Franchise Stated: An Evening With John, Alex, Paul, and Albert
Thanks to all who came out (ok, more accurately stayed in) for the live blog last night--I had a great time chatting about baseball once again. Can't wait until this becomes a regular occurrence again during the season! So to practice for game recaps, here is a brief summary of what was discussed at the Rogers Centre last night.
In case you missed the broadcast, you can catch the audio here from Sportsnet Radio the Fan 590. The live broadcast started at 6:30 pm, and was only available on the web either through Sportsnet's website or BlueJays.com--there were no other games on tonight so I don't know why Rogers could not have broadcast this on one of their many TV or radio channels. The State of the Franchise is basically a sales event for the Blue Jays, and they don't use broadcast channels that a casual fan may pick up. Weird.
The evening began with the host, Buck Martinez (whom Beeston kept calling "Albert") introducing the three club representatives that evening: manager John Farrell, President and CEO Paul Beeston, and General Manager Alex Anthopoulos. Beeston then had a short speech about how confident he feels about the way the club is going and how he is looking forward to an evening "dialoguing" with fans. He mentions that, even though some fans would want the Jays to "fast forward" on some things, the club must be run in a sustainable fashion. He talked a bit about the change in the logo, the Winter Caravan, and the success of minor league affiliates.
Buck then talked a bit about the different promotions the team is going to be having this season. He said that there are going to be 20,000 giveaways this year, to "make sure every fan [who] shows up gets a promotional item." He'll regret saying that a bit later in the question-and-answer session, which is after the jump.
Buck started the Q&A with several questions of his own.- His first one, which took 94 seconds to ramble out, basically asked about how the team views long term contracts, and specifically about Prince Fielder. Beeston said Prince wanted a long contract, but the Jays' philosophy is to not give over five years in contracts--it wasn't the money, it was the organization's need for flexibility. Will be really reluctant to be flexible and make exceptions for individual players because they need credibility in future negotiations with agents.
- The next of Buck's question was directed at AA and only took 34 seconds to ask, and it was on Yu Darvish. It seems like they knew these questions were going to be asked and decided to get it over with friendly, non-loaded questions. AA repeated what he has said, that there are a lot of players the Jays are interested in, but they must be at the right price point. He also said that there were a lot of trades the Jays could've made, but would've been shortsighted to do so. He foresees that the roster could continue to overturn in the next few years.
- The third question was a 46-seconder, regarding the bullpen, directed to John Farrell. Farrell said that there are more defined role this year than last. Farrell also did a bit of self-reflection on his bullpen management last season: he took the blame for not letting his relievers believe in themselves by sticking by them through their ups and downs. It's awfully nice to see a manager point out his own mistakes in public (and hopefully learn from them).
The fans' Q&A section of the event lasted a little less than an hour. Here are some of the highlights (and some low lights):
- Farrell gives himself a "C" after year one, but learning from his mistakes. Believes that Jays will contend this upcoming year. AA feels that they have built a foundation and can now focus more on the big league club. Beeston believes that the Jays should be in the postseason 2-3 times in the next 5 years. That's called "managing fans' expectations."
- Vizquel will be a mentor for Escobar and Hechavarria, and if he can make the team, will be a backup infielder.
- Third questioner, Jonathan, was an angry fan. Didn't buy a shirt because Fielder's name wasn't on it. Wanted Beltran. Said that AA harped on going the trade route, but he only made one trade! Unfortunately got a smattering of applause. Mentioned some FAs refuse to DH, play on turf, or switch leagues no matter the money or number of years. AA mentioned that offseason will not be the only time they look for players, trades can happen at any time.
- A fan complained about the turf at Rogers Centre, about how "29 of the 30 teams" play on grass, and how now Canada has a reputation of "we play baseball on carpet." Beeston surprised everyone by saying that they are actually exploring bringing grass into the stadium! Another fan asked about why Tropicana Field turf looks better--because Rogers Centre is a multi-purpose stadium.
- The annual question of why Tom Henke is not on the Level of Excellence came up again with the usual answer of he has been considered every time we want to add someone up there.
- A fan--a season ticket holder since 1977--complained that there weren't any Canadians on the Blue Jays on opening day last year, and how it is important to have Canadians on the roster for game one.
- Max called Buck out on his "20,000" gaffe, asking why the Jays are targetting such a low number. Obviously the Jays weren't targetting to just get 20,000 out on those promotional days. Beeston reiterated that the only thing that would get people out was to give them a winning team, and that is the number one and single goal they have.
- Ron made references to Charlie Sheen and Steve Bartman so I tuned out. Basically said that "winning is great but effort is too." Commends AA and Beeston by saying they look like winners, then told Farrell that he is "working towards that." Farrell handled it quite well by laughing at himself. Ron wanted the Jays to get players that show effort and hustle like, and I quote, "Pete, whatshisname, Rose. You know, not the afterwards Pete Rose but the pre-Pete Rose." Farrell said that youth and athleticism brings excitement.
- The next fan, Howard, said that his philosophy at home, with his two kids, is to "not settle for mediocrity," but Jays have been mediocre since World Series. AA said again, that they are going for elite talent and that everyone in the line up has all-star potential--probably won't all be all-stars, but the potential is there.
- The next guy wanted the Jays to scout his baseball academy. AA, with the line of the night said "well you said you were a Blue Jays fan, through and through, but you're wearing a Detroit shirt and I'm wondering why that is." BAM! Sit down, sir.
- Beeston wants to see NL rules played in AL parks and AL rules to be played in NL parks during interleague, when they become permanent.
- Farrell has added former Jays catching prospect as a Major League advance scout, especially for National League teams, to watch teams five days before the Jays play them to hopefully turnaround the Jays' horrible interleague record.
- Buck then asked for "lady fans" to ask some questions in a totally non-sexist way. The first "lady" asked who the Jays were considering in centre and left field. Of course, Centre belongs to Rasmus, but Farrell stated again that there will be a competition for left field between Thames and Snider. Farrell suggests a platoon between those two and Rajai Davis and Ben Francisco. I was surprised that Buck didn't suggest that they play "Travis Thames." The second "lady" had a great question of why there is not a lot of selection in merchandise for female fans and why everything is pink, tiny, and only with the cutest players' names. Beeston gave a very serious promise that it will be fixed.
- AA defended Kelly Johnson by saying he is a "class act and total pro", after a fan called him "indifferent."
- A fan said that AA "paid waaaayyy too much for Colby Rasmus" because the pitchers that were traded for him ended up in the World Series. Then he asked Farrell who he would bat leadoff, and Farrell said that he wants his best hitters leading off, not necessarily a speedy guy. Farrell wants Yunel Escobar to go back to that role in 2012.
- Doug asked about instant replays on close plays. Beeston supports that, but the Umpires' Union is strong enough to fight that.
- On the new CBA, AA conceded that it will be more difficult to hoard high draft picks, but that was never part of the plans to continue to lose free agents to get picks. AA still wants to get a first and second draft pick ever year. When asked about the Jays' inability to sign Tyler Beede, AA simply said that they could have, but it was not for the right amount of money.
- Buck Martinez will probably not be the Jays next President after Beeston's term is over. Personally I think John Tory would do a good job.
- AA mentioned that there were two free agents--speculate away-- that the Jays offered more money and years to who decided to go elsewhere. AA will also consult with team doctors to evaluate players.
- Jordan asked about who would have potentially the same amount of hype as Lawrie did this upcoming season. Farrell suggested Drew Hutchinson--his performance in Clearwater against the Phillies last Spring Training really stuck in Farrell's mind. Also named Gose, d'Arnaud, and McGuire.
- Oh also, Beeston wants you to pick up the phone to call him if you have any problems or questions, alternatively you could also "pick up the email" to email AA. I'm sure AA will hire an assistant (an A-AA?) to read through the extra emails he'll get after Beeston's generous offer.
102 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"AA mentioned that there were two free agents--speculate away-- that the Jays offered more money and years to who decided to go elsewhere."
My guess is CJ Wilson and Carlos Beltran. Anyone else agree with me?
Man who has four balls cannot walk
Madson
The years part makes me think one of the players has to be Madson, who AA was probably willing to guarantee more money than he ultimately received.
Twitterin @NorthYorkJays
by NorthYorkJays on Jan 31, 2012 2:56 AM EST up reply actions
I hope not
unless he offered him like $15/2, and was referring to the one-year deal (not the ridiculous first contract to the Phils).
I’d say Beltran is the most obvious for the other one given the comments to the turf thing
No elite FA will ever sign a contract of < 5 years to come to Toronto and AA/Beeston know this.
Seems like an awfully convenient excuse.
Ah, pikachu. I'd forgotten how much smarter you are than everyone else.
You cannot possibly believe this is a viable or practical approach to free agency. It’s just not realistic.
by Vogelscheuche on Jan 31, 2012 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
Questions for you
Do you really think that Anthopoulos and Beeston just blathers on to the mass media about what their plans are? Do they have an incentive to do so? If Votto became available on the free agent market at this very moment, and asked for a 6-year deal, you sincerely believe that the Jays will not offer him that 6 year deal?
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
What benefit could AA possibly reap from lying to the media about only giving 5 years?
As if any competent agent will fall for that or even think about lowering their demand in terms of years.
by Vogelscheuche on Jan 31, 2012 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
it's not really that he benefits from lying
it’s that it is to his and the front office’s severe detriment to make any of their plans public, lest other teams hear and thwart those plans (or at least, make them more costly)
The philosophy is to not sign FA’s to deals longer than 5 years, but that doesn’t mean exceptions can’t be made. I agree if the right guy was available, the Jays would go to 6+ years.
by Marc Henderson on Jan 31, 2012 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
we could do without comments like this
+1 is only good if you actually rec the post
by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 31, 2012 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
Wasn't trying to offend
Just did it for laughs. I apologize if you feel slighted.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
The way buck was saying ladies gave me the creeps. What a creepbag!
by brent in Korea on Jan 31, 2012 3:16 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Well that picture was actually from the 2010 SotF....
And that was an ice bucket for water bottles.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Jan 31, 2012 9:07 AM EST up reply actions
Has that photo been altered?
because Beeston is wearing socks in that photo.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
Nope, not altered
I guess he has to formal up for SotF events!
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Jan 31, 2012 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Yes!
Then he asked Farrell who he would bat leadoff, and Farrell said that he wants his best hitters leading off, not necessarily a speedy guy. Farrell wants Yunel Escobar to go back to that role in 2012.
Thank you, John!
(I wonder if someone gave him The Book as a Christmas present)
I would love to see a lineup of Escobar-Bautista-Rasmus-EE-Lawrie-Lind-Snider-Arencibia-Johnson.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
Should clarify. That’s against RHP. If a LHP is on the hill, you gotta get Lind out of there, put EE at 1B, and put someone else in at DH.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
That's
R-R-L-R-R-L-L-R-L, which not only clumps things a little bit in terms of L/R balance, but means you’ve only got 4 LHB against righties, so not really taking advantage of platton splits. I also think Johnson should be higher up to take advantage of his OBP.
I’d go Escobar-Johnson-Bautista(not ideal, but this is where the Jays ave decided to play him)-Lind-EE-Rasmus-Lawrie-Thames/Snider-Arencibia. If you wanted to put Lawrie a little higher, flip him and Rasmus, and Thames/Snider and Arencibia. Lawrie should also move higher later in the season depend inghow things go.
Is there another LHB that is better than EE against RHB on the roster? I don’t see it.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
his minor league numbers show the same pattern
I wouldn’t mind him being the DH vs RHP
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
Not weird at all
From a development standpoint it is much wiser to have both players play full-time. In that respect, because there is only one potential OF opening on the major league club, common sense dictates that the remaining player would have to go to AAA to attain his full-time at bats.
AA isn’t an idiot. He wants to put his players in the best possible position to achieve their optimal value. So many fans don’t understand that notion. Add that to the fact that he has a plethora of young OF talent and that means you’re probably going to see one or both of these guys on a different team in the next few years via the trade route, if they can portend enough value to those other clubs. This would in-turn create an opening for someone like Gose, whether he or more likely Rasmus shifts to LF – if Rasmus proves to be an elite OF and isn’t traded himself – and/or many of the other young OF’s like Marisnick, who will be ready to join the club in the next few years.
That’s where ideally I’d keep Thames and Snider, rather than Francisco. Another LHB, they could each play around 70-75% of the time, which is enough I think to make it work. Basically 3 of EE, Thames, Snider and Lind rotate through 1B/DH/LF, depending on the pitching handedness
by MjwW on Jan 31, 2012 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
Didn’t really make sense to at the time to me, especially since Beltran hadn’t signed, Beltran made way too much sense, and the implication last night was they were hard after him – in which case Francisco was completely redundant
Maybe the Jays really like him.
or they plan to trade the loser of Thames/Snider
still doesn’t make a world of sense, but uber-cheap depth isn’t a bad thing
Let's call the loser the winner if we're going for a trade
#BoostTradevalue
He wants 4 players duking it out for LF? So one of Snider/Thames will win the starting spot, the other will go down to the Minors. Francisco and Rajai Davis will play LF against LHPs? Am I understanding this right? Also, Is it just me or does the Ben Francisco move still seem unnecessary.
I still don’t understand the Ben Francisco move at all.
If you view Davis as the 4th OF, and the Thames/Snider winner as the LF, I guess Francisco is around as the 25th man on the 25 man roster. But that just doesn’t seem to be an efficient use of resources.
I guess maybe they are planning on sitting Lind against LHP, and want to start EE at 1B, Davis in LF, and Francisco at DH on those days (with the Thames/Snider winner on the bench with Lind, Vizquel and Mathis). But if you are carrying (basically) a DH for the days that you are playing against a LH starter, surely-to-goodness you can find someone better than Ben Francisco.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
francisco's actually a pretty good hitter
And certainly was inexpensive. Agreed though, makes little sense to carry two OFs on the bench – and that’s not even including the loser of Thames/Snider since they’ll probably be in AAA
by benk on Jan 31, 2012 10:35 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
The problem as I see is that you don’t get any defensive value (according to Fangraphs anyways) out of Francisco, and his bat isn’t good enough to justify carrying him around for just that.
The bench options as I see it provide the following:
Vizquel – defensive upgrade, veteran presence.
Mathis – defensive upgrade (in theory, anyways, I realize there is some contradicting information out there)
Davis – speed, ability to play all 3 OF positions
Francisco – ??
I just don’t see Francisco as a better defensive option (except maybe if Thames wins the LF job, but then aren’t we playing Davis over Francisco anyways??), and I don’t really see him as a better offensive option over anyone.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
I dunno about Ordonez
but Lee and Guerrero would almost surely cost >2M to sign, even after their weak 2011. Ordonez might, but he projects to hit about as well as benfran.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
I guess if we are willing to spend 4.5m on Cordero, I wouldn’t think that 5m on Lee or Guerrero would be a stumbling block. Or shouldn’t be, anyways.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
Yeah
But neither Lee and Guerrero are really that good at this point, and psitionally aren;t very flexible. I’d rather go with what we have, though I don’t see Francisco has very useful either.
I should note – my personal opinion is, his position is not guaranteed at this point. My contract is non-guaranteed, I think he could be cut
My 4 man bench (if we go 4 man, which I know we are) would be Vizquel, Mathis, Davis and one of Thames/Snider (the other one being the starting LF).
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
IMO, that's the crux of the problem
The presence of Ben Francisco undoubtedly decreases the number of big league at-bats the loser of Thames/Snider will get.
I would hope not. It just feels weird knowing that the loser of Thames/Snider is the 4th option in LF ALONE.
I would desperately hope that if the winner of that job gets hurt, the loser of the job immediately is called up and takes his place in the starting lineup.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
See
I’m not so sure, I feel like they’ll just end up plugging in whoever they prefer out of Francisco and Davis; and giving at bats here and there to whoever they call up from AAA. Another thing to worry about – what if Davis and/or Francisco are raking? Do we even want that? I’d much rather see Snider and Thames get at bats and hit .270 than watch Davis or Francisco hit .290. But that’s just me. There’s potential for so much more in Thames and especially Snider.
why do you feel that way?
and if Davis and or Francisco is raking, they’d most likely be traded.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
Maybe I'm just cynical :P
I guess I just feel like the team’s not that confident in Snider’s abilities.
I actually don't think that's true
because getting the loser everyday at bats (AAA) is more important than keeping them around for spot start duty
I’d agree with that, except I don’t think that either Thames or Snider have much to gain from dominating AAA.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
I really hope Snider wins the spot.
I like Thames, but Snider just needs at bats so we can once and for all determine if he gets it or not.
Agreed
Unless he’s batting .176 or something completely horrible, I want so badly for him to get a full season’s worth of ABs because right now you can’t say "he was given an extended shot and didn’t pan out." The problem with that is the manager seems to think we’re going to be contending this year
working on his mechanics would be my guess
don’t really want to get into a discussion about this as I don’t really feel strongly one way or another, but that would be what I could see him working on down there.
by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 31, 2012 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
It is
but Davis is just coming off an injury filled season, so I see it as more of an insurance move than anything else.
by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 31, 2012 10:29 AM EST up reply actions
Anyone ask about McGowan's innings limit?
Hard to guess because most of his innings last year came in simulated games.
As a Toronto sports fan I proudly follow the lessons of lachrymology.
"Vancouver, BC: A massive inferiority complex with a city." - TheOtherAndrew
William of Nassau am I, of Dutch blood. Loyal to the fatherland I will remain until I die.
by Redonred on Jan 31, 2012 1:26 PM EST via Android app reply actions
Farrell as a "C"
Admirable humility & all, and he wasn’t perfect, but I thought he did well enough to merit a B grade.
you know where this comes from?
No chance at playoffs in September. If we were in the hunt, maybe he’d get a B- from himself, but I like it.
by BrownMagician on Jan 31, 2012 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
manager gets graded depending on how well the team does?
Does Brad Mills get an F? TLR A++?
His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by 






















