Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

Man I wish there was something to write about......

Something better than writing about a twitter rumor started by someone claiming to a player's wife's cousin's husband's barber.

Beyond that, there isn't much for rumors. But then none of the rumors we've heard, this off-season, turned out to be true. What is there?

Jon Heyman tells us that the Jays were asking about Anthony Rizzo, which really doesn't need to be said, Alex inquires about everybody. As Ken Rosenthal says:

Yes, the Blue Jays inquired about the availability of Mariners ace Felix Hernandez, but that isn't really news. Jays general manager Alex Anthopoulos routinely asks about the best players on every team. He almost always is told no.

"Alex is always looking for everything," a rival GM told me earlier this off-season. "He is the only GM in the league with a 60-man roster - and I say that as a compliment. You can't pin him down. He has interest in every one of your players."

He tells us Alex has asked about Felix Hernandez, Michael Pineda, Gavin Floyd and "every other pitcher imaginable. Then, as he says, and we know, that most of his moves happen without hearing any rumor before hand.

I'm sure there will be news again, someday, but it can't come quick enough. Come on Alex, we are bored.

Comment 237 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I hope AA waits 1 more year before doing anything

I really think we will get a lot more value. Besides, everyone is overpaying atm in dollars and in prospects.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:04 PM EST reply actions  

Personally I would

But I understand that this fan base would go bananas… I’d be selling Bautista, Romero and JPA for massive packages of prospects. If Morrow got off to a hot start I’d trade him too.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Why Romero?

He’s under contract for the next 5 years, including option. Who are you going build the rotation around?

If Morrow’s not going to sign an extension, I’ll bet he does get traded, especially if he has a good season. Possibly at the deadline, more likely in the offseason.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Just because hes due for some regression (His peripherals and stats don't line up)

And we would rake in a huge package of prospects due to his contract.

I like Morrow a lot but I think he holds twice the trade value he had when we traded for him.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:18 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah he does

but wouldn’t he have more value when they do line up?

the only guy I’d sell is Bautista (if we could get fair value for him, which I don’t think we can). assuming d’Arnaud progresses like we think he will, we could trade JP at the deadline or in the offseason. I don’t think trading Romero makes sense.

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Sorry first line was about Romero

2nd was about Morrow. Romero is out playing himself and Morrow is underplaying.

Just saying it looks like last year was a career year for Romero.

Would Beachy + Heyward = fair value?

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:31 PM EST up reply actions  

oh, I see

fair point re: Romero, but he’s still very good. he’s a worthwhile piece to keep around. rWAR-wise, you’re probably right about Romero, but he’s still a 4 win, cost-controlled guy – that’s very valuable to us

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:33 PM EST up reply actions  

and maybe

Heyward’s value isn’t super high right now (at least compared to last offseason), maybe we could pry Teheran too (IIRC, that’s what Jono suggested)

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:33 PM EST up reply actions  

This is all great in theory

But it’s not going to happen
1) He’s the face of the franchise, it sends a bad message
2) Makes it very difficult to get over the 85 win hump…if we’re a treu talent 85 win team next year right now, drops us back down

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:37 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah it's probably a moot point

but it’s not ludicrous, particularly on a blog in which everything is hypothetical

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Hypothetical questions and answers

Are great for the offseason. Slow news, mind as well speculate.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Hell yeah, there's the plan.

Then we could stay in a constant state of building for the future and never have to worry about contending.

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 6:17 PM EST up reply actions  

I plan on living for a lot longer

I’d rather take my time working on the foundation so the top doesn’t topple over.

We could have a lineup of like Escobar, Lawrie, Heyward, E5, Colby, Thames/Snider, Kelly, JPA, Cooper
And a rotation of Beachy, Cecil, Alvarez, Dustin, Drabek
In 2012. That is assuming we get Beachy and Heyward for Bautista, whoever we get for Romero is gravy. We would also still have a loaded minor league system and enough money to sign Prince.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Right....

Making assumptions that are unlikely to ever happen, and your proposals would have them constantly building for the future (like I said) as I’m sure in a couple or so years it would be…trade Lawrie, Colby, Escobar, whoever for a boat load of prospects while their percieved value is high.

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 6:34 PM EST up reply actions  

but that's silly

because those players comprise our core, and they’re either in their early primes right now or will be sometime in the near-ish future. Bautista is only moving out of his, and we could get one or a few excellent players in return who will develop and hit their primes at the same time as Lawrie, Romero, Arencibia/d’Arnaud, Colby, Escobar, Morrow, Alvarez, etc

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:36 PM EST up reply actions  

At the moment

So does Romero Bautista, and Morrow (comprise our core). Trading these guys would just make us look like the A’s, Royala, or Pirates. No thans.

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 6:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I totally understand the sentiment

but hypothetically, doesn’t it make sense? our core, as it stands (and IMO) is not good enough to compete. Bautista, in all likelihood, won’t be as good in two or three years as he is now, when we are ready to start competing. if we could get younger, equally valued players for Bautista (admittedly a big if) it would maybe/probably be a good idea if our only goal is to win a championship.

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, I have to disagree about contending (competing).

Although you don’t see it (and I understand that), if everything were to fall into place (it did for Tampa one year), I believe they could. Mind you that is a mighty big “if” (biggest little word in the dictionary).

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 7:00 PM EST up reply actions  

that's fair

I’m not sure the luck we’d need is in the realm of possibility, though. as in, it could happen (of course) but I think it’s more unlikely than you seem to

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 7:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I disagree with this statement

A team with a true talent of around 86 wins (which I think the recent BP additions gets us to), with a ton of youth and the inherent upside potential, definitely have an at least non-negligible probability of taking one of the wildcard positions.

I’m not saying we should start planning the parade, but saying it is out of the realm of possibility is a bit much I think.

by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 6, 2012 7:34 PM EST up reply actions  

This is some of what I see.

Adding in that we get (hopefully) full years from Lawrie, Rasmus, and others. No more April-May lineups with Nix, Rivera, Patterson, and the like getting regular at bats (again hopefully).

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 7:51 PM EST up reply actions  

okay, I'll concede that

but I think the chances of it happening are not something I’m prepared to bank on.

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 7:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Between the expected regression of Bautista and Romero

I say we added around 8 wins but 4 should be taken off because Bautista is more likely to be 5 WAR and Romero to drop a WAR. And our win-loss based on runs for and against was 79 wins, so that should be used as the marker for last season.

I figure we are about an 83 win team now.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 8:11 PM EST up reply actions  

I say we added closer to 10 WAR

and I think Bautista will be around 5.5 WAR, but that’s just me

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 8:13 PM EST up reply actions  

You have every right to think that

If anything yours is more logical than mine, but still I see Bautista as a 4 WAR player (which is still All Star level)

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 8:19 PM EST up reply actions  

He's going to regress by 4 WAR?

Barring injury that is far too steep, imo. I’d say 6 WAR is more likely

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 8:22 PM EST up reply actions  

well, depends what you think his true talent is

I think his true talent is around 6.5 WAR… so in hindsight I should have said I see him as a 6 WAR player

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 8:24 PM EST up reply actions  

A season ago a 22 year old regressed 4 WAR

(Heyward) Baseball in my mind is more year to year, good players can struggle or turn to dust and the worst of players can become great. It seems to be a little unpredictable. Imagine we built around Lind or Hill after 2009?

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 8:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Ok

But Heyward is a young guy still trying to find himself in the league, and Jose Bautista’s regression is based on this “turn to dust” theory (which I don’t get in the first place since Jose is still only 31). So I don’t know how one explains the other since they’re basically two completely different reasons for regressing.

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 9:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I still believe he will following the aging curve

And begin to fade, my projection (guess) still stands at 4 WAR. Not that he regressed 4 WAR as much as he played above himself last year and this year I think he will play at his own level.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 10:07 PM EST up reply actions  

He hasn't followed any aging curve so far...

The aging curve is a point of reference just like every model. Admittedly I have never even seen one, but I’d bet a lot of money that no statistical model predicted Jose would go from a 0.2, 2.1, 6.8, 8.4 WAR in his late 20s/early 30s.

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 10:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Oops

Subtracted OWAR from DWAR instead of 2010 WAR from 2011 WAR

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 10:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Okay

But your forgetting that people are overpaying for those types of players, so we could get more value back. Bautista is on the decline phase so building around him might be fruitless.

We could either trade for younger players and try again or just pay the massive prices going to the A’s, Royals, and Pirates.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Bautista is not on the decline phase

Until he puts up a season where he has actually declined. Not many thought he would repeat 2010 last season, but he improved. I’m not as opposed to trading Bautista as I am Romero if we got the right offer, but we won’t get the right offer.

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 7:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Look at a standard baseball aging curve

He true skill level will go down regardless of the numbers he puts up.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 7:02 PM EST up reply actions  

but he might not be declining yet

I thought he’d decline in 2011, and he didn’t

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 7:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Again, not true

Those are expectations, based on aggregate numbers of what others did. It gives us an expectation about Bautista, it doesn’t tell us what WILL HAPPEN.

Please stop speaking in absolutes on these things.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 7:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Probabilities would be fine.

“His true skill will LIKELY go down due to age”

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 7:08 PM EST up reply actions  

???

Rest your case? The problem is, you didn;t say that.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 7:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Quotation marks

Unless you are quoting something word for word that has already been stated, the reader has to assume you are making the statement yourself.

by The commentator formerly known as Yoda on Jan 6, 2012 7:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Standard being the key word

And I could really care less what happens to his “skill level” from an organizational worth standpoint, as long as his contributions continue to increase/stay close to what they’ve been the last two seasons. I’m not going to disregard his numbers… he’s over 30. I care more about what he does on the field than his skill level.

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 7:07 PM EST up reply actions  

The problem is that there is no "average aging curve"

that Bautista’s career can possibly fit to. Who knows what his true “peak” talent would have been, since he didn’t seem to learn how to hit until he was 30 years old.

by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 6, 2012 7:36 PM EST up reply actions  

And I believe your overlooking.

A lot of the foundation is in place and AA is looking to add. What is next, is for these players, give or take one or two (ie. E5, or Cecil {my opinion}) to show that they can contend before AA makes that big FA aquisition..

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 7:04 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree we could be close

And might even make the playoffs now (2012) with 5 moves or less. I just don’t think we could maintain a playoff team for longer than 5ish years

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 7:08 PM EST up reply actions  

would trading Bautista

really, by itself, increase our contention window for a few years? I don’t think it woud

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions  

What makes you say that?

The relative youth of all our building blocks outside of Bautista, or the stacked farm system?

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 7:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Stacked farm is still years away...

But we’re talking about contending in 5 years…… which is years away………………

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 7:12 PM EST up reply actions  

"Baustista will likely be dust by then"

In two or three years, he will LIKELY still be at least good player, possibly still somewhat elite.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 7:13 PM EST up reply actions  

I would trade Lawrie if I wanted to contend

NOW

But I don’t, I think it makes more sense to build around the 4 WAR 21 year old than the 8 WAR 31/32 year old.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah right.

Just so you know, I’m not part of the sabermetric collective. That stuff (being polite) means nothing to me.

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 6:46 PM EST up reply actions  

So the Jays become the Toronto Blue A's!

Thanks but no thanks.

In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.

by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 6, 2012 6:35 PM EST up reply actions  

we'd be trading current value for future value

even if that value comes around in just 2 years, that’s closer to our contention window than 2011, no?

in any case it’s likely a moot point because it’d be nigh-impossible to get fair value for Bautista

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:37 PM EST up reply actions  

nice sarcasm

but if we’re going to compete in two years, Bautista is going to be 33. that’s not crazy-old, but he’s only going to get worse. if we could get fair value for him (a big if) why wouldn’t we trade him at (presumably) his peak trade value and get guys whose primes will coincide with the rest of our core’s?

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Bautista will start getting worse year by year now

So we either need to constantly be adding WAR to maintain/try and increase or take an extra 3-4 years and contend like 2015/2016

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:34 PM EST up reply actions  

3-4 years is a lot

the current prospects who are likely to be good players will probably be here by 2013 or 2014

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:35 PM EST up reply actions  

True

Heyward is pretty good now tbh

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:36 PM EST up reply actions  

he wasn't in 2011

but it’d be very nice to have him, even if it means moving Snider and/or Thames

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Still a starter at 2 WAR no?

I think he will back down. Ex-1st overall prospect in MLB.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:44 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah, he was way better than I thought

I forgot that he’s an excellent defender. he was about league average in 2011… 7 WAR before your 22nd birthday means you turn into a superstar at a crazily high rate

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Wrong

Bautista is EXPECTED to decline year by year.
What he actually will do is unknown, unless you have a great crystal ball.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Jedi’s get stronger with the Force as they get older.

by ABsteve on Jan 6, 2012 6:37 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Again, more assumptions..

Who’s put the timeline as a couple of years?? It is possible to contend this year as well as next and so on (see, I can make assumptions too).

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 6:37 PM EST up reply actions  

You don't have to be rude

People come here to write opinions, if we were speculating facts it world be numbers connected by punctuation and the odd word.

People are overpaying for SP and MLB talent atm, thus prospects are undervalued. We can theoretically get a team more talented than now by extending out timeline one or 2 years.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:39 PM EST up reply actions  

I am not being rude

I am expressing my opinion. I could say your an ass for saying that, but I won’t.

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 6:51 PM EST up reply actions  

You mocked me
(see, I can make assumptions too).

I honestly have no respect for your opinion, and I would add some color to that if it wasn’t BBB.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions  

ehh let's just leave it at that

the Internet does things to people

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:53 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

That made me lol

its true (talking about myself)

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Whatever.

I was responding to Benk not you that time (hit the up button).

by Alan F. on Jan 6, 2012 7:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Huh?

I’m sorry, I’m not sure where you’re headed with that sentiment. Rebuild in the middle of the rebuild? Romero’s and Morrow’s are what we hope to get in prospect trades, trading them for more prospects who may or may not pan out seems contradictory.

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 6:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Have to differentiate between Morrow and Romero. Romero is under contract for the next 5 years. MOrrow culd be gone in two years, so if he’s not willing to sign an extension, and wants to hit free agency, you have to look at maximizing the asset value.

The rebuild in the revbuild though is valid

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, sorry

I just got kind of caught up in that comment… don’t get why we’d move our only rock-solid SP for prospects even with the plethora of arms in the minors

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 6:40 PM EST up reply actions  

well it depends, really

there are differing degrees of prospects… Andrew Cashner is kind of a prospect still (his value is as a prospect, anyway), so is Justin Nicolino. getting prospects doesn’t necessarily imply we need to trade everyone and go for it in 2015, though your argument is certainly valid

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:42 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it makes sense

Because then we would have even more prospects in the minors who each have the individual chance to become better than their predecessors.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:43 PM EST up reply actions  

You're basically arguing we should be the As

Trade for prospects, keep them for a couple years until they get good, then trade for more prospects.

I love prospects as much as anyone else, but eventually you need core pieces to build around…Romero is exactly that. Cost controlled, quality lefty.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions  

But overperforming

If every offseason you traded players who performed better than expected and kept players who weren’t performing their best, you would eventually end up with a pretty good team.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:49 PM EST up reply actions  

we already have a pretty good team!

(I’m sure it’s annoying that I’m arguing both sides of this argument)

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:49 PM EST up reply actions  

No I agree with you

But the market right now is overpaying for MLB talent. It makes sense to switch up our timelines accordingly. We will compete, its pretty hard not to with a team this good. The question is for how long? I’d rather give us the maximum window possible because I’m a young guy. I want to be able to watch a competitive team throughout my life.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:51 PM EST up reply actions  

The market has always overpaid for MLB talent

In anything, prospects are closer to being fairly valued than any point in the last 20 years.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Then its a market inefficiency.

And we should capitalize on it as long as can.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm not so sure that's the case

it might be, but it might just be that teams and GMs are risk-averse by nature. intuitively this would make a lot of sense, since GMs might be even more concerned about losing their jobs than they are about winning

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:58 PM EST up reply actions  

The point is

It’s not really that much of one anymore, if at all.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Well...

At least we found something to talk about!

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Uhh

I’ve already got three others I’m working on right now.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 7:11 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I'm planning my first one soon

On the last 20 years of top prospects list :)

I look forward to those 3 :P

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 7:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Whose prospects list

Baseball America? There’s been some work done there, depending on what exactly you’re planning to look at

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 7:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah

I was planning on doing a surplus value based on rank by every 10
Aka surplus value on prospects 1-10, then 11-20 etc to see if it is a crapshoot. I also plan on doing a “strength of system” report based on simply reversing the numbers (like 1 = 99 points, 2 = 98 points) like on OOTP 11.

I know the latter has been done but I’m not sure about the first? I want it to be like the fangraphs draft pick one, where the draft positions get a certain amount of surplus value. BTW do u happen to know of how to calculate $$/WAR from 1990-2010? fangraphs only shows a small portion, I was wondering if you know of any place that has it?

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 8:15 PM EST up reply actions  

I think what you're envisioning has been done
I was planning on doing a surplus value based on rank by every 10

This has been done, by Victor Wang of The Hardball TImes. Study here and a realted study on the value of draft picks here and here. Scott McKinney also did a similar study here, his data set is available here. Wang’s numbers are a little controverisal due to some of his methodology (and the time frame he chose), plus they’re a little out of date, but I really don’t know how much more there is to gain from going over this again.

In terms of $/WAR, Dave Cameron has calculated it for 2002-2010, based on actual FA signings and value. For my study on free agents, I just used the annaul growth rate and extrapolated backwards for 1998-2001, but I wouldn’t do it for going back further than that.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 8:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow

Thanks a LOT for figuring all of that out for me before I started. I guess that idea has been done :( I will find something one day and make a great fanpost :(

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 9:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Goes to show it was a good idea

But yeah, I had a feeling that you describing something that been done, and was just hoping either you hadn’t started, or were going in a different direction

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 9:35 PM EST up reply actions  

So much stuff has been done in baseball

There is too much time in between at bats and people decided to make 100000 stats and studies… Doesn’t it ever seem like an over mined sport?

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 10:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Well its certainly a challenge

What questions in baseball haven’t been answered?

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 10:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I would say that questions don’t get definitively answered, research gives us was of thinking about baseball.

The reality is, what we kow pales in comparison to what we don’t know, and this goes for the world in general

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 10:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Only if you've got a crystal ball

You’re arguing for being able to predict the future. Sorry, no one has that ability, not even AA (or they’d be picking stocks). You don’t know exactly what players are capable of in the future, you have a good idea based on their past performance, but by that logic Romero was a write-off 5 years ago. Trading Romero doesn’t make any sense for this team.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions  

not even

for Stras? ;)

(were you around for that?)

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions  

No, I wasn't

Within reason…if you get an offer that knocks your socks off, to which you literally can’t say no, you don’t refuse. But I dont assume that. That’s also a major league ready piece, so not a prospect, which was your argument.

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:54 PM EST up reply actions  

a couple months into the season

I brought up trading Romero in a game thread and then Pikachu put up a poll about it. it was pretty divisive, but some good points were made

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I shouldn't have said "minor league pieces"

I just meant for other players, at least for Bautista

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Well then

You > Oakland Athletics and Billy Beane

I’m not arguing I can see into the future, but if we have the strongest farm system in the league we have stupid chances at being good one day.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 6:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Disagree

I want the strongest organization talent, not just minor league. Again, this isn’t a question of not wanting a strong system, but trading Romeoro to build the farm system is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. He’s a core piece…no sense trading that for a guys who may be core pieces

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:58 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah, I agree with that

I’d have to get blown away to want to trade Romero (doesn’t hurt that he’s my favourite player). and a significant part of the return would have to be a current MLBer (or at least a prospect with a high floor relative to ceiling)

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:49 PM EST up reply actions  

"Chance to become better..."

You hit the nail on the head right there. We have a way better idea of what Romero is than any prospect we’d get via trade. I’m not trying to discredit the amazing scouting department/front office we have, but baseball is a funny game like that.

Romero is pretty damn good, young, and under team control. With all the trade chips we have it just doesn’t make sense to me to trade him. Are we expecting to get two Romero level assets back? I think the chances of that are low no matter what’s going the other way.

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 6:49 PM EST up reply actions  

that makes no sense whatsoever. why would you trade players that are under control on a team friendly contract? So that you can ‘hope’ to contend 5 years from now?

we have core players and we shouldn’t trade them. we should continue to build around them.

by Sniderlover on Jan 7, 2012 12:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Let's see...

Everyone outside of the Braves and Rays need TOR pitchers so the competition is fierce.

Gio Gonzales – overpriced, Nats paid huge.
Matt Garza – overpriced, not going to happen unless the price drops and good luck with that as Epstein/Hoyer not as stupid as Hendry.
Yu Darvish – lost the bidding to Texas.
Felix – not going happen period. End of story.

Names that aren’t TOR but keep popping up for some reason and I don’t know why…
Jair Jurrgens – Below average FB velocity and not at the price Atlanta is asking.
Danks – dislike him for his big mouth/breaking Lyle’s hand and Kenny Williams extended him.

In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.

by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 6, 2012 6:32 PM EST up reply actions  

and Phillies

we’re only competing with 26 teams!

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:38 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Still think

there might be some guys out there that AA has his eye on. That no one thinks has a chance of being moved. Even contending teams will take a big prospect package if the GM thinks he wins in value and keeps his contending status.

by Lutherie on Jan 6, 2012 7:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Last time I checked

There’s still four months between now and opening day. I also seem to remember Anthopolous or some Jays rep adding that they’d stay pat with what they have if they don’t find the right deal.

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 6:39 PM EST up reply actions  

they will

Anthopoulos isn’t stupid enough to get fleeced (ie, make trades that aren’t right)

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 6:39 PM EST up reply actions  

JEFF MATHIS

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 7:03 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

not supreme

check the numbers

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 7:05 PM EST up reply actions  

he's above average in framing

and average-ish in blocking. Terrible at everything else

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 7:06 PM EST up reply actions  

good

but even then it’s only a few runs above average

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions  

10 runs = 1 WAR

He was like 30 runs better than JPA

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 7:11 PM EST up reply actions  

it wasn't 30, im pretty sure

and its for per 120 games played

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 7:11 PM EST up reply actions  

no no no

its per 120 games played

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 7:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Which means it's more like

+1.5 (if he plays 25 games) and JP can hope to improve a bit.

by Lutherie on Jan 6, 2012 7:28 PM EST up reply actions  

I mean difference if we started him the whole season?

Like if Mathis hit the same as last year he would be -1 OWAR and 0.4 DWAR then if you factor in pitch framing its like 1.6 WAR total. (I just doubled both his OWAR and DWAR from his 280 PA season last year)

So JPA was 0.9 WAR in a similar amount of PA, isn’t Mathis better?

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 8:18 PM EST up reply actions  

if you take those studies at face value

they were/are a great step in the right direction, but there is quite a bit more work to be done

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 8:22 PM EST up reply actions  

if you use rWAR it does look that way

fWAR says the opposite. Mathis was worth -1.0 in ~90 games. Would be about ~1.3 fWAR in 120 games. With framing should be something like -0.7

Anyways, like benk said, catcher defense still has ways to go. Looking at the things we do know, it’s really hard to make Mathis out as even an above replacement level player.

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 8:30 PM EST up reply actions  

negative value

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 7:20 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Oh really?

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 6, 2012 11:51 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

cats are only good for gifs and images

thats where they can stay!

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 6, 2012 11:51 PM EST up reply actions  

What's your opinion on dogs?

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 6, 2012 11:52 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

they belong in every home

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 6, 2012 11:53 PM EST up reply actions  

And bunnies?

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 6, 2012 11:56 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Of course you would say that

your part rodent

Do you have a young, talented cost controlled player having a down year who's "attitude" has cased problems with an aging player or manager?

Don't worry, I Alex Anthopoulos will take him off your hands, I'll even give you some moderately useful veterans that will "help you make a playoff run".

I tweet sometimes

by jaysfan100 on Jan 6, 2012 11:54 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Wombat, eh?

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 6, 2012 11:56 PM EST up reply actions  

no

yellow electric wombats are the answer to life. Plus, they hold a damn good/intelligent baseball conversation

Do you have a young, talented cost controlled player having a down year who's "attitude" has cased problems with an aging player or manager?

Don't worry, I Alex Anthopoulos will take him off your hands, I'll even give you some moderately useful veterans that will "help you make a playoff run".

I tweet sometimes

by jaysfan100 on Jan 6, 2012 11:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I prefer elephants

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 7, 2012 12:00 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

these are my favourite

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 7, 2012 12:01 AM EST up reply actions  

indeed

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 7, 2012 12:02 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

Ahh

Kitties are so cute!

by MjwW on Jan 7, 2012 12:07 AM EST up reply actions  

Mathis is far more whoop dee frickin doo

than Darren Oliver is, and that’s saying something

by benk on Jan 6, 2012 7:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Looks like a Jeff Mathis comment...

resulted in the greatest thread of cute animal .gifs in the history of BBB.

Maybe Jeff Mathis is the key to happiness?

by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 7, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Or, maybe, the cute animals are a remedy to forgetting Mathis’ horrible play.

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 7, 2012 3:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Last I checked

There’s only 3 months to open day, and thank goodness for that (rather than 4)!

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Shoot

January to April, automatically think 4 months. Thanks for the correction

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 6:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Any truth to this?

The Texas Rangers may not come terms with Yu Darvish. An unreliable source provided that info, I just wonder if anyone else heard the same.

Man who has four balls cannot walk

by Beer Leaguer on Jan 6, 2012 6:47 PM EST via Android app reply actions  

As a rule of thumb

I’d ignore it. I’d ignore all Darcish musing until the week or so before the deadline, nothing will happen before then. Probably a couple days before then

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 6:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Interesting conversations above about trading some of our stars for prospects

My cents on this is that you hope that your prospects turn into stars (either the players themselves or they get packaged to obtain an actual MLB star). Once you have a star entrenched in a position and on a team friendly long term deal, you don’t often see teams trade those players, unless they’re an awful team who needs to rebuild. I understand the whole sell high thing, but prospect hoarding has its limitations. The Jays already have a bunch of good prospects knocking at the door (and in the lower levels as well) and quite a few good young players on their 25 man roster. The Jays basically have 14 (maybe 15) positions that they’d ideally like to fill with star-calibre players. If anything, I think they’re in a position now where they should be going after players like Romero and Bautista (easier said than done for the reasons I state above).

by REMO on Jan 6, 2012 10:07 PM EST reply actions  

I could see a Bautista trade feasable especially if Snider starts to produce. Strong possibility that JPA will be shopped near the end of the year as well. Though the Jays will lose a free PR guy if/when he gets moved.

As a Toronto sports fan I proudly follow the lessons of lachrymology.
"He drives that new car around town and feels really good about it." - Ron Wilson
"Vancouver, BC: A massive inferiority complex with a city." - TheOtherAndrew
"HOPE is more than a postponed disappointment" - Epica

by Redonred on Jan 6, 2012 10:26 PM EST up reply actions  

I wish we'd shop JPA now and bite the bullet with Mathis

I think it would be much better for the club going forward, regardless of if we want to compete now or later.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 10:40 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah

no.

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 10:41 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Second that

JPA is going to make the minimum, more likely to get better than worse (aging curve) so there’s no need or sense in trading him to play Molina

by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 10:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I should ban you for wanting to play mathis

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 6, 2012 11:01 PM EST up reply actions  

I DARE YOU

Just kidding. Nobody messes with the bannerhammer.

But seriously I like Mathis better than JPA because he can play the position hes slotted in to.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 11:08 PM EST up reply actions  

because he can frame?

is that really worth the hole in his bat?

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 6, 2012 11:27 PM EST up reply actions  

crater***

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 6, 2012 11:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't make me start a game calling argument cause ill do it!

Well tbh I think Mathis would be a much better game caller than JPA, I think in the neighborhood of 10-15 runs.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 11:46 PM EST up reply actions  

sure

but given ~120 starts, Mathis is about 20~25 runs worse in batting runs

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 11:49 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

So 20 runs from framing 10 runs from game calling

And they are looking awfully similar.

Not saying that I can present any data because game calling isn’t currently quantifiable, and could even work against him but on gut feeling, him coming out of LA I think he will be a better game caller than JPA.

Then again I usually find a way to blame everything possible on JPA because hes my least favorite Jay.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 11:56 PM EST up reply actions  

well, have it your way

I honestly don’t think game calling is that big of a deal. In too many cases it just comes from the dugout

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 11:58 PM EST up reply actions  

In my opinion it is one of the most important factors in catching

Because realistically if the majority of catchers call the pitches its a fluctuation of like 30 runs either way. Again thats just opinion, not fact.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 11:59 PM EST up reply actions  

they shake off until they get what they want

so they can cycle through all of them, ultimately deciding what they want

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 7, 2012 12:04 AM EST up reply actions  

so a pitcher has what 4 pitches?

fastball, shake
changeup shake
Curve ok

Reuse and recycle lol

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 7, 2012 12:06 AM EST up reply actions  

i dare you

because mike scioscia does the calling in Anaheim

So please do it

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 6, 2012 11:51 PM EST up reply actions  

None of that rubs off on a catcher?

I was kidding with the “i dare you” btw I wasn’t challenging you

by Mike Andrew on Jan 6, 2012 11:54 PM EST up reply actions  

i know after i posted it came off aggressive

i was more or less playing along.
No because every pitcher is different.

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 7, 2012 12:02 AM EST up reply actions  

Phew okay good :)

And thats true but isn’t that also a skill of the catcher? Knowing the pitchers differences?

by Mike Andrew on Jan 7, 2012 12:04 AM EST up reply actions  

and the coaches

its a team effort

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 7, 2012 12:05 AM EST up reply actions  

he can't hit

he can’t flipping hit to save his life

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 6, 2012 11:38 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Honestly I'm really hoping Mathis hits this year

Yeah I know it’s not likely but imagine how angered Halo’s fans would be if he hits .300. Plus it furthers the legacy of one Alex Anthoupoulos if it happens.

Anyway this’s what I’ll be cheering for.

by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Jan 7, 2012 1:31 PM EST up reply actions  

They might be upset if he hits above the Mendoza line. lol

For some reason (I don’t know why), I looked at his stats from last year. The weird stat that jumped out at me was that he was actually walked intentionally twice….mind boggling.

by Alan F. on Jan 7, 2012 1:56 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Maybe in front of the pitcher in interleague? Other than that, yeah, pretty crazy

by MjwW on Jan 7, 2012 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

What's the point of shopping JPA and playing that other guy?

Doesn’t make us better in the future and CERTAINLY not in the present. Makes a lot more sense to wait a year or two when he has built up more value and d’Arnaud is ready for the Majors instead of that other guy we got from the Angels.

by Aidin on Jan 6, 2012 11:48 PM EST up reply actions  

It doesn't on aggregate (for lack of a better term)

Considering we could better and/or more prospects for JPA in two years than we could now. Of course this is banking on him getting better, but going into his second and third full ML seasons by that time I don’t think its a stretch to say the chances are greater of him improving

by Aidin on Jan 7, 2012 12:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I dunno

you trade a guy like Bautista and you bring back 4-5 very good prospects? What do you do with them? Let them build value and trade them again for a very good player, like Bautista? There are only a limited number of MLB roster spots.

by REMO on Jan 7, 2012 6:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Didn't we blow like 20 saves or something last year?

Isn’t anyone curious to see what this team can do with a good closer?

by FanInJapan on Jan 6, 2012 10:44 PM EST reply actions  

He wasn't that great

Maybe a down year, but I like Santos a little better than Francisco.

by FanInJapan on Jan 7, 2012 4:46 AM EST up reply actions  

Santos...?

+1 is only good if you actually rec the post

by Bowling_Guy25 on Jan 6, 2012 11:01 PM EST up reply actions  

God, not saves/blown saves again

Do you have a young, talented cost controlled player having a down year who's "attitude" has cased problems with an aging player or manager?

Don't worry, I Alex Anthopoulos will take him off your hands, I'll even give you some moderately useful veterans that will "help you make a playoff run".

I tweet sometimes

by jaysfan100 on Jan 6, 2012 11:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Shhh!

(Don’t let facts get in the way of fire, brimstone, and moralizing)

by MjwW on Jan 7, 2012 12:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Well You Just Blow Up the Team Then

The sky is falling. The sky is falling, chicken little.

by FanInJapan on Jan 7, 2012 4:45 AM EST up reply actions  

The thing is...

The team is a lot better in a lot of areas. Their bullpen as a whole is (should be) better. Same goes for 3B, 2B and CF. I also expect better performances at LF and 1B, DH. Some regression at RF and SS is possible, however and the starting rotation is a little bit of a question mark.

by REMO on Jan 7, 2012 6:59 AM EST up reply actions  

I could be wrong but,

When I check box scores, leads typically given up in the 6th, 7th or 8th innings are listed as “blown holds”. It’s not considered a save opportunity (at least imho) unless the intent is for that reliever to finish the game.

by Alan F. on Jan 7, 2012 11:21 AM EST up reply actions  

I think it is wrong...

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a blown hold. There are holds (though even this is unofficial, I believe), but failure to get a hold results in not getting a hold, not getting a blown hold.

Meanwhile, they credit a blown save to any pitcher that enters the game under any circumstance which can warrant a save, and proceeds to give up the tying run

by Fuzzpuke on Jan 7, 2012 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Okay

Wasn’t sure (my interpretation I guess).

by Alan F. on Jan 7, 2012 1:58 PM EST up reply actions  

While I disagree with the premise of the 20 saves being the issue last year

I do agree with the concept of “curious to see what this team can do with a very good bullpen”. I don’t think there is much difference between Francisco and Santos, but the rest of the bullpen over the course of the year should be significantly better. I figure we have gained something like 2-3 wins from the bullpen additions alone.

by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 7, 2012 11:50 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm Just Not Ready to Fold

A full season of Lawrie, a better pen, maybe a return to something from Cecil, and perhaps a chance to see what some of our good prospects can do. My point is that this team has some really good pieces in place already. I’m just more curious about how those pieces come together this year, forgetting that the Jays had some bad luck last, before we go and trade our best chips away.

by FanInJapan on Jan 7, 2012 4:39 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about our heroic azure-tinged corvidae, the Toronto Blue Jays.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Grain-of-salt_small
On random variation: LOB%, BABIP and FIP vs. ERA
Graffiti-cbgb-bathroom_small
You know what Grinds my Gears?
Hal2_small
Quantifying the Effect of Team Defense on Over/Underperforming the Team's FIP
Small
Brett Lawrie's historic defensive prowess

Recent FanPosts

Img_0569_2_small
Tell me where to go...
Small
Blue Jays Player Stats Multiplied by 4
Small
Petition to change Suckage Award Titles
Jaysfanimage_small
The Lansing 4: What to do when they outpitch expectations?
Misc_003_small
Jays' All-Star Alliterative Name Team
Kingkelly_small
Stats tools?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Bluejayperched_small hugo

Rincewind-1_small Tom Dakers

Assistant Manager

Smith_up_small JohnnyG

Authors

Hiro_small jessef

Profile_small masterkembo

Profiel_small Woodman663

Minorleaguer_small Minor Leaguer

Tony_fernandez_small TonyFernandezSavedMyLife

Moderators

Ryder_small jays182

Aejfuulciaar18g_small Bowling_Guy25