The Blue Jays: 2009 Season Thread

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by moon

With Ryan, Thomas, Wells and Rios it appears that the Jays have had no trouble absorbing big contracts and still spending money.

Based on what?

Giving away Rios and Rolen, letting AJ walk without replacing him, signing a veteran bat in a lineup that obviously needed it in a buyers market?

If anything I'd suggest its the opposite, they are are stripping their liabilities to increase resale value.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by nik-

Kei Igawa, Kevin Brown, Javier Vasquez, Carl Pavano, Roger Clemen's last contract.

There have been a ton of bad contracts from just the Yankees alone. They still win because they can afford to absorb them.

The Yankees didn't even increase their payroll this season, they just re-allocated the money they were spending on other (terrible) contracts.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Is that true though?

This sentiment has been repeated a few times but give me an example.

The one that comes to mind for me is the Twins. Relatively small market that can't afford to keep top free agents (Torii Hunter, Johan Santana) and gets by on wily veterans and solid youngsters plus a few top players on good contracts.

But they are never actually competitive, just closer than organizations that aren't run as well in the same salary bracket.

Playoff competitors are (at least) one of three things:
1) Unsustainably lucky
2) High payroll
3) On the way up of a ten-year rollercoaster ride of terribleness - for instance the Rays now and the Orioles in a couple years.

What team is consistently a contender that does not fit that description?

I will use St. Louis as an example. They aren't poor but they usually start the season around 10-15 in payroll.

In the past 10 years they have gone to the WS twice, winning once, they have been in contention for the play-offs in every year but one. They handed out one huge contract to Pujols and have used a lot of prospects, shrewd signings of cast offs rather than big payroll.

I would also say that Minnesota has been competitive, sure they have had to get rid of Hunter and Santana but they still have made the play-offs a ton of times and are almost always in contention.

They may have to compete and run their teams differently than the big boys but they still manage to be a lot more competitive than many other teams with the same or even much higher payrolls.

[moon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Kei Igawa, Kevin Brown, Javier Vasquez, Carl Pavano, Roger Clemen's last contract.

There have been a ton of bad contracts from just the Yankees alone. They still win because they can afford to absorb them.

I would take those contracts (other than Pavano) over the Ryan/Thomas deals.

Still not a ton considering the time frame that those deals came from and not any more than the Blue Jays.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by moon

I would take those contracts (other than Pavano) over the Ryan/Thomas deals.

Still not a ton considering the time frame that those deals came from and not any more than the Blue Jays.

The point is not solely the number, the point is the ability to move past them and still compete with a large payroll.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Based on what?

Giving away Rios and Rolen, letting AJ walk without replacing him, signing a veteran bat in a lineup that obviously needed it in a buyers market?

If anything I'd suggest its the opposite, they are are stripping their liabilities to increase resale value.

Based on the fact that after the Thomas mess they still spent big money on guys.

They have given out big deals a lot over the past 5 years despite having these terrible contracts.

Giving away Rios was a fault of the GM not a fault of them not having enough money.

They were replacing AJ with one of their supposedly great young pitchers. After severly overpaying for him just a few years prior.

Rolen was dealt because he said he wanted to go somewhere else.

There are reports that the Blue Jays are willing to increase their spending next year. I don't how they have been hindered at all financially. If anything they have been guilty of being like the Red Sox and Yankees and paying guys big contracts and not worrying about whether they were worth it or not.

I have a hard time buying the argument that the Jays are at a disadvantage financially when they have had no problem at all overpaying for Thomas, Ryan, Burnett, Wells and Rios all in the past 4 years.

[moon]

Originally Posted by nik-

The point is not solely the number, the point is the ability to move past them and still compete with a large payroll.

The Jays have moved past Ryan and Thomas and still have a large payroll.

The reason they haven't competed with said payroll is due to poor player development/decisions, not finances.

[JiriHrdina]

I'm not an expert on money matters in MLB but isn't another advantage for big market teams their ability to pay the high draft picks what they want thus opening up a wider talent pool on draft day for them? Other teams avoid certain prospects because they aren't sure they can sign them.

Or do I am not understanding how it works?

[moon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm not an expert on money matters in MLB but isn't another advantage for big market teams their ability to pay the high draft picks what they want thus opening up a wider talent pool on draft day for them? Other teams avoid certain prospects because they aren't sure they can sign them.

Or do I am not understanding how it works?

It doesn't quite end up working that way, more of a case of the smallest/cheapest teams don't always pick the top guy because of what it will cost. i.e. Pittsburgh passes on Wieters and then Baltimore gets him (not the Yanks or Boston.)

It isn't so much that the big market teams get guys they want as the smallest market teams sometimes avoid guys who may be more talented, but those guys still go to small market teams.

In fact a big market team like the Mets are notorious for being very cheap when it comes to draft picks.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm not an expert on money matters in MLB but isn't another advantage for big market teams their ability to pay the high draft picks what they want thus opening up a wider talent pool on draft day for them? Other teams avoid certain prospects because they aren't sure they can sign them.

Or do I am not understanding how it works?

Yes, you are right. Moon is downplaying it, and he may be right, but I disagree.

There are fifty rounds and every team (for each pick) has to look at their big board and see who they 1) want and 2) can afford.

2) is obviously an advantage to big spenders.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by moon

Based on the fact that after the Thomas mess they still spent big money on guys.

Who?

Was was their last big free agent signing?

Originally Posted by moon

Giving away Rios was a fault of the GM not a fault of them not having enough money.

The team didn't want to spend money on a guy that statistically suggests he warrants. That is a payroll decision, not a baseball decision.

Originally Posted by moon

They were replacing AJ with one of their supposedly great young pitchers. After severly overpaying for him just a few years prior.

Overpaying him so brutally that he opted out of his contract to get a substantial raise.

Originally Posted by moon

There are reports that the Blue Jays are willing to increase their spending next year. I don't how they have been hindered at all financially. If anything they have been guilty of being like the Red Sox and Yankees and paying guys big contracts and not worrying about whether they were worth it or not.

Excellent point.

Originally Posted by moon

I have a hard time buying the argument that the Jays are at a disadvantage financially when they have had no problem at all overpaying for Thomas, Ryan, Burnett, Wells and Rios all in the past 4 years.

Oversimplified and faulty logic.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Yes, you are right. Moon is downplaying it, and he may be right, but I disagree.

There are fifty rounds and every team (for each pick) has to look at their big board and see who they 1) want and 2) can afford.

2) is obviously an advantage to big spenders.

The other factor is the agent, teams go into the draft knowing some players will not sign with them...... Therefore they skip the player.

JP made a comment about the last draft, he said the Jays made allot of risky picks knowing that the chances were the player would never sign.

The Jays made the picks as these players were high end and the risk was worth it.

I also agree with Jiri's post

[flambers]

Originally Posted by moon

The Jays have moved past Ryan and Thomas and still have a large payroll.
.

A large payroll compared to who? Even with Ryan and Thomas salary on the books they are not even half of the Yank's payroll.....

[GirlySports]

The Yankees keep being brought up but they haven't won since 2000.. that's nearly 2 billion dollars in wasteful spending!

Rich teams can also spend stupidly, look at the Mets and Cubs. Jays still need to work harder to get to that level of ineptitude.

Jays should be alot better. Should be challenging every year at least and making the playoffs the odd year (maybe every 3 years) with the money they're spending.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Jays should be alot better. Should be challenging every year at least and making the playoffs the odd year (maybe every 3 years) with the money they're spending.

The Jays are challenging every year, and every year they have enough wins (earned in the AL East) to win another division.

[flamesaresmokin]

With the way the jays are stuck between the red sox and yankees it is unreasonable to expect the playoffs any year unless they dramatically increase payroll. If one of those teams moved to a new division things would be different. Tough team to cheer for even if they have years like last season they get nowhere.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The Jays are challenging every year, and every year they have enough wins (earned in the AL East) to win another division.

Maybe against non-division opponents they do. But their win totals from the last few years usually are in the 83 to a high of 88. Thats not good enough to get a look at the Wild Card. Even when they finished 2nd in the AL East in 2006 they still had 3 teams from other Divisions with better records.

Granted that if Baseball played a balanced schedule and said the 4 top records are going to the playoffs it would have helped their chances.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The Yankees keep being brought up but they haven't won since 2000.. that's nearly 2 billion dollars in wasteful spending!

Over 162 game season it's been enough to get them to the playoffs every year except one. In a league where you play that many season games and than have that few teams in the playoffs your ability to spend probably helps more for that long season. Once you get to the playoffs, those series are short enough that anything can happen. In baseball it's a hell of a lot more difficult to make the playoffs than in any of the other 3 leagues, as a result any team who makes the playoffs can win.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Yes, you are right. Moon is downplaying it, and he may be right, but I disagree.

There are fifty rounds and every team (for each pick) has to look at their big board and see who they 1) want and 2) can afford.

2) is obviously an advantage to big spenders.

Who are the big prospects that big market teams have been able to sign because they gave them more money?

There have been a few guys that have dropped 1-4 spots because teams didn't want to pay them but the big market teams aren't up there in those spots to take advantage of them.

Since you can't trade picks in MLB the big market teams have no way to get those prospects as teams always end up drafting them early.

Jiri is right that the some teams make decisions based on money but wrong in that the big market teams are the ones benefiting.

As I mentioned the Mets who have as much money as anyone other than BOS/NYY are well known for not spending money at all.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by moon

There have been a few guys that have dropped 1-4 spots because teams didn't want to pay them but the big market teams aren't up there in those spots to take advantage of them.

You're talking like its an NFL rookie salary structure, that's just not the way it is.

A prospect that would grade out as a mid 3rd rounder hires Boras as his agent and makes it clear that any team that signs him will have to pay him 1st round money. Therefore, his "actual" value is much lower than his "true" value and he doesn't get picked until the 5th round by a big market team that is willing to overpay for the talent.
The small market team that could have drafted the player in the 3rd round instead drafts 5th round talent because they can sign him for 5th round money.

Apply that to ten rounds of draft picks for ten years and this incremental over/under slotting has an appreciable effect.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Who?

Was was their last big free agent signing?

They paid Wells and Rios big contracts and had no problem paying for Ryan and Burnett.

The team didn't want to spend money on a guy that statistically suggests he warrants. That is a payroll decision, not a baseball decision.

If they thought he warranted the money they would have kept him. In terms of ability they felt it was better to let him go and get him off the team because his play on the field wasn't worth it.

Its not like they wanted to keep him but had to let him go because they didn't have the cash to afford him. If they thought he was good enough he would still be on the team.

That is a baseball decision not a payroll decision.

Overpaying him so brutally that he opted out of his contract to get a substantial raise.

What does what he makes now have to do with what he was offered years ago? Almost every player in their prime is paid more than they were in the past.

They overpaid him because they offered about 10 million more than any other team out there. It wasn't a deal which was in line with what other teams were offering and Burnett went to the Jays because he liked the team/city, he went there because the money was much better than anywhere else.

Oversimplified and faulty logic.

How is it oversimplified and faulty logic?

Other teams spending the same amount of money or less have been able to compete. They have done a better job of developing players and not handing out stupid contracts.

Originally Posted by flambers

The other factor is the agent, teams go into the draft knowing some players will not sign with them...... Therefore they skip the player.

Thats true but these players never drop so far that only the big market teams get them. They are always picked up by some team willing to take a risk on them.