What is the Sergio Santos move implying?

Kapono · Post #1 » by **Kapono** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 7:29 pm

Some options:

-Rogers is still being cheap
-Jays are going for it in 2012
-AA mentioned "payroll implications" and "budget" multiple times in his post trade conference. Does this mean that Jays still don't have the green light to go to a 100 million dollar payroll?
-A lot of money was saved on finding a closer, more money to spend on a big FA
-Other

Relentless88 · Post #2 » by **Relentless88** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 7:41 pm

Hopefully it means the Jays/Rogers are going for it in 2012. It really depends on how the rest of the off season goes and whether or not we make any big moves (Darvish, Fielder).

dagger · Post #3 » by **dagger** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 7:44 pm

Kapono wrote:Some options:

-Rogers is still being cheap
-Jays are going for it in 2012
-AA mentioned "payroll implications" and "budget" multiple times in his post trade conference. Does this mean that Jays still don't have the green light to go to a 100 million dollar payroll?
-A lot of money was saved on finding a closer, more money to spend on a big FA
-Other

It means they probably saved money on the bullpen, and saved money thanks to the new CBA clamping down on draft and Latin prospect signings. The question I have is whether the money will be re-routed to other positions or used to offset the loss of revenue sharing dollars. I've given up on the notion of a $100m or even a $90m payroll.

torontoaces04 · Post #4 » by **torontoaces04** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 7:48 pm

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=1132801&start=435

Raptor_Guy · Post #5 » by **Raptor_Guy** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 7:48 pm

Kapono wrote:Some options:

-Rogers is still being cheap
-Jays are going for it in 2012
-AA mentioned "payroll implications" and "budget" multiple times in his post trade conference. Does this mean that Jays still don't have the green light to go to a 100 million dollar payroll?
-A lot of money was saved on finding a closer, more money to spend on a big FA
-Other

Those 2 things don't go together unfortunately..

rarefind · Post #6 » by **rarefind** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:05 pm

This move can imply along with the Nakajima move (if true) that the Jays are trying to get cheap sustainable talent to hopefully allow for a free agent move (since we may be one piece away, like AA has said).

On the flip side it can suggest that Rogers doesn't want to spend and Alex is just trying to build a competitive team that doesn't eat up payroll.

dagger · Post #7 » by **dagger** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:22 pm

GloBlair
Told AA: "Last time I heard somebody talk about payroll parameters so much it was Claude Brochu." He didn't laugh ....

Kapono · Post #8 » by **Kapono** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:23 pm

dagger wrote:
GloBlair
Told AA: "Last time I heard somebody talk about payroll parameters so much it was Claude Brochu." He didn't laugh ....

satyr9 · Post #9 » by **satyr9** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:46 pm

I don't think it implies anything. It proves that AA decided he had to get a closer this offseason and he found a way to do it more efficiently than free agency. Whether there is a significant payroll bump coming this offseason or not isn't decided by this move and won't be known until it's all said and done.

It does show that unlike last offseason this isn't about taking a step back to move forward from a competitive standpoint, but I don't think anyone expected this offseason to be like that anyway.

The budget talk, like I said in the budget thread is, IMO, more about tempering expectations on the Fielder front than anything else. People put two things together that are logical, but aren't in AA's plans so he's trying to walk it back a bit. Whether Fielder isn't in his plans because he doesn't like the price or because Rogers won't pony up the cash is pretty hard for us to know, especially when we don't know what the price is.