RealGM

As he noted during a 40-minute discussion with the club's beat writers Wednesday, "we can still add depth to the rotation, still get better in the bullpen," and "if we could upgrade a spot in the rotation, upgrade a position player, sure we'd look to do that."

More telling was his comment that the moves thus far haven't shut down his activity in free agency, only changed it.

"For the sake of argument, we may have been looking at 10 players, we weren't going to sign all 10, we may now be down to two or three that still fit," he explained.

Those two or three would be pitchers since "right now we're not in the market for any free agent position players," and be "upgrades over what we have in the bullpen … and in the rotation we'd have to feel like someone would clearly be an upgrade over the current five."

"We said from the outset we weren't going to guarantee Happ that fifth spot, he's definitely a front-runner and going to compete for that spot," said Anthopoulos. "I think if you see us give a guaranteed contract to a starter, it's probably going to be someone we think is going to be able to beat out somebody in the current rotation, or would be willing to compete and end up in the 'pen."

Q: Who's on second?

A: "I think (Maicer) Izturis is the frontrunner. He hasn't been promised the everyday job so there's definitely potential to compete there. Izturis would certainly be the frontrunner for that spot. (Emilio) Bonifacio's value is that he can play second, can play all the outfield spots, can play the other infield spots as well. But as we sit here today - and it can change at spring training - Izturis would be the frontrunner but he hasn't been guaranteed the everyday job."

Q: Who's the everyday first baseman and what's Adam Lind's status?

A: "It's going to depend on everything but obviously (Edwin) Encarnacion is the everyday player, how many days a week he's at first or DH I don't know. Whether it's a (Travis) d'Arnaud, a (David) Cooper, an Adam Lind, all those guys can play first base so however it works out, Encarnacion is one guy that has every day at-bats. Who gets the everyday at-bats from the remaining three, Adam Lind because he ended the season as the everyday player and he played well is certainly the front-runner for that job, but he's not promised that job. He still has to come out through spring training and earn that job."

Q: How is Jose Bautista's wrist progressing?

A: "He actually wants to play Winter Ball, wants to play World Baseball Classic, we're not allowing him to, he feels great, and I explained it to him, we just can't take a chance right now. Winter Ball for certain, World Baseball Classic, I told him we'd continue to look at it, the thought as we sit here today would be no, but we haven't closed the door on it. I just talked to our staff about it again, we haven't completely ruled it out, there's still a chance we would allow him to play in the Classic, it's just exactly as I told him, if there's any concern from our staff about playing in the Classic he won't play, if they feel it's a good idea and that it would be good for him to do it, then he'll play. He wants to play, he expressed to me that he doesn't know how many more chances he'll get to play in that tournament and so on, but he also understands we have to do what we need to do with what's good for the club. Right now the lean is no, but we haven't closed the door, there's still a chance."

Q: Why swap catchers Jeff Mathis for John Buck in the Marlins blockbuster?

A: "That was not something that we brought up. We never brought it up at any time. That part of the trade was introduced the last day and I was unwilling to do it. I said 'No.' It's not anything against John Buck. I think he's a very good player. He had a great year for us here. But we made a commitment to Jeff. He had been here and we weren't looking to trade Jeff at all. From a loyalty component I didn't think we needed to go down that path. That was what they felt was the final piece that they needed to get it done. So in the morning I said, 'No.' The trade was off. If that was what was going to take to get it done, I would not make that trade. And we shut it down. They were pretty adamant that it wasn't getting done without those two players, so I let the day go by, then at the end of the day, maybe 4 or 5 o'clock, after a lot of talks internally, finally decided that we couldn't let this deal, the magnitude of this trade and the potential impact on the franchise and the dollars involved, we couldn't let it not get done because of those last two parts of the deal."

Q: What's up with Colby Rasmus and the second-half fade?

A: "With Colby, at the all-star break, I think he was at 17 home runs, I think he had an over .800 OPS. He was having an unbelievable season. The last two months he did not play well at all. We've talked about it internally, what went wrong and so on. We think there could be a component of fatigue. He played all the time and one of the issues is that he hits all the time. I remember being in Miami and he had a good game against the Marlins, it was on a Saturday, he hit a home run in the game. Afterwards, we played a day game, players were going to go out that night and enjoy themselves. He was going to go to the cage and hit. He just wanted to keep going. One thing we're going to talk to him about is maybe learning to work a little smarter. He doesn't need to work as hard as he does. He doesn't need to take as many reps in the cage. It seems like now two years in a row he wears down at the end of the season and maybe we have to watch, give him some rest, give him some days off. We were so banged up from a position-player's standpoint, we didn't have that much depth on the bench. Colby didn't necessarily get a tonne of days off. He was banged up as well. It's not to make excuses for him. It's the only thing that we can point to, that he did seem to wear down and tire, because the first half of the season he played so well."

Q: Why swap catchers Jeff Mathis for John Buck in the Marlins blockbuster?

A: "That was not something that we brought up. We never brought it up at any time. That part of the trade was introduced the last day and I was unwilling to do it. I said 'No.' It's not anything against John Buck. I think he's a very good player. He had a great year for us here. But we made a commitment to Jeff. He had been here and we weren't looking to trade Jeff at all. From a loyalty component I didn't think we needed to go down that path. That was what they felt was the final piece that they needed to get it done. So in the morning I said, 'No.' The trade was off. If that was what was going to take to get it done, I would not make that trade. And we shut it down. They were pretty adamant that it wasn't getting done without those two players, so I let the day go by, then at the end of the day, maybe 4 or 5 o'clock, after a lot of talks internally, finally decided that we couldn't let this deal, the magnitude of this trade and the potential impact on the franchise and the dollars involved, we couldn't let it not get done because of those last two parts of the deal."

augustine wrote:Isn't the manager responsible for who starts at 2B, and whether Lind is the DH or is platooned?

Skin Blues wrote:

Q: Why swap catchers Jeff Mathis for John Buck in the Marlins blockbuster?

A: "That was not something that we brought up. We never brought it up at any time. That part of the trade was introduced the last day and I was unwilling to do it. I said 'No.' It's not anything against John Buck. I think he's a very good player. He had a great year for us here. But we made a commitment to Jeff. He had been here and we weren't looking to trade Jeff at all. From a loyalty component I didn't think we needed to go down that path. That was what they felt was the final piece that they needed to get it done. So in the morning I said, 'No.' The trade was off. If that was what was going to take to get it done, I would not make that trade. And we shut it down. They were pretty adamant that it wasn't getting done without those two players, so I let the day go by, then at the end of the day, maybe 4 or 5 o'clock, after a lot of talks internally, finally decided that we couldn't let this deal, the magnitude of this trade and the potential impact on the franchise and the dollars involved, we couldn't let it not get done because of those last two parts of the deal."

I've heard this before, but I absolutely cannot fathom it happening in real life. I want to believe that Alex is making it up for some reason. To let a deal like this almost slip away because you don't want to trade Jeff Mathis.

Santoki wrote:Mathis had completed year one of a two year deal. It's not like he had signed the guy for multiple years. Mathis would have been traded when D'Arnaud was ready, just like Buck will be. It's a backup catcher, not even a starter. Clearly AA was trying to show that he and the organization have loyalty to the guys who just got screwed by the Marlins.

s e n s i wrote:

Santoki wrote:Mathis had completed year one of a two year deal. It's not like he had signed the guy for multiple years. Mathis would have been traded when D'Arnaud was ready, just like Buck will be. It's a backup catcher, not even a starter. Clearly AA was trying to show that he and the organization have loyalty to the guys who just got screwed by the Marlins.

mathis signed a two-year extension 3 months ago, with a club option for 2015. so i'm not sure how 2013, 2014, and 2015 doesn't qualify as "multiple years". clearly AA really did like mathis (and vice versa, as mathis said in a scrum after signing the extension that he really wanted to be here as he liked where the team was headed) and did feel a sense of loyalty after re-upping him not too long ago. do i believe the loyalty to mathis was strong enough to back out of the deal? not wholly, but i could certainly see why AA would think twice about it considering jeff mathis the person and the fact that we'd have to take on buck's contract as well (maybe AA got miami to agree to send more cash than they initially offered, or some other unknown stipulation to finalize the deal). the idea that AA was pretending to be loyal to mathis just to show the new acquisitions -- players whom he traded for, not signed as FA's -- that he'll be loyal to them makes no sense at all.

Santoki wrote:

s e n s i wrote:

Santoki wrote:Mathis had completed year one of a two year deal. It's not like he had signed the guy for multiple years. Mathis would have been traded when D'Arnaud was ready, just like Buck will be. It's a backup catcher, not even a starter. Clearly AA was trying to show that he and the organization have loyalty to the guys who just got screwed by the Marlins.

mathis signed a two-year extension 3 months ago, with a club option for 2015. so i'm not sure how 2013, 2014, and 2015 doesn't qualify as "multiple years". clearly AA really did like mathis (and vice versa, as mathis said in a scrum after signing the extension that he really wanted to be here as he liked where the team was headed) and did feel a sense of loyalty after re-upping him not too long ago. do i believe the loyalty to mathis was strong enough to back out of the deal? not wholly, but i could certainly see why AA would think twice about it considering jeff mathis the person and the fact that we'd have to take on buck's contract as well (maybe AA got miami to agree to send more cash than they initially offered, or some other unknown stipulation to finalize the deal). the idea that AA was pretending to be loyal to mathis just to show the new acquisitions -- players whom he traded for, not signed as FA's -- that he'll be loyal to them makes no sense at all.

Yes, I totally forgot about the extension. But, still, it's Jeff freakin' Mathis. There was no way this deal was dying because of him.

And of course it makes sense even though he traded for them. There was a lot of hesitancy on their part about joining the organization initially. They've just been railroaded by Loria and AA wants to make sure that these guys feel welcomed and that the culture of the club is one they can feel comfortable in joining. It makes sense that he'd embellish (not pretend or make up) the Mathis part to show that the organization values the exact things those guys were looking for in Miami. Remember, he desperately wants to extend Johnson and needs Buerhle to come in (and be somewhat content) and be the vet presence the pitching staff needs.

UN-Owen wrote:I find it hard to believe that AA would pass on the chance to compete for a World Series in 2013 because of loyalty to Jeff Mathis

In all likelihood the Jays didn't want to take on Bucks' contract

Redeemer wrote:loyalty for a backup? come on now

Redeemer wrote:loyalty for a backup? come on now

Santoki wrote:Funny how that sense of loyalty evaporated after about 8 hours when the Marlins weren't calling back to exclude Mathis from the trade. From the Elliot piece, it seems AA did try to make a point of not including Mathis in the deal, but he was never going to let it die over any sort of loyalty.

And, Mathis re-signed for two additional years (after this season), but what would have happened to him when D'Arnaud was ready to come up? Sure, they could get D'Arnaud some at-bats at 1B or DH, but Mathis's playing time would have been severely diminished or he would have most likely been moved.

s e n s i wrote:

Santoki wrote:Funny how that sense of loyalty evaporated after about 8 hours when the Marlins weren't calling back to exclude Mathis from the trade. From the Elliot piece, it seems AA did try to make a point of not including Mathis in the deal, but he was never going to let it die over any sort of loyalty.

well, considering we're all sitting here nearly 3 weeks after the deal was consummated, clearly AA wasn't going to pass up a chance to change the complexion of the franchise because of loyalty to a back-up catcher, because...he didn't. but do i think the deal was "dead" for a few hours as AA waited for beinfest to come calling saying the mathis-buck swap wasn't necessary? sure i do. that didn't happen though, and AA was forced to part ways with a player he didn't want to to complete the transaction.

And, Mathis re-signed for two additional years (after this season), but what would have happened to him when D'Arnaud was ready to come up? Sure, they could get D'Arnaud some at-bats at 1B or DH, but Mathis's playing time would have been severely diminished or he would have most likely been moved.

okay. or you know, one of JPA or TDA -- both of whom have exponentially more value than mathis -- could get moved, because it makes far less sense to roll with two starter-calibre backstops and trade your back-up for probably nothing. so if we traded mathis to make room for d'arnaud, do you seriously think we'd have a JPA/TDA tandem behind the plate for the next several years? i could see them sharing duties for a season, but TDA is the best catching prospect in all of baseball right now, he doesn't really project to be a back-up, nor does JPA. they're both starter-calibre catchers and if d'arnaud wasn't fully transitioned into a 1B, it would make far more sense to move one and receive an impact player that fills a hole somewhere else on the diamond.