Several sources say that player was third baseman Brett Lawrie; the Blue Jays balked and instead the Mariners did some good business with the New York Yankees, landing catcher Jesus Montero.
4 months ago
Tom Dakers
118 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Good call Alex
Now if it were King Felix, that might entice me.
by Julius Seizure on Jan 31, 2012 11:31 AM EST reply actions
6 years of Lawrie, including 3 very cheap ones vs. 3 expensive years of Hernandez, a top 5 pitcher in the game at the age of 25. Tough call. Really have to look at the window. For the Yankees, it makes sense. For the Jays, I’m not so sure
I'll take Lawrie in that calculus
but I can understand the temptation to go for Felix
Yup..
I was just talking about what would make me think about it. Doubt I would do it.
by Julius Seizure on Jan 31, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t. Does that trade put us over the top in the next 3 years? I say unlikely, and if so, not worth giving up our best option at 3B for the next 6.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
I wouldn't because Felix has logged so many innings at a young age
Every arm only has so many bullets and he’s thrown a lot of them. I could see him being done by 30.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
Jays182 always gets his breaking news fanposts ignored :P
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Jan 31, 2012 12:14 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
and get called jays128 on top of that...
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
by HESS2479 on Jan 31, 2012 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I checked twice this time!
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Jan 31, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Ha it's alright I was just kidding around.
I think me finding breaking news as it happens suggest I should spend more time doing work and less time refreshing MLBTR.
"And I'm like forget Yuuuuuu"
people would have rioted if we had given up Lawrie for Pineda.
I am a fan of a team in the NBA, MLB, NHL, and NFL. I haven't seen the playoffs since April 28th, 2008 (1st round exit by raps). I haven't seen playoffs past the 1st round since January 26th, 2006. Stop and think about how insane it is. And depressing.
And this is why AA didn't swing a big trade this offseason
Like many have said around here, teams would be looking for Brett Lawrie in return for a good young pitcher like Pineda or Latos. Makes no sense to create one hole to fill another, especially when this team has young pitching but no 3B depth.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
in last night's SOTF
AA stated that trading this offseason for “young starting pitchers” (in reference to a question about why the Jays didn’t acquire any – implying reference to Latos, Gonzalez, Cahill, etc) would have required “big league talent.” Later on, he specifically mentioned “Alvarez and more” by name when asked another question about the seeming lack of trade activity.
This strongly implies to me that Alvarez plus at least one top prospect was the asking price for these guys – which corresponds with the MLB-ready-player plus top prospects package that the Reds used to get Latos. I wouldn’t be surprised if teams said to AA “you want these guys, we need to get Alvarez and/or Lawrie plus some top farm guys” and Alex balked, which I’m quite happy about. That would be a very strong price to pay, and while filling a need would open up “other holes” on the Jays MLB roster (as Alex said last night).
It might not be the popular opinion, but I’d rather have Lawrie than Montaro. That’s not a knock against his bat, which is likely going to be very good. But Lawrie has the potentially to be a very good third baseman, with a combination of power, speed, and a defensive upside.
And this doesn't even account for his "star power"
Lawrie is one of the few Jays that many non-fans know. Its a huge draw (monetarily) regardless of his relative baseball value.
Can we start the Gose watch yet?
is it?
has attendance magically spiked since Lawrie joined the team? Do we expect a huge surge in attendance or TV ratings this year now that Lawrie is on the team? I certainly don’t see it as other stars have failed to do the same (Clemens, Halladay, Delgado/Green)
I do think the Canadianess of Lawrie is somewhat of a factor for the Jays
in the sense that if you could take the exact same player, one being Canadian the other not, they would (and should) take the Canadian. Even if it means just 1 more fan for 1 game, if there is no difference on the field, it just makes sense.
In Canada having a Canadian superstar will make a difference to at least 1 fan out there. Compared to winning, the effect will be negligible on overall attendance, which is why I would not want to see the Jays make a decision on a player simply because of where he is born. But if you take 2 potential superstars with fairly equal upside / low side (which I don’t think you have with Montero and Lawrie because of the position differences), I would think that they would choose the Canadian to gain that small benefit.
by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 31, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
Yup
I’m not sure if it was in this post or another, but someone even mentioned a fan was asking why there weren’t any Canadian’s on the roster to open last season or something. Apparently it matters to some people
sure, people wonder about it, same with the Raptors
but I truly wonder how many additional sales that would actually translate to. as Playoffs said, ceteris paribus you take the Canadian, but it’s close enough to an epsilon of value (IMO, of course) that it would never make a less talented player preferable to a more talented one
I think that is key to the argument, with the equation:
Winning >> Canadianess > lack of Canadianness
Another point that I think is important is that it can’t just be a token Canadian on the team to make a difference, they really do need to be a top talent otherwise it won’t make a difference (sorry Teahen, you don’t make the cut).
by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 31, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
but if it's a top Canadian talent that is marketable
what is the marketable part? Is it the Canadian or the talent. I would argue strenuously that a top tier Canadian talent would have the exact same drawing power (as measured by increased attendance, TV ratings, or other increased revenue streams) than a top tier non-Canadian talent.
I wasn't commenting on that last part, sorry
More on the potential of Lawrie’s marketability. At the end of the day, winning is going to put butts in seats. But I think even this season Lawrie’s presence is going to have a positive effect on attendance, albeit a relatively miniscule one. I’m sure you know people who probably went to a game last season who just went to see the kid in person. He brings an excitement to the team that makes you want to go
yes, I do
but I think the difference between Brett Lawrie and another identical but American elite prospect is practically nil, though it’s positive and should be exploited if possible
Nil right now, sure
But if the team actually starts winning and he’s a big part of it, the potential is huge
by Aidin on Jan 31, 2012 12:48 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
right, so it's winning that matters
not the Canadianness of the winning. You’ve even admitted that the effort on attendance is miniscule, so why even bother thinking about it. Just get guys that can help the team win, Canadian or not, marketable or not. That effect will be much larger than miniscule.
All else (Talent) being equal
I think the difference of a Canadian superstar vs an American one, could make a difference in merchandise sales more than attendance.
I think someone like Lawrie could boost merchandise sales across Canada, where people generally don’t have access to the games.
I’m not sure how much that says about the bottom-line, but just a thought.
@VagabondBansal
I see your reasoning
I just don’t buy it. People will like the Jays (and consequently buy merch) if they win, whether or not there is visible Canadian content. Similarly, if the team is terrible, people won’t support the team no matter how many Canadians there are.
I can’t recall seeing many Corey Koskie jerseys around in 2001 (or whenever he was on the team) and Rob Butler wasn’t a household name, even though he was on very successful Jays teams.
But
When Corey Koskie broke in with the Twins there were a pile of Koskie Twins Jerseys in Manitoba. Lawrie being Canadian will probably have more of an impact out west getting Jays fans than in Ontario.
It will help to a certain extent but nothing real significant.
hmm, interesting
didn’t know that. But that probably happens whenever any local guy from anywhere signs with a certain team. Particularly in less populated areas that don’t have a team within their immediate environs.
E.g. when Koskie (from Manitoba) signed with the Twins, people from there bought Twins jerseys. I bet when Travis Snider came up with the Jays, lots of people from his hometown in Washington bought Jays jerseys. And I’ve seen plenty of Votto Reds jerseys in TO.
If the goal is to increase merchandise revenue (which, remember, goes into the revenue sharing pot and so doesn’t actually help the team whose merch is purchased) then the boost you get from a player probably comes from his popularity in his hometown, regardless of where that is. Koskie was popular in Manitoba, so his jersey would be popular in Manitoba.
If you want to increase Jays jersey sales based on player hometowns, you are probably better off getting guys who are popular in rural/non-MLB-city areas, since they will have followings back home that will latch onto whichever team their hometown hero plays for.
Getting a Canadian guy may increase sales of Jays jerseys in some part of Canada, but I don’t think it would necessarily do so any more than getting a popular guy from Oregon or a popular guy from like San Antonio would increase Jays jersey sales in those areas.
Never disagreed with any of that
Nor did I say we should acquire Canadian players like Francis or Teahan just for the sake of marketing. Or make any decisions with nationality in mind for that matter. I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that and I’m not quite sure how you inferred that from anything that’s been said.
I'm sure it has
Brett lawrie’s star power has a huge effect in just the general excitement in the team. Not sure how long it will last, or just how much an effect on attendance but there’s so many more people paying attention to the Jays because of him.
But, his star power can’t be attributed to one single factor, because he’s got so many going for him, in a combination that hasn’t been seen in Toronto in a long time.
Baseball fan or not, Lawrie is exciting. That’s the main factor I think. It’s like vinsanity. Yes, it is crucial that he’s good but it’s also something that he’s exciting. Look at Tim Duncan, one of the greatest basketball players ever, but he’s just too boring to have the type of star power he could have had, like Dwight Howard.
by T_Mizz on Feb 1, 2012 7:03 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
and Tim Duncan's effect on attendance was what?
I would wager it was higher than that of Howard given Duncan’s much greater on-court success
I wouldn't bet that, he's impossible to watch
Howard puts butts in the seats with his exciting play AND impressive stats
do you have evidence to back that up?
or just conjecture?
Hard evidence?
No, but that’s extremely hard to tease out. Since they were both incredibly high draft picks they went to teams that were very bad, and logically would have had poor attendance. They’re both exceptional players so they turned their teams around and as their teams got better so did their attendance.
Not to mention their in different markets, and midway through Tim Duncan’s career they moved to a smaller arena.
And again, besides 1996-1997 (they won the draft lottery to get Tim Duncan) they haven’t finished worse than 2nd in their division or missed the playoffs since 1988-1989. So essentially, the Spurs have been maxed out.
But, in 2004-2005 the Orlando Magic went 36-46 and finished 3rd in their division, then after they’d had a full season of Dwight Howard they finished the 2005-2006 season with an identical record and again finished 3rd in the division missing the playoffs again, but they saw a jump in attendance from 14583-15561 per game, which was their highest attendance since 1998-1999. The next season saw another jump from 15561-17094 (which is essentially maxed out) despite another 3rd place finish and only 4 more wins (40-42, still a losing record) and getting swept as the 8th seed in the first round.
So again, no hard evidence but it’s not like I completely made it up.
Or did you mean hard evidence of his impressive stats?
He led the league in rebounding 3 times in a row, led in blocks twice in a row, 3 time defensive player of the year, 5 time allstar, 4 time allnba first team.
And if you meant evidence of his exciting play, I refer you to the above AND his 2008 slam dunk competition win.
Tim Duncan was All-NBA first team
eight straight times and has two MVPs, which Howard does not.
in fact, Tim Duncan is not “impossible to watch.” he’s actually brilliant on the court, he just knows how to play the game beyond jumping and dunking, unlike Howard
I used to play
so I kind of had an obligation to like it; it was my favourite sport for a while but baseball has retaken its rightful place on top once again
Difference
Duncan is like fine wine. You must take time and savour it to appreciate it. If you do, you’ll appreciate and enjoy all of its subtleties. Howard is more like Sangria. Bold and raw and tasty.
Both will get you drunk. You’ll just have a different experience while doing so.
That was a beautiful analogy
and I don’t even like basketball.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
I'm not saying Howard is better than Duncan
I’m saying he plays a more exciting brand of basketball. Tim Duncan is probably the most fundamentally sound player that I’ve ever seen, possibly ever. But to the average sports fan, the fundamentals aren’t what they want to see.
Duncan is like Bautista, he’ll draw his walks and have a huge OBP which helps your team immensely but Howard is like Lawrie: Young, exciting, highlight reel potential every time he comes near the ball. Don’t get me wrong, Bautista/Duncan will probably have better stats and help your team more and make their fair share of highlights but they don’t have that electricity of a Lawrie/Howard.
I don't really think this translates to revenue, which was the point of the conversation
the 2007-era Raptors were incredibly entertaining, they had a ridiculous offense (apparently the exciting part of basketball) and no defense. they immediately stopped drawing fans as soon as they started being bad, though there was still plenty of offense and zero defense.
I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
On second thought you may be right about Basketball not being a great parallel
Of course there is the counter point that Toronto is not a good basketball market in the first place.
I’m not sure if I live in a part of society isolated from all others, but I have noticed that people who early last season would mock me for watching the Jays started watching every game when Lawrie came up. Granted, as a student the pics of him shirtless doing edward fortyhands does appeal to guys my age and the fact that he’s attractive did appeal to girls my age. Not sure if this effect exists outside of my age group though. But in my demographic, he’s a superstar.
by T_Mizz on Feb 1, 2012 6:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I actually think Toronto is a very good basketball market
fans just haven’t been showing up lately because the team continues to be very bad. The Raptors consistently sold out games for almost the first 10 years of their existence, despite being not very good for much of that time. Recently attendance is down somewhat, but I never hear Toronto coming up in discussions of terrible/moribund/likely-to-relocate/bankrupt franchises like some in the US, despite the Raptors being consitently worse than many of these team.
yeah
even when they were pretty mediocre (mid 2000s) I’m pretty sure they were at least top-15 in attendance. Toronto is a great basketball market
So then what's their problem?
I always heard that when the ACC first opened MLSE made it mandatory for corporate season tickets to the leafs to include the same seats to the Raptors too. I assumed that meant they weren’t a good draw.
If it’s not attendance/lack of support/lack of funds then why have they been so poor for so long? Mis-management? Is the Toronto Raptor Syndrome a real thing?
by T_Mizz on Feb 2, 2012 5:12 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
crappy management
very poor choices of cornerstone players (though I’m not actually sure any of the players the Raps have ever had were true cornerstones, outside of Olajuwon (heh)
I think you wouldn't be too out of line saying VC was
But now that I think about it, Rafael Araujo?!? Charlie Villanueva?!? Michael Bradley?!? Andrea Bargnani’s not too bad actually and could be an excellent secondary scorer, just sucks that he was picked #1 and hasn’t become the franchise player you’d expect from that pick.
by T_Mizz on Feb 3, 2012 9:58 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
only one of those players, IMO, was actually a poor pick
Araujo turned out horribly, but when the pick was made the vast majority of “experts” thought it was a pretty decent, safe pick (I remember the Raptors getting at least two “B” draft grades). Villanueva was actually an excellent pick, he won rookie of the year and was then flipped for TJ Ford. Bradley was a bad pick but, I mean, he was 21st overall and had an incredibly injury-plagued career. not only do very few 21st overall picks actually turn into good players, I’m not sure the injury bug could have been foreseen (though it’s possible). Bargnani – outside of maybe Aldridge – has been the best player out of that draft, so I can’t really see that being a criticism
and one can blame the Raptors’ talent evaluation team, that’s fair, but really I don’t think their draft picks have been all that bad.
And that's besides the point anyway
Wins will always increase attendance and viewership, as it should. I don’t think that an exciting team that is terrible will out draw a good team that is boring. I’m saying a .500 team that is exciting will outdraw a .500 team that is boring. In terms of Lawrie, he’s a good player who also happens to be a superstar, so he draws more than if he put up the same WAR without all his swagger and energy and style.
by T_Mizz on Feb 1, 2012 6:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Wow
Bautista doesn’t radiate energy like Lawrie (few do) but I wouldn’t compare his style of play to Duncan’s. He is a very dynamic player
Duncan would probably disagree
He can still take over a game and he still does do the occaisional highlight-worthy thing. My point is he has the fundamental (non-sexy) stuff nailed down. The typical fan doesn’t get stoked about a walk, just like they don’t go bananas about Duncan’s patented turnaround-off-window baseline jumper.
by T_Mizz on Feb 1, 2012 6:49 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think it’s too early to say that, but Lawrie’s potential to be the Canadian face of the franchise if he continues to excell certainly can’t be discounted. Still, I think talent trumps spin, and the guy that helps you the most on the field is ultimately going to be the guy who helps you the most with the fans.
Exactly
Plus I think its harder to find a young 3b with potential like Lawrie’s than a 1B/DH like Montero. Plus we already have TDA who is better defensively,so that means he wouldn’t play catcher if he was here.
That would have been intriguing
I’m still not sure how Pineda will do in the AL East, but he sure looked good last year. That being said, having to watch Edwin play 150 games at 3B would make me snap in a George Carlinesque rant during a gamethread and finally get the red card from this blog.
by craig in calgary on Jan 31, 2012 12:02 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
well we got lawrie fot marcum.
count that as a victory for aa…..now he’s in pineda trade territory which we said no to….nice scouting on our part.
by ddbumpus on Jan 31, 2012 12:53 PM EST via mobile reply actions
This
In one off-season, AA has turned Shaun Marcum into Michael Pineda. That’s extraordinary when you think about it. I love the business behind baseball. There’s just enough uncertainty to make it interesting every time.
@VagabondBansal
nope
He turned Shaun Marcum into Brett Lawrie, who I (and Dave Cameron, actually) think is better than Michael Pineda
by benk on Jan 31, 2012 1:17 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
My comment
Wasn’t a judgement on whether I would take Pineda over Lawrie (For the record I would not). But rather a way to judge the value of the trade through the value of what is being offered (Otherwise its just speculation, and in this case as a pitcher was offered, it allows a more apples to apples comparison). You don’t often see 1 for 1 trades, so in this case, its great to see how much AA has increased the value of the team.
From a value perspective: he essentially turned a soft tossing 29 year old pitcher, with prior injury history, with the 2 most expensive (albeit not considerably so) years left of control, into a young, hard-throwing pitcher that has had major league success with something like 5-6 years of control left.
I’m surprised the CRA hasn’t shown up at AA’s door asking him to pay Capital Gains tax.
@VagabondBansal
Maybe the Brewers won't sign Marcum to a talked-about extension
And he comes back here next year as a FA. It’d be like we got Lawrie for nothing then.
not true
we’d have gotten Lawrie for a lot of money
no
we’d have gotten Lawrie for two seasons of Shaun Marcum and then we’d have gotten Shaun Marcum for a bunch of money
ya, true
but my point was that it’s not “Lawrie for nothing”
Yeah
Usually when valuing a transaction, you only look at the value you gave up, and the value you received in return. Any further transactions are irrelevant to the original (when looking from a stand-alone perspective). We got Lawrie for Marcums Age 2011 and 2012 seasons. That was what we paid, regardless of if we sign him for 2013.
@VagabondBansal
On that quote...
I like the ‘several sources say’….didn’t several sources tell us we were getting Darvish?
I blog, therefore I am.
Even I
Mike Andrew, hate even hearing about trades with Lawrie unless we are getting Heyward+ back.
What if we got Eric Hosmer for him?
I’ve heard you like that guy, haha.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
Haha your are right my friend :)
I don’t believe in trading laterally, position player for pitcher. Too much injury risk/volatility at that position.
The Alvarez and four players along with him comment Alex made
makes me think there might have been some legs to that King Felix rumour. glad he didn’t make any blockbuster trades, I’d rather see where we are come trade deadline.
I cannot wait to see what kind of deals AA gets at the deadline.
Should have lots to work with, what with the super-pen and all.
other than Santos there's not much "super" in the pen
and I doubt Santos gets traded.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
That's ridiculous
It’s very clear that by talking about the bullpen and the deadline, the reference was to the fact that there’s a number of quality arms with expiring contracts, who are typically in demand as upgrades for contending teams.
As for the the super-pen, you can make an argument for the Jays having a top-5 pen in baseball, which is pretty super.
it should be pretty excellent
but relievers are very volatile and bad things can (and do) happen.
Montero has no defensive value, he's a DH
Montero isn’t even going to play 1B, since Seattle has Smoak. Lawrie can play a decent 3B and isn’t a bad hitter himself. If it was just hitting, it should be closer, but once you factor in defence, it’s a slam dunk for Lawrie.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
because we all know that Smoak will be forever a Mariner and Montero will never ever ever be playing 1B
we don’t know that. We don’t even know for sure if he’ll stick at C or not
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
I'm fairly confident Montero won't stick at C
Even if he’s a 1B, he still needs to hit much bettter than Lawrie to be worth more.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
hmmm
seems to me we just had a similar conversation in another thread about Lawrie and a first baseman
Whew!
Glad we didn’t make the Lawrie for Pineda deal. I’m on the side of the fence that he’s a bit overrated. I have this really sinking feeling that Seattle does move Felix at the deadline. Some team is going to offer the farm for him and lets face it, Seattle isn’t going anywhere for a while.
On a side note, I also like Latos is overrated and wouldn’t have held up in the AL East. I understand that the fans want big deals, but in only a few years AA has built a great farm system. A few good years from players down on the farm could land us some really good talent that may be available at the deadline.
I disagree with the first part a little
and the second a lot. Pineda is already pretty good and is very young. Latos is very good and is pretty young. and Latos has an acceptable GB rate, so he wouldn’t give up TOO many HRs in the AL East
I'm holding out hope
that Pineda’s fly ball tendencies cause him to melt down in Yankee Stadium, with its extreme HR park factor favouring LHB. This could be bad news for a right handed, extreme flyball guy like Pineda.
Latos would probably have been good.
I can respect that...
But it just bothers me that the Padres trade Latos for a piece that they already had on the farm in Rizzo. Sure you can make the case that they felt Rizzo wasn’t the answer, but Latos is/was their King Felix. Something just doesn’t add up about the deal.
The Padres got a significant return for Latos, I don’t see how that doesn’t add up.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
Something Just Doesn't Fit...
They had Rizzo, who a lot of scouts rank above Alonso. They had Latos, who some say projects to be an ace. They have a good farm system already. I’m just not sure why you trade a guy like Latos that your fan base has been waiting for and trade him for a piece that you already had. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s like they know something about Latos. Why give up an ace in the making for a position that you already had covered? It just feels icky to me.
Well, the GM is Josh Byrnes
So that might be why it looks weird. He’s not exactly known as the brightest GM around. Although, compared to his NL West colleagues, he’s almost a genuis.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
I think his question is
Why they wanted what they wanted.
@VagabondBansal
I probably am
I tend to do that. It’s the fantasy GM in me.
It's pretty much what I suspected.
This is why I can’t get upset at AA for not making the “big deal” and why I seemed a bit foamy at the mouth over fanshot trade proposals that revolved around trading spare parts for top talent.
Montero was “surplus” in Cashman’s logic (although many a Yankee fan would say otherwise.) Not much room on his roster for a DH and/or bad defensive catcher.
Lawrie for the Jays is not. He’s pretty much the only star 3B option that is ready. The Jays don’t have much in terms of infielders. The damage to the Jays would hurt way more than trading Montero is to the Yanks.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 31, 2012 11:15 PM EST 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
