Please, Rogers/AA, a bat to protect Jose and a veteran innings-eating SP
by Blastov on Jan 16, 2012 11:09 AM EST
Email
PrintThis ground has been covered endlessly but any other discussion just distracts from the obvious - a big bat and a 200-inning, veteran SP would make the Jays supremely interesting, if not wildcard material. I've commented here before to the effect that Rogers has a product to sell, that baseball is entertainment, and that Rogers is failing its customers. Revenue will rise if the team is good because the lurking fanbase is huge. So, please, sign an Oswalt, or a Harden and maybe a Carlos Lee, too bad about Beltran. AA, you can work trade miracles, the farm system is happening, you just need a little more seed money to make this work. Better.
148 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Want to be Nice
Three things you are going to hear:
1) Why Veteran? Won’t any 200 inning pitcher do?
2) I’m sure AA is working hard to find a bat, but what is the point of buying a big bat that adds negative surplus value to the team. (See work done by Mjmw)
3) Carlos Lee?
@VagabondBansal
Seriously
Carlos Lee made me throw-up in my mouth.
I just had 2 cups of coffee too -nasty.
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Didn't you hear?
According to our skipper, Cecil and Rasmus are just the dudes to fill those roles
In AA I trust
by FirstChurchofBLawrie on Jan 16, 2012 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
Carlos Lee would protect Bautista..
in a way that Lawrie/Encarnacion/Escobar can’t?
Blogging about the Toronto Blue Jays at Bluebird Banter
Btw, if you want pitchers to throw strikes to Bautista
Your best bet would be to ensure no-one gets on base in front of him.
In that sense, Carlos Lee might not be a bad option to hit in front of Bautista, since I think his OBP could be quite bad going forward. Good thinking!
Blogging about the Toronto Blue Jays at Bluebird Banter
by Woodman663 on Jan 16, 2012 11:51 AM EST reply actions 7 recs
The Jays are projected to have a payroll at about 80M right now
once you factor in arbitration and league minimum players, which is an increase of ~10M over last year. They are increasing spending, just perhaps not as fast or in as in your face way as some people want.
I get that it is fun to rail against big evil corporations, I just think that the biggest thing keeping this team from doing what you want them to do is that the Jays front office would rather go into next season giving their young players a chance to fill that role (and exceed it if the options available include Harden and Lee), rather then delay their development with over priced free agents who may or may not perform better then the cheaper in house options.
Nadir is that you?
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Eh
Is there a link to this projection?
Looking at Cot’s I don’t see an $80M active payroll as likely. looks more like low-mid 70’s-ish.
I thought he said high 80’s? Not that it matters much, the only groups whose words I trust less then Pro-athletic execs (In General) are Politicians and real estate agent recommended Home Inspectors.
What is the deal with these Home Inspectors?
Can I get paid 2K to look around too?
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
I ran the numbers myself
Currently at 51.725M as per cots
+0.25M for Rauch buyout
+15.7M arbitration awards (based on mlbtraderumors.com estimates)
+2.7M Rasmus
+4M Oliver
+5.678M in 13 league minimum players – Valbuena, Cecil, Snider, McCoy, Arencibia, Drabek, Alvarez, Beck, Carreno, Thames, Hoey, Lawrie, and Perez. I used 13 because that matched last year’s total of 32 players on the COTS salary spreadsheet … this is where it gets a bit muddied, but is the best I could come up with based on the COTS spreadsheets.
by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 16, 2012 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Yes we are….he was released today by the team.
"It's only through change we learn to grow".
by Canadian Jet on Jan 18, 2012 2:40 AM EST up reply actions
luckily
acquiring a “big bat” and an “innings eating SP” (ie: acquiring two very good players) is easy because no other team has a need for a big bat or an innings eating SP
by benk on Jan 16, 2012 11:59 AM EST reply actions 4 recs
ban
+1 is only good if you actually rec the post
by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 16, 2012 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
Power Struggle
Is Bowling_Guy25 attempting a coup?
Find out on the next episode of BBB Power Struggle!
@VagabondBansal
Hmm, haven't heard from JohnnyG in awhile
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
Bwhahahah
+1 is only good if you actually rec the post
by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 16, 2012 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
I think we can ban Tom too
Not that I would ever do it unless he turns evil/gets possessed.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Jan 16, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Do these type of guys really need to be added?
Lineup this year is probably:
Escobar SS
Johnson 2B
Bautista RF
Lind 1B
Encarnacion DH
Rasmus CF (depending on how he and Lind go, this could switch)
Lawrie 3B (might switch with EE)
Snider/Thames LF (depending on who wins the job)
Arencibia C
All these guys have serious potential. Bautista and Escobar should be fine. Despite all the hate, Lind had a great season in ‘09 and was off to a great start last year (he claimed he was dealing with a sore back later in the season). Rasmus had a great ’10 season and could rebound (same with Johnson). Arencibia, Snider/Thames and Lawrie are all young and improving (we hope with Snider). EE showed he’s not a bad hitter when he’s not worried about throwing balls into the stands.
As for the rotation, same story applies, serious potential. Alvarez, Drabek, McGowan, and Morrow all averaged 93 mph or higher on their fastballs (that’s near the tops in average fastball velocity). All have plus breaking pitches (Morrow with his slider, Drabek’s curve) or offspeed pitches (Alvarez). Romero should be fine and Cecil isn’t far removed from a decent 2010 season (and he looks like he’s in better shape already this winter).
With this much potential, why not see what you have? What’s the point of blocking talent when you have a lot on your major league roster and more coming up through the minors (Gose, d’Arnaud, Marisnick, Hutchison, Syndergaard, etc.)?
I actually think this team will be very exciting and has a chance to pull off a surprise like the Rays in ’08.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
No more talking about potential! We want proven veterans! How about ManRam?
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Jan 16, 2012 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Haha
Almost thought that list was a lineup until I saw Lind at #4
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
by Pikachu on Jan 16, 2012 5:01 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Not the beginning of the season
I’m not sticking a 22 years old to hit cleanup. After midseason, let’s see
why though?
too much pressure on a rookie? I think Lawrie’s the type to not give a crap about that. I think he’ll enjoy it, even.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
Not pressure
He has all of 150 PAs to his name…let’s see him put up those kind of numbers over a larger sample before we annoint him the second or third best hitter on the team. And let’s also not have him figuring things out with a ton of baserunners on
how do we know that Lawrie will respond negatively if batted 4th (or 2nd or whatever)?
some people seem to have determined a priori that Lawrie would respond poorly to the supposed increased pressure of hitting 4th rather than, say, 6th or 7th. Apparently, it’;s better to have a bad hitter (Lind) bat in a critical role than a better hitter (Lawrie), because the former has been bad for a long time while the latter has only been good for a short time.
First, I don’t get why there is more pressure batting 4th than 7th – I can see a player pressing way more batting 7th since he is more likely to be on with fewer runners on base with poor hitters directly ahead of him. This may lead to a player thinking “I need to hit make sure I swing for XBHs, since the guys behind me aren’t very good,” changing his swing/approach and suffering deleterious effects. When batting 4th (i.e. surrounded by better hitters and more likely to have guys ahead of him in scoring position), he can focus on just getting on base/getting hits however they come. If anything, this seems to me equally as likely as a guy saying “OMG cleanup, I can’t doo this!!!!1”
Second, how do we know how any player would respond in such a situation? Isn’t it possible that certain players (or even many/most/all players) would relish increased responsibilities and up their efforts to “prove they belong” at 4. Batting 4th might give Lawrie (who is a pretty confident player, by most accounts) a boost in his performance, not cause him to swoon. In this scenario, batting cleanup would be beneficial to Lawrie. I don’t see why this is less likely to happen than him crumbling under the pressure.
Rather than fret over “makeup” and “pressure,” let’s just put our best players in the most important positions to succeed. If the Jays don’t have guys who can step up when the chips are down, then we don’t really having the makings of a contending club, anyway. If Lawrie isn’t the type of player to succeed in a high pressure role, we should rethink building the team with him as a centrepiece.
by SuckaMD on Jan 17, 2012 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Rather than fret over "makeup" and "pressure," let’s just put our best players in the most important positions to succeed.
And that’s rpecisely the point. Lawrie has all of 150 PAs to his credit at the MLB level. We don;t know exactly what his true talent is…other than it’s probably an above average offensive player. Becuase he basically only got 5 weeks in, he hasn’t gone around the league, had to make adjustments, really scuffled yet. SO the argument is, let’s see exactly how good he is, before putting him in arguably the most critical position behind Bautista.
Even then, we have to ask whether he’s suited to be a cleanup hitter. Personally, I see him as more of a 2-3 type, hitting in front of Bautista…depending on how much power he develops.
Finally, Adam Lind blows against lefties, but against righties he’s one of th better hitters on this team. Against lefties he should never be hitting cleaning – I’d argue he shouldn’t be playing much, period, but certainly not hitting above say, 6th or 7th. Even then, EE can slot in the cleanup spot against lefties quite ably. This argument has nothing to with pressure, blah, blah, blah. It has to do with production, plain and simple
I like Lawrie at #2 also
with Bautista at 4, for lineup optimization reasons that have been discussed many times before. In my ideal scenario, I’d put the Lind/EE platoon (definitely do not want Lind batting vs LHP) 5th.
For top 5 in the lineup, I’d go:
Escobar, Lawrie, Rasmus/Johnson/Snider, Bautista, Lind/EE
followed by something like:
another of Johnson/Rasmus/Snider
other platoon DH (EE vs RHP/Francisco vs LHP, prolly)
the third of Johnson/Rasmus/Snider
JPA
My argument is more that a player is pretty much going to play to the samwe skill level regardless of where he is put in the lineup. So you want to put your best players in the most important spots (which are, according to lineup optimization calculations/simulations: 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 3rd, 6, 7, 9, 8). If we think Lawrie is going to be one of the team’s best hitters (and I do), there is no point waiting to put him in an important role, wasting time with an inferior player in that role until Lawrie “proves himself.” I think he’s a better hitter than Lind, so rather than wait for him to prove me right, I’d prefer to stick him in and have him prove me wrong.
Okay
Assuming that Escobar is the best suited #1 on the team, and Bautista is the best hitter overall, I’m not ready to annoint Brett Lawrie the next best hitter on this team. Certainly not when a platoon of LInd/EE can esaily project for 850+ OPS
Ya, that's fair, even if I think Lawrie will be at least that good
if we are going to use a strict platoon EE/Lind, I can live with them batting cleanup or wherever. But I don’t want to bury Lawrie down at 7th. Even if you don’t think Lawrie is the third best hitter on the team, he’s gotta be in the top 5, so I definitely want him in the top 5 in the order.
Basically, I want Escobar, Bautista, Lawrie, and EE/Lind (assuming a platoon is actually being used) in the top 5. Order doesn’t really matter that much, but I don’t want Bautista batting 3rd (even though it’s going to happen).
150 PA shoudln't be judged
Negatively or positively. I didn’t agree with Thames batting 2nd, I don’t agree with Lawrie in the top 4 of the lineup. I would personally slot him 7th for the season then re-evaluate at the end of the season.
I think by mid-season
You’ll have a good enough idea…it’ll be the equivalent of 3/4 of a full season
I didn't agree with Thames hitting second
but that’s because of his poor on-base/contact skills, not because he was a rookie. Lawrie is a much better hitter.
Based on 150 PA...
I kind of agree with MjwW. I wouldn’t be to opposed to re-evaluating mid season.
I would not slot a guy with 150 PA in his career in the number 4 slot whether he is Pujols, A Rod, or Lawrie.
Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree here but I’m not a fan of the rookie/barely not a rookie type players being pressured at the top of the order. I feel they have too much to deal with on and off the field when they make it to the bigs to face that kind of pressure.
I kind of wish Lawrie came up hitting .170/.250/.400 when he came up because people would have much more realistic expectations.
but as I asked before
how do you know that the pressure is going to affect a player negatively? isn’t it also possible that throwing a guy into the proverbial fire at the top of the lineup right from the get-go encourages him to play better to prove he belongs? Lawrie seems like just the player to fall into the latter category.
Lawrie seems like just the player to fall into the latter category.
Again, judgements based on 150 PA. All I’m saying is I wouldn’t demand excellence from a 22 year old.
he possesses swagger
not swag. Unless he went to a party with lots of free giveaways or won a radio contest or something.
But, yes, by accounts Lawrie is a player supremely confident in his abilities and eager to jump in and prove he belongs. He seems like just the person to get a boost from added pressure/responsibility, rather than shrinking from it.
Word!
Yeah, I truly believe we have an extremely good lineup, providing we stay healthy. As far as getting a front line rotation type? I’d be alright with that too. But by mid-summer and beyond were going to have so many young arms worthy of a shot in the show that it would be unfortunate to have no place for them to try out in the bigs.
It’s not like were really ready to compete this year anyway, although it will be extremely exciting to watch, so I’m good with waiting a little longer to see what we got.
I wish the 1994 strike would have never happened :(
by ExposTurnedBlue77 on Jan 17, 2012 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
Entitlement
Sure, I deserve scorn for pointing out the obvious. Sure, practically every team has exactly the same wishlist. Sure, Carlos Lee is not the answer. Sure, the 200-inning pitcher need not be a veteran.
But other large market teams make attempts to address their needs – in the expectation that it will boost the bottom line. Rogers expects you to pay up first. Drink up.
by Blastov on Jan 16, 2012 12:29 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
I propose a new drink for disgruntled Jays' fans
Here’s the recipe:
1 part Canadian rye whiskey (so Canadian!)
2 parts Rogers Kool-Aid (mmm, so delicious, wait, why is my cable/internet/phone/wireless bill so high?!)
2-3 dashes of bitters (pretty self-explanatory)
We’ll call it the Alex Anthopoulos
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
by JaysfanDL on Jan 16, 2012 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
Better get some Ouzo in there if we're calling it that
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
because it's a Greek name...
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
and Ouzo is a Greek drink..
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Makes sense, you can add some Ouzo if you like
For the Paul Beeston, just make the original drink and enjoy with a fine cigar.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
Make sure you remove your socks though.
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Naturally
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
not even in the winter time.
How does he get around? By limo I suppose but what if has to walk to the store? Does he wear boots sans socks -I just don’t know.
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
Fur-lined boots, I'm guessing
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
that Greek people like to drink...
and although Alex Anthopoulos is Canadian he probably like it…
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
as do most Greek-Canadians I know.
I live near the Danforth.
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, Carlos Lee is not the answer.
So why did you bring him up?
by Mathlete on Jan 16, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah...
I don’t think “supremely interesting” is one of the criteria for Anthopolous when putting this team together. If you make moves like that you have to be reasonably assured of playoffs, and given the question marks around much of the roster, he cannot be.
by Aidin on Jan 16, 2012 1:12 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I don't see the point.
Yankees, Angels, and Rays will be insanely good, all three 100 win teams I think. My guess is the Rangers will sign Fielder and Darvish so add them to that list. Boston right below that level..with lots of time to make a big move still. Even with expensive additions either through free agency, or prospect cost..it’s a slim to none chance that they grab that extra wildcard..for a one game chance at the playoffs. Plus it puts the onus on the Jays to make the playoffs, from the average fans perspective, if they make moves like that. Which could end up setting their reconciliation back instead of helping it, if they under perform. We have a team full of high ceiling players who are just entering their prime years, with a really well stocked farm system to keep feeding the talent, Let them play, if they’re in the hunt at the trade deadline make some trades then
Small chance that either the Yankees or Rays win 100 games
Let alone both of them winning 100 games. There’s an unbalanced schedule and they both play in the AL East means that they play each other 19 times. Add in the Boston Red Sox, who should still be a very good team and the Jays, who are likely to play at least 500. That’s a significant chunk of your schedule playing against good teams. The Orioles look a lot worse than they really are simply because of their schedule.
The Angels have a far better chance at 100 wins, mostly because their competitors in the division are much much weaker.
yeah my bad
I guess I was describing those four teams as 100 win teams, so far as talent potential goes, not them actually doing it.
Just wait
Until the Angels have Houston in thei division. They get to beat up on them, Seattle and Oakland almost 60 times a year. No way one of the wilcards doesn’t come from the west for the next 3 years.
Man who has four balls cannot walk
by Beer Leaguer on Jan 16, 2012 3:05 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
I love how Pujols is going to turn to dust in 3 years
I mean, the signing looks so good now but it essentially locks out the Angels from being able to do anything for the other 7 years. There is no way a reportedly 32 year old player (which isn’t even confirmed) can contribute much in 5 years never mind 10.
I wish I had a time machine...
so I could go 7 years into the future and laugh at all the Angel fans and their team.
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 16, 2012 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
What about last year when the Jays traded Vern to them?
I have to admit, I laughed a lot.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 16, 2012 8:19 PM EST up reply actions
So true
I know big FA contracts aren’t always bad but man o man, a 10 year, backloaded, to a 32 year old with questions about his age?
Its like a perfect storm to lock them out – long term anyways.
Seriously? Again?
This team is really still developing.
It blows my mind that the Jays get the makings of an awesome farm system and some “success” that a certain segment of the fan base suddenly believes the Jays are in the “hunt”
At this point I trust AA’s judgment of this team than any fan. AA has said that the Jays are closing in on being contenders, but not really close enough. Any premature blowing out the farm system and/or adding to the budget based on some false idea of contention is only going to hurt down the road when the Jays are in contention.
In terms of the past, I think the Jays are in a similar situation as they were in 1982/83/84. Good, but no where near good enough. All the pieces need time to click.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 16, 2012 8:28 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
People moan and cry about the Yanks/Red Sox/Rays
It was tougher in the 80s.
Only 1 out of 7 teams got to go to the big dance.
In 83- the Detroit Tigers, the Baltimore Orioles (WS Champ), Brewers and Yanks were all in the hunt for the AL East title.
In 84- the Tigers (WS Champ), sort of the Jays, the Red Sox, the Yanks and Orioles
New York was a powerhouse but poorly run.
Brew Crew went to the big dance in 82
Orioles were still good (83 WS champs)
Red Sox kind of sucked, but were in a minor rebuilding phase leading to the 86 and 90 AL East championship teams
The Tigers under Sparky were always a pain in the Jays side (84 WS champs)
The only team never to make to the playoffs during that time were the Cleveland Indians.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 16, 2012 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
'87
God that hurt..I almost felt bad for Red Sox fans when it happened to them.
How About We Add
Jack Morris and give him one more year to show why he deserves to be in the HoF. I bet he could still pitch 200 innings with an XYZDKIP of 3. Oooh, I’m getting all smiley just thinking about that XYZDKIP of 3 and what it’ll do for the Jays this year.
The Great Pikachu Doesn't Know XYZDKIP?
Why it’s the ability to strikeout opposing batters per inning while your zipper is down.
Jack Morris would bring us 3 of this. That puts us right up there with the Yankees and Rays.
I recommend that....
….we wait until the end of the week to see if Darvish signs and hence to see if Fielder signs and THEN to see if Michael Young is available.
Maybe this also frees up Ogando or Harrison
by BrownMagician on Jan 17, 2012 3:19 AM EST up reply actions
Harrison, yes
Ogando, maybe, though either will be expensive to acquire.
Young – please please please no
Michael Young is the white whale of a certain segment of the Jays' fanbase
They’ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames before they give him up.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
by JaysfanDL on Jan 17, 2012 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
do we know why?
is it because he was once a Jay and then was a good player like 6 years ago?
That's what I thought
totally off topic, I recently read an article about by Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair about the psychologist Daniel Kahnemann that discussed his work on the Conjunction Fallacy. I thought of you when I read it.
Oh yeah, I read that too
Have either of you (or anyone else reading this) read Thinking, Fast and Slow? If so, is it worth a read?
—-
OT MjwW, I just realized I forgot to reply to your email, sorry about that. I’ll get on that tomorrow.
Have not read it
But it’s on the list – will let you know if/when I get to it.
On the other thing, no worries, no rush.
And traded for a lousy pitcher in the false idea the Jays had a chance at a playoff spot.
Hey, that sounds familiar.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 17, 2012 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
so, presumably
if Zach Stewart has a good season in 2014 with the White Sox, Richard Griffin will start advocating that we acquire him back in approximately 2022
by SuckaMD on Jan 17, 2012 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 17, 2012 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
Woah slow down
He got an MVP vote, he must be good.
by scrambles the death dealer on Jan 20, 2012 1:53 AM EST up reply actions
Arr
About 5 years ago that probably would have been me, too.
I would have shrieked “ESTEBAN LOIAZA!!!!!” into my cellphone.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 17, 2012 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
Hey, he did get that 1st place MVP vote
It’s gotta count for something, right?
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 17, 2012 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I haven't read all the posts above yet so apologies if this is a repeat
but I am off the need for the Jays to add a big bat now. This close to Spring Training, i have bought into the concept that our additions last year will continue to improve this year, meaning our already top-rated offense will be even better, especially if we see improvements from Rasmus/Lind to go along with the improvements of Lawrie at 3b and a full season of KJ at 2b.
We could reallly be a darkhorse contender i feel. Pitching is questionable but you can’t evaluate the arms we have in the minors until we throw them into the fire that is the MLB. Here’s hoping one of our young arms catches on fire and gives us the rotation help we need.
Either way i’m starting to chomp at the bit for the start of spring training, i’m sure i’m not the only one around here.
by TrueBlue4Ever! on Jan 17, 2012 12:17 PM EST reply actions
the Jays offense was not top rated
it was 6th in MLB (IIRC) but was not even close to the Red Sox and Yankees. Full seasons of Lawrie, Rasmus, and KJ will definitely provide a big boost and we hope that JPA will improve his OBA and that Snider (or, I suppose, Thames) breaks out in LD. But the offense still has tons of room to improve (e.g. 1B/DH) and isn’t on par with either of those teams. I guess the Jays don’t “need” to add a big bat now, but any time you can improve your team, you should do it.
Also, just FYI (and yours is an extremely common misusage), the phrase is “champ at the bit” not “chomp”
I don't think anyone disagrees with the line "any time you can improve your team, you should do it"
I think the disagreement comes in the definition of “improve”. Does it mean this years win total? Next years? How about over the next 5 years? Just because a move helps us next year, it may end up costing us total wins in the future if it means a young player does not get ML experience, or costs us that young player. Or it may handcuff the team financially so they are unable to pick up other free-agents or extend players.
I’m not trying to imply this is what you are saying, but simply because you can improve the team today with a player, it does not mean that the overall outlook for the team will actually be better.
by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 17, 2012 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
I meant "improve" in the general sense
ie, improve your likelihood of meeting your goals for the team. If that’s win now, then you look for improvements now. If you are building for the future, then you look for improvements that will help with that. And you always look to make these improvements without paying a prohibitive cost. If such a move is available, it should always be made.
I know this is not really a controversial statement. Not everything on the internet needs to be argumentative :-P
What does champing even mean?
also, 6 in MLB is not top-rated? It is in my view. I am using top-rated as “amongst the top” not necessarily THEE TOP TEAM fyi… sorry for that miscommunique.
keep chompin away!
by TrueBlue4Ever! on Jan 17, 2012 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
no,
i didn’t read this post u mention, i have to admit. But i can tell you being the 6th best offense means you have less room to improve that being in the bottom of that listing, i guarantee.
by TrueBlue4Ever! on Jan 17, 2012 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know what champing means
a very quick google search seems to imply that it’s an archaic term for “salivating.” Regardless of what it means, that’s what the phrase is.
And 6th in MLB is not top-rated, it’s close to the top, but not at the top. And remember that we, as the 6th best offense, are chasing the #1 and #2 teams so we need to improve wherever possible.
Often, it will be difficult to drastically improve such an already-good offense that ranks #6. However, in the Jays’ specific case, there are still glaring holes at 1B/DH and LF. LF may be able to be filled internally, if Snider and/or Thames break out, but there is still room to improve at the other position even if this happens. If such improvements are available for a non-prohibitive cost, they should be made, as they will improve the team, even though the offense is “already good.”
And, as has been said before, ordinal rankings of offense, pitching, and defense mean nothing. All that matters is run differential. Even if your offense is #1 in MLB, if there is a chance to improve it without prohibitive cost, you should do it, since such a move will improve the team’s run differential.
As a hypothetical, say a team happens to have 5-6 WAR players at all positions except 1B, where they have a 1 win player. This team would be the best in MLB by far, but if a 2-3 win 1B came available for a reasonable price, acquiring that player would improve the offense further and, therefore, improve the team. This move would still be a good move and would help the team be better than before.
Money quote
And, as has been said before, ordinal rankings of offense, pitching, and defense mean nothing. All that matters is run differential.
Champing means to chew loudly
much like chomping. The original phrase was “champing at the bit” (most know this due to an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm). Chomping at the bit is actually used more commonly now and has taken over the champing form and now known to be equally as correct.
The phrase atually originates from horse racing. Guns were used to signal the start of races and horses would get ancy when at the starting line knowing the gun shot was coming they’d champ at the bit( bit – the metal piece in a horses mouth that attaches to reigns). So when spectators saw the horses doing this at the starting line they’d say “the horses are champing at the bit” ie- ready to take off and go.
Thanks
Love word stories
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Jan 17, 2012 7:44 PM EST up reply actions
Quck question - situational hitting depending on righty-lefty what do you think?
what do you guys think of inverting the line-up based on lefty/righty starter to maximize the Jays offensive chances this season?
I mean if you have a lefty starter, do something like this:
1. Escobar (SS)
2. Johnson (2B)
3. Bautista (DH/RF)
4. Encarnacion/Lawrie (DH/1B for EE, 3B for Lawrie)
5. Lind (could possibly sit against lefties, allowing Farrell to slot another righty bat in Rajai Davis into the lineup)
6. Lawrie/Encarnacion
7. Rasmus (CF)
8. Arencibia ©
9. Davis (LF)
Against Righties:
1. Johnson (2b)
2. Escobar (ss)
3. Lind (1b)
4. Bautista (rf)
5. Rasmus (CF)
6. Lawrie (3b)
7. Snider/Thames (one plays LF the other DH’s against righties)
8. Arencibia ©
9. Thames /Snider
by TrueBlue4Ever! on Jan 17, 2012 12:55 PM EST reply actions
My line-ups would be:
(And I’m leaving Bautista third, because the Jays have indicated no intention to move him)
Lefties
Escobar (SS)
Johnson (2B)
Bautista (RF)
EE (1B)
Rasmus (CF)
Lawrie (3B)
Thames/Francisco (DH)
Arencibia (C
Davis (LF)
Or if Snider makes the team, Snider in LF, hitting seventh, with Francisco DHing
Righties:
Escobar (SS)
Johnson (2B)
Bautista (RF)
Lind (1B)
EE (DH)
Rasmus (CF)
Lawrie (3B)
Snider/Thames (LF)
JP Arencibia (C
And obviously, when you have Valbuena in the line-up or another sub, they drop to the bottom.
I'm ok with that
but I still think Lawrie should be higher. He’s a better hitter than Rasmus and is very likely to better than EE. I think he’ll be better than Johnson, too. I’d stick him right at #2 (given that Bautista stays at #3), but it’s looking like Im in the minority on that one.
I don't care too much for R-L-R ordering
I’d rather have Escobar-Lawrie-Bautista then whatever
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
This would my line-up to open the season
As we discussed above, I want to Lawrie do it for a little longer before bumping him above established hitters.
If Lawrie continued to smash the ball around a couple months in, then I’d look to move him up, I’d prefer to keep the R/L/R/L thing though, to the extent possible, because it makes it much harder on an opposing bullpen to deploy specialists (think of a guy like Dotel).
That said, the way I’m stacking the line-up to gain the platoon advantage, I’d be more open to tossing out the R/L/R/L thing. It really comes down to the power that Lawrie develops…I’d rather promote him to the #2, unless he’s really hitting for power, then maybe 5th behind Lind against righties, and possibly 4th behind Bautista against lefties.
That R/L/R thing could be solved really easily
if they’d just move Bautista to clean-up
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
My only problem is the usage of Thames/Snider
I would prefer one of them on the ML roster, the other in AAA, so they both can get near full time at bats. So I would change Thames/Francisco (DH) to Thames/Snider/Francisco (DH), where Francisco will get ABs vs. tough lefties or as a pinch hitter vs. LOOGY for one of Thames/Snider.
by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 17, 2012 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
That's what I meant
One at MLB, one in AAA….that’s why after the first list, I said if Snider makes the team put him there, and then Thames/Snider in the second list
I like it but you can't use Snider and Thames
that would make 26 players
by Matthew Mueller on Jan 18, 2012 1:01 AM EST up reply actions
MY SARCASM RADAR IS GOING THROUGH THE ROOF
This thread is hilarious.
Can we start the Gose watch yet?
by honours6 on Jan 18, 2012 12:20 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
I wish this thread wasn't dead.
Blatov come back and rile us up again -that was good times.
thisrighthere!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 19, 2012 2:45 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
I think you and I had a little too much fun on this thread
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
So uh... Darvish signed...
…we getting Fielder yet or what? I mean are we waiting for Ortiz to accept arbitration?
sorry, instead of "accept" I mean "settle"
Really, what’s Prince waiting for? This week he should sign with the Jays for a fair value contract for 5 years.
by BrownMagician on Jan 22, 2012 4:25 AM EST up reply actions
Boras clients tend to sign late.
And I’ll be shocked if he signs with anyone for 5 years.
So what, they're going to try and milk the nationals for every penny?
Remember, Boras got Werth a 7year 126 million deal. Crawford got 7 year 142 million last year, and Carl Crawford was 34. I think Boras wants 7 years 180 million, no less.
by BrownMagician on Jan 22, 2012 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
