General Blue Jays Thread

[The_Hater]

Fair enough. Not really sure Verdugo is equalivent to a top 10 prospect in baseball. But he is a very solid young player.

I was thinking something like Gurriel jr, SWR, and another decent prospect would get it done. Obviously Gurriel isnt the youngest guy, so that may have an impact. If I was confident I could re-sign Lindor I would do that. Theres no real reason to believe the Jays couldn't re-sign him either. But you may be right and it'll take some more for him.

But if the Jays want him that badly they can still take a run at him next off season without dealing assets.

I just don’t like 10-12 year contracts. Hate them. All of them. If you’re leery of giving a 30-31 year old a smaller contract that runs to age 34-35, how is paying a 27-28 year old significantly more per annum until age 38-40 a better investment? Even if he does agree to an extension like Betts did, give me both DJ and Springer and I’ll keep the prospects. Heck the Harper and Machado contracts are already looking bad and we’re only 2 seasons in. Then there’s Pujols, Cano, Braun, Tulo, Votto.

Then you run the risk of not getting him, cause he very well might not get to FA. If you trade for him, at least you'll have a whole year to get it done. And I'm not really sure the negotiation will be that difficult. You know what a guy like is going to get. Its just a question of are you comfortable paying the price.

I could agree that trading for Lindor may not make the most sense right now, because he doesn't push this team over the edge like Betts did for the Dodgers. But also adding a player like him is an opportunity you have to explore if you feel like you could re-sign him, which they do, considering they were looking into him last offseason and Arden Zwelling said that they made an offer for him last offseason.

If you feel like you could win a championship in the next 5-6 years, then I'd be perfectly fine paying the price and dishing out a 10-12 year contract. The only problem for the Jays is that they'd need to do quite a bit more work to make themselves a WS contender, even with Lindor.

Harpers contract looks perfectly fine to me and I dont think San Diego is regretting Machado's contract either.

Well Harper has 11 years left, MM has 8 or 9. Harper wasn’t worth his contract to begin with and while the bat has been about the same he continues to recede defensively. And Machado had one very poor season and followed it up with a solid 1/3 of a season this year.

But that’s not the main issue, there are still lots of years for those deals to go completely sideways with injuries or reduced production.and that’s almost always what happens with these ridiculously long deals.

Anyways, we have two different opinions on this which is ok and I’m not for a second arguing that Lindor isn’t a great player. I can completely understand why you’d want him.

[Michael Bradley]

It is easy to forget that the 2019 team was openly tanking, and the 2020 team made the playoffs in an expanded format by going 32-28 in a 60 game season. This is not a Dodgers situation where they were great for many years and just needed Betts to push them over the top. Trading prospects for one year of Lindor, followed by either losing him to free agency or having to extend him for a decade, makes very little sense for where the Jays are. They should absolutely be trying to win in 2021, but the smarter move would be to use free agency to fill those holes, or make trades using prospect depth for players with 2 or more years of control left.

[SharoneWright]

So, we've built up a GradeA farm system, with a huge cost control advantage, just to piss much of it away for a player at the exact position of organizational depth?? Why not believe in your own scouting, and development, and work on signing many of your young burgeoning stars to multi-year discounted deals rather than dealing your cheap prospect-depth for a single player who is older and will be overpaid based on past performance?? Job 1 is locking up Bo, Vlad, Craig, and soon Nate and Alejandro to team friendly deals as your base. Job 2 is judicious use of the free agent market. Job Nothing is to trade away young depth on the same timeline as Bo and Lourdes and Vlad and Nate and blow your wad on a mercurial shortstop who may preclude you from eventually singing your own core.

[polo007]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[polo007]

Atkins: 'One of the ways to get better is acquiring a very good player' | Tim And Sid

19:39 | November 12, 2020

Toronto Blue Jays general manager Ross Atkins joins Tim and Sid to discuss the Blue Jays off-season plans and where they can improve.

[billy_hoyle]

So, we've built up a GradeA farm system, with a huge cost control advantage, just to piss much of it away for a player at the exact position of organizational depth?? Why not believe in your own scouting, and development, and work on signing many of your young burgeoning stars to multi-year discounted deals rather than dealing your cheap prospect-depth for a single player who is older and will be overpaid based on past performance?? Job 1 is locking up Bo, Vlad, Craig, and soon Nate and Alejandro to team friendly deals as your base. Job 2 is judicious use of the free agent market. Job Nothing is to trade away young depth on the same timeline as Bo and Lourdes and Vlad and Nate and blow your wad on a mercurial shortstop who may preclude you from eventually singing your own core.

So our team is good enough with just locking up the young players, and a judicious use of free agency? What does that even mean - a judicious use of free agency? I could argue, that waiting till next year and signing Lindor to a 10 yr contract where he puts up 5-7 WAR per yr, in the first half of the contract IS a judicious use of FA. Aligning the backside prime of a top 5 player with our cheap core is the right timing to peak at a championship.

I think some people see that our Grade A farm system has players that are blocked and can be used for an Elite player that's the same age as LGJ (so in the same age range as your stated core).

That's
Moreno - blocked by Kirk, Jansen, and McGuire.
Hidalgo and Orelvis Martinez - blocked by Bo, Biggio, Espinal, Groshans, Martin and what would be Lindor.

Could the back half of our top 10 prospects - the three listed above - end up being the best of the bunch? Yep. But the shine might wear off, and it might be good to capitalize on them now. I wouldn't be trading the guys that are closer to the bigs; these guys, Groshans and Martin, just so happen to fill the remaining holes (3B and CF).

[Schad]

Aligning the backside prime of a top 5 player with our cheap core is the right timing to peak at a championship.

]

Possibly. But this is baseball, and the odds of even the best team in baseball winning the title in any given year aren't that great. For that reason, you do want to have as long of a window as possible, and that's where the judicious use of free agency comes in: if you blow large amounts of money now, and you don't win that title, you've probably screwed up the whole of your theoretical window. If you're lucky you might win a title before it all goes to hell, as the Red Sox did, but there's also a good chance that you won't.

The best teams in baseball are those that have resisted the urge to throw their chips in, whether they throw money around or not. The World Series was between two teams in the Dodgers and Rays that are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of payroll, but both teams rely heavily on a consistent stream of homegrown talent because they resist the urge to gut the farm system to chase a short window.

Which isn't to say that we shouldn't or won't trade any prospects, or sign any big deals, but game-planning around peaking in a two or three year period rarely works out.

[TR50]

I was listening to a few of the Tim and Sid clips with Ross Atkins and he always mentioned guys like Bo, Vladdy, Biggio, Teo, Pearson, Ryu.

One name he never said that I found interesting is Gurriel. My hunch says that they are totally dangling him. Which I think makes sense? I mean if we do end up grabbing another outfielder this offseason, I can't see us having all of Teo, Grichuk, Gurriel and whoever the new guy is. Don't think we have the DH luxury to use all of those guys in the best way possible.

Suffice it to say, I find myself refreshing pages quite often!

[billy_hoyle]

Aligning the backside prime of a top 5 player with our cheap core is the right timing to peak at a championship.

]

Possibly. But this is baseball, and the odds of even the best team in baseball winning the title in any given year aren't that great. For that reason, you do want to have as long of a window as possible, and that's where the judicious use of free agency comes in: if you blow large amounts of money now, and you don't win that title, you've probably screwed up the whole of your theoretical window. If you're lucky you might win a title before it all goes to hell, as the Red Sox did, but there's also a good chance that you won't.

The best teams in baseball are those that have resisted the urge to throw their chips in, whether they throw money around or not. The World Series was between two teams in the Dodgers and Rays that are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of payroll, but both teams rely heavily on a consistent stream of homegrown talent because they resist the urge to gut the farm system to chase a short window.

Which isn't to say that we shouldn't or won't trade any prospects, or sign any big deals, but game-planning around peaking in a two or three year period rarely works out.

Cubs, Astros and Nationals all come to mind when it comes to timing peaks properly. The Dodgers just traded for Betts to put them over the top (and have previously traded for Machado, traded for the Bostons guys at the beginning of their reign, thrown money at AJ Pollack etc.). These teams have drafted well. If we continue to draft well, we will be fine.

I'm not really sure what you say is true. That the best team have resisted the urge to spend.

Not from my perspective anyway.

What formula are you preaching to follow? The Rays? The A's? Both these teams have oscillated quite a bit over the last 20yrs, from great to bad. Neither has won it all.

[Schad]

Cubs, Astros and Nationals all come to mind when it comes to timing peaks properly. The Dodgers just traded for Betts to put them over the top (and have previously traded for Machado, traded for the Bostons guys at the beginning of their reign, thrown money at AJ Pollack etc.). These teams have drafted well. If we continue to draft well, we will be fine.

I'm not really sure what you say is true. That the best team have resisted the urge to spend.

That isn't remotely what I said. I'm saying that "timing your peak" is a bad idea.

Look at what you noted with the Dodgers: they traded for Betts to 'put them over the top'. And it'll be remembered as such, but the Dodgers have been an elite-level team for eight years now, and during that time they made many moves that, had they won a title earlier, would be cited as the move that put them over the top. But they didn't get over the top, because despite being consistently among the elite teams in baseball, they didn't win a title.

And had the Dodgers actually pushed their chips in to do so, the odds that they'd have been in a position to win this year would be greatly diminished.

The Astros timed it so well that they won in the fifth year of their peak. The Nationals in the eighth season of a prolonged run, and immediately after losing their best player. They would seem like a prime counterargument, in fact!

What formula are you preaching to follow? The Rays? The A's? Both these teams have oscillated quite a bit over the last 20yrs, from great to bad. Neither has won it all.

Neither. I'm preaching that the aim should be to have a long period of sustained competitiveness, because that maximizes the odds that you'll actually win a title. Baseball isn't basketball: statistically, if you are the best team in baseball two years running, the most likely result is that you're a historical footnote.

[billy_hoyle]

I'm always very confused by your statements.

They don't make sense to me.

You are saying timing a peak is a bad idea? What do you mean? All the teams listed added to cost controlled player cores with big free agent additions or traded for big money players. That's my entire point, that's what I'm calling 'timing a peak'.

Lindor - IMO mirrors the same type of move made by other successful teams.

I literally noted, multiple other Dodgers moves - not just the Betts trade. I was implying that they continuously make these Lindor-esque moves (and have been very competitive with this strategy) for a decade. This is my point - they traded for Machado almost won, and still were able to trade for Betts and won later. How does that support your argument, that a Lindor trade will hamper our future moves?

They also continue to draft well.

The drafting well is what is allowing that team to let guys like Ryu, Maeda etc go. Because they keep drafting Lux's, May's, Buelers and Seagers. That will sustain the competitive window.

You give yourself a very good chance to win when you have high end talent at nearly every position. A 5-7 WAR player is huge. Especially when your team is looking like it might have positive value at small cost throughout the lineup. There are no guarantees. Adding Lindor increases our chances (greatly?) over the next few years.

[polo007]

Read on Twitter

[Schad]

I'm always very confused by your statements.

You are saying timing a peak is a bad idea? What do you mean? All the teams listed added to cost controlled player cores with big free agent additions or traded for big money players. That's my entire point, that's what I'm calling 'timing a peak'.

I'm saying that, if what the Dodgers and Nationals did is 'timing a peak', then the term has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. They didn't time anything: they were simply good enough long enough that eventually the law of averages caught up to them and they won titles. Because success in the MLB playoffs is far more variable than in other leagues (with the exception of the NHL), the most important thing is to get as many shots as possible.

Lindor - IMO mirrors the same type of move made by other successful teams.

It also mirrors the type of move made by many unsuccessful teams. Free agent megadeals/trades for pending free agents are a mixed bag.

I literally noted, multiple other Dodgers moves - not just the Betts trade. I was implying that they continuously make these Lindor-esque moves (and have been very competitive with this strategy) for a decade. This is my point - they traded for Machado almost won, and still were able to trade for Betts and won later. How does that support your argument, that a Lindor trade will hamper our future moves?

They also continue to draft well.

The drafting well is what is allowing that team to let guys like Ryu, Maeda etc go. Because they keep drafting Lux's, May's, Buelers and Seagers. That will sustain the competitive window.

Absolutely, they draft and develop as well as anyone in the league. But they also are very unwilling to part with their best prospects. The Machado deal involved them giving up very little; Machado was a rental, and the Orioles had zero leverage. The refusal to trade the likes of May, Buehler, Seager etc is the reason the Dodgers are where they are, though: even while trying to compete for a title, they never overcommitted to any one peak.

You give yourself a very good chance to win when you have high end talent at nearly every position. A 5-7 WAR player is huge. Especially when your team is looking like it might have positive value at small cost throughout the lineup. There are no guarantees. Adding Lindor increases our chances (greatly?) over the next few years.

We do not get to add Lindor for the next few years. We get to add Lindor for one year, singular, because he is a free agent after this upcoming season.

[The_Hater]

I'm always very confused by your statements.

They don't make sense to me. .

Considering that Schad is both an excellent and concise writer, admitting that only points the blame in one direction. It’s just not the direction you think.

[SharoneWright]

I came back tonight to respond, using the Red Sox as my example. But Schad beat me to it. (Schad may rue the day!) Nevertheless, thanks!

We want to be able to sign our own home grown "Mookie Betts" guys. Not decide to outbid 30 other teams (in either $$$ in FA or with ++prospects in trades -- [so relatively, by definition, NOT a value acquisition) for an older vet, who may break down, and who will take up an onerous/inordinate percentage of our salary structure. Priority must be to lock up our still young group for fair deals while we have any leverage at all. The Jays' unique advantage is that they have these burgeoning stars(?) who have yet to realize their full potential and who may take some security. That's the soft spot management can use to set us up for the future. And if you can't bet on your own draft picks that you have developed yourself, you should you bet on for value?? It's time very soon to make that gamble. Then supplement with judicious FA signings. Like a short-term Winfield. Or a short-term Molitor. Or a small deadline deal for a Cone or a Henderson. Smart.

[billy_hoyle]

I'm always very confused by your statements.

They don't make sense to me. .

Considering that Schad is both an excellent and concise writer, admitting that only points the blame in one direction. It’s just not the direction you think.

Sure. He's a great writer. Concise? I think he writes in generalities, and always abstracts ideas/strategies to the point that they're meaningless. Basically, what he accused my 'timing a peak' idea of, is what he always actually does, IMO.

His idea is to 'have a long period of sustained competitiveness'. No discussion on how. The armchair gm version of 'analysis paralysis'.

Oh and he literally argues points I make in my original post back at me.

But he writes well, we can agree on that.

[polo007]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Schad]

I had a really long version only to accidentally close the tab and fail to realize it, so here's the more concise version (it's still several hundred words. I am not actually a concise writer):

I've posted many, many times on what I believe the team ought to do in order to have an extended run, and the heart of the matter is that they need to avoid overcommitting financially, or they will not be able to afford to keep the talent they have in a few years time. We don't have the luxury of eating tens of millions in dead salary, as the Dodgers do, and consequently we need to pay as much mind to how our actions will affect that 2026 Jays as the 2021 Jays.

What does that mean in practical terms? Holding on to prospects where possible, because they will provide a second wave of cheap talent and allow us to remain competitive. Chasing free agents on shorter terms, because as the Dodgers have demonstrated it can be really useful to actually have the ability to trade those players away to make room for emergent talent; a megadeal leaves you pretty well locked in, because most of the value will come in the first few years and you'll then be left holding the bag for the final several seasons. Make upside plays in free agency/trade with players who, for one reason or another have enough risk attached that they don't command full freight. Ryu was a good example of the latter: he has consistently been among the best starters in baseball, but was available at a reasonable price because he carried a fair bit of health risk. But even at a four-year term that exceeded what other teams were willing to do, that risk was manageable: he wasn't likely to be a boat anchor unless his arm fell off, and his contract syncs relatively well with the point at which we'll start needing to pay bigger bucks to the first wave of kids. If he fell apart, that might jeopardize our window for a spell, but would not be an issue when the kids are all in the midst of their prime years.

So, who fits that model?

LaMahieu, for one: he isn't going to get a megacontract because he's a bit older, but his game should age fairly well. Teams are also worried that the oppo homers aren't going to be as much of a feature away from Yankees Stadium, but he has also proven to be quite a capable player without hitting 30 a year. His downside risk is a moderately-above-average 2B for something like $17-20m/4; his upside is that he keeps being one of the best players in baseball for a fraction of what you normally pay for such (he has outperformed Lindor the past two years). And because his baseline is fairly good, if in two years we have a good 2B option coming through the system (or we opt to move Bichette there because someone else is arriving on the scene at SS and we want to reallocate resources) his contract would almost certainly be movable.

Tanaka, for another: he's a consistent mid-rotation starter available at a reasonable price/length, and if we find ourselves with an overabundance of good starting options in a couple years, or the need to pay someone else, it wouldn't be difficult to find a taker for 1 year/$13-14m.

Or JBJ: CF is a significant need for us right now, but if all goes to plan it won't be in a couple seasons when Austin Martin is ready (I'm still assuming we ultimately use him in CF). JBJ isn't someone you'd want long-term because he'll be useless when his defense eventually falls off, but on a two-year deal in the $8-10m AAV range he's the perfect bridge.


All three of those players are additions that would substantially improve our team in 2021 without triggering the sort of payroll bomb in a few years that cratered the Red Sox. They wouldn't cost any great pile of assets (we'd have to surrender our 2nd rounder and $500k in international bonus pool for LaMahieu, but that's not the end of the world), and all of their deals stand a good chance to be movable if we feel the need to pivot. As great as Lindor is, giving up a bunch of stuff in order to allocate 15-20% of our payroll through the heat death of the universe to him represents an enormous risk, particularly when so much of his value is tied up in his defensive ability at SS (something that doesn't always age terribly well).

Also, regarding prospect blocking: there's no such thing until a player is too good for AAA. You're talking about guys in A ball as being blocked, but most of the players you list as blocked at shortstop won't even be shortstops by the time they reach the majors.

[wamco]

Replace jbj with springer and I agree with everything above

[The_Hater]

Replace jbj with springer and I agree with everything above

The difference being that Springer is going to get 4 years at close to $30 million per while they’re projecting JBJ at 2 years and <$20 million total.

The entire point of Schad’s post was ‘don’t overcommit financially’ and Springer, unlike the other 3 and especially Bradley, would do exactly that.

All that said, I can understand the attraction of adding Springer. He definitely fills a need