Jays offer Santana 1y/$14m; chooses Braves 1y/14.1

[There There]

The best model to run with Rogers as owner is the Rays model, even though I'm not sure if Rogers will green light that because they care about attendance and fan perception. The best example of a "Rays" type move that AA did was Marcum for Lawrie. Marcum was a 3-3.5 WAR starter with two years remaining on his deal, but the Jays moved him while his value was at its peak. Didn't care about fan backlash, but knew they weren't going to sign him long-term and moved him accordingly. Those are the types of moves the Jays have to make with Rogers as owner if they want to sustain success. The problem is, the moment a player turns out to be good, he is signed to an extension. That's great if that player is Bautista or Encarnacion (capable of putting up MVP calibre numbers), but when it's Romero, Lind, Morrow, etc, all that does is clog up the payroll. If the Jays recognized that Romero peaked in 2011, could you imagine the type of return he could have commanded after 2011? Or Morrow after 2012? The Rays model means you fall in love with stars, and treat the 2-3 WAR players as replaceable commodities. I don't know if the Jays will ever be able to do that if the 2-3 WAR player happens to be popular, and that's a problem.

Who are all these guys that the Rays traded at their peak value ?

Shields... Traded him instead of allowing to walk during free agency, but it certainly wasn't a case of moving him at his peak value.

Garza and Kazmir... Traded after subpar seasons.

Upton... Allowed to hit free agency

Crawford... Allowed to hit free agency.

Price and Zobrist, the jury is still out what the Rays will ultimately do. But like Shields, if they're moved, it would be to avoid free agency. Not a comparable to Morrow/Romero/Hill/Lind etc...

The Rays don't have a history of trading 3-3.5 WAR players at their peak value. They have a history of signing their players to team friendly deals to buy out their Arb seasons and beginning of free agency. Exactly like Anthopoulos has tried to do. It's just worked out better for the Rays.

So, if you wish, I guess you could question Anthopoulos' judge of talent as to which players he's signed to avoid arbitration, although I don't think any of these were bad decisions at the time... but the approach has been very similar to how Friedman handles his own players.

Where the Jays and Rays have differed is Anthopoulos deciding to take on a boat load of contracts last off season. Something the Rays cannot do. But if Friedman had the opportunity to go out and bring in those kinds of contracts, are you suggesting he wouldn't ?

Again, maybe you could argue Anthopoulos brought in the wrong players and maybe you think Friedman wouldn't if he had a similar opportunity. Or perhaps more accurately, maybe you can argue the timing, because once things started to go real south for us last year, it exposed the flaw in the timing that our system wasn't prepared to backfill for any of the issues we had to deal with. But it's crazy to suggest that Friedman wants to have to keep relying on drafting ( which has dried up in the past 4-5 years ) and shrewd trades for players in other team's minor league systems.

[Michael Bradley]

The players I was thinking of were Edwin Jackson, Kazmir, Garza, and Shields, as far as players traded by the Rays at peak value (or at least at high value). Jackson was traded when he was first year arbitration eligible. Garza was traded with three years of control left as he was getting expensive. They signed Kazmir long-term when he was young and striking out 10 per 9, but immediately traded him when he showed the first sign of decline. Shields had two years of control left when he was traded and is looking at a monster contract after this season. BJ Upton was putting up 4-5 WAR's while with the Rays and they were in contention. Since they didn't have an internal option to replace him and they got draft pick compensation for losing him, it made sense to hold on to him. Crawford was even better than that (7.4 WAR in his final year in Tampa). Those are the players you use until you can't have them anymore. The players you trade are the ones who are more volatile in performance, or ones you feel will decline and/or can replace internally.

I'm not saying you don't buy out arbitration years or sign cost efficient deals, but you can't fall in love with the players attached to those deals. Vernon Wells is a great example. He was great value on his first extension given to him by Ricciardi. Then they paid him free agent money when his time was coming, instead of trading him beforehand or getting picks for him. "We can't trade Wells after losing Delgado" was probably their rationale. Friedman wouldn't have done that because he can't afford to, and the Jays need to operate similarly if they have wishy washy ownership. Sign the Roy Halladay types to huge deals. The replaceable talent needs to be dealt with accordingly.

If you look at the Rays from 2008-onwards, who are the mainstays? Longoria and Zobrist. That's practically it. They have had turnover in pretty much every other spot in the lineup. They trade very smartly and value players that they can feel can be cultivated into important pieces within their organizational system. There is no marketing agenda involved (fans in Tampa don't give a **** regardless) and Friedman is free to make moves that he feels is right short and long-term. Does he like it that way? I don't know. Maybe he would act differently if he had money, but he doesn't, so we don't know. If the Jays emulate that style, then they don't have to worry about ownership increasing or decreasing payroll, as it would be irrelevant to their long-term goals either way (unless they develop 2-3 Halladay and Delgado types.....then they'll need Rogers to pony up). When you develop Hall of Famers or elite players, you keep them, and maybe that's the one advantage the Jays would have if they started operating like the Rays.

Like I said, ideally, the Cardinals would be the team to follow, but I refuse to believe any other team can have every single prospect pan out, whether 1st round pick or 38th round pick. The Cardinals are too unrealistic to emulate.

[Santoki]

The Jays don't have to be top 5 in payroll. Just find your way in the Top 10 every single year instead of yo-yoing between being the Brewers and Phillies. Find a nice middle ground and stop rebuilding. You don't have to rebuild in a sport with no salary cap and a deep draft pool.

[There There]

The players I was thinking of were Edwin Jackson, Kazmir, Garza, and Shields, as far as players traded by the Rays at peak value (or at least at high value).

Jackson, Kazmir and Garza were traded with favourable contracts, but hardly at a level of high performance. None of these guys were the 3-3.5 WAR players you seem to want us to trade.

I agree you don't overpay players entering free agency if they're in that middle tier. But we haven't really got to that point, in Anthopoulos' time, of signing those players who are coming into big pay day's, except for Marcum, who we did trade as you noted.

I'm not saying you don't buy out arbitration years or sign cost efficient deals, but you can't fall in love with the players attached to those deals. Vernon Wells is a great example. He was great value on his first extension given to him by Ricciardi. Then they paid him free agent money when his time was coming, instead of trading him beforehand or getting picks for him. "We can't trade Wells after losing Delgado" was probably their rationale.

Wells was a bit of an impossible situation for Riccardi. It would have been an extremely hard sell to ownership that he should be moved coming off a monster season, one year after they put that money into Ryan and Burnett.

But regardless, that was Riccardi. Not sure why you're assuming Anthopoulos is going to make a similar decision?

Friedman wouldn't have done that because he can't afford to, and the Jays need to operate similarly if they have wishy washy ownership. Sign the Roy Halladay types to huge deals. The replaceable talent needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Wells, coming off a 6 WAR season, was hardly a replaceable talent at the time.

And the Jays absolutely do not need to operate like the Rays. The Rays are amongst the smallest of MLB markets. The Jays are not (even with "wishy-washy" ownership).

If you look at the Rays from 2008-onwards, who are the mainstays? Longoria and Zobrist. That's practically it.

Upton was a mainstay until last season.

Price and Shields were mainstays in that time frame.

If you instead had said "look at the Rays from 2006-onwards" then it could also be answered Crawford was a mainstay.

If you're being absolutely literal about the time period, then haven't we had the same turnover ? Bautista/Lind/McGowan are the only players remaining from 2008.

And in that time, which long term contracts have we signed for players who'd otherwise be entering free agency ?

They have had turnover in pretty much every other spot in the lineup. They trade very smartly and value players that they can feel can be cultivated into important pieces within their organizational system. There is no marketing agenda involved (fans in Tampa don't give a **** regardless) and Friedman is free to make moves that he feels is right short and long-term. Does he like it that way? I don't know. Maybe he would act differently if he had money, but he doesn't, so we don't know.

Sure we don't know what he'd do if he had $100 million to spend. But it's logical to assume he'd spend at least close to it, no ?

Look at the reverse. The fact that we've haven't filled any of our obvious holes hasn't stopped many from assuming that ownership is entirely to blame, as opposed to Anthopoulos simply deciding he didn't want to spend the money on the players available at the terms they wanted ?

If the Jays emulate that style, then they don't have to worry about ownership increasing or decreasing payroll, as it would be irrelevant to their long-term goals either way (unless they develop 2-3 Halladay and Delgado types.....then they'll need Rogers to pony up). When you develop Hall of Famers or elite players, you keep them, and maybe that's the one advantage the Jays would have if they started operating like the Rays.

And that's exactly why the Rays is absolutely not a model we should be emulating.

Forcing the Rays model on this organization would be far too limiting, just like the ridiculous "policies" such as no contracts > 5 years.

Friedman didn't choose the Rays model... he was forced into it. It's out of necessity. And although that front office has done a tremendous job filling spots with low cost, high value options, it's inevitable that they are going to eventually hit a dry period. I'm sure Friedman would be more than thrilled to have the means to "buy" their way out of such a dry period where the draft picks aren't quite hitting and the trades aren't quite paying off.

Like I said, ideally, the Cardinals would be the team to follow, but I refuse to believe any other team can have every single prospect pan out, whether 1st round pick or 38th round pick. The Cardinals are too unrealistic to emulate.

You're over thinking it. We don't need to hit on an otherworldly number of draft picks to emulate the Cardinals model. At it's core, all they are doing is looking first to fill spots internally, then looking to outside options which represent value and avoiding locking down players to the super contracts (ie... Pujols) which don't represent value because the player is likely to be declining long before the contract expires.

According to Cot's contracts, they have a $116 million payroll this season. That is the range we absolutely should be in, even with "wishy-washy" ownership. And if we had the depth in our system that we maybe should have held off for, then last year could have been much different as a result.

[Mehar]

This team just needs to actually start producing prospects. Why are we so lacking in our development, why have so few homegrown players come through the ranks and improved?

We went through Ricciardi and his farm system, then AA revamped it actually replenished it to a certain point but it's not like so many of those guys have transitioned to the majors yet. It's one thing to draft the right prospects but where it seems we're severely lacking is in actual development of those prospects after we draft them.

We gave up our best prospects and added 50% to our salary, and got worse. We could have kept our prospects and added to the team via free agency, but alas, AA screwed us in both respects. Now we have huge salary commitments to the likes of Buerhle and Reyes, and most of our top-end prospects (d'Arnaud, Syndergaard, Alvarez) who could have actually helped us this year are gone. That's why AA's a goner this year if the team doesn't compete.

If you read my posts last year- i said the same thing last year, while some in the forum said i was being ignorant and not giving AA enough credit. The Dickey deal was a mistake and i said that at that time, since free agents like Kyle Lohse (who expressed interest in Toronto) could have been signed in the same price range, without AA having to trade its top prospects to the Mets. However- i was willing to look past that now, because i thought the Jays would be aggressive again this off-season to further bolster its pitching staff. They did not do that, when AA himself said that this team's rotation will be improved. So now- they are left with a 130 M dollar team

with the worst pitching in the AL East, without some top prospects to look forward to as well. A double-edged sword. They should have been "all-in" for 2014 and 2015 as well. It was pointless to trade top prospects to be "all-in" for only one year, and then basically give up to improve the team for 2014. This team is going nowhere with the rotation the way it is. Not sold on Happ, Romero, Morrow, Rogers, and Hutchinson for the whole year as this team's three other starters. No point being a mediocre 130 M team in the AL East, when you could be the same as a 80 M team. Hopefully i am wrong about the pitching and guys like Morrow, Rogers, Happ, etc., can do the job well, but i seriously have doubts about these guys.

[Michael Bradley]

The players I was thinking of were Edwin Jackson, Kazmir, Garza, and Shields, as far as players traded by the Rays at peak value (or at least at high value).

Jackson, Kazmir and Garza were traded with favourable contracts, but hardly at a level of high performance. None of these guys were the 3-3.5 WAR players you seem to want us to trade.

I agree you don't overpay players entering free agency if they're in that middle tier. But we haven't really got to that point, in Anthopoulos' time, of signing those players who are coming into big pay day's, except for Marcum, who we did trade as you noted.

I don't "want" to trade those players. I'm saying you can't consider them untouchable. If the Jays had the 2008 equivalent of Edwin Jackson (24-years old, 183 IP, 4.42 ERA, three years of control left), would AA trade him? I doubt it. The Kazmir trade would be the equivalent of the Jays trading Ricky Romero in July 2012, something I don't think AA would have done, either. Friedman is a proactive GM. How many times do the Rays go into an off-season and say "well, if (insert player) pitches like he did a year ago we have a shot"? If he feels a player has peaked or is replaceable by an internal option, he doesn't hesitate to make a move. That's my point. It's OK to be attached to Halladay types, but don't be afraid to cut the cord on middle of the pack talent. I think AA falls into that category (again, Marcum aside). I mean, we are still saying "if Morrow stays healthy….".

Wells was a bit of an impossible situation for Riccardi. It would have been an extremely hard sell to ownership that he should be moved coming off a monster season, one year after they put that money into Ryan and Burnett.

But regardless, that was Riccardi. Not sure why you're assuming Anthopoulos is going to make a similar decision?

I'm not saying AA would have done it. In fact, he wouldn't have because Beeston would have stopped it (too many years). I was just using Wells as an example.

Wells, coming off a 6 WAR season, was hardly a replaceable talent at the time.

And the Jays absolutely do not need to operate like the Rays. The Rays are amongst the smallest of MLB markets. The Jays are not (even with "wishy-washy" ownership).

Wells was a very inconsistent offensive player, even at his peak. When you factor that defensive ability tends to decline with age, I'm not sure that expecting Wells to produce like he did in 2006 going forward was a smart move. Certainly not for seven years. Delgado was elite every year. Halladay was elite every year. Those are the players you sign long-term. The ones that alternate from good to mediocre (or bad) are the ones you use until they become too expensive (i.e. Rasmus this year). And Wells was the dictionary definition of replaceable at the time, since Rios was there.

I agree, the Jays absolutely are a large market team.

2014: $136M, 8th in MLB (projected)
2013: $118M, 9th in MLB
2012: $75M, 23rd in MLB
2011: $62M, 23rd in MLB
2010: $62M, 22nd in MLB
2009: $80M, 16th in MLB
2008: $97M, 13th in MLB
2007: $82M, 16th in MLB
2006: $72M, 16th in MLB
2005: $45M, 25th in MLB
2004: $50M, 21st in MLB
2003: $51M, 21st in MLB

A large market team that over the last 12 seasons has been in the bottom 10 in payroll 6 times and in the bottom half in payroll 9 times.

That is what I mean by "wishy washy". They want to spend a gazillion dollars in one off-season, then tone it down a year later, followed by 3-4 years in the bottom half of the league, and then they will decide to spend again when the team finishes with 65 wins and need to boost attendance. What GM in their right mind (whether AA or someone else) will ever take a risk and increase payroll while employed by Rogers knowing what happened to AA this year? Isn't it more logical to try to keep payroll in a consistent area until a playoff calibre core has been established and revenue dictates the payroll increases?

You're right, they don't need to operate like the Rays. However, with this ownership group, it's the safest way to go. And like I said above, when I say operate like the Rays, I don't mean have a $60M payroll forever. I mean, build a contender organically and let revenue dictate any payroll increases. If the Jays can field a contender for $70-80M for a year or two, then obviously bumping payroll to $100M after that would be logical, and so on. Until that time, keep the payroll in a safe zone where you don't get caught off guard by ownership either increasing payroll for no reason or dumping it for many reasons.

Upton was a mainstay until last season.

Price and Shields were mainstays in that time frame.

If you instead had said "look at the Rays from 2006-onwards" then it could also be answered Crawford was a mainstay.

If you're being absolutely literal about the time period, then haven't we had the same turnover ? Bautista/Lind/McGowan are the only players remaining from 2008.

And in that time, which long term contracts have we signed for players who'd otherwise be entering free agency ?

I picked 2008 because that is when they became good. They don't hold on to players for very long. They get a player, maybe sign him to a cheap extension, and then eventually trade him when they've used up his good years or let him go via free agency. They seem to trade pitchers more often because they are so successful at developing them, but offensively it's been a lot of turnover as well, and a lot of cheap gambles that Maddon gets the most out of (Loney, Kotchman, etc). Again, maybe that's the case for every team, but Tampa keeps their payroll low with that turnover so it's obviously working.

Sure we don't know what he'd do if he had $100 million to spend. But it's logical to assume he'd spend at least close to it, no ?

Look at the reverse. The fact that we've haven't filled any of our obvious holes hasn't stopped many from assuming that ownership is entirely to blame, as opposed to Anthopoulos simply deciding he didn't want to spend the money on the players available at the terms they wanted?

I think if you give Friedman $100M to spend, he might sign a player or two he otherwise would not have signed (or traded for), but I don't think he'd be significantly different than he is now. Again, there is no way to know for sure, and if Friedman was in Toronto, he'd be at the mercy of Beeston, so a lot depends on how much freedom he gets from ownership as well.

And that's exactly why the Rays is absolutely not a model we should be emulating.

Forcing the Rays model on this organization would be far too limiting, just like the ridiculous "policies" such as no contracts > 5 years.

Friedman didn't choose the Rays model... he was forced into it. It's out of necessity. And although that front office has done a tremendous job filling spots with low cost, high value options, it's inevitable that they are going to eventually hit a dry period. I'm sure Friedman would be more than thrilled to have the means to "buy" their way out of such a dry period where the draft picks aren't quite hitting and the trades aren't quite paying off.

Everything must come to an end, so I'm sure Tampa will fall off eventually, but I think it's gotten to a point where we have to accept that it's not a mirage with the Rays. It's been six years of success and they look just as strong in the seventh year, if not stronger, than ever before. Like I said, if Friedman had more money, I don't think much would change other than maybe signing a player he otherwise would not have, or something along those lines. I could see him being like Cherington in Boston, or maybe Beane (small market but signed Cespedes when he had the funds to do so).

You're over thinking it. We don't need to hit on an otherworldly number of draft picks to emulate the Cardinals model. At it's core, all they are doing is looking first to fill spots internally, then looking to outside options which represent value and avoiding locking down players to the super contracts (ie... Pujols) which don't represent value because the player is likely to be declining long before the contract expires.

According to Cot's contracts, they have a $116 million payroll this season. That is the range we absolutely should be in, even with "wishy-washy" ownership. And if we had the depth in our system that we maybe should have held off for, then last year could have been much different as a result.

It's logical to say "we should follow the Cardinals lead", but it's also logical for NBA teams to want to follow the Spurs. So why don't they? Some times, in every sport, you have outlier organizations, ones that are so good at what they do that they can't be duplicated. The Cardinals fall in that group. There is no way to duplicate that. When I say every prospect they have pans out, that's not entirely hyperbole. It's ridiculous how often they develop their own players.

Now, the Jays can certainly try to follow that lead, but they will be far less successful, especially with AA's drafting which focuses on very, very young talent. It would take many years to get to the point where the Jays can lose a Hall of Famer and replace him with a 27-year old former 8th round pick who turns into a 130 OPS+ player overnight. The Red Sox can't be duplicated because the Jays don't have the player friendly market that Boston has to sign free agents. Maybe the Rangers are realistic. I just mentioned the Rays because they don't get attached to talent and their building is more fluid and not dependent on superstar prospects (Price and Longoria aside) or enormous amounts of money. Just good trading, good player development, and a great manager/coaching staff.

[CanuckPete]

For me, I'd be okay with some lower payroll years, as long as more cash is put into developing prospects (better coaches? facilities? analytics?)

I also think they should be spending over the cap on international players before the international draft comes in. I think the 14 million for Santana could net a couple decent prospects.

[Schad]

For me, I'd be okay with some lower payroll years, as long as more cash is put into developing prospects (better coaches? facilities? analytics?)

That was the master plan it looked like we were following before we, well, accelerated the rebuild. We were spending more money than just about anyone on scouting, spending big in intl FA and on the draft (before the restricted draft pool came to be), and my understanding is that we were spending well above average on development. Not the Rays or the Cards plans, exactly, but the mid 80s/early 90s Jays...building through youth until the team was on the cusp, and then spending big to take them over the top. Whether that was feasible in the AL East, where it's rather difficult to be 'on the cusp' unless you're already really damned good, I dunno.

I also think they should be spending over the cap on international players before the international draft comes in. I think the 14 million for Santana could net a couple decent prospects.

There's definite upside to that idea, if you can find players worth spending the money on. Breach the international cap and it doesn't just lead to a dollar-for-dollar tax...if you go more than 10% over you're then unable to sign players for more than a quarter mil the following season. So, it's definitely a good idea if i) 2015 will have an international draft, or ii) the 2015 international crop looks weaker.

[CanuckPete]

That was the master plan it looked like we were following before we, well, accelerated the rebuild. We were spending more money than just about anyone on scouting, spending big in intl FA and on the draft (before the restricted draft pool came to be), and my understanding is that we were spending well above average on development. Not the Rays or the Cards plans, exactly, but the mid 80s/early 90s Jays...building through youth until the team was on the cusp, and then spending big to take them over the top. Whether that was feasible in the AL East, where it's rather difficult to be 'on the cusp' unless you're already really damned good, I dunno.

I know I'd read/heard mentions of investing more in scouting (even talk of us having one of the strongest scouting departments) but I haven't read much about development. You know, other than coaches hired and fired.

I'm not sure I'd recognize investment in development if I saw it, but teams like St. Louis developing so many major leaguers can't all be luck. Is there outside the box **** we can be trying? Could we have hired Bill James?

[Schad]

I know I'd read/heard mentions of investing more in scouting (even talk of us having one of the strongest scouting departments) but I haven't read much about development. You know, other than coaches hired and fired.

Numbers are hard to come by in that respect. There was talk a couple years ago that we were spending more than your average team on coaching and facilities, but quantifying that, I cannot.

And yeah...we have/had the largest scouting department in baseball.

I'm not sure I'd recognize investment in development if I saw it, but teams like St. Louis developing so many major leaguers can't all be luck. Is there outside the box **** we can be trying? Could we have hired Bill James?

The Cards spend a lot on development, and they have the Cardinals Way blueprint...which is a lot of pablum and "no ****" thinking, apparently, but it ensures that the coaches at all levels aren't working at cross purposes. And that's a big deal; you want to make sure that each promotion along the path doesn't lead to some hitting or pitching coach trying to overhaul their approach.

On James, he has been employed by the Red Sox for many years now as a senior advisor.

[Duffman100]

you want to make sure that each promotion along the path doesn't lead to some hitting or pitching coach trying to overhaul their approach.

Is there a role that currently exists to make sure this happens? It's a lot to ask the GM to monitor. Something like Executive in charge of player development? Who sets out a roadmap for each player where coaches get approval for major overhauls?

[Schad]

you want to make sure that each promotion along the path doesn't lead to some hitting or pitching coach trying to overhaul their approach.

Is there a role that currently exists to make sure this happens? It's a lot to ask the GM to monitor. Something like Executive in charge of player development? Who sets out a roadmap for each player where coaches get approval for major overhauls?

It's a good question, and the answer may differ from franchise to franchise. Overall direction likely comes from Charlie Wilson (the director of the minor league system) and the rest of the braintrust, with the roving instructors perhaps helping to ensure continuity.

The Cards are held up as being special because they do an all-hands conference call every week to coordinate that stuff...whether that's actually special or something other teams have done but don't publicize, I haven't a clue.

[dagger]

Bringing back this thread to post this story

MLBPA raps Jays' for the players' Santana financing offer.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/ml ... rral-plan/

“It is not the players’ responsibility to sign a player or bring a player on board, I’ll start there,” Clark said Tuesday when asked about the matter during a meeting with members of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. “The position we’ve always taken related to players deferring dollars is making sure that the value of that adjustment is of a positive value to the player or players in that instance.

“As it was brought to our attention, there were a number of conversations that were had, unfortunately with some of those players in the middle, how that entire process was handled we don’t believe was in a fashion that was as beneficial to everyone involved as it could have been. The place we ended up suggested the players were able to make, should they decide, those deferrals in an effort to bring in those players.”

Clark did not elaborate on what concerned him about the process, which started when Santana approached Encarnacion and told him that we has willing to sign with the Blue Jays for $14 million over one year.

Encarnacion took that information to Blue Jays general manager Alex Anthopoulos, Santana ended up speaking with some of the other players, and they decided they were willing to push back some salary in exchange for some future monetary benefit in order to make it happen because the team’s payroll was at its limit.

The Blue Jays would not have been able to sign Santana without the deferrals. He is 7-6 with a 4.01 ERA in 17 starts with the Braves.

[Ado05]

I cant believe Rogers is as cheap as they are.

[UN-Owen]

I cant believe Rogers is as cheap as they are.

I can't believe Ervin Santana makes 14 million dollars for pitching in 30 games this season

[zong]

I cant believe Rogers is as cheap as they are.

I can't believe Ervin Santana makes 14 million dollars for pitching in 30 games this season

I can't believe it's not butter!

[rarefind]

Rogers is the guy who makes 200k a year but drives a 96' Rusted Civic.

[chargerxthirty]

Everyone was all on Santana's junk when he started out hot as a pistol.... but he's normalized now like I almost certainly thought he would. Ervin has always been a bit of an anomaly. It's seems like he's either lights out.... or getting lit up.

Either way. I was beating the drum not to sign him early on... and I'm glad we didn't at this point.

[Schad]

Everyone was all on Santana's junk when he started out hot as a pistol.... but he's normalized now like I almost certainly thought he would. Ervin has always been a bit of an anomaly. It's seems like he's either lights out.... or getting lit up.

Either way. I was beating the drum not to sign him early on... and I'm glad we didn't at this point.

Santana's been the victim of some bad luck; he's still a rather good pitcher, though whether he'd be such in the AL East is another story.

Given that our rotation has been pretty okay, if that Santana/Jimenez money were to miraculously reappear in the next two weeks and patch some of the holes, the non-move would work out fairly well. If.

[IMAN5]

what page was it that let everyone know Santana picked the Braves? I wanted to see all the reactions.

sucks for jays fans