Jays migrate to Colorado - 31/1/2

[Brinbe]

The Grichuk extension looks like a really bad decision right now. If we're going to be bad for at least a couple years, why sign a mediocre outfielder to a 5-year deal? It's not like Grichuk will attract fans all by himself.

I was actually thinking about this exact thing as I was in my car listening to the game on XM radio. I don’t think Shatkins is very good at evaluating talent i.e. trading Happ and wanting Billy McKinney and Brandon Drury in return, who are both the very definition of irrelevant mediocrity. And then on top of that who says to themselves, “Man, I’ve really got to extend Grichuk”? I mean why? Was he in great demand? Was the risk of losing him going to be so detrimental that the team would struggle to ever recover? I just don’t think that management is really that good at what they do; it really is that simple.

I mean, I've been saying this for like a year or more now. I'm glad some of y'all are finally coming around.

[gundysmullet]

The Grichuk extension looks like a really bad decision right now. If we're going to be bad for at least a couple years, why sign a mediocre outfielder to a 5-year deal? It's not like Grichuk will attract fans all by himself.

I was actually thinking about this exact thing as I was in my car listening to the game on XM radio. I don’t think Shatkins is very good at evaluating talent i.e. trading Happ and wanting Billy McKinney and Brandon Drury in return, who are both the very definition of irrelevant mediocrity. And then on top of that who says to themselves, “Man, I’ve really got to extend Grichuk”? I mean why? Was he in great demand? Was the risk of losing him going to be so detrimental that the team would struggle to ever recover? I just don’t think that management is really that good at what they do; it really is that simple.

I mean, I've been saying this for like a year or more now. I'm glad some of y'all are finally coming around.

I think most Jays fans are OK with a couple years of tanking but for crying out loud if you’re going to tank, tank with young players that have a high upside, not treadmills that are below mediocre and are cast off’s from several teams. Honestly, it just looks like Shatkins is just not that good at talent evaluation unfortunately. And if anyone needs any more evidence of that, they actually thought that Edwin Jackson would be serviceable in the starting rotation. Think about that for second.

[phillipmike]

I was actually thinking about this exact thing as I was in my car listening to the game on XM radio. I don’t think Shatkins is very good at evaluating talent i.e. trading Happ and wanting Billy McKinney and Brandon Drury in return, who are both the very definition of irrelevant mediocrity. And then on top of that who says to themselves, “Man, I’ve really got to extend Grichuk”? I mean why? Was he in great demand? Was the risk of losing him going to be so detrimental that the team would struggle to ever recover? I just don’t think that management is really that good at what they do; it really is that simple.

I mean, I've been saying this for like a year or more now. I'm glad some of y'all are finally coming around.

I think most Jays fans are OK with a couple years of tanking but for crying out loud if you’re going to tank, tank with young players that have a high upside, not treadmills that are below mediocre and are cast off’s from several teams. Honestly, it just looks like Shatkins is just not that good at talent evaluation unfortunately. And if anyone needs any more evidence of that, they actually thought that Edwin Jackson would be serviceable in the starting rotation. Think about that for second.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/rosters/_/sort/average_age/order/false

Jays are the 7th youngest team in baseball and after the deadline they will get younger. You dont put prospects who arent ready in the majors to appease fans - heck we got Vladdy, Biggio and others up and still fans arent going to games. I dont see any "young players that have a high upside" in the majors that the Jays are holding back.

Trust me this front office didnt want or expect to have Edwin Jackson in the rotation in June. Jays have 3 starters on the shelf in Borucki, Shoemaker and Bucholz; and another who cant shake his nail/blister issue. They only have 2 guys to rely on in Stroman and Thornton. There isnt anyone in the minors that can step in, hence why they are rebuilding.

[gundysmullet]

I mean, I've been saying this for like a year or more now. I'm glad some of y'all are finally coming around.

I think most Jays fans are OK with a couple years of tanking but for crying out loud if you’re going to tank, tank with young players that have a high upside, not treadmills that are below mediocre and are cast off’s from several teams. Honestly, it just looks like Shatkins is just not that good at talent evaluation unfortunately. And if anyone needs any more evidence of that, they actually thought that Edwin Jackson would be serviceable in the starting rotation. Think about that for second.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/rosters/_/sort/average_age/order/false

Jays are the 7th youngest team in baseball and after the deadline they will get younger. You dont put prospects who arent ready in the majors to appease fans - heck we got Vladdy, Biggio and others up and still fans arent going to games. I dont see any "young players that have a high upside" in the majors that the Jays are holding back.

Trust me this front office didnt want or expect to have Edwin Jackson in the rotation in June. Jays have 3 starters on the shelf in Borucki, Shoemaker and Bucholz; and another who cant shake his nail/blister issue. They only have 2 guys to rely on in Stroman and Thornton. There isnt anyone in the minors that can step in, hence why they are rebuilding.

I apologize if I did not make my point well. I wasn’t necessarily talking about young players from their own system but via acquisitions with other teams. The Happ trade is a prime example. And again there is zero defense for Grichuks contract; He is the living embodiment of irrelevant mediocrity, which for some bizarre reason Shatkins appears to have an affinity for. Who were they competing against, and what was the rush? And most importantly, so what if you lost him? The logical fallacy that you are engaging in is called “appeal to authority“ and it presupposes that someone in a position of power and/or authority is always right and infallible. I believe that there is enough empirical evidence to show that Shatkins just isn’t very good at their job. And your defense of their signing of Edwin Jackson is kind of odd, because ultimately it was there choice to sign him or not, ( I mean, no one was blackmailing them with nude pictures of Shatkins in compromising positions, forcing them to sign him or the photos would be released. At least I hope not, eww…) And they chose to. I have read and heard that teams will often use PR people to post on realgm defending management decisions. I’m not saying that your post is one of them is, I’m just saying.

[phillipmike]

I apologize if I did not make my point well. I wasn’t necessarily talking about young players from their own system but via acquisitions with other teams. The Happ trade is a prime example. And again there is zero defense for Grichuks contract; He is the living embodiment of irrelevant mediocrity, which for some bizarre reason Shatkins appears to have an affinity for. Who were they competing against, and what was the rush? And most importantly, so what if you lost him? The logical fallacy that you are engaging in is called “appeal to authority“ and it presupposes that someone in a position of power and/or authority is always right and infallible. I believe that there is enough empirical evidence to show that Shatkins just isn’t very good at their job. And your defense of their signing of Edwin Jackson is kind of odd, because ultimately it was there choice to sign him or not, ( I mean, no one was blackmailing them with nude pictures of Shatkins in compromising positions, forcing them to sign him or the photos would be released. At least I hope not, eww…) And they chose to. I have read and heard that teams will often use PR people to post on realgm defending management decisions. I’m not saying that your post is one of them is, I’m just saying.

I cant defend the Happ trade in terms of return. I told my brother i rather they hold onto Happ than help the Yankees than take back Drury and McKinney. The one thing i will say is that its not like there were rumors out there that the Jays said no to better deals for McKinney and Drury, this might have been the best offer which really says a lot of the market. Not like Happ is tearing it up at the moment either.

i would not have done the Grichuk extension either. I like Grichuk and i think he will break out at some point and im sure management thinks so as well but there is no way im betting 50M on it like the Jays did. But it doesnt mean you cant justify it; he is a 2 WAR floor player and averages 2.7 WAR over 650/PAs. 10M isnt bad if you get a 2 WAR floor guy with breakout potential. I still dont make that signing but only time will tell if it works out.

You brought up 3 decisions that hasnt looked good (Grichuk extension and Happ trade) or were minor to begin with (Jackson). They turned a prospect who isnt playing baseball anymore (Woodman) into Diaz who they turned into 6 years of Thronton. Turned a relief pitcher who cant stay healthy (Leone) and now has a 8 ERA and a AAA prospect who got released (Greene) into a starting OF in Grichuk. Have done very well in the drafts; Bichette, Pearson and Groshans and the international market; Pardinho, Hiraldo and Martinez. Got useful depth for nothing; Gaviglio, Maile, Biagini, and Leone.

In terms of long term planning they have done more good than bad. What they get for Stroman, Giles and Smoak will be the real test. If they strike out on all three of those then it would be a tough sell to the media and fans.

I will state for the record i do not work for the Blue Jays, i wish i did.

[Schad]

I didn't like the Happ trade at the time, and I like it even less now.

I'm not a real fan of Grichuk either (as people might remember from last year), but it's definitely defensible; the money isn't particularly big, and the upside play was that his power broke out, and given the front-loading in the deal, you either have a player who becomes an easy trade asset, or a cheapish value contract when the team is competitive again. It hasn't looked good thus far, but Grichuk is so damned variable that it could look much better in a month.

With players like Jackson, every team signs scrap-heap players to pick up a start or two. No one was under any illusions that Jackson was going to be the solution to our problems...we just needed an arm who could pick up some innings and wouldn't place us in a position of elevating someone to the 40-man that we wouldn't want to DFA later. When I said that we traded $10 for him, I wasn't really joking...in all actuality, we probably only paid $1.

[gundysmullet]

I apologize if I did not make my point well. I wasn’t necessarily talking about young players from their own system but via acquisitions with other teams. The Happ trade is a prime example. And again there is zero defense for Grichuks contract; He is the living embodiment of irrelevant mediocrity, which for some bizarre reason Shatkins appears to have an affinity for. Who were they competing against, and what was the rush? And most importantly, so what if you lost him? The logical fallacy that you are engaging in is called “appeal to authority“ and it presupposes that someone in a position of power and/or authority is always right and infallible. I believe that there is enough empirical evidence to show that Shatkins just isn’t very good at their job. And your defense of their signing of Edwin Jackson is kind of odd, because ultimately it was there choice to sign him or not, ( I mean, no one was blackmailing them with nude pictures of Shatkins in compromising positions, forcing them to sign him or the photos would be released. At least I hope not, eww…) And they chose to. I have read and heard that teams will often use PR people to post on realgm defending management decisions. I’m not saying that your post is one of them is, I’m just saying.

I cant defend the Happ trade in terms of return. I told my brother i rather they hold onto Happ than help the Yankees than take back Drury and McKinney. The one thing i will say is that its not like there were rumors out there that the Jays said no to better deals for McKinney and Drury, this might have been the best offer which really says a lot of the market. Not like Happ is tearing it up at the moment either.

i would not have done the Grichuk extension either. I like Grichuk and i think he will break out at some point and im sure management thinks so as well but there is no way im betting 50M on it like the Jays did. But it doesnt mean you cant justify it; he is a 2 WAR floor player and averages 2.7 WAR over 650/PAs. 10M isnt bad if you get a 2 WAR floor guy with breakout potential. I still dont make that signing but only time will tell if it works out.

You brought up 3 decisions that hasnt looked good (Grichuk extension and Happ trade) or were minor to begin with (Jackson). They turned a prospect who isnt playing baseball anymore (Woodman) into Diaz who they turned into 6 years of Thronton. Turned a relief pitcher who cant stay healthy (Leone) and now has a 8 ERA and a AAA prospect who got released (Greene) into a starting OF in Grichuk. Have done very well in the drafts; Bichette, Pearson and Groshans and the international market; Pardinho, Hiraldo and Martinez. Got useful depth for nothing; Gaviglio, Maile, Biagini, and Leone.

In terms of long term planning they have done more good than bad. What they get for Stroman, Giles and Smoak will be the real test. If they strike out on all three of those then it would be a tough sell to the media and fans.

I will state for the record i do not work for the Blue Jays, i wish i did.

Grichuk being a “starting outfielder“ is not the greatest selling point because there are, what 32 teams in major-league baseball and all of them need three “starting outfielders“. I just don’t think he’s that good, especially not good enough to warrant a panic signing when there was no one else that you were going up against. But I totally agree with your point about seeing what they will get for Stroman, Giles, Smoak and hopefully Sanchez. But as of right now, I am just not that hopeful.

[gundysmullet]

I didn't like the Happ trade at the time, and I like it even less now.

I'm not a real fan of Grichuk either (as people might remember from last year), but it's definitely defensible; the money isn't particularly big, and the upside play was that his power broke out, and given the front-loading in the deal, you either have a player who becomes an easy trade asset, or a cheapish value contract when the team is competitive again. It hasn't looked good thus far, but Grichuk is so damned variable that it could look much better in a month.

With players like Jackson, every team signs scrap-heap players to pick up a start or two. No one was under any illusions that Jackson was going to be the solution to our problems...we just needed an arm who could pick up some innings and wouldn't place us in a position of elevating someone to the 40-man that we wouldn't want to DFA later. When I said that we traded $10 for him, I wasn't really joking...in all actuality, we probably only paid $1.

I don’t necessarily disagree with anything that you posted, but again what you are describing in Grichuk is the very definition of irrelevant mediocrity. There was no rush to sign him and if he went somewhere else, who cares? And regarding Edwin Jackson, the “everyone else does it” justification kind of validates my point about Shatkins and their ability, or lack there of to identify talent. Honestly, they are just not that good at their job.

[Schad]

Grichuk being a “starting outfielder“ is not the greatest selling point because there are, what 32 teams in major-league baseball and all of them need three “starting outfielders“. I just don’t think he’s that good, especially not good enough to warrant a panic signing when there was no one else that you were going up against. But I totally agree with your point about seeing what they will get for Stroman, Giles, Smoak and hopefully Sanchez. But as of right now, I am just not that hopeful.

For what it's worth, Grichuk averaged about $17.2m in value of his preceding four seasons. While the WAR/$ curve breaks down a bit on the lower end, a $10m/year average isn't a massive outlay if he reestablishes himself as an average OF who can play CF.

[gundysmullet]

Grichuk being a “starting outfielder“ is not the greatest selling point because there are, what 32 teams in major-league baseball and all of them need three “starting outfielders“. I just don’t think he’s that good, especially not good enough to warrant a panic signing when there was no one else that you were going up against. But I totally agree with your point about seeing what they will get for Stroman, Giles, Smoak and hopefully Sanchez. But as of right now, I am just not that hopeful.

For what it's worth, Grichuk averaged about $17.2m in value of his preceding four seasons. While the WAR/$ curve breaks down a bit on the lower end, a $10m/year average isn't a massive outlay if he reestablishes himself as an average OF who can play CF.

But again, who cares either way? He’s not good enough to justify the rush, hence yours and every other posters repeated use of the word “if” when describing his potential bounce back.

[Schad]

But again, who cares either way? He’s not good enough to justify the rush, hence yours and every other posters repeated use of the word “if” when describing his potential bounce back.

It isn't really a rush, though. He had 18 months remaining on his contract, and from our perspective, we need to make decisions on those 2020 FAs with some time to spare, for a couple reasons: one, to ensure that we could pivot to trade them if their asking price is too high, and two, because we're better off front-loading that money in seasons where we're otherwise going to be bad, to free up money when we'll need it.

Grichuk was a calculated risk, of the sort we made when signing Smoak to an extension after 2017 (a move that pretty well none of us liked, but which has been fantastic value), or when we signed Encarnacion to a long-term deal within three months of his breakout.

There's a decent chance it doesn't work out terribly well; that's the nature of the beast, and Grichuk wouldn't put pen to paper otherwise. But it's worth remembering that this is precisely how they were able to build a competitive team on a shoestring budget in Cleveland: no one got more mileage out of extending players in their arb years shortly before they'd have rendered themselves unaffordable.

[gundysmullet]

But again, who cares either way? He’s not good enough to justify the rush, hence yours and every other posters repeated use of the word “if” when describing his potential bounce back.

It isn't really a rush, though. He had 18 months remaining on his contract, and from our perspective, we need to make decisions on those 2020 FAs with some time to spare, for a couple reasons: one, to ensure that we could pivot to trade them if their asking price is too high, and two, because we're better off front-loading that money in seasons where we're otherwise going to be bad, to free up money when we'll need it.

Grichuk was a calculated risk, of the sort we made when signing Smoak to an extension after 2017 (a move that pretty well none of us liked, but which has been fantastic value), or when we signed Encarnacion to a long-term deal within three months of his breakout.

There's a decent chance it doesn't work out terribly well; that's the nature of the beast, and Grichuk wouldn't put pen to paper otherwise. But it's worth remembering that this is precisely how they were able to build a competitive team on a shoestring budget in Cleveland: no one got more mileage out of extending players in their arb years shortly before they'd have rendered themselves unaffordable.

But you are either missing my point and if that’s the case it’s my fault for not being clear, or just ignoring it. My point is that Grichuk was not worth the “risk”. He’s not good enough to worth risking for in the first place. The move was shortsighted and based in fear. It’s like freaking out because you have a container of sour cream in the back of your refrigerator that is going to expire tomorrow so you decide to bake 12 big potatoes and load them up with the leftover sour cream. Baking all of those potatoes and wasting them was a much greater loss than just letting the sour cream expire and throwing it in the garbage.

[Schad]

I understand your point; I disagree with it. Grichuk's baseline performance for the past four seasons exceeds the dollar figure he will be paid over the course of his extension. If he merely doesn't regress badly, it's a plus value move which minimizes the risk, and a deal that can be shifted at a moment's notice. It's also a play with upside, because "flawed hitter with plus raw power suddenly starts mashing" is an increasingly common scenario in this era.

Would I have signed him to that extension? I dunno; I really don't like Grichuk all that much, and wouldn't have been bothered in the slightest if we put him on the trade market tis summer. But that doesn't make it an inherently bad choice.

[gundysmullet]

I understand your point; I disagree with it. Grichuk's baseline performance for the past four seasons exceeds the dollar figure he will be paid over the course of his extension. If he merely doesn't regress badly, it's a plus value move which minimizes the risk, and a deal that can be shifted at a moment's notice. It's also a play with upside, because "flawed hitter with plus raw power suddenly starts mashing" is an increasingly common scenario in this era.

Would I have signed him to that extension? I dunno; I really don't like Grichuk all that much, and wouldn't have been bothered in the slightest if we put him on the trade market tis summer. But that doesn't make it an inherently bad choice.

Fair enough