2013's off-season that I had no real issue with for a combination of reasons, mostly for the player(s) they were getting back and the upside of the prospects given up. For example, I never bring up the prospects traded for Morrow, or Escobar, or Rasmus, or even J.A. Happ. This goes back to what I said about context.

As far as the Soriano signing and depth, I've said before, you are not going to find stars with minor league deals. However, if you can add talent that can realistically help the big league club, it's a good way to build up depth. Soriano, Sanchez, Brown, Not Fausto, etc, are all guys that I wouldn't be terribly upset about getting playing time at the big league level if a need came up. You need that every year. I'm still concerned about the infield depth, especially at 3B behind Donaldson (maybe Bautista is the back-up there?), but otherwise, I think the team is in a better position depth-wise than they were at this time last year.

As you've probably figured out, I forgot which day I'd set to detonate the Report Card and it went live Before Its Time.

Eephus had the bright idea of doing a podcast for the Report Card, which I would use as the basis for the written version on that. I'm an old dog and this is a new trick - but I'm game. Anyway, we finished the recording this past Wednesday - I'm waiting for him to email me the final section so I can go over it with a fine-tooth comb (Sound Forge 11, to be precise) and edit out all my coughing and throat-clearing.

In the meantime, I yanked the Report Card back into the Ether. Don't want y'all commenting on the Draft Version!

Seeing how Magpie took away the report card thread I wanted to highlight this comment I made there. Ken Rosenthal had a story at Fox Sports yesterday about Tulo getting used to the Jays and the AL. Apparently Donaldson gets after everyone about competing. The story says that Donaldson would scream at Tulo: "This is the big boy league! This isn't facing the Phillies at Coors Field!"

Stuff like that makes one want the Jays to get Donaldson on the dotted line for 5+ years but I fully understand waiting a year or two before pushing it given he is here for 3 more years no matter what (outside of a trade).

Donaldson & Bautista are the types of guys you want. Sadly they also are very expensive and hard to find. If Bautista goes elsewhere for more than $120 million guaranteed then I fully understand the Jays saying 'no way Jose'. If he goes somewhere else for under $100 million guaranteed then Rogers needs a kick in the rear end as would the current management team depending which made that call.

I like the Soriano deal. Just 2 years ago, he was a good reliever. He has always had injury issues and last year he did. Reports say he was pitching well in Mexico.
I wish we could find a left handed vet for the bullpen, then I think the team would be done.

There are some really interesting competitions this spring training. 3/4 OF, the 5th starter and the bullpen will be very interesting.

Gerry, I agree, awesome quote!

And agreed Lylemcr, Soriano is a nice add. I could see girodo being the 3rd lefty out of the pen if he has a good spring, and I'd be fine with that ... but I will be watching those battles you mention closely.

Personally, I'm pulling for Hutch to win the 5th rotation spot and think he was better than he appeared last year. Not to mention that he was my big breakout candidate last year - people are still sleeping on him a bit.

From a resource-management POV I'd like to see Lake win the 4th OF spot and see only the seventh spot in the pen up for grabs (if one of Sanchez or Chavez wins the 5th starter and Hutch is in AAA) - I`d like an out of options arm (delebar and Jenkins come to mind) or a guy with an opt out to win that spot (hernandez perhaps).

I don`t think Soriano has an opt-out?

Biagini was throwing 94-95 mph in the instraquad game today, according to BSN. Will be interesting to see how he looks this spring.

The one thing we all should know is there will be surprises in the spring. Last year it was Castro & Osuna, then Pillar once the games counted. We've seen many surprises over the years and I look forward to seeing who shows up who no one thought would and who flops.

The one thing we all should know is there will be surprises in the spring. Last year it was Castro & Osuna, then Pillar once the games counted. We've seen many surprises over the years and I look forward to seeing who shows up who no one thought would and who flops.

This is where I give the FO a lot of credit: they've increased the chances for these kinds of surprises by the volume of 'small' transactions they've made.

Soriano, Brown, Sanchez (Tony the C), Floyd, Aarsdsma, Lake, Hernandez, Penny and others ... something's gotta shake out, right?

I'm still frustrated that Rogers swings below its weight class, but have been more and more pleased with actual roster decisions based on that constraint.

I wouldn't expect any Osuna/Castro type of promotions with this regime. The surprises will likely come from the ST invites, or from 'out of options' players like Lake, Leon, etc.

The bullpen will be the most interesting. I think the team has moved on from Sanchez as a RP option (just a hunch). There are 4 BP options that are pretty safe bets (Storen-Cecil-Osuna-Loup), and then Floyd if he stays healthy will be stretched out in the spring but will likely end up in the pen in some capacity as well. So that's five. Two more spots open with the main candidates being minor league invites (Soriano), out of options talent (Leon, Delabar), and rule 5 pick (Biagini). Of course, if Hutchison or Sanchez wins the last rotation spot instead of Chavez, then Chavez goes into a swing man role, and that removes one open BP spot.

So many scenarios that could play out. It's going to be fun.

At least this year we won't see a mediocre pitcher like Colt Hynes making the opening-day bullpen simply because there was literally nobody else who was any good.

I like many of these depth pickups too, but I'm wondering why we think this is a different approach than in previous years.


Last year's depth names included ex MLBers Colabello, Smoak, Barton, Santana, Doubront, Viciedo, Scott, Santiago, Dickerson, Dirks, Coke, Francis, Wolf, Albers, Pineiro, Chamberlain, Perez, and I'm sure there's names I'm forgetting.

And then on top of that none of the younger guys - Travis, Norris, Osuna, Castro, Hendriks - were initially projected to crack the opening day roster, either.

"At least this year we won't see a mediocre pitcher like Colt Hynes making the opening-day bullpen simply because there was literally nobody else who was any good."

no?

who finishes off the end of the bullpen if, say, stroman goes down to injury this camp?

we're already counting on at least one spot going to a reclamation project like Floyd even if we're healthy.

Uglyone, in the past you were always touting the advantages of the "buy-low" candidates who could fill out a bullpen.  Now you are disparaging them as mere "reclamation projects."

Floyd is hardly a reclamation project.  He was sought by several teams, and has been guaranteed a major-league roster spot and a $1-million contract.  He probably chose the Jays because of his previous connection with Shapiro and Atkins, not because nobody else wanted him.   His previous injuries don't mean that he is unhealthy now.  He might be slightly risky as a starting pitcher, but he is a solid bullpen choice. 

And that's for the 6th slot in the bullpen.  My guess is that there are another 6 or 7 solid choices available for the 7th slot in the bullpen. A lot of them are "buy-low" candidates, not mere reclamation blue-sky wishful-thinking guys.  In my opinion, the bullpen depth is much better than it was a year ago.  Your opinion might be different.

Sounds like Biagini might be another good bullpen depth option.  Of course it's ridiculously early, but still, here is a tweet by Ben Nicholson-Smith after today's inter-squad game:

Joe Biagini threw a fastball (94-95), curve (78-80) and change (86-87).

as I said, I like the pickups. I just don't get how they indicate a different strategy.

i liked these kinds of pickups last year too, and they paid off handsomely.

Fangraphs project us as the 2nd best defense in baseball, albeit far behind the 1st place royals.

and that's without much playing time for pompey.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/previewing-the-best-and-worst-team-defenses/

So fangraphs updatsd their team depth charts today to include the Zips numbers, and it upgraded the jays slightly to 40.9 team war. The good news is that it dropped the red sox a couple wins down to 42.2 as I expected, and the Yanks dropped below the Jays.

But I expected a bigger bump based on the zips released in december, but it seems the new zips numbers have downgraded the jays slightly across the board. I'm not sure if this is due to an updated calculation or if the zwar in december is actually just a different calculation than the fwar released today. They are all for the same projected playing time, for the record.

These are the changes from December to today:

Donaldson 6.6 --- 6.3
Bautista 4.1 ---- 3.9
Martin 3.5 ------ 3.1
Tulowitzki 3.5 -- 3.1
En'cion 3.3 ----- 3.1
Pillar 3.2 ------ 2.8
Travis 2.5 ------ 2.2
Pompey 1.2 ------ 0.9
Saunders 1.1 ---- 1.0
Smoak 0.7 ------- 0.6
Barney 0.7 ------ 0.5
Colabello 0.4 --- 0.3
Goins 0.3 ------- 0.0
Thole 0.0 ------- -0.2

every single position player downgraded from december. That's a cumulative 3.5war drop from the position players. Pretty huge.

Stroman 1.8 ----- 1.9
Chavez 1.4 ------ 1.9
Happ 1.3 -------- 1.6
Estrada 2.0 ----- 1.1
Dickey 1.6 ------ 0.9

Cecil 0.9 ---- 0.9
Storen ??? --- 0.7
Osuna 0.9 ---- 0.7
Sanchez 1.2 -- 0.6
Loup 0.4 ----- 0.3
Hutchison 0.7 - 1.5
Tepera 0.1 ---- 0.1
Delabar 0.1 --- 0.1

All over the place here. Must be a different type of calculation used. Either way the net difference is -0.4war.

So all in all around a 4war drop from the numbers released in December, which is the difference between an elite team and just a good team.

Have no fear- mWAR has the Blue Jays winning 102 games in 2016.  I think the projection systems are off by a mile.

Colabello raked today in the intrasquad game, 2 run double off of Happ and a HR off of Pat McCoy.

It's a good idea to win in 2016, because the 2017 season might not go smoothly. Dave Cameron's article linked has some interesting insights on issues in the next CBA negotation.

Is an industry so flush with cash more likely to see a work stoppage or less likely? My instinct is the latter, but maybe both sides see there being too much to lose to be overly conciliatory. (I have not read the article yet. Maybe this is discussed.)

Let's hope that the men in the room remember how long it took the fans to return after the last stoppage. Or do we need to see an exercise in hubris once every generation because, well, because we're dimwitted hairless apes and there's no mistake that's not worth repeating.

Two points:

1. hairless beach apes
2. Einstein said that the only two things he thought to be infinite were the universe and human stupidity but that he wasn't sure about the universe.

2 run double off of Happ and a HR off of Pat McCoy

Using this is a clumsy segue, I was surprised to see that Mike McCoy is still in professional baseball. Three organizations have unfathomably elected to give him a combined 1000 plate appearances in AAA over the past 3 seasons, during which he's OPS'd in the 620s. I guess the minors is often just a place to stick warm bodies to take up space, so the real prospects have somebody to play against.

"The end of History as we know it." That's a quote from me (I just made it up) dealing with what MLB's Digital "arm" (DA) is up to.

Now that the DA owns the NHL streaming rights and soon - who knows...  the "old" world is GONE. Now MLB will be able to pull a Rogers and vastly undercharge their DA for the cost of the streaming baseball and earn ALL their money in the black box. Not the "box" where the team, ti's fans and players can see. They've found the perfect curtain and they will use it to financially rape the players. Only a tiny bit of an exaggeration.

It reminds me of the Oil Industry. I used to work for Chevron, my brother worked 30+ years for Shell. Two of the world's most successful (legal) criminal enterprises.

(FIRST: Disclaimer - I have been out of the industry for decades, as has my brother - things might be different now - because of Fracking for instance {But I doubt it} )

Have you ever seen a picture of an oil field - if you have you'll notice that they place oil wells in a sort of grid - that grid is such that each well is one quarter of a mile apart from every other well. The reason for that is they can earn tax free for X period of time from each new well. The reason there are so many wells in the area is that they shut them down the second they lose the tax deduction on them. Remember, the BIG OIL CRISIS (back in the 70's I believe) WELL during the time when oil was at an all time high, and at an all time shortage, California ALONE had THOUSANDS of capped wells. BIG BUSINESS is basically the same as the Mafia except that BIG BUSINESS has more friends in Congress and the Mafia has more friends in municipal and state level governments. The placement of these wells is why once in a generation they actually hit a "dry" well - they try to squeeze one more tax free hole into the plot they KNOW they will strike oil in. Greedy little farts...

Baseball can now join Rogers, Shell and Chevron in the BIG LEAGUES of professionally, behind a black box magically, screwing their workers and the Government of the taxes they should be earning.

The Players Association needs Bautista to retire and take over the reins of their organization. He might be the only guy with the knowledge, brains and vicious stubbornness to actually hold his own with the owners.

The reality is the players are screwed - they most likely know it - but won't be able a figure out a way to get enough information from the "Black Bos" of the DA to be able to get anywhere near their fair share. I smell blood. I smell a short strike until (as usual) the workers cave. Such is life on the playing fields of MLB.

I have nothing to contribute. I have a beer so CHEERS!!!

Einstein, Chuck , Mike Green and Mylegacy With the start of ST I am quite content. I look forward to the force of Da Box making things small and big look rather remarkable.

I wish I could remember what was said at the 1992 ST. 2016 is similar I would guess.

Man I need baseball....

and that's without much playing time for pompey.

Or Goins.

Stroman 1.8 ----- 1.9
Chavez 1.4 ------ 1.9
Happ 1.3 -------- 1.6
Estrada 2.0 ----- 1.1
Dickey 1.6 ------ 0.9

Anything's possible, but this seems pretty unlikely.

Stroman should blow through this. Chavez could spend a lot of time in the pen, as a long guy.
I expect Happ to look like Hutch last year, some good games, some blowouts.
I think Estrada is more likely to dominate this lineup than to struggle and the worst Dickey has done in the last 6 years is 1.7.

Those Zips have Stroman onky throwing ~100ip, so you can double that war.

but goins is actually projected with lots of playing time (500pa+) on the fangraphs depth charts which those D ratings are based on.

The 2nd place projected defense Blue Jays are as close to the 13th place Cubs as to the 1st place Royals. The Royals project very, very good.

But it is still less than 2 win difference.