The 2016 Toronto Blue Jays Thread

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Jay Bruce, Josh Reddick, Mark Trumbo are all options that are viable. Plus Pompey should be ready by now.

Yeah, but they're not guys you can just pick from and sign, they're guys that you have a small chance of acquiring in a 30 team league.

They're not so much options as hopes.

[cross16]

Originally Posted by 868904

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting. Pompey just stole two bases. He was pumped. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have scored on a decently executed bunt and the game would have been tied.

You do whatever you can to tie that game and go from there, maybe hope the next time Bautista comes around, he continues his epic game. Revere and Navarro (I think) were the two batters and neither of them came close to making contact on their swings. They were overmatched by an elite closer and a bunt was probably their best chance of making contact and getting Pompey home.

Problem there though is you are assuming it is a decently exectued bunt, what if its not? if it wasn't a properly executed bunt its a double play and you just ended your season on a bunt play with the AL MVP either on deck or in the hole.

I'll take brining JD up to the plate with runners on everytime over a bunt play that could end the game.

[cross16]

going to market doesn't equal gone.

Marco Estrada went to market last year and came back. I read that as the Jays don't agree with what the players asks are so they will let them go to market and see if they can get it. Would be shocked if they don't go to market with offers in hand from the Jays.

I get alot of people are waiting for the bottom to fall out and the Jays to cut payroll but nothing Shaprio and co have said or done since they got here suggests that is going to be the case. They added ALOT of money at the TDL and some of it for next year. Doesn't make sense why they would do that and a few months later start slashing.

I also agree that of that list EE is really the only "priority" and even at that I think he needs to be brought back on the right deal, not at all costs.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, but they're not guys you can just pick from and sign, they're guys that you have a small chance of acquiring in a 30 team league.

They're not so much options as hopes.

True. But that's the point. All options should be considered. Goal is to make the team better and manage short and long-term needs.
Getting tunnel vision on declining players, or players that have not shown sustained high performance (Saunders) is a mistake.
Even if you can't get one of those guys, that doesn't mean overpaying Saunders is a sound decision.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

True. But that's the point. All options should be considered. Goal is to make the team better and manage short and long-term needs.
Getting tunnel vision on declining players, or players that have not shown sustained high performance (Saunders) is a mistake.
Even if you can't get one of those guys, that doesn't mean overpaying Saunders is a sound decision.

For sure, I was just nitpicking the difference between options and highly sought after FA's that we likely won't be able to get. To me an option is someone you have a reasonable chance of acquiring if you so desire. It was overly pedantic, looking back.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by jayswin

For sure, I was just nitpicking the difference between options and highly sought after FA's that we likely won't be able to get. To me an option is someone you have a reasonable chance of acquiring if you so desire. It was overly pedantic, looking back.

It is where MLB is so frustrating because of the spend gaps.
Teams like the Red Sox can fill holes by overpaying for free agents - and it really doesn't matter.
That allows them to also then have a better development system because they don't have to trade prospects to fill holes. The Jays do.
The MLB economic system is an absolute disaster and is entirely centered on ensuring that core markets compete regularly. MLB cares about LA, NY, Chicago, Boston.

Everyone else is playing by entirely different rules.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Jay Bruce, Josh Reddick, Mark Trumbo are all options that are viable. Plus Pompey should be ready by now.

I'd like me some Josh Reddick... but I'd take a pass on Bruce & Trumbo. The most efficient pick-ups for the outfield would be to resign Saunders to a reasonable deal (Platoon him with Upton) and Sign Reddick. Keep Pompey up to replace Carrerra and get him big league at bats then hopefully use him to replace Upton year after next. Edwin will be really hard to replace... Maybe Tellez could do some of it and they could use the salary space to bolster the bullpen (Since the rotation should all be returning minus Dickey who'll be replaced by Liriano).

[TheAlpineOracle]

The Jays could have had Trumbo for nothing last year. Pretty funny that he's now a premiere free agent. All signs pointed to the Jays acquiring him last year when they had injuries, no starting LF, and Colabello dropping balls out there.

[TheAlpineOracle]

I won't be pissed off if They let all those guys hit the market. Bautista is done, Saunders is garbage and a half year wonder, Cecil is useless and easily replaced, and Dickie is what I've said he is for the past 3 years.

The only one I'd want back is Edwin. They should pay him anything he wants because he deserves it and if they don't he's going to end up in Boston and further hurt the Jays chances.

What will piss me off is if they don't take any of the money they aren't paying these guys anymore and reinvest it in adequate major-league replacements. By adequate replacement I mean high calibre Major league talent and not reclamation projects. I have no faith Rogers will do that though have 20 years of history to support that sentiment.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

It is where MLB is so frustrating because of the spend gaps.
Teams like the Red Sox can fill holes by overpaying for free agents - and it really doesn't matter.
That allows them to also then have a better development system because they don't have to trade prospects to fill holes. The Jays do.
The MLB economic system is an absolute disaster and is entirely centered on ensuring that core markets compete regularly. MLB cares about LA, NY, Chicago, Boston.

Everyone else is playing by entirely different rules.

The Jays could easily play by those rules if they wanted to, but they have different priorities. If they were spending the same way the Yankees et al. do, there wouldn't be a single Jays fan that has a problem with MLB's system.

Why should the Yankees, Red Sox and others be forced to play by Rogers' rules? When I see a team like KC winning the WS, it tells me that the Jays problems run deeper than money anyway, so I don't think it's even a money issue the same way many fans do. They have the money issue AND they've been run by average to mediocre management for years. Very difficult to have sustained success if you're operating under those parameters.

[Sylvanfan]

I don't think the sky completely falls in if you have a good pitching staff to complement the likes of Donaldson, Tulowitzki, and Russel Martin. So long as the current budget spent on the lost players is still kept in place to try and find productive players to replace them.

The one thing with Baseball though is that you either go for it, or you build. The Jays sort of got stuck in between for a good decade with a decent team, but a team that wasn't quite good enough. If they don't fill voids left by the potential departed guys and the team is showing to be mediocre...than they better be prepared to sell off and restock.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The Jays could have had Trumbo for nothing last year. Pretty funny that he's now a premiere free agent.

Whoever signs Trumbo is likely going to regret it. He's terrible defensively, worse on the basepaths, doesn't walk nearly enough. and strikes out way to much. You have to respect the power but I wouldn't bet a lot of money on him maintaining it at it's current level.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

The Jays could easily play by those rules if they wanted to, but they have different priorities. If they were spending the same way the Yankees et al. do, there wouldn't be a single Jays fan that has a problem with MLB's system.

Why should the Yankees, Red Sox and others be forced to play by Rogers' rules? When I see a team like KC winning the WS, it tells me that the Jays problems run deeper than money anyway, so I don't think it's even a money issue the same way many fans do. They have the money issue AND they've been run by average to mediocre management for years. Very difficult to have sustained success if you're operating under those parameters.

I'm not coming at this from a Jays' fan POV, I'm coming from it from the POV of a baseball fan. And any sport is undermined if certain teams have distinct advantages over others in the form of money they spend. Every other sport has moved to something where there is less of a delta to put everyone on an even playing field. To me that is core to a sport being fair and therefore competitive.

Rogers is a publicly traded organization and has a legal responsibility to make sound business decisions.

KC won the world series but you are completely ignoring 2 decades of losing. Their win actually reinforces my point.

There is a direct and clear relationship between the budget of teams and their ability to compete on a consistent basis.

Do you really think that the current system allows for an even playing field.

The Dodgers will spend $220M on salary this year. The Astros will spend $70M.

You can't have one team spending 3x another and call a sport fair.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by sylvanfan

i don't think the sky completely falls in if you have a good pitching staff to complement the likes of donaldson, tulowitzki, and russel martin. So long as the current budget spent on the lost players is still kept in place to try and find productive players to replace them.

The one thing with baseball though is that you either go for it, or you build. The jays sort of got stuck in between for a good decade with a decent team, but a team that wasn't quite good enough. If they don't fill voids left by the potential departed guys and the team is showing to be mediocre...than they better be prepared to sell off and restock.

nm.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Whoever signs Trumbo is likely going to regret it. He's terrible defensively, worse on the basepaths, doesn't walk nearly enough. and strikes out way to much. You have to respect the power but I wouldn't bet a lot of money on him maintaining it at it's current level.

Yeah I wouldn't want Trombo. I think the Jays needs a guy in the outfield who hits .300 and can run the bases. Anything above 20 home runs would be a cherry on top. Rogers Centre can add 5-10 home runs to a Guy's stat line. Look what Playing at Yankee Stadium did to Starlin Castro's power numbers.

[868904]

Originally Posted by cross16

Problem there though is you are assuming it is a decently exectued bunt, what if its not? if it wasn't a properly executed bunt its a double play and you just ended your season on a bunt play with the AL MVP either on deck or in the hole.

I'll take brining JD up to the plate with runners on everytime over a bunt play that could end the game.

Bunting is a skill, a skill that you need to practice, which is my point. You need guys in your order or on the bench who can bunt when needed. I'm not saying you get JD or Bautista or Edwin to bunt, they should NEVER bunt. But guys like Pillar, Upton, Goins, Barney, Carrera, need to be practicing bunting over the course of the season in real life games, so that they can put down a decent bunt when it matters, like at a pivotal point in a championship game.

Serious question, i'm not being snarky, but how often does a bunt result in a double play? Isn't it pretty difficult to bunt into a double play? Aren't you more likely to hit into a double play than bunt into one?

[cross16]

Originally Posted by 868904

Serious question, i'm not being snarky, but how often does a bunt result in a double play? Isn't it pretty difficult to bunt into a double play? Aren't you more likely to hit into a double play than bunt into one?

Not very often, but how often do you try and bunt a runner home from 3rd?

Its a worst case scenario that i'm saying but I think you have to plan for that. A bad bunt with a runner already on his way home from 3rd is a very quick out with plenty of time to throw to first to get the hitter.
Even if it wasn't a double play, its still an out and you miss out on the AL MVP coming to the plate with a chance to win it. If they had of done it with Pompey at 3rd and no outs and it didn't work, then you no longer have anyone in scoring position.

My point is if you run the scenarios, which is a managers job, I would argue the drawbacks from trying to bunt home Pomey outweighe the chances he was going to get home safely and tie the game and I would argue this is the norm when you bunt. good at it or not, the odds don't exactly increase enough to outweight the drawbacks to it.

[GirlySports]

sport is no fun when it's fair

[The Big Chill]

Our defense is frustrating lately. Saunders costs us a run.

[nixon45]

Estrada is flailing.