JP Ricciardi blames Rogers

[tsherkin]

Ricciardi is what he is... He was a dick who treated the fans terribly, he was mediocre at managing money when he had a budget... he did a great job on most of his pitching draft selections, he hit on a few of his position player picks, and when he made trades, they were pretty good.

He enjoyed almost a decade of the best pitcher in baseball, and the team played better than the roster as a result. For a long time, we had pretty good defense, a hella awesome starter and we had some good bullpen years, too. We had some brutal injuries in a few years, and a massive regression from the guys signed to the biggest contracts on the team (Wells, Ryan, Thomas), which hurt us.

Should we hate Ricciardi? No, there's no sense in that, he wasn't an AWFUL GM, he just wasn't an elite one. Did he screw up? Repeatedly. But he's not the only GM to do that, and his screwups are generally evened out by what he did do that was particularly good, such as getting us pitching talent in the minors that we're starting to see now.

In 2 years, what will we be saying of AA? He's presumably better at handling the media, so the perception of him as a gigantic asshat probably won't be there as it is with Ricciardi, but if he fails to field a truly competitive team and/or to restock our farm system with compelling talent, what will we be saying? We've not been bad enough most years to get a shot at a David Price or a Strasburg or a Heyward or a Carl Crawford, Evan Longoria, etc. Do we complain that JP never let us get that bad? You can do a lot with picks after the first round, certainly, and we could do a lot better than we have so far, but... we did get Hill and Lind, who now appear central to our offensive core.

[Hoopstarr]

I disagree that the only GM in baseball--ever, unless I'm wrong--who answered direct question from fans on a weekly basis treated the fans terribly.

Those call-in shows were also responsible for these hilarious recaps at Ghostrunner on First, starting on August 13, 2008 here (replace asterisks with f-ing). Stupid censor bleeps even URLs.

[tsherkin]

I disagree that the only GM in baseball--ever, unless I'm wrong--who answered direct question from fans on a weekly basis treated the fans terribly.

I'm inclined to think that his flippant attitude was irritating, but perhaps "terribly" was hyperbole. I don't like Ricciardi, I think he's a jack-ass, but I also don't think he was the worst GM ever, or even especially bad.

[northernpuppy]

Rogers made a profit? Are you sure about that? Ticket sales were pretty bad (my mom works for Rogers, she says the Blue Jays are one of the worst off assets for Rogers in terms of revenue).

Yes, I'm positive. The Blue Jays' value to their corporation goes far behind ticket sales and into television, and especially advertising. They would have sold the team a long time ago if it wasn't beneficial to their business, just as they would have fired JP years ago if he was hindering the Jays financially.

[quote]

Actually you're way off, bud. The Blue Jays have been losing money for the past couple of season but ROGERS as a whole has been making money. If you know anything, you'd know that the baseball operations and stadium operations lose money, but the company overall rakes in profit. The reason Rogers owns the Jays and the building they play in is not about the team making money, Mr. Positive. It's about synergy and promoting its other services (i.e. Cable and Print). They fill RSN programming with Jays and take in the ad revenues that way.

The guy who said his mom works for Rogers is right... because I too work for Rogers (and in the stadium operations). So, you're wrong in that respect. That also explains why they won't sell the team (until Rogers gets out of the channel operating business or sports channel business which is highly unlikely for now) or the team suffers a loss in conjuction with the overall business and its stock (RCI.A and RCI.B) plummeting.

[Randle McMurphy]

Actually you're way off, bud. The Blue Jays have been losing money for the past couple of season but ROGERS as a whole has been making money. If you know anything, you'd know that the baseball operations and stadium operations lose money, but the company overall rakes in profit. The reason Rogers owns the Jays and the building they play in is not about the team making money, Mr. Positive. It's about synergy and promoting its other services (i.e. Cable and Print). They fill RSN programming with Jays and take in the ad revenues that way.

Actually, that sounds like exactly what I wrote down. You were just more detailed about the "television" and "advertising" value that the Jays provide to Rogers.

You would be well served in reading it again:
"The Blue Jays' value to their corporation goes far behind ticket sales and into television, and especially advertising. They would have sold the team a long time ago if it wasn't beneficial to their business, just as they would have fired JP years ago if he was hindering the Jays financially."