Wednesday Bantering: Today's Roy Halladay Rumor, John McDonald and Buck Coats

by Tom Dakers on Nov 25, 2009 11:21 AM EST in News Comment 44 comments

So today's Roy Halladay rumor? According to the New York Daily News the Red Sox are going to 'make a big push' to get Doc before the start of the winter meetings Dec. 7th. The reasoning, apparently, is that the Yankees are meeting next week to decide on things like budget for the next season, so the Red Sox figure they would like try to get something done before the Yankees get organized.

The Red Sox offer will apparently center around Clay Buchholz and Casey Kelly. Kelly was the Red Sox first round pick in 2008 and is an interesting story, Tennessee wanted him to play quarterback for the Volunteers. Kelly would only sign with the Sox if they would let him play both pitcher and shortstop. So he played both positions in A-Ball last year. His minor league numbers are here. As a pitcher he is a terrific prospect, as a shortstop he has some work to do but looks like he has some power potential. He's 20 now I'd expect him to move towards being a full time pitcher and make the majors in a year or two, but I can understand why he'd be reluctant to giving up on shortstop, starting pitchers sit around for 4 of every 5 days.

Jordan Bastian says that the John McDonald signing will be announced today. I really don't understand this one. The line we often hear about free agents is that to sign one you have to offer a dollar more than the next highest offer. Do you really believe someone else offered him $1.4 million? Of course not. Instead of a home team discount, we are giving him more than what he could get other places?

To put it another way, this summer the Jays failed to sign their number 2 draft choice, a pitcher that looked to have a bright future, because of a reported $200,000 difference in between what he wanted and what the Jays offered. And then you go and give Mac $1.5 million.

Yeah I know, Mac is a good guy and is very likable in the clubhouse. Which was the excuse that bought us a season's worth of Kevin Millar. You would have thought there was a lesson there somewhere.

Jordan also lets us know that the Royals have signed Buck Coats to a minor league contract. Good move by the Royals, I hope things work out for him there.

0 recs | Comment 44 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

in that light, it really does make the failure to sign prospects questionable … but, you have to draw the line somewhere I guess

John made $1.9M last year … so a $1.5M implies a ~21% reduction in pay. Did you (Tom or Hugo) not once say that there is a maximum % pay reduction that is permitted under the MLB collective agreement.

by aagoodfella on Nov 25, 2009 12:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Only in arbitration cases

Kevin Millar went from 4 million in 2008 to the minimum with us last year.

They're not just hitting home runs. They're doing the little things, like hitting doubles.

by Torgen on Nov 25, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They also note the Red Sox (and Yankees) to be a Front Runner for Doc...

But are 2 pitching prospects/youngsters really what the Jays need in return for Doc?

I really don’t think so. One good MLB ready pitcher for sure, but after that the Jays need hitters in the organization (pref, close to MLB ready)…SS, 1B, 3B, RF, CF, C are all positions of need within the organization so I don’t see how centering a deal around Kelly and Buccholz helps the Jays fill their holes and improve for now or the future….If Boston’s deal also inclded Jed Lowrie and a guarantee for Boston to sign Scutaro giving the Jays their 1st round pick then we might be onto something.

by bunner on Nov 25, 2009 12:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

They are also looking at signing Holliday for their LF situation which would mean we get screwed out of the pick again (Ala Burnett last year)

Life as a Toronto Sports Fan?... *sigh*... It is what it is...

by JohnnyG on Nov 25, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

while with Burnett, I did feel screwed....

getting a sandwich pick and another (whether it be first, second or third) feels pretty good for the investment in Scoots.

I’d almost expect a team to only sign Scoots if they knew he wasn’t going to cost them their first round pick.

by ayjackson on Nov 25, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If we were only getting a second round pick for losing Scoots

I’d rather we signed him. Actually I’d rather we signed him period.

They're not just hitting home runs. They're doing the little things, like hitting doubles.

by Torgen on Nov 25, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well, he is not signed anywhere yet

by aagoodfella on Nov 25, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Red Sox = worst case scenario

I rather have Doc go to the Yankees then Jays compete for the wildcard for the next several years. If the Yankees are the Yankees and the Sox have Doc, we will have to battle the Ray’s for 3rd.

Barf.

Johnnie Morton: The Man. The Myth. The Legend.

by craig in calgary on Nov 25, 2009 12:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

To put it another way, this summer the Jays failed to sign their number 2 draft choice, a pitcher that looked to have a bright future, because of a reported $200,000 difference in between what he wanted and what the Jays offered. And then you go and give Mac $1.5 million.

I thought it was pretty clear that it wasn’t an inability to pay that kiboshed the signing. So, that being the case, the $1.5m to MacDonald is entirely irrelevent to the situation. Again, I would happily argue that, especially in a coming year of slim hopes and our best player wearing another organizations’ uniform to deal with, MacDonald is likely worth the extra $600K or so he’s being paid to the Jays organization as a whole.

by dexfarkin on Nov 25, 2009 12:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i really don't get this..

whole ‘failing to sign bright prospects’ thing… the jays have been doing it for years and i really fail to see what logic is there in saving a negligible amount of money (relative to the overall salary of a pro ball club) by NOT inking a potential contributor in the future

does anyone understand it?

The choo-choo train left right on time. A ticket costs only your mind.
The driver said, "Hey, man, we go all the way. Of course we were willing to pay.

- My name is Jonas (Gustavsson)- - - Weezer are clearly leafs fans.

by AkiSchennberg on Nov 25, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, since no one really knows exactly why we didn’t sign them, we can’t really know what the factors are. It could be positional, it could have been dollars and cents, it could have been relative value. The point is that the prospect wasn’t valued by the organization at the level he wanted for whatever reason and walked. Whether that was a legitimate reason or not, we can only guess at.

by dexfarkin on Nov 25, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Three months ago we didn't have $200,000 to sign out number 2 draft choice....

but now we have enough to pay $1.5 for a SS that won’t be part of the team when/if we turn things around?

by Tom Dakers on Nov 25, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tom, I don’t remember at any point the organization saying the reason for not signing either prospect was a lack of funds. Please, if I’m wrong, throw me a link or something. Otherwise, the two things are not necessarily related. It reminds me a little of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc or ‘After it, therefore because of it’. We signed John MacDonald for $1.5m, and didn’t sign prospects when the difference was $200K. Therefore, we didn’t have the money for them, because the Jays make financial mistakes like signing a 35yr old glove only SS for above market now. The two things are doubtful to be interconnected in the context of the club’s finances at all.

Also, I’m obviously trying to impress everyone with my knowledge of Latin, or more honestly, ability to Google Wing Wing quotes for proper spelling.

Seriously though, value is relative, so I feel you need to look at the worth of MacDonald to the organization specifically in 2010, as opposed a generic composite of his stats and a typical year. MacDonald off the bench can play five positions, two of them defensively at the top of the game. He brings a below average bat, but decent speed and is an above average bunter. He also is a fan favourite, and the Jays are facing the very real likelihood of trading away their most popular player before the season. With MacDonald being their next most popular player, the organization has likely factored that into his overall value.

Finally, and this is the big finally, unless the $1.5m actually prevents us from signing other players, or limits the team’s ability to bring in the pieces that they need, the number is irrelevent. Is MacDonald a valuable asset to the team in 2010? Personally, I think yes. Is it worth $1.5mil? To the Blue Jays organization, apparently. Unless it involves sacrifice the ability to capitalize on an opportunity of greater value for the club, the difference between it being 800K, 1.2m or 1.8m is negligable, in my opinion.

by dexfarkin on Nov 25, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do not think the issue with JM is money. It is more a question of roster space.

IMHO, the Jays should figure out how the lineup is going to fill out to see whether they need a strong glove at the cost of a weak, perhaps improving, bat.

Complete players, who offer speed, defense and offense are not an issue. They are “self-contained” roster spots (for example Aaron Hill). It is the guys who excel at only one or two skill categories that make setting the roster challenging, IMHO.

by aagoodfella on Nov 25, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He can play 5 positions but if he does he has to bat

Sure he can hold the glove at those spots…but he can’t swing the bat at those spots. It is more than 5 apparently….8 I guess, he’s the emergency catcher last year, he could play any spot, but then he bats like a pitcher.

Anyone want to see him play LF again? He doesn’t have the bat for SS.

The reason we didn’t sign draft choice 2 and 3 was a difference of very little in asking price and offering price. I’d have much rather given those 2 players want they wanted and let Mike McCoy play short and Jarrett Hoffpauir back him up, both at the major league minimum.

by Tom Dakers on Nov 25, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Running out Johnny Mac in LF makes less sense than Wilkerson or Mench.

And having him start at SS for a rebuilding team makes zero sense.

If this team is going to rebuild, let’s wholescale rebuild. Give Angel Sanchez the job, and if it doesn’t work, try someone else.

This team is 2-3 years, at least, of effective management away from competing. Johnny Mac will be retired by then. You might as well at least SEE what else you have.

by Jevant on Nov 25, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Personally, I see MacDonald’s signing right now as an insurance move; he can play a bunch of positions on a team that’s been snakebitten in the injury department for the last three years. He can play two of the positions that the Jays don’t currently have a starter for, and can be slotted in if necessary.

On top of that, it’s a sop to the fans. He’s the most popular Blue Jay following Halladay, who is likely going to be traded. The Jays know they’re going to get it in the teeth in attendance, and decided they know they aren’t going to contend in 2010. That being said, why not offer a better than market contract to the guy the fans love, who if things go badly in the off season or spring training, you might end up needing right away?

by dexfarkin on Nov 25, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you need him you've screwed up big time.

I can’t imagine any position you might think you want him to play other than short.

by Tom Dakers on Nov 25, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

John M has a comparative advantage in fielding. In games that Jays have cemented, he can be used as defensive option to increase the probability of winning the game. In short, he can deliver better defense than other players.

In contrast, Bautista offers no real competitive advantage (save for maybe slightly better arm). So if you are using him, you are not making the team better and thus not increasing the probability of a win. Unlike JM, IMHO, JB is an indication that the team will not fare well.

by aagoodfella on Nov 25, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to bag on Bautista too badly. I mean, he is a respectable fill-in. But he does not boost the teams capacity in any way. JM does boost defensive capacity

by aagoodfella on Nov 25, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BUT

If you are slotting in Jo-Bau instead of J-Mac, you are getting an infinitely better bat.

Unless you are only talking defence. But even defensive substitutes sometimes need to hit, and it’s carry a completely dead-weight on the bench when it comes to the plate.

by Jevant on Nov 25, 2009 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“infinitely” ? that would be a generous characterization

by aagoodfella on Nov 25, 2009 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jose Bautista’s career OPS+ is 91. Nothing special, but not atrocious, like Mac’s 57.

by Jevant on Nov 26, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yea, but if you are going to have Mac or Agon in the lineup, than you can no longer carry a bat as soft as JoBa

the 1992 WS Jays carried Manny Lee’s soft bat, but the rest of the order, as Dakers pointed out was strong … so if the Jays want to be competitve this year with a soft bat this year, than they need to fill out the rest of the order with strong bats, a condition which JoBa cannot satisfy, IMHO

by aagoodfella on Nov 26, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Have you seen the injury history of this team?

After 2007 and 2008, I trust the fact that the Jays will end up screwed by injuries badly at some point in the season. I’m big on a couple of multi-dimensional fielders. Besides, JM isn’t bad at either 2B or 3B.

by dexfarkin on Nov 25, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jays won the 1992 World Series with Manny Lee at SS, a weak-batted glove-talented player. So it can be done.

If the Jays become very competitive and it is late innings with a lead, there may be multiple ops to use JM at 3B. Plus, EE could get injured again. etc.

I am not saying that it would be great to have a great glove and bat combo in the roster spot, just saying signing JM is not indicative of a bad season for the Jays.

by aagoodfella on Nov 25, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ummmm with Manny Lee there were half a dozen All-Stars and the next year we replaced him with Tony Fernandez

The Jays have told us we aren’t winning this year, why not try someone that might be there when the team might be ready to win

by Tom Dakers on Nov 25, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

true

by aagoodfella on Nov 25, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

If you’re going to sign a stopgap, sign someone like Mike Cameron who might actually help us win a couple of games.

J-Mac is not going to save games.

And the attendance argument made above by someone (can’t remember who) doesn’t really make sense either. A reserve infielder is not going to pull fans to the park if Hill/Lind/the team doesn’t.

by Jevant on Nov 25, 2009 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yea, I m not a big buyer of the attendance argument

you know what drives attendance? winning! that is what counts and that should be the primary consideration driving all signings

by aagoodfella on Nov 25, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The reason we didn’t sign draft choice 2 and 3 was a difference of very little in asking price and offering price. I’d have much rather given those 2 players want they wanted and let Mike McCoy play short and Jarrett Hoffpauir back him up, both at the major league minimum.

The point though is that signing JM for $1.5m and not meeting the demands of the 2nd and 3rd prospect are not necessarily interconnected. The Jays didn’t sign the 2nd and 3rd prospect because they did not value them at their asking price. Why? What methodology was used to make that decision? We have no idea the variables. It could be something as obtuse as repositioning for the 2010 draft for all we know. And, it’s just as likely if we’d met the asking price, the Jays would have still offered JM $1.5m this year. So I think it isn’t valid to an argument about value to link the two, as there is no demonstrable connection that I’ve seen.

by dexfarkin on Nov 25, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

high schoolers with college committments

will have little leverage in the 2010 draft. If they don’t sign and head to college for two years, they take the substantial risk that they’ll be coming out in a 2012 draft, complete with a slotting system for bonuses.

At least, that occured to me as being a possibility.

by ayjackson on Nov 25, 2009 3:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

grammar needs some work

by ayjackson on Nov 25, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

talent pool will be deeper at the top

because the intention is to make it an international draft as well in 2012

by ayjackson on Nov 25, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh why...

That’s an interesting point you make about changes to the MLB Draft. Clearly – something has to be done – the worse teams have to be able to draft – AND SIGN – the best players otherwise it will continue to be a farce.

by Mylegacy on Nov 25, 2009 4:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Like Johnny Mac, but not worth $1.5 mil.

I’m not surprised the Sox would be willing to deal Casey Kelly, since they really don’t know what his MLB potential is because he’s splitting time between SS and SP. Although if the Jays get him, hopefully they can convince him to be a SP and maybe offer him a chance to be a pinch-hitter / defensive sub and maybe even start a game here and there.

by Belligerent Burkie on Nov 25, 2009 4:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs