OT: Brewers a dream come true for Marcum

[Avenger]

Marcum's AL rank in ERA....

2010: 15th (3.64)
2009: N/A
2008: 8th (3.39)
2007: 26th (4.13 overall, 3.91 as a starter)

That is better than "#3 at best" numbers. He pitched in the AL East and had an ERA in the mid-3.00's with the ratios to back it up. That is pretty darn impressive. The only knock on him is health and durability. I don't think he will ever be a workhorse as far as innings, and maybe his delivery will catch up to him, but his lack of innings in 2007 were due to starting the year as a reliever and obviously 2008 because of TJS. Not entirely his doing or indicative of the future.

Yes, getting Milwaukee's #1 prospect for Marcum while the Royals had to take their lesser prospects does look good on AA. He went with quality over quantity, and that is a good characteristic for a GM. Whether Lawrie ends up being worth it in the long run, only time can answer that.

Not to trash on marcum too much because i do like him but he has other weaknesses. He put up his career best HR/9 this past season and it was still only 1.11/9 and his career 1.31 HR/9 is terrible. He also kinda got lucky this year with a HR/FB rate at only 9.7%, in this division with the power hitters and the bandboxes we play in, you can't count on a low a HR/FB rate especially for a soft tosser like Marcum

[dagger]

Part of my problem with the trade is that the prospect-for-prospect's sake mentality is a great way for a cheap owner to masquerade behind a plan. What we see with the many quality players that have negotiated no-trade exclusions is that they don't go to "prospect laden" organizations. They go to teams that have made a commitment to win now or soon. So we can load up on all the theoretically high end prospects and draft choices we want, but come next winter when the Jays are supposedly going to make "a splash" according to many of you and some media, I believe it's going to be a belly flop.

Why did Greinke lift his no trade exclusion on the Brewers? Because they acquired Marcum and have indicated they are ready to put their money where their mouth is with respect to keeping Prince Fielder. What have we demonstrated with respect to winning any time soon? We traded a solid veteran pitcher for a prospect. We let Buck, Gregg and Downs go for picks. Now, hear me out. I don't disagree with each of these moves in isolation, but the pattern says we don't intend to contend until 2015 or 2016 because that's how long it's going to take to assemble the critical mass of young controllable talent, and have them mature to the point where they can win without the help of a big time free agent or two, or show the kind of collective stuff that would cause a big time FA to put Toronto on his wish list.

What are we saying about veterans? We're afraid to make commitments to them. Heck, weren't we told by posters here how easy it is to remake a bullpen? Well, the cost of signing good relief pitchers was a lot higher than expected and the Jays may have to rely on scraps or prospects if they don't want to pay for even mediocre major leaguers.

Heck, this organization isn't making an aggressive move to lock in its 52-homer, gazillion-RBI, 103 walk, great arm right fielder because that might have been a fluke year. We'll take him to arbitration, in all likelihood. That's lower risk, but it also sends a dubious message. You'll never get a quality free agent in 2012 if we're not showing any willingness whatsoever to entertain risk with veterans.

I know the argument for each individual player we have lost, and for not extending Bautista in lieu of arbitration. But I don't like the pattern either and what it tells the rest of the league. It says we're not planning to complete soon. We'll be content with 75, maybe 80 wins for the next 2-3 year while we knock time off Vernon's fat deal. We'll be low payroll, while waxing ecstatically over Joe Blow's fantastic performances in A or AA.

I'm not saying the premise of building through the draft is wrong, only that making it the ONLY means to build a winner, i.e. not have good transitional players and spending a little more money, is going to cause problems when the team wants to go to the market for quality veteran help that can put a good young team into real playoff contention.

[SharoneWright]

^
Great post dagger. Its true the Jays will have to poney up the cash at some point and some point soon. My hope is that they identify several of their young up and comers and sign them to long term deals before they hit their prime, ala Romero, Hill and Lind, or even better ala that young Cleveland team in the mid 90's (i think it was). Then 1 or 2 significant free agent grabs should add the finishing touches. Even those free agents though could be signed in the next year or two as a 4-5 year deal should allow them to be here during the maturation of our young talent into legit talent. I believe we're close to that stage, but it can't be more than 2 years before the wallet gets opened -> and maybe closer to 1.

[dagger]

^
Great post dagger. Its true the Jays will have to poney up the cash at some point and some point soon. My hope is that they identify several of their young up and comers and sign them to long term deals before they hit their prime, ala Romero, Hill and Lind, or even better ala that young Cleveland team in the mid 90's (i think it was). Then 1 or 2 significant free agent grabs should add the finishing touches. Even those free agents though could be signed in the next year or two as a 4-5 year deal should allow them to be here during the maturation of our young talent into legit talent. I believe we're close to that stage, but it can't be more than 2 years before the wallet gets opened -> and maybe closer to 1.

I'd say what happens with Bautista will send a signal to agents and next summer's free agents. If we aren't serious about keeping Jose, which means a multi-year deal, then next summer he's going to be a free agent, and we're not going to attract a premier FA if we are letting a good one go. I understand the risk with him. But he's healthy, at 30 he's not old, he can play four positions, is a character guy who can bridge any clubhouse divides for John Farrell and is part of the Jays marketing. Give him a four year, with a large base salary (plus liberal incentives) and use it to make a statement to the marketplace and our fans that even if we don't contend, we will compete well until all of those stud kids reach the majors. It's not like we have a $100 million payroll already and this is going to blow the roof off. It's not like it prevents us from giving Morrow or Cecil or Snider a long-term deal, since a deal for controllable guys don't start off that large anyway.

[J Dilla]

AA shoudlve traded Marcum AFTER getting Grienke. This one will hurt us big time.

wait what? The trade is gonna hurt us because we got the best prospect Lawrie from Milwaukee before they had a chance to trade him for Grienke?

Depends on how you look at it. I view pitching as the most important position in baseball. Trading Marcum after getting Grienke would've been much better. Now we don't have Marcum, or Grienke. Loss for the pitching staff....

but here's hoping Lawrie pans out

[satyr9]

I don't buy the argument about spending for credibility among FA's. Most players will go for the most money to just about anywhere. Yes occasionally a Cliff Lee takes a slightly cheaper deal for a better situation, but Werth had no problem taking the Nationals money and IMO there are way more examples of that kind of FA signing than the Lee kind.

I actually think it behooves a rebuilding club to wait on FA's to avoid the premiums for being a non-competitive club. If you fill up your farm and have lots of good young pieces on your roster and tell a FA, we're ready to spend now on you and we're already competitive, you stand a chance of having to tie the next best offer, rather than beat it by 10%. Baseball players simply don't have the kind of long term memory when it comes to signing their next contract IMO.

For instance, does anyone think Prince Fielder's asking price is gonna go down in MIL now that they've committed to competing? IMO he can ratchet it up another notch and since they've already spent and moved youth, they have even more incentive to meet his demands rather than trade for prospects or let him walk.

Now the point about the perpetual rebuild and cheap owners is 100% valid. I think we've seen Rogers commit to spending in the past, although I disagreed with the timing. Unlike PIT, KC, FLA types, the Jays have not had a rotating door of stars. Yes, Halladay went, but wasn't he on at least his 2nd extension post FA eligibility? That's hardly the model those clubs were following. Do they let more vets go than some? Absolutely, but it's far closer to the Twins and even they finally shelled out when they got a good long term core established.

Because I like AA's other moves and because I think Rogers has some track record of spending when asked (The AJ/BJ year, and I also don't think Beeston would be there if he didn't believe he had a shot to climb the mountain again, which obviously takes more dollars than they're currently spending), and I've been a fan of where they've expanded the budget so far, I'll give AA and co. the benefit of the doubt that the rebuild isn't a smokescreen for cheapness. That's obviously just my opinion and I don't begrudge anyone else if they don't agree.