Paul Beeston interview

[NeverGoingToWin]

http://thestar.blogs.com/baseball/2011/ ... still.html

RG: You're not a guy who shoots from the hip in terms of saying something that's not well thought out. At the fan get-together in February tou talked on the mic about the possibility that this organization could spend up to $120 million on payroll. Obviously that was well thought out and that you weren't just off-the-cuff. But you weren't talking about direct, major league team payroll? I mean you included draft bonuses, international free agency. Is that how you approached it at that time or is it...

PB: No, we're talking salaries. We're talking salaries. I was talking about the 40-man roster.

[CapeCrusader]

I was reading this earlier today, who knows what to think. First somebody posted that he wouldn't allow us to spend money and now we might be. Just can't wait till we have winter meetings.

[tecumseh18]

But we're going to get our salaries up there just by adding an extra year for all of these players. Each year that they become eligible for arbitration, there's more money. So, we are actually going to be increasing our salaries this year dramatically from where we were.

So the $120 mill is gonna come mostly from having to pay our current and upcoming guys? Beeston sez no point in even going after FA's until we're a proven winner. They won't sign here. I guess 81-81 doesn't cut it. Maybe the last $20-25 mill goes to a big FA, once we're a winner.

RG: [I]n terms of Rogers, is there any feeling that this Japanese kid (Yu Darvish) could open a new market for them. I don't want you to go out and alert every other team that you're going to be posting very high for this guy, but it's an opportunity in an Asian-heavy GTA...

PB: I can answer it this way. I think those people at Rogers who never heard of him before, now know this player is in existence.

That's what I'm talking about.

[A-Mac78]

The Jays spent 62.5 Million in 2011. If we spend 30 Million on FA's that puts us in Braves, Rockies, Rangers territory. Based on the talent we put on the field now, I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be feasible.

20M for Fielder, 10M for a closer and package Thames, Snider, Drabek, and Cooper for a SP. Move Lind Back to LF. Oh and re-sign Kelly J I guess. Done and done.

SS Escobar
3B Lawrie
RF Bautista
1B Fielder
LF Lind
DH Encarn
C JP/d'Arnaud
2B Johnson
CF Rasmus

[Schad]

This is the part that interests me:

RG: Is that why it was important to maintain the flexibility of payroll before you're ready...not to keep adding just because you were in the AL East?

PB: Absolutely. Because it would have made no sense, it made no sense for us to just keep on increasing our payroll for players – and I don't mean to malign any of them – that are “B” free agents just so that we could have names. If we have “A” free agents that's a different story. Now you're talking something completely different. But my feeling is and will always continue to be that the mobility of the best free agents is always to contending teams and until we prove we're there, we're not going to get those. So, what's the right way of doing it that way. We still have your fill-ins, because you don't want to knock the Dotels or the Rauchs and your Frank Franciscos and the year before that Kevin Gregg, that type of guy. But you want those premier guys. You've got to be in the position at that point in time to be able to offer them a winning franchise.

RG: But you're saying also that you want those Type A's, but you'd rather have them become Type A's in your organization than sign those from somewhere else.

PB: Ideally, but...

RG: Then you're handing out compensation draft picks, which is against what Alex is all about.

PB: That's the best of both worlds, but sometimes you have to change. We have that luxury right now as we're rebuilding that thing. We're deep. But times change. Then you have to change your policies. Because I don't think that any of those policies of constructing a team can be so firm that when the circumstances change you don't look at it and say I've got to change the way I'm doing my business.

Beeston's entirely right on free agent signings, IMO...there's no point to start handing out large amounts of cash to guys who'll plug leaks when the dam isn't built yet. It's one reason that I didn't really mind our low payroll this year; we could've been the Washington Nationals, throwing a pile of money at Jayson Werth solely to prove that they were willing to spend, but it's ultimately counter-productive.

Where I disagree with him a little is over the notion that the top free agents will necessarily sign with contenders, and that it's not really worth pursuing unless you think that you can make the argument that the signing will put you over the top. There's no doubt that being a contender is important, but if you can put the coin on the table for a top player, put the coin out there and see what happens. I also find that argument a little worrisome because the major league club took a small step back this year (though it's inarguable that the organization as a whole took a step forward), so if they weren't willing to go after Cliff Lee, they might not be willing to go after Pujols or Fielder.

That said, the bit about policies concerning contracts is one of the more heartening things that Beeston has uttered in the past couple years. If that's true -- and while Beeston is a bullsh*t artist, like any executive worth his suit, the way he put it out there doesn't feel like a sop -- it's extremely good news, because it suggests that the "Jays have a policy against six-year deals" thing and their desire to hoard picks might be true in the abstract, but presented with the right opportunity, they aren't going to let past practice stand in the way.