Jays vs Angels
Moderator: JaysRule15
- jalenrose#5
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,816
- And1: 266
- Joined: Jun 22, 2004
- Location: Flint
-
I actually scored this game just to see if I saw any patterns in Jays hitters to maybe figure out what's wrong with them.
I've came up with some numbers....
- Jays took 21/26 first pitch strikes......19 of which were a fastball. No surprise VDub swung the most on first pitches.
- Jays took/fouled/swung through/out on 8/11 1-0 pitches
- Jays t/fo/st/o on 6/7 2-0 pitches
- Jays t/fo/st/o on 5/5 3-0 pitches
- Jays t/fo/st/o on 12/14 3-1 pitches
So there you are, a few reasons why the Jays hitting stinks right now...although a great comeback in the ninth.
The Jays when they get their oppurtunity for the most part don't attempt or aren't ready for the pitch coming at them. All these stats I've showed you are PRIME hitting counts for the most part. They ge these counts many times in a game, and they still can't do anything with them...for the most part.
This has been fairly consistant with all the games the Jays seem to either get hits but can't cash em in, or when they get almost no hits/runs. They are predictable for the most part and that makes the pitchers have the upper hand.
Note: Some numbers might be a little off, the scorer on sportsnet was screwing up bad with some of the counts.
I've came up with some numbers....
- Jays took 21/26 first pitch strikes......19 of which were a fastball. No surprise VDub swung the most on first pitches.
- Jays took/fouled/swung through/out on 8/11 1-0 pitches
- Jays t/fo/st/o on 6/7 2-0 pitches
- Jays t/fo/st/o on 5/5 3-0 pitches
- Jays t/fo/st/o on 12/14 3-1 pitches
So there you are, a few reasons why the Jays hitting stinks right now...although a great comeback in the ninth.
The Jays when they get their oppurtunity for the most part don't attempt or aren't ready for the pitch coming at them. All these stats I've showed you are PRIME hitting counts for the most part. They ge these counts many times in a game, and they still can't do anything with them...for the most part.
This has been fairly consistant with all the games the Jays seem to either get hits but can't cash em in, or when they get almost no hits/runs. They are predictable for the most part and that makes the pitchers have the upper hand.
Note: Some numbers might be a little off, the scorer on sportsnet was screwing up bad with some of the counts.

- Geddy
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 69,890
- And1: 78,609
- Joined: Nov 30, 2005
- Location: Drinking an extra cole Sprite
-
This was the first time this season that my heart was beating a little faster during a ninth inning. If they pulled this one off it would been great for the team's morale but sadly it didn't work out. In a way I was glad to see them at least try to claw back and not just roll over like they have most nights this season. So I'm kind of not that disappointed with this loss.
The only thing that bugged me about this one was the defensive positioning when the Angels scored their last two runs. I don't think the batter showed he was going to bunt but they moved in the corners anway (i could be wrong though and he may have squared). I thought they should have held their ground their.
And nice work gathering those stats Jalen. That was quite interesting to see the first pitch strikes, but I wasn't surprised at Vernon's first pitch swings as well.
I've noticed how much Zaun has changed as a batter over the past season. Before he used to be a patient hitter, who would wait for the right pitch, but now it seems he just takes hacks at anything. I think we need a new catcher or just bump up thigpen.
The only thing that bugged me about this one was the defensive positioning when the Angels scored their last two runs. I don't think the batter showed he was going to bunt but they moved in the corners anway (i could be wrong though and he may have squared). I thought they should have held their ground their.
And nice work gathering those stats Jalen. That was quite interesting to see the first pitch strikes, but I wasn't surprised at Vernon's first pitch swings as well.
I've noticed how much Zaun has changed as a batter over the past season. Before he used to be a patient hitter, who would wait for the right pitch, but now it seems he just takes hacks at anything. I think we need a new catcher or just bump up thigpen.
-
- Forum Mod - Raptors
- Posts: 90,924
- And1: 30,671
- Joined: Oct 14, 2003
-
Too bad for Dusty that this one didn't happen. Ah well.
The first two runs, I could deal with. Overbay and Rios coming up with a pair of errors that let in the third run, I wasn't so thrilled about.
Still, 6 innings, 7 strikeouts and only 3 ER and 3 BB against the Angels is still a pretty good night for McGowan, nothing to be disappointed about.
The first two runs, I could deal with. Overbay and Rios coming up with a pair of errors that let in the third run, I wasn't so thrilled about.
Still, 6 innings, 7 strikeouts and only 3 ER and 3 BB against the Angels is still a pretty good night for McGowan, nothing to be disappointed about.
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,420
- And1: 2,119
- Joined: Feb 25, 2004
Mats_Sundin wrote:-= original quote snipped =-I know what you mean. IIRC didn't JP let him go because of the money (around $6.5M) and then pick up Miguel Batista for around $5M instead? I think that it would have been a $1.5M really well spent...
Many people give JP flack for losing Chris Carpenter, but I'm more angry with his low-balling of Escobar a year later.
Ricciardi offered Escobar 2-years, $10 million. They wouldn't go above that figure. However, after Escobar signed with Anaheim, Ricciardi spent $13.1 million on Batista (3 year deal), $2.2 million on Hentgen, $4.5 million on Ligtenberg (2 year deal), and $1.7 million on Terry Adams. I was furious. For a GM who is supposed to be cost effective and smart with assets, he essentially pissed a huge asset away in an effort to sign inferior 30-35 year old veterans.
The sad part is, we're all hoping AJ Burnett can someday be as good and dependable as Escobar has been since 2003-2007 (though he was injured in 2005).
I'm happy for Escobar, but he should be posting 120 ERA+'s with the Jays right now, not the Angels.
- Holmes
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,395
- And1: 3
- Joined: Nov 14, 2003
- Location: Toronto
Although it turned out to be a disaster, you could say that it was reasonable at the time. 2003 was a relatively strong year for us. We fielded 3 all-stars, Halladay won the AL Cy Young, finished with the best record in years, and ended the season with a ridiculous run that prompted anticipation for next year. (and lets throw in the fact that Josh Phelps hit 20 homeruns just for good measure). It was a strong year and we were in line to compete for next year. As long we fixed up our diasterous rotation and bullpen.
At the time, Kelvim Escobar was an enigma. We kept flipping him from starter to reliever to start to reliever largely due to his continuous struggles. He was an immense talent with a fireballer arm but little to no control. He's WHIP during his career with the Jays was close to 1.50. In 2003 he failed miserably as our closer at the beginning (and he wasn't even a great closer in his 38 save year in 2002) and got converted back to a starter where he finished the season as a serviceable starter. Either way he was still headache and he wanted 6+ million after proving he was nothing but a headache.
So off went J.P. to find answers to his porous rotation and bullpen. He went out and signed Ligtenberg who at the time was a solid addition to the bullpen after years of solid work for the Braves and Os. Adams was another solid signing after his brilliant work with the Red Sox the year before. Hentgen was a cheap addition and put up surprisingly respectable number for his age with the O's a year before not to mention he was probably also signed for nostalgic reasons.
Batista on the other hand was quite similar to Escobar. Both where pitchers who threw the heat. Both had problems with control. Both were flip flopped as starters to relievers and back by their respective teams. Batista was at the time a coming off a strong season as a starter. J.P. goes and picks up Batista at a cheaper price than Escobar and then allowed him to use the extra money to pick up another reliever.
It turns out everything was a disaster. Everybody we signed blew up, nobody from that year we signed is left on our squad while Escobar is still puttting up elite numbers for the Angels. So in hindsight all the decisions made by J.P. went up in smoke.
But I don't really feel any animosity over the loss of Kelvin Escobar. It was quite reasonable in looking at what we were trying to do. At the time I felt more comfortable with Batista as a number 2 than I did with Escobar. Can anybody honestly believe that Escobar would be as good as he is now?
How I feel about the Escobar situation is frankly quite similar to how I still feel about the Michael Young and Esteban Loaiza fiasco. Both situations turned out to be disasterous but I don't hate over the decision behind it.
At the time, Kelvim Escobar was an enigma. We kept flipping him from starter to reliever to start to reliever largely due to his continuous struggles. He was an immense talent with a fireballer arm but little to no control. He's WHIP during his career with the Jays was close to 1.50. In 2003 he failed miserably as our closer at the beginning (and he wasn't even a great closer in his 38 save year in 2002) and got converted back to a starter where he finished the season as a serviceable starter. Either way he was still headache and he wanted 6+ million after proving he was nothing but a headache.
So off went J.P. to find answers to his porous rotation and bullpen. He went out and signed Ligtenberg who at the time was a solid addition to the bullpen after years of solid work for the Braves and Os. Adams was another solid signing after his brilliant work with the Red Sox the year before. Hentgen was a cheap addition and put up surprisingly respectable number for his age with the O's a year before not to mention he was probably also signed for nostalgic reasons.
Batista on the other hand was quite similar to Escobar. Both where pitchers who threw the heat. Both had problems with control. Both were flip flopped as starters to relievers and back by their respective teams. Batista was at the time a coming off a strong season as a starter. J.P. goes and picks up Batista at a cheaper price than Escobar and then allowed him to use the extra money to pick up another reliever.
It turns out everything was a disaster. Everybody we signed blew up, nobody from that year we signed is left on our squad while Escobar is still puttting up elite numbers for the Angels. So in hindsight all the decisions made by J.P. went up in smoke.
But I don't really feel any animosity over the loss of Kelvin Escobar. It was quite reasonable in looking at what we were trying to do. At the time I felt more comfortable with Batista as a number 2 than I did with Escobar. Can anybody honestly believe that Escobar would be as good as he is now?
How I feel about the Escobar situation is frankly quite similar to how I still feel about the Michael Young and Esteban Loaiza fiasco. Both situations turned out to be disasterous but I don't hate over the decision behind it.
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,420
- And1: 2,119
- Joined: Feb 25, 2004
Escobar being flip-flopped in roles was more of the organization's fault (Ash and Ricciardi), not Escobar himself. He had two poor seasons in 1999 and 2000, but he was 23 and 24 years old respectively. Power pitchers tend to take longer to develop (see McGowan).
In 2001, the Jays decided to move Escobar (25) to the set-up role in order to put CHRIS MICHALAK in the rotation. I guess in the middle of the year they realized how asinine that was, and moved Escobar back to the rotation, where he had a 3.18 ERA in 68 innings (53 H, 60 K, 25 BB, 3 HR). However, when Ricciardi took over at the end of the year, he decided to trade Koch and move Escobar back into the bullpen as closer. Escobar had some issues with arm numbness towards the end of 2001 and that was used as justification for the move, but that was probably a red herring on Ricciardi's part since he moved Escobar back to rotation a year later anyway.
In 2003, he stunk as a closer, but was moved back to the rotation where he put up a 3.92 ERA in 163 innings with good ratios. His ERA+ was well above average as a starter (probably around 115).
So from 2001-2003, when he was actually in the rotation, his ERA was 3.70 in 231 innings. His ERA's since going to Anaheim? 3.93, 3.02, 3.61, and 2.68 (in progress). Seems rather consistent to me, with this year obviously being a career year.
Escobar after the 2003 season was a reasonable free agent signing. His value was probably around $6.0 million in that market (boy how the market has changed in four years!). He was in his prime (27) and had enough upside to compensate for any additional (reasonable) overpayment. The Angels got him at a great rate, and were smart enough to re-sign him at a better rate a few years later given the market shift.
The Jays ended up replacing him with Batista. I agree, Batista is in somewhat of a similar mold, but he never had Escobar's stuff and upside, not to mention Batista was 33 at the time and did most of his work in the NL. Hentgen was coming off a good year in Baltimore, but it was buying high and his stuff had deteriorated by the time he threw his first pitch in Toronto. Escobar by himself had more value than both of them combined, at the time and in hindsight.
I can forgive the Carpenter move. Carpenter had a torn labrum and it was questionable whether he'd even throw a pitch again. But Escobar? That was a disaster of a mistake, especially from a team that was so thin on pitching to begin with.
In 2001, the Jays decided to move Escobar (25) to the set-up role in order to put CHRIS MICHALAK in the rotation. I guess in the middle of the year they realized how asinine that was, and moved Escobar back to the rotation, where he had a 3.18 ERA in 68 innings (53 H, 60 K, 25 BB, 3 HR). However, when Ricciardi took over at the end of the year, he decided to trade Koch and move Escobar back into the bullpen as closer. Escobar had some issues with arm numbness towards the end of 2001 and that was used as justification for the move, but that was probably a red herring on Ricciardi's part since he moved Escobar back to rotation a year later anyway.
In 2003, he stunk as a closer, but was moved back to the rotation where he put up a 3.92 ERA in 163 innings with good ratios. His ERA+ was well above average as a starter (probably around 115).
So from 2001-2003, when he was actually in the rotation, his ERA was 3.70 in 231 innings. His ERA's since going to Anaheim? 3.93, 3.02, 3.61, and 2.68 (in progress). Seems rather consistent to me, with this year obviously being a career year.
Escobar after the 2003 season was a reasonable free agent signing. His value was probably around $6.0 million in that market (boy how the market has changed in four years!). He was in his prime (27) and had enough upside to compensate for any additional (reasonable) overpayment. The Angels got him at a great rate, and were smart enough to re-sign him at a better rate a few years later given the market shift.
The Jays ended up replacing him with Batista. I agree, Batista is in somewhat of a similar mold, but he never had Escobar's stuff and upside, not to mention Batista was 33 at the time and did most of his work in the NL. Hentgen was coming off a good year in Baltimore, but it was buying high and his stuff had deteriorated by the time he threw his first pitch in Toronto. Escobar by himself had more value than both of them combined, at the time and in hindsight.
I can forgive the Carpenter move. Carpenter had a torn labrum and it was questionable whether he'd even throw a pitch again. But Escobar? That was a disaster of a mistake, especially from a team that was so thin on pitching to begin with.
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,319
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 29, 2006
- Location: Montreal
I just came back from Toronto!
The series was pretty nice, even though I didn't get to see 1 Jays home run! The pitchers did a great job against the Angels and I'm glad I got to see McGowan pitch, even though he didn't win that game.
Escobar was killing me, especially that I can still picture him in a Jays uniform...
The series was pretty nice, even though I didn't get to see 1 Jays home run! The pitchers did a great job against the Angels and I'm glad I got to see McGowan pitch, even though he didn't win that game.
Escobar was killing me, especially that I can still picture him in a Jays uniform...
- youreachiteach
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,885
- And1: 606
- Joined: Jul 06, 2004
- Location: Brunei, Darrussalam
[quote="Michael Bradley"][/quote]
I think it's obvious in hindsight that he didn't make the right choices--but you have to include context.
Adams was a guy who was considered a very solid reliever (who had several career saves)--for a team in Toronto that had struggled mightily in that area the prior season. The Lightenberg aquisition was also in this context. Lightenberg saved a tremendous amount of games for Atlanta and was considered a very good closer (although he was coming off injury). Pat Hentgen was coming off an excellent year (In the same division) and was a former teammate who was brought in to be a number 5 starter. Who could've known he would deteriorate that fast? He was llooked upon as a great signing at the time (as was Lightenberg) by the media.
If you could choose between a former cy young canddiate and a player who was the most inconsistent and poor starter/relievers on average on the team (despite stuff) who would you choose?
Not to mention, you are a on a 50 million dollar budget and you have SEVERAL holes to fill on your team, not just the starting rotation. The guy was doing a MAJOR overhaul of the team, and just didn't have the budget to spend too much in any one area. So, he gambled on the bullpen (a good choice in the small market situation) and on the mound with a former great.
In the end, as seems to always happen to the Blue Birds, the worst happened. Hentgen fell off the world (NO ONE knew this would happen) and Lightenberg continued to be hurt and lost his velocity (not many thought this was gonna' happen either). Adams did the same. What were the chances of ALL THREE going into the tank? Not that likely. As for Adams, look at Todd Jones of the Tigers? Similar stuff and approach, and he's still pitching. It's all about adjustments, and these guys couldn't make enough (despite their fairly good track records of doing so)
Escobar had just as much chance of going the way of one current Oriole (Cabrera) and former jay Juan Guzman--that is to say, never get control of their stuff and disappear from the scene once their stuff starts to dip a little. And yes, Cabrera may yet do this for the Orioles, meanwhile they are waiting, and waiting, and waiting while they flounder for hitters.
At some point, you have to sh*t or get off the pot. You mentionned Escobar had two bad years. Well, many young players have great first and second years. Bottom line, Escobar played himself into the bullpen with his erratic stuff. he did perform there, some of the time. Clearly, he is a better choice for the rotation NOW, but that would've been a risky decision then.
What is clear from all this is that Ricciardi generally favors control over power from his pitchers, and his drafting record supports that concept.
He isn't the only one who supports that. Boston and New York for years had soft tossers at the end of their rotations (pretty much throughout their rotations) and excelled.
He was trying to build a solid defence and pitching club that could battle like Minnesota does. Injuries, lack of depth and money torpedoed that idea. Then, when he finally got some money, he changed his approach and went for the talent. As a result, you're seeing a more competitive and talented team with more balance.
I think this was a mistake in the end by Ricciardi, but one that has to be tempered with the fact that he was in a difficult position trying to fiill several holes with an inconsistent player asking for more money despite not really living up to his end.
Good on the Angels for stealing him away--it was a good move for them. I just don't think it was SUCH a bad gamble for Ricciardi.
I think it's obvious in hindsight that he didn't make the right choices--but you have to include context.
Adams was a guy who was considered a very solid reliever (who had several career saves)--for a team in Toronto that had struggled mightily in that area the prior season. The Lightenberg aquisition was also in this context. Lightenberg saved a tremendous amount of games for Atlanta and was considered a very good closer (although he was coming off injury). Pat Hentgen was coming off an excellent year (In the same division) and was a former teammate who was brought in to be a number 5 starter. Who could've known he would deteriorate that fast? He was llooked upon as a great signing at the time (as was Lightenberg) by the media.
If you could choose between a former cy young canddiate and a player who was the most inconsistent and poor starter/relievers on average on the team (despite stuff) who would you choose?
Not to mention, you are a on a 50 million dollar budget and you have SEVERAL holes to fill on your team, not just the starting rotation. The guy was doing a MAJOR overhaul of the team, and just didn't have the budget to spend too much in any one area. So, he gambled on the bullpen (a good choice in the small market situation) and on the mound with a former great.
In the end, as seems to always happen to the Blue Birds, the worst happened. Hentgen fell off the world (NO ONE knew this would happen) and Lightenberg continued to be hurt and lost his velocity (not many thought this was gonna' happen either). Adams did the same. What were the chances of ALL THREE going into the tank? Not that likely. As for Adams, look at Todd Jones of the Tigers? Similar stuff and approach, and he's still pitching. It's all about adjustments, and these guys couldn't make enough (despite their fairly good track records of doing so)
Escobar had just as much chance of going the way of one current Oriole (Cabrera) and former jay Juan Guzman--that is to say, never get control of their stuff and disappear from the scene once their stuff starts to dip a little. And yes, Cabrera may yet do this for the Orioles, meanwhile they are waiting, and waiting, and waiting while they flounder for hitters.
At some point, you have to sh*t or get off the pot. You mentionned Escobar had two bad years. Well, many young players have great first and second years. Bottom line, Escobar played himself into the bullpen with his erratic stuff. he did perform there, some of the time. Clearly, he is a better choice for the rotation NOW, but that would've been a risky decision then.
What is clear from all this is that Ricciardi generally favors control over power from his pitchers, and his drafting record supports that concept.
He isn't the only one who supports that. Boston and New York for years had soft tossers at the end of their rotations (pretty much throughout their rotations) and excelled.
He was trying to build a solid defence and pitching club that could battle like Minnesota does. Injuries, lack of depth and money torpedoed that idea. Then, when he finally got some money, he changed his approach and went for the talent. As a result, you're seeing a more competitive and talented team with more balance.
I think this was a mistake in the end by Ricciardi, but one that has to be tempered with the fact that he was in a difficult position trying to fiill several holes with an inconsistent player asking for more money despite not really living up to his end.
Good on the Angels for stealing him away--it was a good move for them. I just don't think it was SUCH a bad gamble for Ricciardi.
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,458
- And1: 4
- Joined: Jul 03, 2003
youreachiteach wrote:He was trying to build a solid defence and pitching club that could battle like Minnesota does. Injuries, lack of depth and money torpedoed that idea. Then, when he finally got some money, he changed his approach and went for the talent. As a result, you're seeing a more competitive and talented team with more balance.
Sorry, more competitive? We are a team hovering around .500, as we have been all but one year of Ricciardi's tenure.
- youreachiteach
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,885
- And1: 606
- Joined: Jul 06, 2004
- Location: Brunei, Darrussalam
Modern_epic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Sorry, more competitive? We are a team hovering around .500, as we have been all but one year of Ricciardi's tenure.
We were hovering below five hundred more than above it when we were really small market.
This team is primed for better if they are truly healthy next year.
Most of the losses these days are a result of Lyle Overbay's hand not functioning properly---and making crucial errors. Healthy, this team is now 5 or 6 above five hundred and closer in the playoff hunt than it has for some time.
Whatever. The point was, we are clearly more talented, just have continued to be unlucky in the injuries department.
That said, Frank should be bought out and the youngun's played more for next year.
We're done.
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,458
- And1: 4
- Joined: Jul 03, 2003
youreachiteach wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
We were hovering below five hundred more than above it when we were really small market.
This team is primed for better if they are truly healthy next year.
Most of the losses these days are a result of Lyle Overbay's hand not functioning properly---and making crucial errors. Healthy, this team is now 5 or 6 above five hundred and closer in the playoff hunt than it has for some time.
Whatever. The point was, we are clearly more talented, just have continued to be unlucky in the injuries department.
That said, Frank should be bought out and the youngun's played more for next year.
We're done.
I thought we were competitive? Frank Thomas is the third best player at the plate for the Jays this year. And it's not like we've got a hotshot young DH waiting to be called up to take his place in the next year or two.
Anyway, one thing this team is not designed for is remaining healthy. Frank Thomas, Troy Glaus and AJ Burnett are all injuries waiting to happen, plus the normal injuries that happen to any team.
- youreachiteach
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,885
- And1: 606
- Joined: Jul 06, 2004
- Location: Brunei, Darrussalam
Modern_epic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
I thought we were competitive?
Frank Thomas is the third best player at the plate for the Jays this year. And it's not like we've got a hotshot young DH waiting to be called up to take his place in the next year or two.
Anyway, one thing this team is not designed for is remaining healthy. Frank Thomas, Troy Glaus and AJ Burnett are all injuries waiting to happen, plus the normal injuries that happen to any team.
There is a wide gap between competitive and successful.
And you're right, this team is injury prone. A lot of things will have to go right that haven't so far to make the playoffs next year. Pitching will give them a shot, though.
As far as Frank Thomas goes, that money will be worse than useless if he is hurt, and he clearly has regressed (he can't even hit the fastball on the inner third anymore unless the velocity is really average). He needs to go for next year, which is when this team's last shot at a ring has to come to fruition--or Ricciardi's gone.
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,458
- And1: 4
- Joined: Jul 03, 2003
youreachiteach wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
There is a wide gap between competitive and successful.
And you're right, this team is injury prone. A lot of things will have to go right that haven't so far to make the playoffs next year. Pitching will give them a shot, though.
As far as Frank Thomas goes, that money will be worse than useless if he is hurt, and he clearly has regressed (he can't even hit the fastball on the inner third anymore unless the velocity is really average). He needs to go for next year, which is when this team's last shot at a ring has to come to fruition--or Ricciardi's gone.
Sorry, if we aren't close to successful, then what, exactly, are we competitive for? Competitive, by definition, means you are in the mix with other teams.
While Thomas has regressed, I will repeat he is still currently the 3rd best guy at the plate on this team. He's getting on base at a better clip then anyone else on the team. He has 19 home runs. His OPS+ is still 116, his VORP is 21.3. Who in the jays system do you expect to put up close to that number within the next year, If you weren't bust being some mix of a homer and a reactionary here you would realize that although he's not the player he was last year, you're not gonna get anyone to replace him with either with whatever small amount of money you save (ignoring the fact that any money saved would be better spent at any of at least 3 different positions) or from the system.
Also, Ricciardi doesn't need a ring next year to save his job. The playoffs would do fine.
- youreachiteach
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,885
- And1: 606
- Joined: Jul 06, 2004
- Location: Brunei, Darrussalam
Modern_epic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Sorry, if we aren't close to successful, then what, exactly, are we competitive for? Competitive, by definition, means you are in the mix with other teams.
While Thomas has regressed, I will repeat he is still currently the 3rd best guy at the plate on this team. He's getting on base at a better clip then anyone else on the team. He has 19 home runs. His OPS+ is still 116, his VORP is 21.3. Who in the jays system do you expect to put up close to that number within the next year, If you weren't bust being some mix of a homer and a reactionary here you would realize that although he's not the player he was last year, you're not gonna get anyone to replace him with either with whatever small amount of money you save (ignoring the fact that any money saved would be better spent at any of at least 3 different positions) or from the system.
Also, Ricciardi doesn't need a ring next year to save his job. The playoffs would do fine.
There's no need to get snippy. You and I have different ideas of what competitive is, that's fine. While we're not in the playoffs as of now..we are in the mix at six games back, right? Right. That is competitive, just not successful. Quit trying to split hairs.
And, obviously, the playoffs would do fine. The point is, he needs to succeed more than he will this year. And, he is clearly aiming at all the marbles; or he wouldn't have shelled out all this dough already.
It's not reactionary to say Frank has regressed badly. If he's a;lready gone from over 40 to say, 25 homeruns by the end of the year in one season of being completely healthy; what is he going to regress to next year? And that's with "getting hot" in the second half. When is he going to get hot next year, September? Good luck with him being healthy. And his OBP is useless because when he walks he is helping the pitcher anyhow because he's so slow on the bases. Walking Frank is half the battle won against Toronto, and it's getting more and more annoying as the days go by. Replace him with a lefty shortstop with some speed at the top of the lineup would help immensely.
Besides, as is blatantly obviously to many, this team needs more speed not more power. Any savings could help make a run at a premiere leadoff guy (since we evidently don't have one in Reed Johnson--at least, not against righties). And, I won't ignore the fact the Jays need to improve
in other areas. You are correct in stating the money needs to be spent at shortstop and catcher.
Bottom Line, money that was spent on Frank needed to be spent on a real shortstop or catcher. And it will again next year. I'd rather see Glaus and Wells get off their collective behinds and produce, rather than the current incarnation all blow hot and cold forever.Maybe some speed at the top gets the power we already had some more fastballs.
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,458
- And1: 4
- Joined: Jul 03, 2003
youreachiteach wrote:There's no need to get snippy. You and I have different ideas of what competitive is, that's fine. While we're not in the playoffs as of now..we are in the mix at six games back, right? Right. That is competitive, just not successful. Quit trying to split hairs.
And, obviously, the playoffs would do fine. The point is, he needs to succeed more than he will this year. And, he is clearly aiming at all the marbles; or he wouldn't have shelled out all this dough already.
You and the dictionary seem to have differing ideas of competitive; there is no a wide gap between it and success.
It's not reactionary to say Frank has regressed badly. If he's a;lready gone from over 40 to say, 25 homeruns by the end of the year in one season of being completely healthy; what is he going to regress to next year? And that's with "getting hot" in the second half. When is he going to get hot next year, September? Good luck with him being healthy. And his OBP is useless because when he walks he is helping the pitcher anyhow because he's so slow on the bases. Walking Frank is half the battle won against Toronto, and it's getting more and more annoying as the days go by. Replace him with a lefty shortstop with some speed at the top of the lineup would help immensely.
Besides, as is blatantly obviously to many, this team needs more speed not more power. Any savings could help make a run at a premiere leadoff guy (since we evidently don't have one in Reed Johnson--at least, not against righties). And, I won't ignore the fact the Jays need to improve
in other areas. You are correct in stating the money needs to be spent at shortstop and catcher.
Bottom Line, money that was spent on Frank needed to be spent on a real shortstop or catcher. And it will again next year. I'd rather see Glaus and Wells get off their collective behinds and produce, rather than the current incarnation all blow hot and cold forever.Maybe some speed at the top gets the power we already had some more fastballs.
Right, I agree he has regressed and I agree we shouldn't have spent the money we did on Frank based on what we already had. I disagree that walking him is of help to opposing pitchers. I also should note that he only got hot after the break last year, too. But regardless, now that we have him, buying him out to play our non-existent prospects was one of the most reactionary idea's I've head on this board, even ignoring that he's hitting better than Glaus or Wells. Since he is, why don't we buy out Troy, instead?
Also, what premier lead off man SS lefty have you seen available? I guess Cesar Izturis may be available, and he's kind of fast and switch hits, but he certainly not you lead off man.
- youreachiteach
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,885
- And1: 606
- Joined: Jul 06, 2004
- Location: Brunei, Darrussalam
Modern_epic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Right, I agree he has regressed and I agree we shouldn't have spent the money we did on Frank based on what we already had. I disagree that walking him is of help to opposing pitchers. I also should note that he only got hot after the break last year, too. But regardless, now that we have him, buying him out to play our non-existent prospects was one of the most reactionary idea's I've head on this board, even ignoring that he's hitting better than Glaus or Wells. Since he is, why don't we buy out Troy, instead?
Also, what premier lead off man SS lefty have you seen available? I guess Cesar Izturis may be available, and he's kind of fast and switch hits, but he certainly not you lead off man.
The hardest step to take is the one from "pretty good" what we are now to "excellent" what the Yankees are. The difference is six games. Are you really going to tell me being inthe wild card race this late in the season doesn't qualify as "pretty good" with all the injuries and inconsistent hitting? Please. That's how I define competitive, although you are free to only define it as the same as excellent if you like. Baseball is an elitist game, anyway.
I didn't mean an ACTUAL lefty shortstop, I meant the gap needed to be filled in those areas (Lefty and speedy). Isn't Lasting Milledge lefty? They could get him to play outfield and leadoff, couldn't they? He's currently property of the Mets, but they've been trying to move him for years because of "attitude".
And we don't have "non-existent prospects" despite what baseball america says. There are several guys down on the farm who are fast and powerful (though not lefty) at shortstop and at catcher (Diaz and Santos).
I'd far rather their emerging power bats (Santos won double a home run contest and has 17 of them so far this year) and Diaz has always been known for power and now is hitting for average and OBP.
If he can't play in the field, can't hit fastballs on the inside and at best walks a few times a week is that worth 10 million? Right. What's so reactionary about that? It would be a very risky move, but one that might make them better in the end.
I know it won't happen though, because they've already sunk the money.
It should though, because this team needs to know what it has, more than watching an old Frank Thomas slowly decline.