2023/24 Blue Jays Off Season Thread

[KelVarnsen]

We clearly aren’t going to change your mind.

Think about that.

[Jiggy_12]

Sometimes the contrarian point of view schtick needs to be parked…I would say this is one of those times

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

We clearly aren’t going to change your mind.

Think about that.

There's nothing to think about. I'm not in love with Bauer and have no connection to him. He can come for cheap and the upside is massive.

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by bluejays

There's nothing to think about. I'm not in love with Bauer and have no connection to him. He can come for cheap and the upside is massive.

Those two things are unquestionably true. So should we go sign Roberto Osuna too? He would qualify based on that criteria

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

Those two things are unquestionably true. So should we go sign Roberto Osuna too? He would qualify based on that criteria

Can't justify that, considering he's not MLB quality anymore.


Back when Osuna was accused of battery, I was in favour of dropping him. However, the charges were eventually dropped. So I do understand at the time the feelings around having someone like that accused of something that bad and not wanting any part of it while they go through that. But once they're acquitted or charges are dropped, there are always lingering doubts, but at a certain point it's over with. I don't think many pro athletes are good people in general, so I've kinda changed my position on where the bar is set with them. Ultimately now I think in terms of how will they get along with their teammates, and if they're pains to work with, perhaps they won't fit in. In his case, he's saying the right things and wants to fit in now, so with his upside being high, I say why not, that's all.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Two different cases here. Franco won't be eligible to play for the next little while, while he's locked up. If it was proven that the allegations were false (not saying it is) with supporting evidence, then why wouldn't I want him on the team eventually?

If he was convicted and served 18 months and wanted to get back into baseball (and somehow the US allowed him in), would you be ok with him in a Blue Jays jersey? His talent wouldn’t have disappeared in that period of time.

I believe teams should make decisions that not only give them the best chance of winning but also reflect their priorities as an organization. When deciding to sign a guy accused of potentially criminal behaviour, they don’t have to meet the same thresholds that prosecutors need to charge a person or judges/juries are required to meet to convict. They can make decision that based on what they’ve seen, the reputational risk of signing him and having him wear their brand (jersey) is simply not a good one. I think that is reasonable.

The potential damage that the Jays would face from having Bauer wear their jersey is significant. Does the behaviour that he has shown online, professionally, and personally reflect their values as an organization? They’d face serious questions about how this signing would damage their relationships with minority groups like the queer community (that they damaged through their massive ####up with Anthony Bass) and women.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by bluejays

In his case, he's saying the right things and wants to fit in now, so with his upside being high, I say why not, that's all.

He hasn’t said the right things. He hasn’t made heartfelt apologies. He knows that he’s in the twilight of his career and he’s at risk of losing the opportunity to earn millions of dollars. He’s said the bare minimum to try to open that door back up.

[bluejays]

That's a fair question (quotations not working ben). I don't know what I think of a convicted felon being signed. On one hand, there's a view that they've paid their debt to society through sentencing, but on the other hand, they're a convicted felon!


I'd have to think of that one a bit more, but my initial thought would be probably how society views them in certain jobs today. If you're in a position of trust (whether money or teaching children), and you have not got a pardon, then you're probably not eligible to be trusted as a player on the team. But if you have, and you're truly remorseful and humble about what you've done, I don't see why a person can't be signed if their playing ability is there.


In the case of Bauer, if he was theoretically brought in and he f'd up, it would definitely bring disrepute to the organization. The Jays would have to do more DD then I'm doing (or not doing), but they'd have to assess that risk from a business standpoint and speak to him to see truly where his head is at, I'd think.

[ben voyonsdonc]

I can’t believe that you’d need to mull over whether you’d be ok with a convicted pedophile on the team. Talent doesn’t trump everything.

I’d like to believe that the Jays are smart enough to stay miles away from a toxic human being like Bauer…although their handling of the Bass situation makes me not so confident about that.

[KelVarnsen]

I’d prefer the Jays forfeiting every 5th game over signing Bauer

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I can’t believe that you’d need to mull over whether you’d be ok with a convicted pedophile on the team. Talent doesn’t trump everything.

I’d like to believe that the Jays are smart enough to stay miles away from a toxic human being like Bauer…although their handling of the Bass situation makes me not so confident about that.

That wasn't in direct response to Franco. It was moreso a thought on anyone convicted of a crime. Each person would have to be judged on the severity of the crime too. It's nuanced, but generally I think they'd have to be pardoned and remorseful about what they've done. How severe was the crime though? Those are all nuances that would have to likely be taken into account.

[flambers]

Jays have already released a player last year for comments, zero chance they will sign Bauer.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by bluejays

That wasn't in direct response to Franco. It was moreso a thought on anyone convicted of a crime. Each person would have to be judged on the severity of the crime too. It's nuanced, but generally I think they'd have to be pardoned and remorseful about what they've done. How severe was the crime though? Those are all nuances that would have to likely be taken into account.

I’m guessing a mark of a professional athlete is what do you do with your position of power and influence, often that translates into other areas of how you conduct yourself day to day. How do you conduct yourself as a professional teammate?Do you A) Do whatever you can to help the team win, will you be a distraction, will you put yourself and your interests ahead of your teams?

As an employer spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a massive sports organization that extends way beyond the players in the clubhouse. That would be physios, marketing teams, sales teams, lawyers. People that you want to ensure are working in a safe environment where they don’t feel uncomfortable. Potentially you’re a trans employee, or a female who has a history of being abused, you see your employer hiring someone who was accused and or convicted or something extremely harmful. Likely would be an issue. Is that a nuance that you considered? Or are you simply just bending over backwards to try to find reasons to hire convicted criminals?

[bluejays]

I sense the sarcasm. I don't have the answers, but I'm saying there are other nuances to consider but I wouldn't shut out anyone completely based on a criminal past or a checkered past. It's what can they do in the future with some consideration of their past for assessing the totality of the risk it could pose. But I wouldn't shut out anyone entirely as I think that's wrong, millionaire or not. I also don't hold athletes to as high a regard as I think most aren't good people compared to the average joe. As for your last example of making someone feel uncomfortable by hiring someone based on their past, I'd just say if the person with the checkered past has contrition for what they've done and don't pose a threat, and are a good teammate, then high chances they're eligible. Everyone we all work with aren't angels.

[flames_fan_down_under]

It's just a really weird take.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

It's just a really weird take.

Great take on nuance.

[browna]

I get the idea to separate the player from his off field transgressions, if the transgressions have been proven wrong or greatly reduced.

But in this day or social media and public relations being so sensitive, Bauer and others like him, each of varying degrees of issues, the court of social media has already been judge, jury and executioner on Bauer, for better or worse.

Any team who is ready to go against that social media court has to be ready for the response from social media, the reporters who will ask every player in the locker room about a guy like Bauer. People who aren't baseball fans admonishing the Jays and then the Jays sponsors. It ends up just not being worth the off field distractions.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by browna

I get the idea to separate the player from his off field transgressions, if the transgressions have been proven wrong or greatly reduced.

But in this day or social media and public relations being so sensitive, Bauer and others like him, each of varying degrees of issues, the court of social media has already been judge, jury and executioner on Bauer, for better or worse.

Any team who is ready to go against that social media court has to be ready for the response from social media, the reporters who will ask every player in the locker room about a guy like Bauer. People who aren't baseball fans admonishing the Jays and then the Jays sponsors. It ends up just not being worth the off field distractions.

Thanks. I think that’s a very fair take. I don’t disagree, but deep down I like the UFC approach with Dana White telling sponsors to pound sand. Other sports don’t do that but that’s another discussion.

[SportsJunky]

Bowden at The Athletic rated every MLB team for their off season efforts to this point. Blue Jays receive a D. Only other team to receive a D was Oakland.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Bowden at The Athletic rated every MLB team for their off season efforts to this point. Blue Jays receive a D. Only other team to receive a D was Oakland.

D is harsh. They haven’t made any long term bad decisions, so to me it’s just saying they haven’t gotten better as last year they were a contender, so they should’ve done more. I agree it’s been surprisingly non eventful post the ohtani chase, but I’d give a C just because they haven’t messed themselves up for the future. LA is all in in a high risk high reward scenario. Yanks got better but gave up a lot of prospects. Really nobody off the top aside from those two has got that much better. While I disagree with KK and IKFs bats for everyday players, if they’re going to use this year to see what they have, and what they don’t, I’m in favour of what they’re doing. To me the ultimate poor management indicator is mediocre talent being signed to immovable long term deals, and giving away good prospects. Stop both now and that’s fine for me.