Bautista to return to Jays on 1YR deal + mutual option

[Raps_Swingman]

If you're into projections, and i know you nerds are, Fangraphs have some interesting numbers for you.

wRC+ of 130ish. WAR of 2.7 or so.

The downside? Defence metrics look very not good. I'd be happy with him playing some 1B and I'll take Pearce in LF over him in RF at this point. Use Upton's glove and speed to our advantage and keep our bats healthy.

[LBJSeizedMyID]

Can't complain about this deal. One year deal, hoping the plan though isn't to run him out in RF on a daily basis, and wonder if LF is something to try out for an extended period of time

[RaptorsJunkie]

A one year deal for a hitter as good as Bautista is better than anybody could have hoped for entering this offseason. Also nice to have the best position player in franchise history back for another year (and with a chip on his shoulder too).

Carlos Delgado disagrees.

[Lateral Quicks]

A one year deal for a hitter as good as Bautista is better than anybody could have hoped for entering this offseason. Also nice to have the best position player in franchise history back for another year (and with a chip on his shoulder too).

Carlos Delgado disagrees.

It's extremely close between those two. I'd go with Delgado as well because he was slightly more consistent offensively, but a convincing case could be made for either.

[Xaos]

Blair: Rogers gave Shapiro additional cash to sign Bautista.

They could have given additional cash to sign Edwin too, if they wanted.

[LBJKB24MJ23]

Blair: Rogers gave Shapiro additional cash to sign Bautista.

They could have given additional cash to sign Edwin too, if they wanted.

500k more? Lol

They gave EE the biggest contract out there lol. I highly doubt they needed any more "cash"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santoki]

Blair: Rogers gave Shapiro additional cash to sign Bautista.

They could have given additional cash to sign Edwin too, if they wanted.

500k more? Lol

They gave EE the biggest contract out there lol. I highly doubt they needed any more "cash"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the implication is that there is more money available to Shapiro now than before. They're saying Ed okayed the signing without it all taking away from his payroll budget. We'll see if that was the case though come opening day/deadline.

[LBJKB24MJ23]

If thats the case good for the Jays. Can't really blame mgmt too much if they are cash strapped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ong_dynasty]

I think it is fair to say that the signing was not purely based on the team.
A lot was for what Jose has done for the Blue Jays. Which is fair considering it is not a long term deal.
it is nice for Rogers to pony up for this in my opinion.

[Schad]

I think it is fair to say that the signing was not purely based on the team.
A lot was for what Jose has done for the Blue Jays. Which is fair considering it is not a long term deal.
it is nice for Rogers to pony up for this in my opinion.

My concern is exactly this...that we re-signed him because of fan sentiment without any alteration to the budget. Because Rogers likely hasn't 'ponied up' for anything here; our budget is likely the same as it was last week, just with the vast majority of our available money going to Bautista. Which, among other things, means that if we're in the hunt and need mid-season upgrades, we won't have the ability to take on any salary.

[polo007]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Kurtz]

Which, among other things, means that if we're in the hunt and need mid-season upgrades, we won't have the ability to take on any salary.

A full year of Bautista has to add more wins than whatever acquisitions we could have made towards the deadline though, no?

[Ong_dynasty]

I think it is fair to say that the signing was not purely based on the team.
A lot was for what Jose has done for the Blue Jays. Which is fair considering it is not a long term deal.
it is nice for Rogers to pony up for this in my opinion.

My concern is exactly this...that we re-signed him because of fan sentiment without any alteration to the budget. Because Rogers likely hasn't 'ponied up' for anything here; our budget is likely the same as it was last week, just with the vast majority of our available money going to Bautista. Which, among other things, means that if we're in the hunt and need mid-season upgrades, we won't have the ability to take on any salary.

I agree with what your saying..but I think there are times where you have to do deals for non monetary reasons..and I think this is the one..
No long term commitment-check
Can he still play-checkish?
Fans approval?-check..

I think the fact that it seemed like we will neve get that draft pick played a role..no one was willing to pay it..

[Schad]

Which, among other things, means that if we're in the hunt and need mid-season upgrades, we won't have the ability to take on any salary.

A full year of Bautista has to add more wins than whatever acquisitions we could have made towards the deadline though, no?

If he rebounds. Mostly, my concern is in our pitching...we have sweet fk all if any of our starters goes down with an injury. To the extent that a long-term injury might not just be filled with a bad pitcher, but a sub-replacement-level one. In that instance, it's not at all implausible that a half-season upgrade there and at other positions (because the budget hit of a prorated contract at the deadline is much smaller) could per worth more than a full season of Bautista.

[DreamTeam09]

Not sure where else to put this, but what do we do next with our roster? Bull pen lefty? I still feel like we need another OF with a little pop maybe. Back up catcher too.

Someone said we should have about 10mill left to spend if 165 is the starting #

[bluerap23]

With some clubs valuing comp picks at $10M each, from one point of view we just paid $28M (plus whatever buyout may be associated with year two) for Bautista. I wouldn't have done it, but I'll be happy to see Bautista out there instead of a guy like Jay Bruce.

If his arm is still MIA, I'd look to move him to LF. If it were me I'd have Pearce and Bautista split time between LF and 1B. I don't want to see either in the OF full-time. With Morales at DH full-time, that means no Smoak, which is how it should be.

1B Pearce/Bautista/Morales/Smoak
2B Travis/Barney/Pearce
SS Tulowitzki/Barney/Martin
3B Donaldson/Barney/Tulowitzki
LF Bautista/Pearce
CF Pillar/Upton
RF Upton/Carrera
C Martin/dirt cheap vet or Jimenez
DH Morales/Smoak

I hate the $10 million draft pick argument. We didn't sign JB for $28 million. The dollars spent on salary is based on a budget that has nothing to do with draft pick compensation. I get that draft picks are valuable, but equating it to additional salary is a huge stretch.

[Skin Blues]

I hate the $10 million draft pick argument. We didn't sign JB for $28 million. The dollars spent on salary is based on a budget that has nothing to do with draft pick compensation. I get that draft picks are valuable, but equating it to additional salary is a huge stretch.

You may not like it, but it's true. It's not from this season's budget, but it will remove about $15M+ of value from future seasons where we would have had a young player significantly overperforming his salary and instead need to pay more money for a veteran to do the same job. Taht $15M+ adjusting to present value (baseball has huge inflation) generally is accepted to fall around $10M.

So, no, it's not from this season's budget, but it was still a (potential) asset that we spent. Right now we could trade Sean Reid-Foley for a pretty good player earning very little money, right? Same idea. It didn't cost us money from our 2017 budget to trade Sean Reid-Foley, but it is still giving up an asset worth a certain amount of money to acquire value for the 2017 season. When we traded Noah Syndergaard away for Dickey, it didn't cost us any cash other than Dickey's salary. But consider how much we spent on J.A. Happ and Marco Estrada last season, which we could have got better production from Syndergaard for the league minimum + arb for 6 years. That Dickey trade cost us a lot more than Dickey's salary, it was just a deferred cost, which is still accumulating. So far, he's sitting at $76M of surplus value over his first two seasons of team control with the Mets.

In general, it's easier to assess transactions by converting all assets into the same form. And in general, that form is Present Dollar Value. That way we can compare the relative costs of signing Jose Bautista (and giving up a pick), trading for Andrew McCutchen, signing Michael Saunders, etc. Apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. Signing Bautista cost us $28M in Present Dollar Value, while Michael Saunders would have cost $9M. Much easier to compare.

[bluerap23]

I hate the $10 million draft pick argument. We didn't sign JB for $28 million. The dollars spent on salary is based on a budget that has nothing to do with draft pick compensation. I get that draft picks are valuable, but equating it to additional salary is a huge stretch.

You may not like it, but it's true. It's not from this season's budget, but it will remove about $15M+ of value from future seasons where we would have had a young player significantly overperforming his salary and instead need to pay more money for a veteran to do the same job. Taht $15M+ adjusting to present value (baseball has huge inflation) generally is accepted to fall around $10M.

So, no, it's not from this season's budget, but it was still a (potential) asset that we spent. Right now we could trade Sean Reid-Foley for a pretty good player earning very little money, right? Same idea. It didn't cost us money from our 2017 budget to trade Sean Reid-Foley, but it is still giving up an asset worth a certain amount of money to acquire value for the 2017 season. When we traded Noah Syndergaard away for Dickey, it didn't cost us any cash other than Dickey's salary. But consider how much we spent on J.A. Happ and Marco Estrada last season, which we could have got better production from Syndergaard for the league minimum + arb for 6 years. That Dickey trade cost us a lot more than Dickey's salary, it was just a deferred cost, which is still accumulating. So far, he's sitting at $76M of surplus value over his first two seasons of team control with the Mets.

In general, it's easier to assess transactions by converting all assets into the same form. And in general, that form is Present Dollar Value. That way we can compare the relative costs of signing Jose Bautista (and giving up a pick), trading for Andrew McCutchen, signing Michael Saunders, etc. Apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. Signing Bautista cost us $28M in Present Dollar Value, while Michael Saunders would have cost $9M. Much easier to compare.

Jose Bautista gives us a far greater chance of winning and making the playoffs than Michael Saunders/

[Skin Blues]

I hate the $10 million draft pick argument. We didn't sign JB for $28 million. The dollars spent on salary is based on a budget that has nothing to do with draft pick compensation. I get that draft picks are valuable, but equating it to additional salary is a huge stretch.

You may not like it, but it's true. It's not from this season's budget, but it will remove about $15M+ of value from future seasons where we would have had a young player significantly overperforming his salary and instead need to pay more money for a veteran to do the same job. Taht $15M+ adjusting to present value (baseball has huge inflation) generally is accepted to fall around $10M.

So, no, it's not from this season's budget, but it was still a (potential) asset that we spent. Right now we could trade Sean Reid-Foley for a pretty good player earning very little money, right? Same idea. It didn't cost us money from our 2017 budget to trade Sean Reid-Foley, but it is still giving up an asset worth a certain amount of money to acquire value for the 2017 season. When we traded Noah Syndergaard away for Dickey, it didn't cost us any cash other than Dickey's salary. But consider how much we spent on J.A. Happ and Marco Estrada last season, which we could have got better production from Syndergaard for the league minimum + arb for 6 years. That Dickey trade cost us a lot more than Dickey's salary, it was just a deferred cost, which is still accumulating. So far, he's sitting at $76M of surplus value over his first two seasons of team control with the Mets.

In general, it's easier to assess transactions by converting all assets into the same form. And in general, that form is Present Dollar Value. That way we can compare the relative costs of signing Jose Bautista (and giving up a pick), trading for Andrew McCutchen, signing Michael Saunders, etc. Apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. Signing Bautista cost us $28M in Present Dollar Value, while Michael Saunders would have cost $9M. Much easier to compare.

Jose Bautista gives us a far greater chance of winning and making the playoffs than Michael Saunders/

Yes, of course. We could come to that conclusion by looking at their projected value, using WAR. So we see how much value we're getting, relative to the cost that we're paying. Apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. The simplicity is really pretty nice.

[Lateral Quicks]

I hate the $10 million draft pick argument. We didn't sign JB for $28 million. The dollars spent on salary is based on a budget that has nothing to do with draft pick compensation. I get that draft picks are valuable, but equating it to additional salary is a huge stretch.

It's not additional salary for 2017, but it is an opportunity cost. The higher salary may come in future years when instead of paying the draft pick $550K league minimum we may have to pay a veteran $5M+ per year. The $10M is based on a number of things, such as probabilities of sandwich picks making it to the bigs, league average salaries, etc.