Thursday Romero-Butterfield Bantering
by hugo on Feb 11, 2010 7:41 AM EST
in News
38 comments
Good morning, y'all. I'm celebrating the fact that we still have power with a Thursday early morning post.
The Star's Richard Griffin has a great interview with Jays third-base coach and infield guru Brian Butterfield. Butters talks about the Jays' lack of speed on the basepaths, the changing of the front-office guard, and the Jays' potential leadoff and #2 hitters (without mentioning any names):
"Cito is real concerned with guys being comfortable," Butterfield said. "It's important. If a guy doesn't feel comfortable in leadoff or the two-hole, you have to take that into consideration. All we're trying to do is put guys in positions where they can have the most success."
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of batting Encarnacion #2 against lefties and Overbay #2 against righties. Of course, this doesn't solve the leadoff hitter problem. But I remember Gibbons hitting Overbay #2 for a while and Overbay not taking to it. Likely that is some of what Butterfield is talking about here. What I know is that I don't want to "waste" Overbay's abiility to reach base by batting him 7th against righties like we did last season, in front of a couple of out machines.
Anyway, Butterfield also talks to Griffin about whether he has interest in filling the managerial vacancy that will be left by Gaston's move to consultant after 2010:
"Things change," the 52-year-old Butterfield explained. "You mature. It intrigues me to think about the possibilities of one day handling the full group. I think I could have fun with it. I know I am prepared, but I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I'm immersed in my responsibility. You try to let your body of work be your agent, and the thing I've always hoped for is that a certain set of eyes would appreciate that body of work and it might lead to something at the next level."
Certainly sounds like he is throwing his hat in the ring.
I also really enjoyed this Jordan Bastian piece on Ricky Romero:
Midway through December, though, Romero and a large group of his friends met up for lunch at a restaurant near his home in California. While they swapped stories and dined, the TVs in the bar began airing a news conference from Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia.
Roy Halladay -- the longtime ace of the Blue Jays -- had been traded to the Phillies. Romero and his buddies watched Halladay hold up his new white home jersey with red pinstripes. They saw Doc smiling as he tried on a bright red hat and listened as Romero's former teammate talked about his new opportunity with Philadelphia.
It did not take long for Romero's friends to connect the dots.
"They all kind of looked at me and said, 'Well, it looks like you're going to be the new ace,'" Romero recalled. "I just started laughing."
"Do I consider myself an ace?" Romero said during a phone conversation this week. "Obviously not."
Bastian uses the example to talk about the open question that is the Jays' 2010 rotation, as well as the young talent that came back in the Halladay trade and who will serve as a mentor for them the way that Doc mentored young Jays' pitchers for years. Romero also relayed this funny story about Doc:
Thinking back to Toronto's final days of the 2009 season, Romero chuckles.
"I remember after his last start, Doc said, 'That's it. I'm not working out. I'm done,'" Romero said. "The next day, he's in the weight room and I was like, 'What are you doing? You're not pitching anymore.' He said, 'I got bored.'"
Some other tidbits:
- Mike Wilner clarified what has been a source of confusion on his site and on this site as well - David Purcey is not out of options.
- The Drunks fret about the G20 summit throwing a wrench in Roy Halladay's return to T-dot. I love me some Doc, fellas, but the world economy is sort of a big deal right now, too.
- Jeff Blair doesn't truck with people criticizing the Kevin Gregg signing:
he’s value shopping, adding a serviceable arm with some track record at a low price. Gregg will not be anywhere near the ninth inning when the Blue Jays are playing meaningful games.
I agree with the last sentence, but I'm not really seeing the "value" here. At best, you're paying about market value for a relief pitcher, which isn't typically a great idea. More importantly, Gregg may be taking late-inning opportunities from guys like Josh Roenicke who could be near the ninth inning when the Blue Jays are playing meaningful games.
- As Tom mentioned in the comments yesterday, Jon Paul Morosi of Fox Sports reports that the Jays are interested in Endy Chavez. Chavez is historically a fantastic defender at all three outfield positions, but he is coming off ACL surgery and is 32 so whether he can continue to be such a strong defender is in question. And the Jays already have two younger left-handed, all-glove, no-bat options in Jeremy Reed and Joey Gathright.
What say you, fellow banterers?
0 recs |
38 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Not to sound inhospitable, but I really do not want to see Reed or Gathright in a Jays uniform this year. The team will really be hurting if these guys hit the field.
one of them as the 5th outfielder might not be too bad
it’d be good to have a backup centrefielder, if nothing else, no? I definitely agree that I don’t want to see either one getting many at-bats, and I think there’s an argument that neither is really an upgrade over Buck Coats. But I do like the idea of having at least one gloveman who can fill in in all three spots in the outfield, and while neither Reed nor Gathright is much with the bat, Reed’s career numbers against righties are better than Bautista’s and Chavez’s aren’t any worse (Gathright’s are, though).
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
I would like to see the Jays offer Damon (2.5 and 2.5) versus Braves offer of (2 and 2). He could be a good influence on guys like Snider, Lind (not that he needs that much more good influence) and Wallace
by aagoodfella on Feb 11, 2010 10:15 AM EST up reply actions
Damon is nice for a couple of reasons
he can only play left, which pushes Snider to Right and Bautista to the bench against righties.
He also solves the leadoff hitter problem. I don’t get why we don’t have $2.5 for Damon, who was a 3 WAR player last year (3.6 in 2008) but we have $2.75 for Kevin Gregg. I know he wants a 2-year deal, but he seems to be aging pretty well, particularly offensively, although UZR thought his defense dipped last year.
And then there’s the fact that he’s just a good hitter.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
He’s also a really really good baserunner. I know his SBs are a little more limited these days, but his base to base instincts are exceptional. I can’t find the stats, but I think he was only tagged out trying to extend a hit into a double once all of last year.
I was rereading ‘Men At Work’, and there’s a big section on LeRussa talking about stolen bases and pressuring the pitchers, and something that clicked with what I’ve been thinking for some time is that a team doesn’t have to be fast and steal bases so long as they are intelligent about extending singles and going first-third, second-home; it puts almost as much pressure on pitchers as stolen bases, spreads that pressure to more players for the greater chance of a mistake, and does so with less risk.
I was actually thinking of the same thing
reading that Butterfield interview where he talks about the baserunners “fighting for secondary leads” to make sure they can go first to third and second to home. stealing bases is a very effective way to put pressure on the defense and the pitcher, but it’s only one way.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Big cavaet here; I love small ball. I don’t think it’s the way to build a winner in a league with a DH, but it’s the kind of game I most enjoy watching. Billy Martin’s sheer onbase lunancy he concocted as the manager of the Yankees is far more entertaining to me than Earl Weaver’s ‘three run homerun’ philosophy. However, if my life was hanging on a game, I’d take Weaver over Martin without a hesitation. So, there is a little bias in this.
One of my big pet peeves with most defensive metrics is that you can’t really account for team defense, and what makes a good or bad defender is almost as much how they fit into the team defensive profile as it is individual ability at their position. SB are fairly high risk (average 33% failure rate) and really only involve three defenders. Stretching to a double, or threatening second to home effects up six to seven defenders directly, by far increasing the chances of a rushed throw or error in your favour, radically changes the defensive strategy, and strains the flexibility to react optimumly to the ball in play.
baserunning
his baserunning has been almost as many runs above average as his batting and significantly more above average than his fielding. at 70 baserunning runs above average, he’s just 9 runs behind Lou Brock and 14 above Maury Wills. Kind of amazing.
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/d/damoj001.htm
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
His numbers last year had alot to do with the new yankee ball park IMO
His hitting chart is right here. You can click on any ball park and type of hits. He Hit 17 HR at home last year. Not sure he can hit 24 again but besides that I think it would be a good move.
Problem is that Damon clearly desires to play for the Yankees and, I believe, has said that he wouldn’t mind signing with another team and then get traded to the Yanks at the deadline. So, do you really want a guy like this that’s not dedicated to your team and, in fact, wants to desperately play for your arch nemesis in the division? How good of an influence can he be?
Romero/Butterfield comments
Read both articles – loved them both. We’ll need a manager for 2011 & to allow for continuity & stability Butterfield’s name certainly makes sense. As for Romero admitting he is not an ace, no issue with that. His Halladay story was funny…typical Doc. As for Purcey not being out of options…phew! As for Endy Chavez…I was thinking about why he wasn’t an option…no harm in adding another outfielder to the mix. Let Reed, Gathright, & Chavez battle it out & force the youngsters to get better. Disappointed we let Inglett get away…liked his versatility & think we will miss that in the short term. Go Jays Go!
Romero
Unfortunately I have a feeling this guy is not going to be very good.. :S
Dye/Delgado
Delgado is talking about retiring. Dye is unemployed and willing to play 1B.
If we’re starting Bautista in RF, why would we not sign Dye?
Damon, Dye, Delgado…you could make a pitch that two of these guys could be real assets to this team (and they’d be taking at bats from Bautista and someone like Overbay, potentially).
Knights, Canucks, Dolphins, Jays and Raptors all the way.
I don’t really think that about Dye, but certainly a cheap pick up of either Delgado or Damon, but not both, would immediately help the team. The key is that you have to make some decisions based around that. Delgado, according to all reports, can’t play first base any longer. That means you’re looking at Lind going back into the OF. If you get Damon as well, Lind needs to go to first, and now you’re looking to move Overbay. Moving Overbay only makes sense if you’re getting some value back and absolutely not eating any payroll. It also means Ruiz is now off the table as getting a real look next year.
Personally, I think you’d have to make an either/or decision. Of the two, I’d personally go with Delgado, because I don’t think Lind is a particularly awful fielder and at his age, he’s better off in LF. I’d also move Overbay and give Ruiz the starting firstbaseman’s job with Dopirak and Wallace waiting in the wings. If he rakes, I’m moving him for pieces at the deadline. If Wallace isn’t ready by that time, I’m giving Dopirak and Cooper a long look there.
the point
is that you don’t want to lose 100 games
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Why not?
Harper Express!
They're not just hitting home runs. They're doing the little things, like hitting doubles.
Devil's Advocate speaking, of course
They're not just hitting home runs. They're doing the little things, like hitting doubles.
im fulling for tanking and we are already gonna lose more then last year. so why not take a top 3 pick?
Plus if your going to go after free agents to compete why not get Holliday, Lackey etc etc instead of Dye and Delgado?
the point isn't to compete for a playoff spot this season
it’s to field a team that is worth watching. you may be “fulling for tanking” (whatever that means), but it’s not very fun to watch a team lose 100 games. This is a tree we’ve climbed before . . . it’s grown men playing a game for kids, all games are meaningful and meaningless at the same time.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
And top picks don’t pan out nearly as much in baseball as they do in other sports.
Life as a Toronto Sports Fan?... *sigh*... It is what it is...
fulling = Fully
We are already going to be losing 90 games this year, ten more wont make a difference.
except
to the people attending and watching those 10 games. I typically watch and attend baseball games for enjoyment, and I get more enjoyment out of a win than a loss.
All other things being equal, I think the Jays should field the best team that doesn’t compromise their future success. The idea of intentionally being terrible to get a better draft pick is cute, in a movie-script sort of way, but has no real applicability to the actual world.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Where do you draw the line?
If losing ten more games this year results in one extra win in 2013, don’t you have to do it because not doing it is compromising future success?
They're not just hitting home runs. They're doing the little things, like hitting doubles.
I wouldn't call 1 game 3 years from now
compromising future success, no. There’s a big difference in my mind between, for example, not handicapping a team with a bad contract down the road and intentionally or semi-intentionally tanking with the goal of getting a better draft pick. Among other things, the pick is extremely speculative – sure, all things equal you want the better pick, but how many times has a lower pick been a better player than a higher one? Many many times, each year. You also have to consider that being bad enough to get a really good pick is going to have repercussions in terms of fan support and attracting players, both free agents but also resigning your own guys.
I do agree you have to draw the line, and where you do that is something on which reasonable people can disagree. But the idea that the team is going to be bad, so it makes no difference how many games they lose — well, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Now, if someone wants to make the case that it will actually improve the team in the long run to intentionally be worse now, well, that’s fair enough, but that’s a very hard case to make in my view.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
If a free agent will turn down big money from a 100 loss team
the 90 loss team isn’t going to have a chance either. Lower picked players are better than higher picked players all the time, but that’s not because anyone thought they were worse, it’s because they wanted over slot money, and the poor teams with the early picks couldn’t afford them. (Unless you’re talking about hindsight, which isn’t really relevant to the discussion.) If we’re not willing to go over slot then we’ll never be able to compete with teams that both go over slot and sign expensive (and not-so-expensive) free agents. If we’re taking it for granted that we’re paying draft picks over slot, then of course the higher pick is better. There’s only a handful of impact talent in each draft pool, and guaranteeing a shot at one of them is better than hoping what few worse teams there are are cheapskates.
They're not just hitting home runs. They're doing the little things, like hitting doubles.
but you don't guarantee a shot at one
that’s the whole point. Even if you are putting subpar talent on the field, the players are still trying their hardest to win each and every game and lots of games are decided by luck and random variation (i.e. one-run games), so you aren’t guaranteeing a shot at a high draft pick just by fielding a bad team, nor are you really trying to finish at the bottom of the league. All you’re doing is guaranteeing that you won’t have a really good season. The only way to “guarantee” a shot at a top pick is to have your players throw games.
It is dishonest and logically incoherent to intentionally put poorer players on the field, which is why no teams do it. Teams pinch pennies and so don’t sign players, of course, but that’s not the same thing as not signing a cost-effective player because you intentionally want to finish at the bottom of the league.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Telling the players to throw games would probably get you in trouble with the league
but someone out there is probably willing to give up a package ‘worth’ Hill or Lind.
They're not just hitting home runs. They're doing the little things, like hitting doubles.
"32 pitchers will compete for 12 jobs"
That’s the subhead in the latest Jays article at MLB.com.
Anyone have any historical insight in how this number of 32 pitchers coming into spring training compares to past years? It does sound like a big number and raises the question of how they’ll all get proper looks. That said, don’t know how this compares to previous years, and imagine that some of this 32 number are still the walking wounded while others might already be slated for the minors, etc, so maybe this isn’t the number of serious candidates..
I think, last year, the number was 28 or something like that.
generally lots of pitchers come into spring training but like you say most are already earmarked for a spot in the minors. I think this year we have a high water level of guys with a serious shot at making the team, at least at some point during the season.
Certainly
Every team always has a metric ton of pitchers aiming for a rotation job in Spring Training, but normally, there’s only really five or six real candidates for a couple of jobs. This year, there’s close to twenty guys who could theorically win a rotation job out of Spring Training, which is a little insane.
Eveland, Purcey, Richmond, Tallet, Romaro, McGowan, Marcum, Scrabble, Stewart, Drebak, Morrow, Mills, Cecil, Janssen, Ray, Perez, and Gonzalez are all going to get a serious look in the spring, as will Litsch and Hill later in the year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bluebird Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Padres just scratch their heads as losing streak reaches 10
- The Juice: Marlins get off the deck, stun Braves in extras
- Papelbon's implosion, comment, make Red Sox want to scream
- Rangers fall after Young gets touchy feely with third base coach
- Tony La Russa vs. Colby Rasmus: Who ya throwing overboard?
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
