Shaun Marcum Traded to the Brewers for Brett Lawrie

[victor page]

I'll miss Marcum in 2011 but have always wondered how he'd fare after turning 30. His bread and butter is changing speeds - and he can do it like nobody's business. His heater tops out at 90 (on a really good day - it's more often around 88). His change up comes in at 76-80.

He's a partier (I think) and not a fitness disciple (I know) so his heater is bound to get even slower. Can he still keep hitters off balance with a fastball in the mid-80s? If I were AA, I'd have been scared to give him a long term deal.

I think he'll do well in the NL in 2011, and be on the scrap heap by 2015 or 2016.

You can't really compare him to Maddux - he had electric movement on his pitches and legendary control (Marcum has great control but Maddux may have been the best of all time).

[Randle McMurphy]

The Jays not doing anything in 2009 or 2010 to win with Halladay was inexcusable. Nothing Halladay did caused that.

The blame can only be put on Rogers for that. They've been saying "this year we'll save, but next year we'll spend" for quite a few years now.

I think some blames go to JP. They increased his team's salary like clockwork every year only to get zero results.

We hit almost 100 million in 2008. What's the point in spending 20 million more for almost the exact same record? Doesn't make any business sense.

100M is about an average payroll at the MLB level. The expectation for a large market team like the Jays should be at least that.

[Randle McMurphy]

Give me a break, the writing was on the wall. He wanted to play for a contender, we were in no position to contend. There was almost NO chance he was going to come back here.

You can tell yourself that all you want to justify it, but it's not exactly true. Halladay definitely would have considered anything the Jays offered in free agency very strongly. He did give this team two bargain contracts for a reason.

Sure, I think AA was right not to take that risk, but it never would have gotten to that point if Rogers was willing to spend more money on some of JP's teams.

[YogiStewart]

because throwing money at a situation always results in a winner, right?

Just ask the Rays and Giants.
and the Sox, Mets and Yankees.

if there was a formula for winning the World Series, then everyone would win it every year at the same time.

[Randle McMurphy]

I was in the same boat until we started throwing money in directions without short-term returns. We gave the Reds $4m to sweeten the Rolen deal, the Phillies $6m to sweeten the Halladay deal, Hech got $4m upfront, we spent a tonne on the draft, and we haven't been shy about extending our pre-FA guys. We offer arbitration even to the likes of Frasor, who'll probably end up getting more than he's worth, because there's a payoff on the off chance that he turns it down.

But you're forgetting the part where they saved a whole lot of money from not having to pay Rolen or Halladay their full contracts last season.

No, but I don't get the sense that they're willing to carry an above-average payroll when it's justified. Cheap teams don't generally okay cash giveaways in deals where they're giving up the best player, unless they're willing to back that investment up with a larger one should the team find itself in a position to compete.

That's what Beeston says, anyway. I'll remain unconvinced until I actually see it.

[Randle McMurphy]

because throwing money at a situation always results in a winner, right?

Just ask the Rays and Giants.
and the Sox, Mets and Yankees.

if there was a formula for winning the World Series, then everyone would win it every year at the same time.

Money on talent always results in more wins, yes. And more wins gives you a better chance at making the playoffs. And the playoffs a crapshoot (see 2010).

Therefore, yes, spending money increases your chance of winning a title.

[Schad]

100M is about an average payroll at the MLB level. The expectation for a large market team like the Jays should be at least that.

Not really...only nine teams cracked $100m in 2009, and the median payroll was $81m. No doubt that we're below average in the AL East, though.

[Randle McMurphy]

100M is about an average payroll at the MLB level. The expectation for a large market team like the Jays should be at least that.

Not really...only nine teams cracked $100m in 2009, and the median payroll was $81m. No doubt that we're below average in the AL East, though.

I was referring to the mean, not median.

[Schad]

But you're forgetting the part where they saved a whole lot of money from not having to pay Rolen or Halladay their full contracts last season.

Rolen demanded a trade, and we threw in $4m to get a far better prospect than we had any right getting, and we took back a guy earning $5m a year to boot. I can't possibly see how you can twist that into the Jays being cheap.

[billy_hoyle]

But telling them he's not going to sign back essentially is asking for trade.

#1. No, it isn't. He was entire willingly to play out the final year of his contract and would have had another regular Doc year.

#2. He never said he wouldn't have signed back with them as a FA, only that he wouldn't commit himself to an extension without knowing Rogers' willingness to spend on other parts of the team. In fact, I suspect that the Jays might have had a pretty good shot at re-signing him if they allowed him to become a free agent. The draw of familiarity would have been tough for him to ignore.

Give me a break, the writing was on the wall. He wanted to play for a contender, we were in no position to contend. There was almost NO chance he was going to come back here.

What he said to the media was not what he said behind closed doors. It never is. If the Jays thought they could resign him, they would have kept him.

Couldn't agree more, Doc clearly told them he wasn't coming back - classy guy doing the right thing. The reverse Bosh and T-mac and to a lesser extent VC who came with the trade request but also played like a dog to lower his value.

[tempests_dawn]

Give me a break, the writing was on the wall. He wanted to play for a contender, we were in no position to contend. There was almost NO chance he was going to come back here.

You can tell yourself that all you want to justify it, but it's not exactly true. Halladay definitely would have considered anything the Jays offered in free agency very strongly. He did give this team two bargain contracts for a reason.

Sure, I think AA was right not to take that risk, but it never would have gotten to that point if Rogers was willing to spend more money on some of JP's teams.

And what are the chances of Halladay giving a THIRD bargain contract to the same team when that team hasn't been close to a playoff run, let alone a playoff appearance, during his career?

[Randle McMurphy]

But you're forgetting the part where they saved a whole lot of money from not having to pay Rolen or Halladay their full contracts last season.

Rolen demanded a trade, and we threw in $4m to get a far better prospect than we had any right getting, and we took back a guy earning $5m a year to boot. I can't possibly see how you can twist that into the Jays being cheap.

Did they save money on what they would have paid if they kept Rolen? The answer is yes. The same for Halladay.

I'm not saying that it's the only motivating factor for how the Rogers run their team, but money is never an issue that should be ignored in evaluating deals made by the Jays.

[Schad]

I was referring to the mean, not median.

Mean was around $90m. In either respect, $100m would be considered a fair shake above average.

[darth_federer]

The blame can only be put on Rogers for that. They've been saying "this year we'll save, but next year we'll spend" for quite a few years now.

I was in the same boat until we started throwing money in directions without short-term returns. We gave the Reds $4m to sweeten the Rolen deal, the Phillies $6m to sweeten the Halladay deal, Hech got $4m upfront, we spent a tonne on the draft, and we haven't been shy about extending our pre-FA guys. We offer arbitration even to the likes of Frasor, who'll probably end up getting more than he's worth, because there's a payoff on the off chance that he turns it down.

Are they likely to spend $150m one of these years? No, but I don't get the sense that they're willing to carry an above-average payroll when it's justified. Cheap teams don't generally okay cash giveaways in deals where they're giving up the best player, unless they're willing to back that investment up with a larger one should the team find itself in a position to compete.

To add to this, I think the ownership recognizes how valuable this market is and are willing to spend.

This is an interview AA did today

Keri: So where would that leave you in terms of payroll? No one’s going to match the Yankees, but could the Jays be on par with teams at that next tier down?

Anthopoulos: We all understand, and it starts with ownership, that we are a large market. We got away from that, we forgot how large the market was. This is a massive market with massive upside. The fan base is certainly there, they’ve shown it in the past. It’s on us to put a great product on the field that can be good for years, not a quick fix for the short term. If we can do that…not New York, but Chicago, Anaheim, Seattle? We absolutely have the upside to be there.

Keri: The 2010 Forbes franchise rankings had the Jays 26th in franchise value, and 25th in revenue. That’s despite playing in the fifth most populous city in North America. Has Rogers given you a mandate to run the team as if it’s a small-market club, or do you see opportunity to become something bigger?

Anthopoulos: There’s a huge opportunity here. Due respect to Montreal, but the greater Toronto area has something like 7 million people, and Rogers Communications is probably the wealthiest owner in MLB. They have huge synergies when you consider all of Rogers’ media properties, coast to coast.

People talk about what the Indians did in the past, growing their product and drawing 3 million fans. 3 million is a great achievement, but don’t forget, Toronto once drew 4 million. Of course Toronto is a market where you need to have a winning team. It’s not like with the Cubs where fans just show up. The window for other markets is limited, because there’s only so much upside for payroll. For us, if we can build the foundation of a great team, payroll, attendance and revenue can all climb together. The upside here is massive.

http://blogs.thescore.com/mlb/2010/12/0 ... thopoulos/

AA wouldnt speak so confidently if he wasnt sure that the money would be there.

[Schad]

Did they save money on what they would have paid if they kept Rolen? The answer is yes. The same for Halladay.

I'm not saying that it's the only motivating factor for how the Rogers run their team, but money is never an issue that should be ignored in evaluating deals made by the Jays.

For ****'s sake, he demanded a trade...if they so desired, they could've salary-dumped him for nothing and saved far more money. Total saved from the total value of Rolen's deal: $3.75m. Maximum possible savings: $15m.

And with Doc it's even more ridiculous. If they were doing it to save money, they could've found a deal that saved them an additional $6m. No effort required whatsoever. This narrative just doesn't mesh with reality.

[OakleyDokely]

Halladay wouldn't sign an extension. He planned on playing out the year before making a decision about his future. He didn't rule out re-signing with the Jays at the end of the season -- and i'm sure he would have strongly considered the Jays if they emerged into a contender.

But given that the Jays brass didn't expect to contend, it made sense to trade a 30+ year old guy with only 1 year left on his deal.

I think both sides (Jays and Halladay) handled the situation very professionally.

[Randle McMurphy]

I was referring to the mean, not median.

Mean was around $90m. In either respect, $100m would be considered a fair shake above average.

Really, I don't think I should be that impressed when the wealthiest ownership in baseball is willing to spend slightly above average for one year out of its ten years owning the team.

[Randle McMurphy]

For ****'s sake, he demanded a trade...if they so desired, they could've salary-dumped him for nothing and saved far more money. Total saved from the total value of Rolen's deal: $3.75m. Maximum possible savings: $15m.

Straight salary dump would have been pretty poor PR, I think. It was easier and better to just go along with his demand, add a good prospect, and save some money along the way.

And with Doc it's even more ridiculous. If they were doing it to save money, they could've found a deal that saved them an additional $6m. No effort required whatsoever. This narrative just doesn't mesh with reality.

I never called them the Florida Marlins.

[Schad]

Really, I don't think I should be that impressed when the wealthiest ownership in baseball is willing to spend slightly above average for one year out of its ten years owning the team.

I've never said that they're spendthrifts. Rather, it's that this notion that you're spinning where the Jays are frightened to commit a few mil here and there simply isn't borne out by reality.

[Schad]

Straight salary dump would have been pretty poor PR, I think. It was easier and better to just go along with his demand, add a good prospect, and save some money along the way.

Heh, so they're obsessed with keeping costs low, but are willing to pay up to $10m for a little good PR? C'mon now.