Stewart, Carpenter, Casey, Painter, Escobar, Quantrill, plus MSPIF for TSalmon, TGlaus and JDickson
Gre...@nowhere.com
This is not a troll (except if you're a Faba, in which case, anything
can be a troll, and btw they have been kill-filed long ago. Oh sorry I
didn't tell you. SOL--squawking out loud.)
All expressed below are the opinions of a squawking forest watching
ancient danger bird of a greyish colour. LOL.
-----
This is a good trade for the Jays if your aim is to build a franchise,
and its fan base not so much as use a band-aid season-by-season
approach to save the season, or build a so-so average competitive
team.
FOOTNOTE: I did mention above the subsequent Faba flames about Jays
potential to be dead last, below Tampa Bay due to their pitching
risks. And I also did praise for Tampa's offensive upgrade for their
entertainment value. I think I was at least around the ballpark in
both cases.
SO YOU BE THE JUDGE:
The Jays will seem like the losers in this trade, but if you follow
the logic, not so easily dismissed. Baseball is a game of the
unexpected results. That's why it's so much fun.
THE BIRDY LOGIC BEHIND THE TRADE FOLLOWS:
REASON#1
Attendance should be in the 30,000 range even with the Raptors and the
Leafs are doing so well. Consider the Leafs used to sell out even when
the Jays were drawing 50,000 per game. Hence, there should be No
excuses. If you add them up, you get 50,000+20,000 = 70,000 fans in
the old days. Today 15,000 at Jays game +20,000+20000= 55,000... where
is the 15,000 missing on a city whose population has grown??? spending
their entertainment bucks elsewhere, I guess?
REASON#2
You can't trade for pitching, because you'll get scalped.
Thus, you use the contrarian approach and trade to build a FEARSOME
offence which undoubtedly will be ranked #1 in the majors. (from say
#10 in the league which is right now -- plus or minus fluctuations.)
while freeing up a war chest for the coming off-season signing war.
THE GOAL: Attract premier number one or two free agent starters with
your #1 hitting squad, with the selling line that you are just one
number ONE starter away from winning it all. A Sele-type probable, a
RJohnson-type if you get lucky.
Consider, an offence like the Jays with one or two premier pitchers
(free agent), and the Jays are SERIOUS contenders to win it all next
year, not just pretend to contend MAYBE for a wild card this year --
like last year, or the year before, or the year...
A classic apathetic repeat of same-old same-old next year tease.
(By the time they seem on the brink a guy like Green leaves, pushing
you back down, to same old, same old.... Stewart, and maybe Delgado
next year at his choice, for example. So make the moves.)
Think ahead. So what if you have holes. It's good to take some abuse
in the short-term.
THE NUMBERS.
You lose Carpenter and Escobar. Promises. Promises.
You get one starter back in JDickson, less grandiose natural talent,
but less a thrower than either guy you traded away, and a guy who
seems to have matured from all his bad years and injuries. So you get
one promise back.
And a bump in fan interest and draw out media attention and
identification from your community a la Shawn Green from the S.Cal
Jewish community.
Even watching him fail, would be more fun than watching either
Carpenter or Escobar get blown out. Why? Because instinctively you
root for certain people whom you identify with more, than for others.
And are willing to pay to watch. That's psychology for you.
Hence though you lose something on paper, you get intangibles back.
This is a good move. For both clubs. But not a good move for Jays as a
stand-alone deal. It leaves a degrade in your fifth spot as you keep
Castillo.
But you do it anyways, because you have this hunch that something
else will develop as the year wears on: maybe there is a Jimmy Key in
your minors who just needs a call up and some innings, or someone is
released, or some team wants to unload their headache... You never
know. How good is this Clayton guy really.. hm.. And you could trade
for a Hitchcock type later in the season from a position of hitting
strength, rather than now when something else might develop.
AND...
You give up Shannon Stewart, 50 stolen bases, .340 average, power,
lead off hitter, all-star, above-average outfielder, average arm. But
you know you have Cordova who not so long ago drove in 100 rbi, can be
counted to hit about .260, and Todd Greene is in the minors if another
hitter is needed to spell Fullmer. And there is VWells or DeWise who
can be given a shot. And Stewart's salary will explode beyond Jays
budget in a year. So you think ahead and jettison before they jettison
you.
In return you get a .180 hitter, TSalmon, a high-risk injury returnee
like JBarfield. But a known commodity. A respected and well known
figure. A guy who's more appealing to your fan base than Delgado even.
If TSalmon recovers his stroke, you got yourself a Garciaparra and
someone who can sell tickets and Torontonians would talk about the
water cooler -- Delgado 's just not the type. Automatically you have
neutralized Boston's edge in the clutch also. And you can hide him by
batting him 7th until he recovers his stroke. If he flunks, back to
Cordova and VWells. Not bad for a fall-back.
But so far, you are just gambling so you need a definite upgrade on
the equation. Hence you ask for TGlaus, a known quantity by giving up
potential. Casey may turn out to be better than TGlaus; he's certainly
shown power, and potential, but there's a risk factor, he's
inexperienced, young (oh boy, another young promises. promises) but
you know what TGlaus can do at the majors. Though Anaheim might be
wiling to wait on him, as your fans can't take any more of the same
old young guys development program for other teams crap. Promises.
Promises. Instead you have a shot at just one year from the crown. But
Anaheim is reluctant. They don't want to trade because it's somewhat
unorthodox and not an easy fit.
So in order to get the deal done, you're willing to take some abuse,
offer Escobar, pay through the nose, whatever it takes, two relievers
at the major league level, one lefthander, Painter 4.75 ERA, and
Quantrill and maybe more. In effect saying whatever it takes to create
an offer that they will be tempted by, and can't refuse.
.
Will your relief squad be weakened? Not really. You got Gonzo who's
worth at least a reliever. And you got some young guys at triple AAA
cheap.
You might lose on paper. But you're giving parts you don't really need
to build a champion within two years. Is it worth the gamble? Then ask
yourself what a pitching trio of PMartinez, RJohnson and RClemens
would have done to your franchise, even with an average hitting squad
in hindsight.
Even if you had fallen short, the excitement would have been GLORIOUS
still... the stuff of memories.
Ciao.
Greyjay may be a risk-taker, and some people may be less ambitious and
feel threatened by the logic because I don't think like they do. But
since I am a bird fan, it's nice to daydream in a warm night in the
forest.
When it comes to pitching, it's better to have the throwers develop
somewhere else, and grab them when they are matured into pitchers,
rather than suffer around an inconsistent career waiting for them to
develop. Most believed that the Jays trio had matured and developed.
It seems that isn't the case. Most believed the improved defence will
make for a better pitching staff. That again isn't the case in a
OFFENSIVE era where everything flies out of the park. And the Skydome
isn't Turner field with its grass fields. So trade away, Gonzalez and
upgrade with Batista.
You got three young starters, whom you can't hide anymore, or make
excuses for, anymore. So get rid of two guys, get one guy (Dickson)
back, and bring someone up
Donny Walsh
$This is a good trade for the Jays if your aim is to build a franchise,
$and its fan base not so much as use a band-aid season-by-season
$approach to save the season, or build a so-so average competitive
$team.
Trading away young talent for older players is how you build the Orioles,
not a franchise.
$FOOTNOTE: I did mention above the subsequent Faba flames about Jays
$potential to be dead last, below Tampa Bay due to their pitching
$risks. And I also did praise for Tampa's offensive upgrade for their
$entertainment value. I think I was at least around the ballpark in
$both cases.
What Tampa did was *not* a good thing. They had the money to spend to better their
team, and instead of addressing their number one flaw, they made it worse by trading
away their number one pitcher.
$REASON#1
$Attendance should be in the 30,000 range even with the Raptors and the
$Leafs are doing so well. Consider the Leafs used to sell out even when
$the Jays were drawing 50,000 per game. Hence, there should be No
$excuses. If you add them up, you get 50,000+20,000 = 70,000 fans in
$the old days. Today 15,000 at Jays game +20,000+20000= 55,000... where
$is the 15,000 missing on a city whose population has grown??? spending
$their entertainment bucks elsewhere, I guess?
There are several things that explain the attendance woes:
1. There is probably just as many entertainment dollars available, but there is more
entertainment. Drawn between great choice, fans will choose the winning team
first. Or maybe they'll go to a show.
2. When toronto wins, the fans show up. Very simple. You propose the jays lose for
a couple years. That will not increase attendance in this town.
3. Believe it or not...I don't think baseball has recovered completely from the
strike. I know people who will still not go to a ball game. I don't know if it
ever will.
$REASON#2
$You can't trade for pitching, because you'll get scalped.
$Thus, you use the contrarian approach and trade to build a FEARSOME
$offence which undoubtedly will be ranked #1 in the majors. (from say
$#10 in the league which is right now -- plus or minus fluctuations.)
$while freeing up a war chest for the coming off-season signing war.
I don't know if you noticed...but toronto already has a fearsome offence. Top five
in the league at least. If improvements are to be made, they don't need to improve
offence. There is no need to mortgage the future of your pitching staff to fix
something that isn't broken.
$Consider, an offence like the Jays with one or two premier pitchers
$(free agent), and the Jays are SERIOUS contenders to win it all next
$year, not just pretend to contend MAYBE for a wild card this year --
$like last year, or the year before, or the year...
Where would this money come from? The belgians are not going to cough up more if
they lose this year. and all those players you want to trade are still cheap.
$And a bump in fan interest and draw out media attention and
$identification from your community a la Shawn Green from the S.Cal
$Jewish community.
Trading two of your best pitching prospects in recent years for an overrated canuck
is not a way to increase fan interest. You have to at least try to get equal value
in return.
$Even watching him fail, would be more fun than watching either
$Carpenter or Escobar get blown out. Why? Because instinctively you
$root for certain people whom you identify with more, than for others.
$And are willing to pay to watch. That's psychology for you.
Do you know anything about psychology?
$Hence though you lose something on paper, you get intangibles back.
$This is a good move. For both clubs. But not a good move for Jays as a
$stand-alone deal. It leaves a degrade in your fifth spot as you keep
$Castillo.
Intangibles do not win ballgames. Talent does.
$ But you do it anyways, because you have this hunch that something
$else will develop as the year wears on: maybe there is a Jimmy Key in
$your minors who just needs a call up and some innings, or someone is
$released, or some team wants to unload their headache... You never
$know. How good is this Clayton guy really.. hm.. And you could trade
$for a Hitchcock type later in the season from a position of hitting
$strength, rather than now when something else might develop.
The guys who are ready to pitch in the majors are already there. most of the other
young guys need another year of development.
$You give up Shannon Stewart, 50 stolen bases, .340 average, power,
$lead off hitter, all-star, above-average outfielder, average arm. But
Stewart has never done this...and never will. He is an average fielder only because
his speed makes up for his silly putty arm...which is well below average.
$you know you have Cordova who not so long ago drove in 100 rbi, can be
$counted to hit about .260, and Todd Greene is in the minors if another
$hitter is needed to spell Fullmer. And there is VWells or DeWise who
$can be given a shot. And Stewart's salary will explode beyond Jays
$budget in a year. So you think ahead and jettison before they jettison
$you.
I sort of agree here...signing Cordova made Stewart expendable. He would make a
good trading deadline deal for a pitcher.
$In return you get a .180 hitter, TSalmon, a high-risk injury returnee
$like JBarfield. But a known commodity. A respected and well known
$figure. A guy who's more appealing to your fan base than Delgado even.
Do you have any idea who Salmon is? For one, he starts slow every year. By the end
of the year, he'll be at his usual 950 ops. Did you also notice that his OBP is 360
right now? Remember that's a .180 hitter in only 14 or so games. a couple good
games and he is back on track. Salmon will not be leaving Anaheim.
$But so far, you are just gambling so you need a definite upgrade on
$the equation. Hence you ask for TGlaus, a known quantity by giving up
$potential.
It is not a gamble. Before posting stuff like this you should at least know who you
are talking about.
Casey may turn out to be better than TGlaus; he's certainly
$shown power, and potential, but there's a risk factor, he's
$inexperienced, young (oh boy, another young promises. promises) but
$you know what TGlaus can do at the majors.
Reading this makes me believe that you are just making all this up. You have no
idea who Casey Blake is, or even Troy Glaus. FYI: Casey will never be better than
Glaus...if he is lucky, he'll be a bench player in the near future.
Though Anaheim might be
$wiling to wait on him, as your fans can't take any more of the same
$old young guys development program for other teams crap. Promises.
$Promises. Instead you have a shot at just one year from the crown. But
$Anaheim is reluctant. They don't want to trade because it's somewhat
$unorthodox and not an easy fit.
You should ask baltimore fans how their one shot at the crown has worked out.
$Greyjay may be a risk-taker, and some people may be less ambitious and
$feel threatened by the logic because I don't think like they do. But
$since I am a bird fan, it's nice to daydream in a warm night in the
$forest.
This is nothing about risk. And there is clearly no logic. Once again you have
proven you have no clue about what it takes to win ballgames.
--
__________________________________________________
"Here I am! Now what were your other two wishes?"
Don Walsh
Angeltear
Um ok so we trade 2 starters half the bullpen and a good leadoff
hitter for two sluggers and a very mediocre starter:
1)Who the hell is supposed to pitch in the bullpen?
2)Where's Glaus supposed to play?He's a 3rd baseman, ever heard of a
guy named Batista?
3)Free agents will really be attracted to a team wil no bullpen and a
crappy starting rotation and two good 3rd basemen (yeah right)
4) fans will really want to go out and see a team that wins 40 games
just because they have a mediocre Canadian pitcher on the mound (yeah
right)
Conclusion: This trade is so idotic and stupid i'm laughing out loud
you'd even suggest it. What next;Trading Delgado and Koch to the Red
Sox for Rheal Cormier?
Jason Higgins
>
>
> REASON#2
> You can't trade for pitching, because you'll get scalped.
> Thus, you use the contrarian approach and trade to build a FEARSOME
> offence which undoubtedly will be ranked #1 in the majors. (from say
> #10 in the league which is right now -- plus or minus fluctuations.)
> while freeing up a war chest for the coming off-season signing war.
>
First thing this has never worked for Clevland. Pithcing is a must.
Proof in point, The Jays are second in runs in the AL 4th in Batting Avg,
and 1st in HRs by 14 over the next closest. NO WHERE neat sya 10th. Yet
they still have a sub .500 record. Ans why because right now their
pitching sucks. It will hopefully get better. however, Castillio has to
get out of the rotation, either try the lefty Andrews. Give him a try and
if that doesn't work than option # two trade for another starter. What to
give up depends on the starter, yes V. Wells is probably a stiff price to
pay for say a Radke, but still Toronto must deal from its strength, and
that is the outfeild, there is Wells, Stewart, Cruz, Cordova, Brumfeild,
etc. And by the way for all you V. Wells fans, in AAA ball he is batting
.182, 0 hrs 6 rbi 12 games, 42 abs, 7 so 4 sb, 1 error!!! Definatly the
makings of a superstar!
Angeltear
<jasonan...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> REASON#2
>> You can't trade for pitching, because you'll get scalped.
>> Thus, you use the contrarian approach and trade to build a FEARSOME
>> offence which undoubtedly will be ranked #1 in the majors. (from say
>> #10 in the league which is right now -- plus or minus fluctuations.)
>> while freeing up a war chest for the coming off-season signing war.
>>
>
>First thing this has never worked for Clevland. Pithcing is a must.
>Proof in point, The Jays are second in runs in the AL 4th in Batting Avg,
>and 1st in HRs by 14 over the next closest. NO WHERE neat sya 10th. Yet
>they still have a sub .500 record. Ans why because right now their
>pitching sucks. It will hopefully get better. however, Castillio has to
>get out of the rotation, either try the lefty Andrews. Give him a try and
>if that doesn't work than option # two trade for another starter. What to
>give up depends on the starter, yes V. Wells is probably a stiff price to
>pay for say a Radke, but still Toronto must deal from its strength, and
>that is the outfeild, there is Wells, Stewart, Cruz, Cordova, Brumfeild,
>etc. And by the way for all you V. Wells fans, in AAA ball he is batting
>.182, 0 hrs 6 rbi 12 games, 42 abs, 7 so 4 sb, 1 error!!! Definatly the
>makings of a superstar!
Just building up offense doesn't work I agree but trading alot for a
free agent pitcher isn't great either. Look at Houston trading for
Randy Johnson a couple of years ago, Seattle got two quality starters
who are in their rotation now, Johnson walked at the end of the year
and Houston has nothing. Good teams (like Atlanta and the Yanks) build
most of their pitching from withing the organization and then add an
extra arm or two when they can get them at a reasonable price. The
Jays have tried to do this and I still believe our young pitchers are
better than they've shown over the first couple of weeks. I agree
about Castillo,i'd like to see Andrews get a shot.
As for strength in the outfield I don't really agree. The Jays
absolutely must keep Mondesi,Stewart and V. Wells and Cruz aand
Cordova have yet to prove the consistancy to be of much value in a
trade. I'm still not convinced Cruz is even adequate in cf. He was
horrible last year, Gaston seems to have helped a bit but i still
think Jose has alot to prove.
Ryan Day
> First thing this has never worked for Clevland. Pithcing is a must.
Really? I seem to recall Cleveland being in the playoffs nearl
almost every year for most of the 90s, with two World Series appearances
to boot. Not to mention that they sell out nearly every game in their
relatively new ballpark.
If pitching is so key, why have the Braves only won one world
series? The Red Sox had a very good pitching staff last season, and where
did it get them? And the Blue Jays won the Series in '93 largely on the
strength of offence.
I'm not trying to say that pitching *isn't* important... just that
offence is equally important.
> Proof in point, The Jays are second in runs in the AL 4th in Batting Avg,
> and 1st in HRs by 14 over the next closest. NO WHERE neat sya 10th. Yet
> they still have a sub .500 record. Ans why because right now their
> pitching sucks. It will hopefully get better.
Of course it will, just like the offence will come down. It's
just a matter of how much of each.
Anyway, the Jays have had good outings by Wells and Escobar, and
Halladay was cruising until the fifth last night.
And by the way for all you V. Wells fans, in AAA ball he is batting
> .182, 0 hrs 6 rbi 12 games, 42 abs, 7 so 4 sb, 1 error!!! Definatly the
> makings of a superstar!
Have you seen Ken Griffey's numbers lately? Would you trade *him*
for Brad Radke?
--
Ryan Day
Carleton University *** School of Journalism IV
"My... my need to engage in... homicidal behavior on a massive scale
cannot be, um, corrected."
Gre...@nowhere.com
All points well taken. You guys make a lot of sense. But this is not
only about building a talented organization in my view, it's about
creating the EXPECTATIONS in the fans' mind that it is a worthwhile
emotional investment to make, to believe in this organization for
several years.
Two things to consider, number one, it never hurts to remind the
underachievers they are not untouchable and they can be moved so they
better concentrate on the mound on every pitch.
--And discussing it on NG, partly, even if to a miniscule extent, aids
that cause.
AND TWO
The second consideration is attendance and buzz. PT Barnum wasn't a
success at the gate because he had talented jugglers alone, he had
sizzle along to go with the stake. ie. SITTING BULL. (Tim Salmon?)
-- And hence, could afford to pay for the steak that made the show
work.
Jays need a battle marketing theme to turn 15-25 thousand per game,
and the occassional 35 thousand in the summer into a sellout crowd
(and in the medium run get better rates for TV revenues). Of note,
the Raptors didn't start packing him them in until the Vince Carter
showed his stuff against the all-stars on North American tv, and Bob
Costas hyped him as the replacement for Michael Jordan.
Torontonians, for ill or better, seem to respond better when the rest
of the world speaks well of their teams -- the best of something --
best athlete, best offence, best pitching, etc.
( And since Toronto isn't anywhere close from building the
EXPECTATIONS of the best pitching staff, due to the unpredictable
nature of their young guns and the high risk of injury... Why not
build an offence which they aren't far off from building-- AND
without the risk of breaking down or a pay hike at the end of the
year.)
If you go through the calculations, you will see that the probability
of winning the wild card, getting past Boston, Seattle, and Oakland,
is at best even money for each team ie. 1 out of 4.
(Not to mention Kansas and Baltimore)
Then going on to beat the other teams in the American league, then
going to beat the National League candidate, which probably has an
offence to match your own or better and/or a vastly superior pitching
staff... plus a more seasoned team for playoff play... It's a
longshot riddled with uncertainty.
Then next year, you got a lower attendance than previous year,
budgetary concerns, Fletcher is elligible for free agency, weakening a
chain in your batting order, a pay raise for your young guys like
Stewart and your young pitchers in arbitration.. then you got to start
dismantling your offence just to make ends. And maybe Delgado walks..
then it's all over again. A longshot to win, a weaker offence, and a
same pitching staff that is just more expensive due to their
seniority, time to think about trading Wells again being one year off
free agency, no money or willpower to go out and grab a pitcher from
the beer bosses.
If you are Gord Ash, attendance should be your enemy, not how much
talent you are sitting on or how good your team is now, or the
potential of your pitching staff.
Like a goldrush miner trying to swim a river with a load of gold.
chances are Jays are sinking next year.
If you load the deck on offence and add more charisma and just go by a
mediocre pitching staff this year. Your fans will turn out.
And since, you are looking at a lot of your hitters signed up for at
least 2-3 years together, your one year contract players like
Fletcher might think about coming back, for a run, and pitchers with
era around 4.00 who just want to win before they retire, etc. (a la
Schilling) might look at you, or even a premier pitcher.
Then before you know it, you have a lot more options and North
American hype going for you, than just trying to keep together what
you painfully built up. (only to see it yet again dismantled).
And then you can talk to your bosses and ask for more money by showing
them the projections of a WS -- SI: predicts Jays to be early
favorites, revenue increase and the value of the franchise when they
decide to sell it, etc.
And you might even get 5 millions more to spend by showing them you
can easily recoup that in one playoff series share.
And in terms of attendance, your offence hyped with comparisons to the
old Yankees murderous row -- deserved or not -- (provided you do the
3b and LF thing), will at least give you equal attendace here and on
the road for the rest of the season, and a lot more hype going into
the off-season and a clear understanding of your pitching situation.
Again, I want to show off this lineup, because I like to delude myself
and it look so intoxicating, and I may never see it in reality.
1. Cruz
2. TGlaus
3. Mondesi
4. Delgado
5. Fullmer
6. Batista
7. TSalmon
8. DFletcher/Castillo
9. Bush
(Show me an out on this line-up.)
Bench. Cordova, DeWise, Greene, Grebeck, etc.
(A good balance of pinch-hitting, defensive replacement,
speed and versatility)
Pitching rotation.
1. Wells
2. Halladay or Carpenter or Escobar (or two of if you get a deal)
3. Hamilton
4. JDickson(?), Ken Hill(?) if you keep Escobar
5. Call-up
backup: Castillo.
Ok, so what..
What's the difference between having 3 guys who can give you anywhere
between 12-15 wins as opposed to one having perennial 18 gamer, one
12-15 potential and one lousy 2-12 potential? With your offence, the
2-12 guy can easily be a .500 pitcher as you are going against their
fith starter too, and so on. Less pressure. Greater upside. Less
uncertainty.
Hence the way I view it is this. My opinion. To finnish off this
logic. angle.
You can afford to give out two of your young pitchers. Provided you
get back one young pitcher with a different look -- maybe a
sinkerballer, more suited for Skydome, a control guy or a fan
attraction like a canadian.
You can afford to give out two of your relievers. Provided you got a
shortstop whom you can deal for a reliever a la McMichael, or a
headache like Rocker, just as scenario examples. Then you just lose
one reliever. And save two salaries for one call-up wage.
Then you got a young 3b whom you can promote, or move for a more
predictable 3b. My scenario had Troy Glaus, one year experience, not
so good with the glove, but cheap, young, power, and improving (before
last night which just might have made him unreachable).
Then you get a power-hitting name like TSalmon, or Mateo whose arms
keeps runners on base for at least one more at bat/out with insurance
in Cordova and VWells. I like TSalmon better because of the selling
credentials which more than makes up for wage cost. (don't know when
he's a free agent though) and the slow start.
Pretty soon you find yourself with only one less 12-15 starter short
and one reliever short. Your minors are good enough to cover that
missing reliever. And maybe you promote a starter from the minors
keeping the opposition down to a stingy 9 runs a game.
in the occasional fifth spot alternating with long-relief Castillo.
Not a bad risk.
At the end of the year, you got yourself a world beater, and more cash
to throw around.
--
The bad news about the Anaheim scenario is both Glaus and Salmon
homered twice last night. And the Angles are on a streak. The good
news is that a number of Angels fans think their team will be
unloading salaries and players in July. TSalmon included. And they
need young pitchers to rebuild their pitching staff for their
development.
-----
Ciao.
"Show me otherwise, but at least show me something."
Donny Walsh
You can say the same thing several times, but it isn't going to
change a couple flaws in your plan:
1. Attendence is not going to improve by building a team of players
they can identify with. For one, suggesting that players cannot
identify with the current set of players is assinine. Toronto fans
are notorious bandwagoneers. They will come out when the team is
winning. When the team isn't winning, they will still draw 30 000
when there isn't the leafs or raptors to cheer for.
Plus: Dismantling a pitching staff that has been seen by the media
as promising for the last couple years is more likely to be seen as
a fire sale than anything else.
2. Trading away talented starting pitching for untalented starting
pitching, and overrated 3b-man and Tim salmon will go a long way to
improving an offense that doesn't need improving and severely
handicapping the pitching.
Granted, some teams have proven the ability to win with a monster
offense and batting tees for a pitching staff, but a good balance
between the two will go a really long way in the post season. (See
NY Yankees v. 98 and v. 99)
3. Toronto has a surplus of proven offensive players currently on
roster and in the upper minor leagues. But pitching proves to be a
problem. The *logical* thing to do is to improve your team area of
weakness by using your strengths as leverage.
I would be all for a stretch run trade that would send a middle
infielder, outfielder and maybe starting pitcher somewhere for a big
name pitcher. That would go a lot farther to improve the team than
anything you have mentioned.
4. Ruben Mateo is with the Rangers, not Anaheim.
Gre...@nowhere.com 's $0.02 worth:
$All points well taken. You guys make a lot of sense. But this is not
$only about building a talented organization in my view, it's about
$creating the EXPECTATIONS in the fans' mind that it is a worthwhile
<deletia>
Nick Gieschen
> >
> >
> > REASON#2
> > You can't trade for pitching, because you'll get scalped.
> > Thus, you use the contrarian approach and trade to build a FEARSOME
> > offence which undoubtedly will be ranked #1 in the majors. (from say
> > #10 in the league which is right now -- plus or minus fluctuations.)
> > while freeing up a war chest for the coming off-season signing war.
> >
>
> First thing this has never worked for Clevland. Pithcing is a must.
Oakland, Texas, and Cleveland have been pretty good over the past few
years. I don't mean to imply that Oaklands pitching was bad last year,
but that you don't need superstars in the rotation if you can OPS the
crap out of the ball. Since pitchers are as the BP folk put it "flaky",
the wise thing is not to invest in them. Rather, pour money into hitting
instead and pick up inning eaters and overlooked short right-handers to
fill your staff.
Angeltear
Gieschen) wrote:
>Jason Higgins <jasonan...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Oakland, Texas, and Cleveland have been pretty good over the past few
>years. I don't mean to imply that Oaklands pitching was bad last year,
>but that you don't need superstars in the rotation if you can OPS the
>crap out of the ball. Since pitchers are as the BP folk put it "flaky",
>the wise thing is not to invest in them. Rather, pour money into hitting
>instead and pick up inning eaters and overlooked short right-handers to
>fill your staff.
>
>Nick
And how many world series have those teams won? You may make the
playoffs with mediocre pitching if you have a killer offense [although
all 3 of those teams played in weaker divisions than the al east is
this year] but you are not going to go very far in the playoffs
without a solid starting 4 or at least starting 3.
Angeltear
>
>All points well taken. You guys make a lot of sense. But this is not
>only about building a talented organization in my view, it's about
>creating the EXPECTATIONS in the fans' mind that it is a worthwhile
>emotional investment to make, to believe in this organization for
>several years.
>
>
>Two things to consider, number one, it never hurts to remind the
>underachievers they are not untouchable and they can be moved so they
>better concentrate on the mound on every pitch.
The only guy on the Jays I would really call a consistant under
achiever on the Jays right now is Cruz and he has Mr. Wells at
Syracuse to motivate him.[As I said I think the recent pitching woes
are a fluke and not a sign of the future]
>
>The second consideration is attendance and buzz. PT Barnum wasn't a
>success at the gate because he had talented jugglers alone, he had
>sizzle along to go with the stake. ie. SITTING BULL. (Tim Salmon?)
>
>-- And hence, could afford to pay for the steak that made the show
>work.
>
>Jays need a battle marketing theme to turn 15-25 thousand per game,
>and the occassional 35 thousand in the summer into a sellout crowd
>(and in the medium run get better rates for TV revenues). Of note,
>the Raptors didn't start packing him them in until the Vince Carter
>showed his stuff against the all-stars on North American tv, and Bob
>Costas hyped him as the replacement for Michael Jordan.
There's only one thing that draws fans to games and that's winning.
The Raptors draw people with Vince because they win with vince. If the
Blue Jays win with Carpenter and Delgado etc. the fans will come. As
others have mentioned the Jays are competing with two teams in the
playoffs right now and coming off dissapointing seasons. Toronto
especially demands that its teams (except theleafs who draw
regardless) win. If the jays are seriously in the wild card race the
dome will be packed again. If they make the playoffs fan interest will
return to something near early 90s numbers.
Trading away young talent for a flashy player or two is the route
teams like the Dodgers and Orioles have taken, look where it got them
last year. I used to be a big Ash basher but i really like the last
few trades he's made. I think he knows what he's doing and the Jays
are on the brink of doing great things. If that happens the fans will
follow.
Yes, the Jays have tough competition for the wild card but if they
compete to the end and don't choke like last year the fans will come.
Another thing, do you really think the casual baseball fans you want
to attract even know who Tim Salmon (let alone Glaus) is? we're not
talking Griffey here
>And in terms of attendance, your offence hyped with comparisons to the
>old Yankees murderous row -- deserved or not -- (provided you do the
>3b and LF thing), will at least give you equal attendace here and on
>the road for the rest of the season, and a lot more hype going into
>the off-season and a clear understanding of your pitching situation.
I don't think either Batista or Glaus has played in the outfield. This
trade would turnn the Blue Jays into last years Rockies. Lots of
slugging but no pitching o speak of.
>
>Again, I want to show off this lineup, because I like to delude myself
>and it look so intoxicating, and I may never see it in reality.
>
>1. Cruz
>2. TGlaus
>3. Mondesi
>4. Delgado
>5. Fullmer
>6. Batista
>7. TSalmon
>8. DFletcher/Castillo
>9. Bush
>
>(Show me an out on this line-up.)
>
>Bench. Cordova, DeWise, Greene, Grebeck, etc.
>
>(A good balance of pinch-hitting, defensive replacement,
>speed and versatility)
>
>Pitching rotation.
>
>1. Wells
>2. Halladay or Carpenter or Escobar (or two of if you get a deal)
>3. Hamilton
>4. JDickson(?), Ken Hill(?) if you keep Escobar
>5. Call-up
>
Hamilton is injured. so you would have to go with two call-ups.
But the big thing that you forgot that makes this trade ridiculous is
the BULLPEN: Trading away Quantrill and Painter leaves you with two
set up men and a closer (I guess more call ups). The big question with
a trade is if it improves your team. Now the jays have a good solid
offense with a combination of speed and power and a deep pitching
staff both in a very deep pitching staff both in the rotation and the
bullpen,your trade gives them an over abundance of power, less speed,
someone in the of who's never played there before, an inferior
starting rotation and most importantly a PATHETIC bullpen. The present
team should win 85-90 and compete for the playoffs your team would
lead the league in homers....and be lucky to win 65 games. Which will
draw more fans in the long run?
>backup: Castillo.
>
>Ok, so what..
>
>What's the difference between having 3 guys who can give you anywhere
>between 12-15 wins as opposed to one having perennial 18 gamer, one
>12-15 potential and one lousy 2-12 potential? With your offence, the
>2-12 guy can easily be a .500 pitcher as you are going against their
>fith starter too, and so on. Less pressure. Greater upside. Less
>uncertainty.
Asumming Escobar is the "lousy" guy. He won 14 last year and should
improve on that,Dickson is coming off injury so writing him down for
15 wins is ridiculous.>
>
>You can afford to give out two of your relievers. Provided you got a
>shortstop whom you can deal for a reliever a la McMichael, or a
>headache like Rocker, just as scenario examples. Then you just lose
>one reliever. And save two salaries for one call-up wage.
The Braves are NOT going to trade Rocker for Gonzalez. he may be an
asshole but he's a good reliever and they need him. Also this trade
would leave you without a ss other than woodward or grebeck.
>Then you get a power-hitting name like TSalmon, or Mateo whose arms
>keeps runners on base for at least one more at bat/out with insurance
>in Cordova and VWells. I like TSalmon better because of the selling
>credentials which more than makes up for wage cost. (don't know when
>he's a free agent though) and the slow start.
Hold on when did Mateo come into this. The Rangers are NOT going to
trade him,they think he's a future superstar. They wouldn't trade him
for Clemens when Clemens was the best pitcher in the league.
>Pretty soon you find yourself with only one less 12-15 starter short
>and one reliever short. Your minors are good enough to cover that
>missing reliever. And maybe you promote a starter from the minors
>keeping the opposition down to a stingy 9 runs a game.
>
> in the occasional fifth spot alternating with long-relief Castillo.
>Not a bad risk.
>
lol....a "stingy" 9 runs a game? at least you're realistic about how
your pitching staff would perform. Maybe this week is the first
baseball you ever watched. That is not normal baseball no way the Jays
are gonna keep scoring 11-12 runs every game if our pitchers keep
giving up 9 runs a game our team is toast.
sorry,don't mean to attack you personally just totally disagree with
your logic.
Nick Gieschen
Totally the opposite. You can get by with poor depth in the playoffs due
to the numerous off days. If it were true that pitching depth counted in
the playoff's, Atlanta would have won far more WS in the 90's.
The mark of a good team is making the playoffs. Once there, due to the
short series, it's really a toss up who wins. So, build your team to get
to the playoffs and if you're there enough times, eventually chance
dictates that you'll win the world series.
Angeltear
Gieschen) wrote:
>>
>> >Jason Higgins <jasonan...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >Oakland, Texas, and Cleveland have been pretty good over the past few
>> >years. I don't mean to imply that Oaklands pitching was bad last year,
>> >but that you don't need superstars in the rotation if you can OPS the
>> >crap out of the ball. Since pitchers are as the BP folk put it "flaky",
>> >the wise thing is not to invest in them. Rather, pour money into hitting
>> >instead and pick up inning eaters and overlooked short right-handers to
>> >fill your staff.
>> >
Once again I have to disagree. You can get by with 3 quality starters
assuming #1 piitches 1,4 and 7 #2 pitches 2 and 5 and #3 pitches 3
and 6.The important thing though is I don't just mean mediocre
slightly above average pitchers I mean guys who can actually go out
and beat the other guys starters.The Rangers have never even come
close to a ;playoff series because their "ace" never matches up to the
other guy's ace and the #2 and 3 starters are never as good as their
opponents either. Hence their offence is neutralized and they look
pathetic. The few times the Indians have done anything in the playoffs
have been when their starters over achieved.
As for the Braves, The Yankees in the last few years have actually had
comperable staffs to the Braves and just seem to hit better in the
clutch. In 98 the Padres had a really deep staff comperable to the
Braves and again got the clutch hits. (97 i believe was a fluke.
Florida just got really hot at the right time the Braves would have
won 9 out of 10 series from the 97 Marlins.
Overwhelming offence and mediocre pitching can win division pennants,
good pitching and timely hitting wins world championships.
Mike
>>
>>
Jason Higgins
Ryan Day wrote:
> Jason Higgins (jasonan...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
>
> > First thing this has never worked for Clevland. Pithcing is a must.
> Really? I seem to recall Cleveland being in the playoffs nearl
> almost every year for most of the 90s, with two World Series appearances
> to boot. Not to mention that they sell out nearly every game in their
> relatively new ballpark.
Yes but with a monster offence and no pitching how many world Series titles did
they win in the 90's??? That is right zero!!!!!! And yes clevland fills their
park, they are an exciting team to watch and they don't compete with hockey.
>
> If pitching is so key, why have the Braves only won one world
> series? The Red Sox had a very good pitching staff last season, and where
> did it get them? And the Blue Jays won the Series in '93 largely on the
> strength of offence.
The Braves faced teams with comparable albeit slighty inferior pitching, but far
superior offence, The Braves have lacked the balance, that and I am sorry but if
a manager, with that team cannot win the World Series than he should go!!!!
>
> I'm not trying to say that pitching *isn't* important... just that
> offence is equally important.
Offence is important, but the Jays have offnece, arguably the best in the league
right now, why try to fix what is not broken? deal from the strength and
attempt to improve pitching. I agree, Well, Carp, Halladay, and Escobar will do
very well, however, Hamilton is injured, and when he has been healthy he has
been a bust, and Castillio has been a didaster, if Andrews does not work then a
new pitcher is needed. Not a Superstar, just a quality pitcher, a fifth
starter.
>
>
> And by the way for all you V. Wells fans, in AAA ball he is batting
> > .182, 0 hrs 6 rbi 12 games, 42 abs, 7 so 4 sb, 1 error!!! Definatly the
> > makings of a superstar!
> Have you seen Ken Griffey's numbers lately? Would you trade *him*
> for Brad Radke?
> I said Wells would be steep for say Radke, but maybe someone else, who I am
> not sure. At the same time Griffey has proven himself, he is not a prospect
> who has yet to impress anyone in his major league games. V. Wells is
> unproven, and I feel it is foolish to put so much expectations and base
> decicsions on the promise that he might be a superstar. Do names like eddie
> zosky, Steve Karsay ring a bell????? fromer Jay prospects supposed to be the
> next superstars. Where are they now? Karsay is an average pitcher and Zosky,
> who knows? Prospects are all speculation untill they get the job done.
> Right now the Jays have 4 outfeilders in the majors who can get the job done,
> plus dewise, and Brumfeild who is at AAA. granted Dewise is not proven yet
> either. So even more trade bait.
>
Please do not misinterpret me, I am not saying trade away the whole team or all
of our future for a garbage pitcher, just to deal from the jays strength and
ensure they get good value for their trade. And that is all. The Jays need a
fifth starter and have an abundance of outfeilders. There are several teams
desparate for an outfeilder, incl NY yanks. so time will tell.
Nick Gieschen
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:38:24 -0500, nickgi...@mindspring.com (Nick
> Gieschen) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> >Jason Higgins <jasonan...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> >Oakland, Texas, and Cleveland have been pretty good over the past few
> >> >years. I don't mean to imply that Oaklands pitching was bad last year,
> >> >but that you don't need superstars in the rotation if you can OPS the
> >> >crap out of the ball. Since pitchers are as the BP folk put it "flaky",
> >> >the wise thing is not to invest in them. Rather, pour money into hitting
> >> >instead and pick up inning eaters and overlooked short right-handers to
> >> >fill your staff.
> >> >
>
> Once again I have to disagree. You can get by with 3 quality starters
> assuming #1 piitches 1,4 and 7 #2 pitches 2 and 5 and #3 pitches 3
> and 6.
I'm not talking about the playoffs though. I'm talking about the regular
season.
>The important thing though is I don't just mean mediocre
> slightly above average pitchers I mean guys who can actually go out
> and beat the other guys starters.The Rangers have never even come
> close to a ;playoff series because their "ace" never matches up to the
> other guy's ace and the #2 and 3 starters are never as good as their
> opponents either. Hence their offence is neutralized and they look
> pathetic. The few times the Indians have done anything in the playoffs
> have been when their starters over achieved.
>
> As for the Braves, The Yankees in the last few years have actually had
> comperable staffs to the Braves and just seem to hit better in the
> clutch. In 98 the Padres had a really deep staff comperable to the
> Braves and again got the clutch hits. (97 i believe was a fluke.
> Florida just got really hot at the right time the Braves would have
> won 9 out of 10 series from the 97 Marlins.
>
> Overwhelming offence and mediocre pitching can win division pennants,
> good pitching and timely hitting wins world championships.
>
Why wouldn't good hitting and timely pitching be just as good? For every
timely hit you get, I get a timely out. For every 1 run game you throw,
I have a game in which I score 11 runs.
Given a minimum talent level, whichever team happens to have the luck in
the playoffs and WS happens to win the world series. Due to the very few
number of games, unless the gulf in talent between the teams is quite
large, there is not enough opportunity for the superior talent to reveal
itself. Thus, the aim should be building a team to get to the playoffs.
Since pitchers are more uncertain than hitters, given the choice, it's
better to invest in hitters and pick up overlooked pitchers rather than
the contrary.