Blue Jays: 2013 MLB Draft Signing thread

[TwistedLogic]

Exactly. Simply retarded from the get go. Shipley's upside is as a number 2 starter (worst case number 3/4)

I usually appreciate your posts on here the majority of the time, but really now? So you're saying that Shipley is 100% guaranteed to be a 3 or 4 starter in the majors and nothing lower than that? His floor is a 3rd/4th starter and ceiling is a 2nd starter? Why wasn't he picked first overall then, he seems to be one of the greatest prospects in history.

 

We literally get a worse pick next year (11 instead of 10). Qualitatively, I don't think the nominal upgrade from let's say Phil Bickford to Grant Holmes is worth the lost development time, wasted resources, and loss of bargaining leverage (next year's pick won't be protected).

Yes it will. And who said the Jays were going after Grant Holmes? Bickford emerged literally one month before the draft. Are you really comparing his ceiling to somebody projected at his pick a year from now?

 

Callis is now saying he's confused about Jays draft and getting contradictory messages.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I'll just wait until the deadline tomorrow, there's just too many unknowns to get in an uproar right now.

 

You shouldn't have made this post. Let people spiral into darkness and cry about the sky falling as long as they can. I bet they enjoy it.

[ReturnOfTheYeti]

 

We will see

 

Thanks - wasn't sure how to embed the tweet before. Yeah, I just replied back to him asking what new info was contradictory. We will see, indeed.

[imsorry4beatinU]

But are you actually excited about those guys? Someone like Keith Law would probably say none of those three project to make it out of high-A.

 

He probably would say that, but they are projects at this point as are all mid round draft picks. I am excited to follow there development in the coming years.

 

MLB draft is a crap shoot. Lucky to get 2-3 guys make the MLB every year. Just like what King said, just be excited to follow their development.

[imsorry4beatinU]

Our draft picks this year weren't sexy at all but a bunch of guys will be decent once they come back from injuries and see more sample in the minors.

[imsorry4beatinU]

Kevin Pillar has been really good.

 

I really don't think there are a lot of bluejays fans that can differentiate a hockey and baseball draft.

 

why you say that?

[ace3113]

11 next year is better then 10 this year. It's a deeper draft.

 

No it's really not. At least not to the level you're suggesting. The DEEPNESS of the draft refers to the overall quantity of quality prospects. Pick number 11 next year is not going to be THAT MUCH better than Bickford (and I can give you a list right now for comparison), to the point that it's worth punting a pick. Every draft pundit from Callis, Sickels, Law, and the guys from BP and PG have said that punting a pick this year to get one next year isn't a sound strategy, no matter how good the draft seems to be for all the reasons I mentioned.

 

What do you mean lost development time?

 

Lost development time as in the high school guy we draft this year would be a year ahead of the guy we draft next year, and thus a year further away from helping us. Even if one were to argue we could take a college player next year and he would be further along than Bickford anyway, if we took a college player this year, he would be further along than the college player we take next year, and that's the only comparison that's really relevant (apples to apples).

 

Wasted resources? They are scouts.... they scout.. the Jays had lots of them... they scouted lots of guys.

 

Baseball is a business. Money is a thing.

 

You do make a good point about the loss of leverage.... but really it's no different then 20 other teams picks in the 1st round.

 

Except that...um...their picks are protected next year, so they have more leverage than us.

[flafson]

How can they let the bickfoot get away?

 

He wants like twice the slot amount (that's the rumor)

[jays_fever]

[quote

At the end of the day, General Managers are evaluated based on their record at the Major League level. AA is in his fourth year and hasn't produced. You can't say he's done a good job because his team hasn't played well.

 

Just because the common joe cannot critique a GM properly and resorts to wins on the MLB level, doesmt mean we have to. He has very little cost controlled players on the MLB team, and now a very meh farm team, with a high MLB payroll, coming off a disaster of a draft. He's got to go

[TwistedLogic]

It's not hard to build a system if you're willing to waste three full seasons at the Major League level. That's a massive cost that doesn't seem to get regarded. What AA did is similar to what the Twins, Astros, Cubs, Marlins, and Padres are doing currently... if you're committed to a rebuilding process then it's not difficult to restock your farm system since you're not going to be trading any of it away. All your moves can be dedicated to the farm.

 

Plus a lot of that great system was built off the Halladay return and comp picks from Ricciardi hold-overs. Sanchez was drafted from Scutaro's comp pick and Syndergaard from Burnett's (via Paxton). I'll give him credit for drafting those two guys, but the draft record under AA as a whole is lacking.

 

At the end of the day, General Managers are evaluated based on their record at the Major League level. AA is in his fourth year and hasn't produced. You can't say he's done a good job because his team hasn't played well.

The bolded part is completely irrelevant because NOT every move was dedicated to the farm. He shed Wells salary, he acquired Morrow for a reliever, he acquired Lawrie for a middle-of-the-road starter, he got Escobar for nothing, he traded more relievers for Rasmus, turned Thames into Delabar, the list goes on and on and on. You say all of the guys moves can be dedicated to the farm, but that is completely untrue because almost none of AA's moves were dedicated to the farm. His farm system soared based completely on his drafts and IFA signings. The one single move that bolstered the farm was Halladay, and he somehow managed to get three top prospects in trade where he had absolutely no leverage.

 

You say that you can't say he's done a good job because of the team not playing well, but why the hell not? Of course he's done a good job. A General Manager only has control of putting together the roster, it isn't up to him if the players under-perform like f***. The Wells, Morrow, Rasmus, Escobar, Santos, Delabar and Lawrie trades were all excellent. The Reyes trade was great. The extensions he gave to guys like Bautista, Encarnacion and Morrow were all excellent moves at the time. When an entire group underperforms, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the GM's fault, it means that the team has bad f***ing luck.

 

The Jays fanbase has always been somewhat pathetic for the way they deal with their mood swings but this whole uproar over AA is desperate even for Jays fans. I almost wish the Jays fire Anthopoulos and sign someone like Ed f***ing Wade just to give some of our "fans" exactly what they deserve.

[imsorry4beatinU]

The bolded part is completely irrelevant because NOT every move was dedicated to the farm. He shed Wells salary, he acquired Morrow for a reliever, he acquired Lawrie for a middle-of-the-road starter, he got Escobar for nothing, he traded more relievers for Rasmus, turned Thames into Delabar, the list goes on and on and on. You say all of the guys moves can be dedicated to the farm, but that is completely untrue because almost none of AA's moves were dedicated to the farm. His farm system soared based completely on his drafts and IFA signings. The one single move that bolstered the farm was Halladay, and he somehow managed to get three top prospects in trade where he had absolutely no leverage.

 

You say that you can't say he's done a good job because of the team not playing well, but why the hell not? Of course he's done a good job. A General Manager only has control of putting together the roster, it isn't up to him if the players under-perform like f***. The Wells, Morrow, Rasmus, Escobar, Santos, Delabar and Lawrie trades were all excellent. The Reyes trade was great. The extensions he gave to guys like Bautista, Encarnacion and Morrow were all excellent moves at the time. When an entire group underperforms, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the GM's fault, it means that the team has bad f***ing luck.

 

The Jays fanbase has always been somewhat pathetic for the way they deal with their mood swings but this whole uproar over AA is desperate even for Jays fans. I almost wish the Jays fire Anthopoulos and sign someone like Ed f***ing Wade just to give some of our "fans" exactly what they deserve.

 

Toronto's sports team has suck for the last 5-10 years that mood swings always happen. Pretty comical to me, hopefully that will change soon enough and Toronto will have a winning Sports tradition again..

[Flashman]

That had little to do with drafting and scouting? So you think they read d'Arnaud and Gose's names on a baseball america list and said "We have to have them"?

 

This isn't like sending a scout out to a remote district to pick up on unknown talent in a high school game; the likes of Drabek and D'Arnaud were well established as top prospects. To give any significant credit to the Blue Jays scouting department for recommending them is to really overplay their role. Give credit to a scout for picking out a young unknown who goes on to be useful, not for saying "I think you should try for their top two prospects!"

 

The Jays had absolutely no leverage in the Phillies trade. That was completely to AA's credit. He didn't even get Gose in the Phillies trade either. He wanted Gose, but Gose had been traded to the Astros. He got d'Arnaud, Taylor, and Drabek who was a top 10 prospect in baseball at the time. He turned Taylor into Brett Wallace and Wallace into Gose. Not only did he get two guys he really wanted with the Phillies, he used the third chip, which was useless, and turned it into Gose through shrewd trades.

 

Yes, that trade was to AA's credit. But that wasn't what was being discussed at all. I'm not sure where that came from. And the history lesson was not required.

 

Every single team in the majors had the ability to acquire Type-A and Type-B free agents at the trade deadline and turn them into compensation picks, thus resulting in "significantly boosting" their farm. Yet nobody outside of the Jays and Rays did it to the extent that Anthopoulos did. So if not boosting the system from bottom 3 to top 3 in a year was a profound failure, it looks like more than 25 teams failed "profoundly", given that no team did what the Jays did while having all the same resources and ability to do so.

 

You are moving the goalposts again. The discussion was not about AA's strategy (which I disapproved of, but that's another discussion for another thread). Rather, it was about the scouting department's scoring rate.

 

The Jays weren't the only ones to pass on Sale, two teams (Diamondbacks and Padres, both known for good farm systems) picked players prior the Sale pick that didn't even sign. The Jays offered 3M to Beede and he refused. The Yankees failed to sign Gerrit Cole in the 2008 draft, the Pirates failed to sign Appel in the 2011 draft, it happens to every single team. When the guy doesn't want to sign, he won't sign. The Jays gave Bickford an offer of 2.9M, a guy who was ranked in the 40s coming into the draft. His price tag was 4.2M, it's ridiculous to look at this as a failure. The Jays did exactly what they should have done, they got a better pick next year.

 

There is a very real possibility that the Jays will spend no more than $2m on the draft. That is after a year of bankrolling a scouting department and table of consiglieres. That is failure.

 

It's gotten to a hilarious point how many of you think you know how to do AA's job better than he does.

 

A desperate comment. A robust defence is always welcome, but that kinda thing is weak and juvenile.

 

And for what it's worth, AA is four years into his tenure and is in last place in the AL East. So yes, it would have been difficult to do much worse than AA.

[ReturnOfTheYeti]

I'm thinking Jim Callis tweet is about this

 

 

AA already said we aren't signing bickford, so we are not signing Bickford.

 

But Brentz is still very much up in the air.

 

f*** I wish the dumbass media asked about Brentz/Tellez

 

Well - maybe you've seen some quotes that I haven't, but the only thing I've seen is AA saying that as of right now, he doesn't think that Bickford would sign but he did leave the door open. It sounded to me like Bickford had turned down the offer wanting $4m or something like that, so it seemed like AA wasn't completely discounting - unless you've seen something I haven't.

[TwistedLogic]

Except that...um...their picks are protected next year, so they have more leverage than us.

Except that...um.... it IS.

 

I'm starting to get tired of typing this (already three times in the last thirty minutes) so I'm going to post this one last time and then I don't give a s*** if you guys comprehend it or not.

 

If the Jays fail to sign Bickford in 2013, their 2014 pick will STILL BE PROTECTED. STILL BE PROTECTED. STILL BE PROTECTED.

 

"Teams get an extra year of protection for compensation picks for failure to sign draftees from the first three rounds. For example, the Blue Jays get the 22nd pick in 2012 after not signing No. 21 overall choice Tyler Beede in 2011. If Toronto can't come to terms with the compensation selection, it would get another one in 2013."

 

Quote taken from HERE: http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/2011/11/more-draft-details-from-the-cba/

[ElNik2013]

It's not hard to build a system if you're willing to waste three full seasons at the Major League level. That's a massive cost that doesn't seem to get regarded. What AA did is similar to what the Twins, Astros, Cubs, Marlins, and Padres are doing currently... if you're committed to a rebuilding process then it's not difficult to restock your farm system since you're not going to be trading any of it away. All your moves can be dedicated to the farm.

 

Plus a lot of that great system was built off the Halladay return and comp picks from Ricciardi hold-overs. Sanchez was drafted from Scutaro's comp pick and Syndergaard from Burnett's (via Paxton). I'll give him credit for drafting those two guys, but the draft record under AA as a whole is lacking.

 

At the end of the day, General Managers are evaluated based on their record at the Major League level. AA is in his fourth year and hasn't produced. You can't say he's done a good job because his team hasn't played well.

 

 

I don't think you can say that the Blue Jays have been doing what the teams you mentioned are doing. You can argue that that's what they SHOULD do or have done, but it seems to me that for a long time they've been trying to avoid going into a full rebuild where they have a top 5 pick for 3 or so years in a row.

 

I also don't understand your point about comp picks from Ricciardi hold-overs. I mean, he could've just resigned the FA if he didn't want the picks? You still have to draft the right players and so many teams passed on guys like Sanchez and Syndergaard, I would think they should get credit for drafting them just like they get crap for not drafting other players. It is what it is.

 

I certainly wish he had continued to build the team and farm like he was doing instead of trying to improve his record at the MLB level by trading so much for older, expensive players.

[ace3113]

I usually appreciate your posts on here the majority of the time, but really now? So you're saying that Shipley is 100% guaranteed to be a 3 or 4 starter in the majors and nothing lower than that? His floor is a 3rd/4th starter and ceiling is a 2nd starter? Why wasn't he picked first overall then, he seems to be one of the greatest prospects in history.

 

The difference between Shipley's upside and Bickford's is not so wide as to disregard the following considerations. 1) Shipley's signed for cheaper. 2) Is much closer to the major leagues. 3) Has a higher chance of reaching his upside (given where he currently is in his development compared to Bickford).

 

That's the usual. Trade off, upside for certainty. Usually I would go for upside (and that's Bickford), but given that Shipley's upside isn't low and his floor is high, he makes much more sense to me. If we're talking Bickford and Marco Gonzalez here that would be a different argument obviously, cause that would be: (Low ceiling/low risk vs. high risk/ high ceiling).

 

Yes it will. And who said the Jays were going after Grant Holmes?

 

I'm using Grant Holmes as an example because he's the best high school right hander currently ranked in our area. He might even move up into the top 7 when it's all said and done. You could use player X if you want. Player X is a high school pitcher. He throws in the mid 90s and has a projectable build. He throws a plus curveball already. Is this hypothetical player than Bickford, sure marginally. But that minor upgrade is not worth punting a pick for a year.

 

Yes it will.

 

My mistake.

 

Bickford emerged literally one month before the draft. Are you really comparing his ceiling to somebody projected at his pick a year from now?

 

So we would be trading Bickford for roughly his 2014 equivalent? At best that seems like a lateral move to me. I don't see the disparity in talent at 10 to be that great. Heck, we should've punted Hollon if that's what we wanted, because the 47th pick next year will be significantly better than the 47th pick this year. That's what the depth is about.

[ace3113]

double post

[TwistedLogic]

There is a very real possibility that the Jays will spend no more than $2m on the draft. That is after a year of bankrolling a scouting department and table of consiglieres. That is failure.

And yet there's a day left till the signing deadline. I don't care if it's a real possibility, when it becomes real then you guys can bitch about it.

 

A desperate comment. A robust defence is always welcome, but that kinda thing is weak and juvenile.

No it was not a desperate comment, it's exactly what far too many people on this board think they can do.

 

And for what it's worth, AA is four years into his tenure and is in last place in the AL East. So yes, it would have been difficult to do much worse than AA.

And for what it's worth, AA's last place AL East team would be third/fourth in the NL West, two games back of the division title, after having faced the toughest schedule in baseball. So no, it would be very f***ing easy to do far worse than AA and it's just ******** blind hate coming from armchair GMs that things like that are even being said.

[John_Havok]

And for what it's worth, AA's last place AL East team would be third/fourth in the NL West, two games back of the division title, after having faced the toughest schedule in baseball. So no, it would be very f***ing easy to do far worse than AA and it's just ******** blind hate coming from armchair GMs that things like that are even being said.

 

Not really a valid argument. Saying where they'd be in another division is pointless since they aren't in that division. Sure the Jays would probably be winning the NL west if they were in hat division facing those teams instead of the beasts in the AL East. But that doesn't mean anything sine the Jays are in the AL East. AA has to build a team that can contend in the toughest division in baseball, and in 4 years every step forward has been followed by one step back. Treading water

[TwistedLogic]

The difference between Shipley's upside and Bickford's is not so wide as to disregard the following considerations. 1) Shipley's signed for cheaper. 2) Is much closer to the major leagues. 3) Has a higher chance of reaching his upside (given where he currently is in his development compared to Bickford).

 

That's the usual. Trade off, upside for certainty. Usually I would go for upside (and that's Bickford), but given that Shipley's upside isn't low and his floor is high, he makes much more sense to me. If we're talking Bickford and Marco Gonzalez here that would be a different argument obviously, cause that would be: (Low ceiling/low risk vs. high risk/ high ceiling).

That's fair but if the Jays took a stance where they saw Bickford as a very high ceiling kind of player that had a decent shot at signing, while having the safety net of a protected pick in a potentially better draft next year in case he doesn't, it was a very logical draft choice. People are so blinded by their hate of this draft that they're forgetting that we are one year removed from getting Stroman, Smoral and Alford in the same draft. Alford was a guy that absolutely nobody thought the Jays had a chance of signing, and they did. Bickford was a guy that a lot of people thought the Jays had a chance of signing, and they didn't. It's how it goes. The sentiment that someone on this board could have looked at a BA list and conducted a better draft is ridiculous.

 

I'm using Grant Holmes as an example because he's the best high school right hander currently ranked in our area. He might even move up into the top 7 when it's all said and done. You could use player X if you want. Player X is a high school pitcher. He throws in the mid 90s and has a projectable build. He throws a plus curveball already. Is this hypothetical player than Bickford, sure marginally. But that minor upgrade is not worth punting a pick for a year.

We have no knowledge of how next year's draft will look and how it will play out. The use of a hypothetical player makes no sense because we don't know what kind of guy the Jays are going to be looking at. And in the case that you do use a hypothetical player, you can't compare him to Bickford, you compare him to Shipley or whoever else you wanted at that pick. Bickford is a guy that we did draft and a guy that we did attempt to sign. We didn't punt Bickford.

 

 

My mistake.

Happens.

 

So we would be trading Bickford for roughly his 2014 equivalent? At best that seems like a lateral move to me. I don't see the disparity in talent at 10 to be that great. Heck, we should've punted Hollon if that's what we wanted, because the 47th pick next year will be significantly better than the 47th pick this year. That's what the depth is about.

To the first point, again, we are not trading Bickford for his 2014 equivalent, I really don't understand where this narrative is coming from... we offered Bickford slot! He wants 4.2M, what the hell are the Jays supposed to do here? How can anyone say the Jays are punting a guy who they offered slot dollars at a pick considerably higher than where he projected to go? Remove Bickford from the discussion because it's his choice not to sign. If you're talking about what the Jays gave up versus what they might get, the Jays passed on a college arm in Shipley for a potentially very high ceiling high school arm in 2014. It's not Bickford (high ceiling arm) vs some similar high ceiling guy in 2014, it's college arm Shipley vs Bickford OR the 2014 guy. Which can result in a pretty big upgrade in both cases.

 

As for your point about Hollon, I can totally agree with you there, that it would have made sense to punt him if they wanted a better pick next year. It was also tremendous to get him 700K below slot, secure his own signing, and be able to legitimately go after another high ceiling guy that they took after the first 10 rounds. So they didn't really mess that up at all.

[G-Snarls]

There just isn't very much to be excited about these days.

[ace3113]

Obviously one industry "expert's" word is not gospel, but there is a consensus among a lot of them when it comes to "punting picks" on purpose. I'll dig up quotes from others as well.

 

Bob (Springfield, MO)

You're drafting in the late first round of a weak draft. No one on your board excites you as a guy you want to even pay slot for. Do you just punt by drafting a player who you are pretty sure will go to college or just draft the best player available because, even if he won't be a star, he could be a serviceable major league player?

 

Klaw

(1:43 PM)

No - I would never punt a first-round pick. You may not be employed long enough to get the pick the following year.

 

Jeff (Kingston)If you're Toronto, would you consider punting your first round pick to next year in a much stronger draft, and maybe have a shot at hometown boy Gareth Morgan?

 

Klaw

(1:47 PM)Answered the first part earlier. There are no extra points for drafting a hometown guy.

[TwistedLogic]

Not really a valid argument. Saying where they'd be in another division is pointless since they aren't in that division. Sure the Jays would probably be winning the NL west if they were in hat division facing those teams instead of the beasts in the AL East. But that doesn't mean anything sine the Jays are in the AL East. AA has to build a team that can contend in the toughest division in baseball, and in 4 years every step forward has been followed by one step back. Treading water

 

Not of course it's not a valid argument, and it means nothing in a realistic scope of things, since the Jays are, in fact, in the AL East. But when someone proposes the idiotically stupid idea that you can't do much worse than AA, then it is a very legitimate point. You very much could do far worse than AA and it's really ridiculous to even mention that.

 

This.

 

This.

[Flashman]

And yet there's a day left till the signing deadline. I don't care if it's a real possibility, when it becomes real then you guys can bitch about it.

 

Oh calm down. It's discussing hypothetical scenarios -- the lifeblood of baseball discussion.

 

No it was not a desperate comment, it's exactly what far too many people on this board think they can do.

 

Any attempt to win an argument by insulting your opponents is desperate.

 

And for what it's worth, AA's last place AL East team would be third/fourth in the NL West, two games back of the division title, after having faced the toughest schedule in baseball. So no, it would be very f***ing easy to do far worse than AA and it's just ******** blind hate coming from armchair GMs that things like that are even being said.

 

As Havok said, it's a pointless comparison. This is not about AA in the NL West. This is not about cutting him slack because he's in the AL East. This is about where he has managed to steer the Blue Jays over four years: last place, no playoffs, an old team, a poorly rated farm, and a $120m payroll. How could you do much worse? Examples?

[TwistedLogic]

Obviously one industry "expert's" word is not gospel, but there is a consensus among a lot of them when it comes to "punting picks" on purpose. I'll dig up quotes from others as well.

 

Again, for anyone who thinks over-drafting a guy and offering him slot value is punting a pick... actually nevermind. Let people think what they want, who really cares. Jays fans are desperate to be miserable about something so if it's not this, it'll be something else.

[Caper]

Obviously one industry "expert's" word is not gospel, but there is a consensus among a lot of them when it comes to "punting picks" on purpose. I'll dig up quotes from others as well.

 

So Keith laws reasoning about not punting the pick, has to do with GM's trying to save their job?

[ace3113]

That's fair but if the Jays took a stance where they saw Bickford as a very high ceiling kind of player that had a decent shot at signing, while having the safety net of a protected pick in a potentially better draft next year in case he doesn't, it was a very logical draft choice.

 

You know you're right about that. In my uproar, I blatantly ignored the Jays own evaluation process and only saw mine and the industry consensus. Perhaps the Jays thought the exact opposite of me, that Bickford had a very high ceiling and a reasonable floor, while not seeing Shipley's ceiling as being as high as myself or some others. Only they'll know in the end. I'll take back calling their decision "retarded" simply because their thought process differed from mine. I'll just say simply that I don't agree with their final evaluation of Bickford as the top talent there (but who am I anyway. lol).

 

The sentiment that someone on this board could have looked at a BA list and conducted a better draft is ridiculous.

 

I was being somewhat hyperbolic about this, but it has always been my feeling that the draft is such a crapshoot, that if you took a someone knowledgeable about the draft and had them make their picks, there is a pretty good chance that they will do better than some of the people paid to do the job. Using the game of craps analogy, you don't have to be an expert to go up to the table and hit on a winning roll. Some of the shadow drafts I've seen at minorleagueball over the years have been better than what a lot of those teams actually did.

 

We didn't punt Bickford.

 

I'm not sure whether I'd be happier if we punted the pick on purpose or if it just happened that way (Caper seems to think we punted, or that's the impression he's leaving). I guess intent lends itself to praise or blame. We can't praise their move of punting if that wasn't their intention, conversely we can't blame them for picking Bickford if their strategy all along was to punt the pick. I'll be interested to hear what really happened.

[Caper]

The bolded part is completely irrelevant because NOT every move was dedicated to the farm. He shed Wells salary, he acquired Morrow for a reliever, he acquired Lawrie for a middle-of-the-road starter, he got Escobar for nothing, he traded more relievers for Rasmus, turned Thames into Delabar, the list goes on and on and on. You say all of the guys moves can be dedicated to the farm, but that is completely untrue because almost none of AA's moves were dedicated to the farm. His farm system soared based completely on his drafts and IFA signings. The one single move that bolstered the farm was Halladay, and he somehow managed to get three top prospects in trade where he had absolutely no leverage.

 

You say that you can't say he's done a good job because of the team not playing well, but why the hell not? Of course he's done a good job. A General Manager only has control of putting together the roster, it isn't up to him if the players under-perform like f***. The Wells, Morrow, Rasmus, Escobar, Santos, Delabar and Lawrie trades were all excellent. The Reyes trade was great. The extensions he gave to guys like Bautista, Encarnacion and Morrow were all excellent moves at the time. When an entire group underperforms, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the GM's fault, it means that the team has bad f***ing luck.

 

The Jays fanbase has always been somewhat pathetic for the way they deal with their mood swings but this whole uproar over AA is desperate even for Jays fans. I almost wish the Jays fire Anthopoulos and sign someone like Ed f***ing Wade just to give some of our "fans" exactly what they deserve.

 

 

Very, very good post.

[Tuco]

That's just embarrassing. He's had 4 drafts and not one relevant position player.

 

Thats what happens when you go bonkers on pitchers and draft "athletes" who really have no idea how to play the game.

 

Both in the minors and on the ML roster we need more players who actually understand the game and arent just toolsy high potential projects.

[TwistedLogic]

I'm not sure how AA didn't have leverage with the Halladay trade. He had the best pitcher in baseball and a bunch of teams desperate to acquire him.

I'm tired of debating with people who have absolutely 0 inclination to do any of their own research. AA had the best pitcher and baseball and a bunch of teams desperate to acquire him, except that his best pitcher in baseball had a FULL NO TRADE CLAUSE and told the Jays that he wanted to go to the Phillies. The Jays only choice was to trade him to the Phillies or have him walk the next year and sign with the Phillies anyways, getting nothing but a compensation pick. So yes, AA had NO leverage.

 

You can't simultaneously give credit for AA acquiring Rasmus et al. and then say his bad acquisitions were bad luck and not his fault. There were reasons to believe Dickey and JJ were poor acquisitions. If you're a good GM, being good should show through after four years.

That isn't what I've done. I take away credit for the Dickey and Napoli trades despite knowing the reasoning behind them (Napoli more so than Dickey, Dickey trade was brutal), but I also give credit where credit is due. Rasmus was a great trade that is working out. Escobar was an excellent trade where we gave up a journeyman and a middle-of-the-road prospect for a guy who immediately provided a 4+ win season. Wells was an excellent trade. When I mention the bad luck, I'm not talking about the Dickey and Johnson trades, because like I said, Dickey was a brutal trade for me ever since we made it, and Johnson was a guy who came with Reyes at a price that made way too much sense. When I mention bad luck, I'm looking at guys like Santos and Lawrie, even though I know that both guys can still end up very valuable for us in the near future.

[Flashman]

I'm tired of debating with people who have absolutely 0 inclination to do any of their own research. AA had the best pitcher and baseball and a bunch of teams desperate to acquire him, except that his best pitcher in baseball had a FULL NO TRADE CLAUSE and told the Jays that he wanted to go to the Phillies. The Jays only choice was to trade him to the Phillies or have him walk the next year and sign with the Phillies anyways, getting nothing but a compensation pick. So yes, AA had NO leverage.

 

This is a myth. If AA had no leverage he would not have been able to get Drabek, D'Arnaud and Taylor.

 

Leverage comes in many forms. In this instance, the Phillies were desperate to upgrade their rotation -- their desperation was leverage. AA was able to bluff with all the certainty as if other teams were in play as Halladay was willing to keep schtum that he was only interested in the Phillies -- that is leverage. And the Jays were still due compensation picks if Halladay walked (leverage) as well as the possibility that Doc did eventually waive his NTC for another team (leverage).