Will jays spend next year?

[dballislife]

Should they?

[JoeyBats]

The only people i would spend money on this group of free agents are Cole Hamels, James Shields and Mike Napoli (to play 1st). Pretty sure the last 2 players will resign with there respective clubs though.

[Waylon Mercy]

Signing Napoli would be bittersweet

[flatjacket1]

The only people i would spend money on this group of free agents are Cole Hamels, James Shields and Mike Napoli (to play 1st). Pretty sure the last 2 players will resign with there respective clubs though.

Sorry did you just say the Rays will spend 8 figures (at least) to resign a player? I think not.

I think its much more likely the Jays will spend this year. Last year they tried to outbid other clubs in FA and the players said no.

The one thing everybody needs to learn about AA is he is quite literally a "value wh__e" (as said by Keith Law). He is a great GM but he has a degree in Economics and looks at everything like a true economist. He will sign anybody if he feels he is getting a deal and its not taking away from the opportunity value of the young players on the team.

He bid on Beltran last year (with the approval of Rogers) and was encourage to go after premier FA Jason Bay in years past (by Rogers) so Rogers will spend, its just about AA feeling confident that we are a playoff team before we spend.

He builds off of Texas's model, where they reached the WS with homegrown players before making a splash in FA.

I can guarantee you this, we will be in the bidding again for FA. Whether its a Fielder size player or Beltran, I cannot tell you but they will offer a contract. They were willing and approved to spend money last offseason and certainly won't lose that right this offseason. The question is a) does AA like the timing and b) does AA like the value.

[Randle McMurphy]

Yes they should, but as usual there's no good reason to think they will.

[Hamyltowne]

Certainly nothing over 5--maybe 6--years to any player on the wrong side of 30.

[BigLeagueChew]

AA will go the trade route first then free agency.

It's doubtful we go after Napoli, for several reasons. Hamels will be out of our price range in years let alone salary. Same for Hamilton.

If any of the following would sign for those 5 or 6 years as mentioned above I would like very much

Greinke
A Sanchez
Dempster

Relievers:
Adams, Howell

Hitters:
Upton and Ethier

Those are the only good players I would like, some fillers I wouldn't mind is someone like Hinske, strictly as a left handed bench bat, he always seems to be on playoff teams, except when he played for us of course .

[xAIRNESSx]

When the time is right.....

[Hamyltowne]

If any of the following would sign for those 5 or 6 years as mentioned above I would like very much

Greinke
A Sanchez
Dempster

Dempster is too old, but Anibal Sanchez--whom I love--is just right at 28. Greinke is nice, but he'll be too expensive.

Hitters:
Upton and Ethier

Offensively, B.J. Upton is nothing more than a league-average centre fielder.

Over the last three years, Upton has an OBP and SLG of...

.322 OBP
.408 SLG

The league-average center fielder...

.329 OBP
.410 SLG

I know he steals many bases and plays good defense, but his rep was built on his 2008 Postseason performance and the brand of the Upton brothers.

[Parataxis]

I think its much more likely the Jays will spend this year. Last year they tried to outbid other clubs in FA and the players said no. .

Wait what? Not for any premier FAs they didn't.

[Parataxis]

Yes they should, but as usual there's no good reason to think they will.

At the very least, they'll be out of excuses not to. *sigh*

[Hamyltowne]

He builds off of Texas's model, where they reached the WS with homegrown players before making a splash in FA.

And the Tampa Bay model, too. Although, he needs a primer on fungible assets, especially bullpen, from the folks down in Tampa.

[Wo1verine]

Yes they should, but as usual there's no good reason to think they will.

You're right about that -
Next winters excuse will be 'nobody is worthy' (which is probably true), but then why not spend last winter when they had an opportunity - With that retard-d policy of no more than 5 years in place, we will ALWAYS be after the leftovers

[Hamyltowne]

With that retard-d policy of no more than 5 years in place, we will ALWAYS be after the leftovers

For signing some (many?) players, a 5-year limit to contracts is sound policy.

The only reason we're seeing so many huge contracts, each one lasting a decade or so, is because of the RSN money pouring into small-and-middle-market teams, in the amount of billions. That money, however, is for 20 or 30 years worth of television rights. They won't be able to re-up for decades. It's not a home mortgage.

In some ways, AA is well ahead of the curve on this one. In due course, there will be very few long-term (7 or more) contracts handed to players on the wrong side of 30. Not just because the RSN money will have dried up, but because they've taken the amphetamines out of baseball--"that's what kept the old guys pumping along in August." (George F. Will)

Obviously, with players a few years under 30--Lawrie will be around that age--you can trust a long-term contract and I would encourage AA/Rogers to invest in such players. Still, they don't all reach FA at 27, and the idea of exercising caution for contracts that take big sluggers or hard throwers into their late 30's and into age 40... that should be a welcome change.

[Michael Bradley]

On the bullpen, yes.

[satyr9]

I'm not certain you can take PB at his word about the money being there if they ask for it (I know many don't at all), but I do think AA's shown a track record of not overpaying for an asset in any way, which makes UFA signings for premium players pretty much impossible. However, there is a point where a couple extra wins become incredibly value (playoffs vs. not) and usually that's what justifies FA spending. So the question to me is twofold, will this season be enough improvement on the field for AA to use that as a factor on UFA spending this year when he didn't think the team was far enough along last offseason? And will Rogers either continue to have the money available or change their policy and open the pocketbook if they were the real impediment?

IMO, the first question is simply answered by the season's record and performance. If the Jays end up within 3-5 of a playoff spot and hovering anywhere near the 90 game range, I cannot see why AA would continue to insist the team isn't quite ready to contend. Nothing he's done to date would indicate he's stupid or blind to opportunity. It'll be at that point you can take Rogers to town if he continues with platitudes, but fails to spend any serious coin. Well, to a point, sometimes the right move just isn't there (to me that was a lot the case this offseason. IMO a Latos, Gio, something was what AA really wanted, but just couldn't find the right fit, but another year along and the need to help out a window becomes more urgent).

Second, I tend to think there are limited extra funds already available, but certainly not Prince and probably not Yu money (that'd take a pitch from AA, but probably isn't set in stone that he can't have it, like it would be in several true small market cities). I doubt it's quite as rosy a picture as Beeston lays out, but the Jays are already considerably far on their way to making this the type of season that could vastly improve Rogers' willingness to spend more money. TV is strong and getting stronger, the Jays popularity with a certain age group and the chance to keep those people tied to cable subscriptions because of the Jays is bloody massive, and attendance has improved dramatically to date, although I think you have to give the weather quite a bit of credit, so it's too soon to say how dramatic it'll be for the whole season. IMO a competitive team that looks like it's actually just a piece or two away, combined with that big attendance bump and I'd be willing to guess that even if the purse strings were tighter than I believe they were previously, they'll be a lot of incentive to make a push now. No matter what you think of Rogers as an owner, if things continue to improve on and off the field, someone at some point is going to get visions of 4 million fans in their eyes and start talking about this being the chance to push the Jays back into the hearts and minds of every Torontonian.

[Michael Bradley]

IMO, the first question is simply answered by the season's record and performance. If the Jays end up within 3-5 of a playoff spot and hovering anywhere near the 90 game range, I cannot see why AA would continue to insist the team isn't quite ready to contend. Nothing he's done to date would indicate he's stupid or blind to opportunity. It'll be at that point you can take Rogers to town if he continues with platitudes, but fails to spend any serious coin. Well, to a point, sometimes the right move just isn't there (to me that was a lot the case this offseason. IMO a Latos, Gio, something was what AA really wanted, but just couldn't find the right fit, but another year along and the need to help out a window becomes more urgent).

The Jays won 86 games in 2008 (93 wins based on run differential for those who value that), and instead of trying to replace Burnett, Marcum (injury), etc, in 2009, they punted the entire season and followed that up by trading Halladay away the following year. Then in 2010 they won 85 games, and instead of adding to that team they decided to trade Wells (good move), Marcum, and Napoli while replacing them with Rajai Davis, Jo Jo Reyes, Corey Patterson, etc, etc, etc. Then this off-season, instead of attempting to upgrade the offense and rotation, they spent whatever money they had on upgrading the bullpen with 35+ year old relievers (and Santos).

Nothing the Jays have done since Godfrey left/Ted died shows any type of commitment to spending money or trying to win, unfortunately. I don't see any reason to expect it without first seeing some signs.

[Secueritae]

Not on AA's watch,

Homegrown talent and cheap players through trade/Free Agency are the only way to go.

No way I see him spending on Hamels.
He might take a risk on a cheaper Fancisco Liriano, or Jeff Francis, Rich Harden, but that's highly unlikely, as we have some young starting pitchers in the minors he'll probably call up instead.

Some players I might like if cheap: Annibal Sanchez, Brandon McCarthy

[LittleOzzy]

Will they spend? Yes of course.... Just no where close to how much they likely should.

[satyr9]

The Jays won 86 games in 2008 (93 wins based on run differential for those who value that), and instead of trying to replace Burnett, Marcum (injury), etc, in 2009, they punted the entire season and followed that up by trading Halladay away the following year. Then in 2010 they won 85 games, and instead of adding to that team they decided to trade Wells (good move), Marcum, and Napoli while replacing them with Rajai Davis, Jo Jo Reyes, Corey Patterson, etc, etc, etc. Then this off-season, instead of attempting to upgrade the offense and rotation, they spent whatever money they had on upgrading the bullpen with 35+ year old relievers (and Santos).

Nothing the Jays have done since Godfrey left/Ted died shows any type of commitment to spending money or trying to win, unfortunately. I don't see any reason to expect it without first seeing some signs.

The on the field success isn't Rogers' primary concern, on that we totally agree. There is a mountain of difference between the 08/09 offseason and now in just about every way. First, 86 wins left the Jays 9 games behind the wild card and included a terrible start, a coaching change, and a nice run down the stretch under totally meaningless circumstances. They brought Beeston in to totally overthrow the makeup of the franchise, both on and off the field and despite Cito's run they weren't going to switch gears on a total overhaul for a couple months success. Also, the extra WC and some chinks in the Sox/Yanks armour goes a long way to making the Jays prospects look better and in turn the ability to draw more casual fans throughout the year. An identical 86 win season this year could easily leave them within 3-4 games of the playoffs and with the farm system already in place (as opposed to 08/09) the step to the playoffs, the fans, and the revenues that go with it start looking like they might be within reach, whereas I simply don't believe anyone who says they thought that was the case after 2008 if the Jays had just ponied up for a FA or two.

I guess there may have been a few uber optimists around at the time, but despite the record the hopelessness of AL Eastdom was rampant among us Jays fans and team support must've been incredibly low. I should point out that 2008 attendance was actually pre-flop, which seems to disprove what I'm saying, but I believe those numbers were inflated by insane amounts of ticket giveaways and didn't reflect paid attendance. I do know I've heard/read that one of the first things Beeston did when he came back was to do away with the giveaways for 2009 and that was one of the reasons you saw such a monumental drop after an 86 win season. The new numbers actually reflected what they were drawing for paid audience rather than who they could convince to go see a game for free. I couldn't find anything with a quick google to quote though, so take that as me just remembering something without being able to substantiate it and it's possible I'm just crazy.

Really the main point for me is that you can be as cynical about Rogers' pocketbook as you like, I won't even argue the point, and there's always ways to legitimaze/rationalize behaviours to suit a conclusion, but the factors of this season are beginning to shape up like they might just convince a change in budget strategy. With way more chances to make the playoffs, an already borderline competitive team that has already brought significant increases in fan support to the park and the tv dial, why wouldn't the supposed jaded only for profit Rogers exec holding the purse strings not looking into rapid expansion plans, namely a better team making the playoffs and drawing more and more fans out to spend their money? It's actually the very definition of what got people so worked up about coming out and then we'll pay. Fans are coming out to see good baseball and if the trend continues, I can't imagine why they wouldn't try to encourage more of it. It's not like they could possibly believe the demand is as inelastic as Leafs tickets, they've already seen what a perennial non-contending Jays team does to fan support in Toronto. There is an argument that the appearance of competition is enough I guess. That hope for the future and 80-85 continues to draw profits, but if we're accusing them of greed and only greed, then I fully expect them to get big dollars signs in their brains at the possibility of doubling their attendance without doubling their expenditures (okay 4m fans probably isn't coming back in the Skydome).