Consolidated trade deadline thread

[burlingtonbandit]

Link? From what i remember Santana was all but signed without having to defer any players salary. I'm thinking you should just stfu.

 

The only way Santana was going to come here was of players like Reyes and Buerhle deferred some of their salary to next year? That is enough evidence that Rogers did not give them money to spend.

[saskjayfan]

it all depends on what they have to give up for him. I wouldn't want to give up much for 2 months of Lester.

 

lester has a 2.11 ERA in 76.2 innings in the post season which include a 0.43 ERA in 21 innings of the WS. This is the leverage of Lester. He's also having one of his best regular seasons as a professional. If the Jays did get Lester it would greatly enhance not only their chances of getting to a post season, but actually competing in the post season. How much do you value winning a championship? 2 months of Lester obviously can't compare with 6 years of say Norris, but you still don't know what you're getting with Norris. He could average a 3.4 ERA over that stretch or a 4.1. If you had a crystal ball and he would be a number 4 or 5 more than a number 2...you probably jump all over that trade. Even if you knew he would develop into a number 2 you might make that trade if you felt Stro, Sanchez and Hoffman could all be front of the line guys.

 

Beane traded a much more projectable short stop than a guy like Norris who is more difficult to project. He did it to win. People on here are gun shy because of how the Dickey trade in particular turned out, but I could go either way on trading for a guy like Lester. I don't think we are going to get Lester because boston probably wants Norris plus and the asking price will be too high. I might consider a one for one Norris or Sanchez for Lester swap though.

[pickoff22]

Right about what?

 

There is no evidence to suggest that players were asked to defer salary. They offered to do it.They were not asked to,and unless i missed something, Santana was going to be signed without any defered salary.

 

As much as there hasn't been any evidence that the Jays are unwilling to add payroll,there's equally as little evidence to suggest they aren't.

 

It's conjecture at best.

 

Players don't just offer to do this without reason. And GMs who clearly need to add pieces in the offseason don't stand pat unless there's a reason. Clearly money is an issue.

[Sammy225]

If it is me...... I likely would have Norris in a deal for 2 months of Lester. Maybe it is me not seeing playoff baseball since 1993 maybe it is me being content with Sanchez and Stroman.

 

I think if we did Land Lester and we have the upper hand in the division.

[wardhenke1]

Various links on the deferring salary issue:

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/bautista-among-players-in-santana-deferral-report/

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/05/blue-jays-players-wanted-to-defer-portions-of-salary-to-try-to-sign-santana

 

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=448624

 

In other news, there should be a permanent trade embargo between any Boston franchise trading with any Toronto franchise. Period. How many times do we need to be raped by f***ing New Englanders before we learn our lesson? f***ing tea-baggers.

[saskjayfan]

The only way Santana was going to come here was of players like Reyes and Buerhle deferred some of their salary to next year? That is enough evidence that Rogers did not give them money to spend.

 

the reality is there was no payroll at the beginning of the season. The odds of making the post season April 1 were significantly lower than they are today. Post season means dollars and profit. It's all about risk and reward. It's easy for the higher ups to have seen the risk of dollars spent would have not resulted in a much greater chance of success day 1. The Yankees had just spent 400 million or so in the offseason. The Red Sox were WS champs and the Rays had dominant starting pitching.

 

Fast forward to today. You are making a spurious co-relation because circumstances that existed in March are very different than today. It could be that the Jays won't spend money, but Rogers very much could have changed their stance. Drawing a conclusion that they won't spend because of what their stance was 5 months ago is misleading.

[pickoff22]

Yet he was all but signed without any talk of defered payments.

 

Show me one blurb/tweet/artical/anything that says that players were "asked" to defer money from the front office.

 

He was all but signed without any leak about deferred salary. They went to the players union to approve it! Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it wasn't in the works.

[saskjayfan]

If it is me...... I likely would have Norris in a deal for 2 months of Lester. Maybe it is me not seeing playoff baseball since 1993 maybe it is me being content with Sanchez and Stroman.

 

I think if we did Land Lester and we have the upper hand in the division.

 

for the record, I don't think the jays will get Lester, but just for fun imagine if they did. A trade announced after tonight's game and instead of facing lester of game 3 against boston, you have him on the mound for your team. Then 4 games against Huston with the team riding a high only to lead to a massive series with the orioles following and your game one starter that series...Jon Lester. Who wouldn't be pumped to have Lester on the mound going into a 3 game set with the orioles.

[Sammy225]

for the record, I don't think the jays will get Lester, but just for fun imagine if they did. A trade announced after tonight's game and instead of facing lester of game 3 against boston, you have him on the mound for your team. Then 4 games against Huston with the team riding a high only to lead to a massive series with the orioles following and your game one starter that series...Jon Lester. Who wouldn't be pumped to have Lester on the mound going into a 3 game set with the orioles.

 

I have a hard time seeing us getting him as well. But if we did I would likely have him pitch the first game of the Astros Series and the 2nd game of the O's Series. Then you could have both MB and Lester in that 3 game series against Baltimore.

 

That is a lot of ifs though. Right now I can't see us getting him even though I think Norris would be a good piece

[reedjohnsonfan]

for the record, I don't think the jays will get Lester, but just for fun imagine if they did. A trade announced after tonight's game and instead of facing lester of game 3 against boston, you have him on the mound for your team. Then 4 games against Huston with the team riding a high only to lead to a massive series with the orioles following and your game one starter that series...Jon Lester. Who wouldn't be pumped to have Lester on the mound going into a 3 game set with the orioles.

 

If they got him that'd be great. I'd prefer Lester over Samardzija anyday.

[IBTrini]

If the rumours were not true why would AA not come out and say they could add payroll? There has been zero evidence to suggest Rogers will spend more $ on payroll. I mean they had to go around with a f***ing hat and beg the players to defer their salary so they could add Ervin Santana

Anthopoulos has said on many occasions that payroll will be available if the right player is available. In Lott's article Anthopoulos tried to phrase it differently - "When asked recently if he could add payroll, Anthopoulos said he could add players, and players make money, so there. (“No one plays for free,” he added, just to erase any ambiguity).

 

Some individuals seem unable to get what he is saying unless they are hit over the head with a hammer. Also, since when does the absence of evidence solidifies a point/case?

 

The GM needs to keep his strategy under wraps or else he will be at a terrible disadvantage in negotiations/trades. I do not understand why fans/reporters cannot recognize this point. Pissant fans/beat reporters are always trying to put the GM on the spot so they can come across as news-breakers and when the GM is closed-lipped they spew speculation as if it were fact.

[pickoff22]

If people honestly believe that money isn't an issue, they must be ignoring.....well.....the entire offseason and elapsed time up to now. And this is coming from someone frequently defends the organization. But all signs points to AA having to watch his pennies.

 

The Santana situation isn't the only example that points to that. You can argue all you want that the players volunteered it and weren't asked - and that's likely true - but why would they volunteer it if they didn't think it was necessary? Why would the players union get involved to approve it? And why wouldn't front office immediately dispel the rumours when the story broke in order to save some face? They never denied that players would be deferring their salary to get it done.

 

And why would AA clearly state their post season needs and not be involved in any free agent outside of Navarro and his $4 million AAS. Sure, it's easy to argue that they didn't believe in the dollars or years being offered on ANY of the free agent pitchers, but for a team that made it clear acquiring starting pitching was a priority, they sure seemed to back off that pretty hard. Even with guys like Kazmir who weren't looking for long term commitments.

 

And let's not forget the inactivity thus far leading into the deadline. So far one player, making the league minimum, has been traded for.

 

You can argue that they have a healthy payroll and shouldn't be expected to have to increase it. I have no problem with that. But that's another argument altogether.

 

Ultimately it's about looking at the evidence you have and making a reasonable assumption. I could go to taco bell and eat 8 chili cheese burritos, 6 bean burritos, 12 5-layer burittos all while washing it down with an 84 ounce cup of coffee. Even if I didn't write an article about taking a s***, give an interview about me taking a s*** or tell anyone that I took a s*** in the next 48 hours, it's probably fair to assume I took a s***.

[pickoff22]

The "evidence" prior to last year's offseason was that the Jays were fairly handcuffed financially, and playing the "farm game," in order to build their club. No one knew that Rogers was handcuffing them to a low payroll, yet many said they "knew" it. Even comments that the money was there if they needed/wanted it were poo-poo'ed. I mean, just look at the evidence. They aren't spending.

 

And then they did spend. Like a drunk virgin at a strip club. And that evidence was suddenly gone. Everyone shut their mouths about spending ability. Until they didn't spend again, of course. Lasted a whole year.

 

Sorry, are you asking me if I took a s***?

 

(I did)

[burlingtonbandit]

No, he's not ... at least regarding the whole Santana situation. And when I say he's not right about that, I mean that I don't know if it happened or not, but that there's no evidence right now to show that it DID happen. That certain players offered to? OK, there's evidence of that. That the organization was involved in any way? Zero evidence.

 

And it doesn't pass the sniff test, regardless. MLB execs know that the MLBPA would never allow that, whether it was at the behest of the players themselves, or something put forward by the club itself. To suggest it would be a gargantuan blunder, that even AA is very unlikely to make. That the players went to the union, and tried to arrange for deferrals in consideration of extra compensation elsewhere (in time), doesn't change this.

 

There's no evidence that the Jays didn't have the cash, nor the willingness to spend that cash, for Santana. And other than no cash being added to payroll, there isn't evidence that cash isn't available now. There could be any number of reasons why money isn't being added to the payroll. It's possible that it's because the cash isn't there. But also very possible that there is another reason.

 

At least read the link someone provided before writing this.

 

"When the Toronto Blue Jays couldn’t come up with the money to sign Ervin Santana last month, Edwin Encarnacion, Jose Reyes, Jose Bautista, Mark Buehrle and R.A. Dickey stepped up deliver the cash, multiple sources told Sportsnet on Friday."

 

Shi Davidi knows his stuff and said exactly that in the Blue Jays did not have the money to sign him so the players offered to defer salary. Also it was approved by the MLBPA, so there is that.

 

Bottom line, if a club has money to spend they are not going to get players to defer their salary to sign a player. What evidence has there been to suggest the Blue Jays have money to spend?

[burlingtonbandit]

The "evidence" prior to last year's offseason was that the Jays were fairly handcuffed financially, and playing the "farm game," in order to build their club. No one knew that Rogers was handcuffing them to a low payroll, yet many said they "knew" it. Even comments that the money was there if they needed/wanted it were poo-poo'ed. I mean, just look at the evidence. They aren't spending.

 

And then they did spend. Like a drunk virgin at a strip club. And that evidence was suddenly gone. Everyone shut their mouths about spending ability. Until they didn't spend again, of course. Lasted a whole year.

 

No one is saying they didn't spend in 2013. They are saying they can't spend money this season and everything that has happened to this point in the season suggest they do not have money to spend.

[pickoff22]

Bottom line, if a club has money to spend they are not going to get players to defer their salary to sign a player. What evidence has there been to suggest the Blue Jays have money to spend?

 

I suspect some would say "well look at all the money they spent two offseasons ago". However that really just lends more argument to the purse-strings being tighter now. Payroll's already been bumped significantly and quite frankly, the results last year could easily turn off some execs from approving a further increase in spending.

[burlingtonbandit]

Tao of Stieb ‏@TaoofStieb 7m

Company (not naming names) sends email with subject line "Don't let summer slip away." Fine. Now I'm bummed. I'll buy what you're selling.

 

Not sure what this means, but doesn't sound encouraging.

[pickoff22]

For every "they didn't have the money for Santana" report, we have a report that they tried to trade for Kinsler (thereby adding payroll). And so on.

 

That's actually the only scenario I can think of that possibly points towards them being able to add payroll from the 2013 offseason onward, though there's no actual details of who was involved in the trade (unless people actually believe it was a straight Santos for Kinsler trade which would have been insane). So we really don't know payroll implications. At least in the Santana case you have a quote from Reyes that he and Buerhle would be chipping in the most and you have the players union saying they approved the deal.

[IBTrini]

He's right though.

Right about what exactly?

[IBTrini]

it all depends on what they have to give up for him. I wouldn't want to give up much for 2 months of Lester.

... and BoSox will not be giving up Lester for too little either. The only way I can see the Jays doing anything is if they can get him extended and that does not look likely either.

[IBTrini]

The only way Santana was going to come here was of players like Reyes and Buerhle deferred some of their salary to next year? That is enough evidence that Rogers did not give them money to spend.

I must have missed that article. Can you show the link please?

[burlingtonbandit]

I must have missed that article. Can you show the link please?

 

Someone posted these earlier:

 

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb...ferral-report/

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/05...o-sign-santana

 

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=448624

[pickoff22]

I must have missed that article. Can you show the link please?

 

I don't think you'll find a link saying definitively it couldn't have happened without (burlingtonbandit may have seen something I didnt though) but Reyes confirmed a deferral was in the works:

 

“I think Buehrle and I were going to give a little more than the other guys since we make more,” said Reyes after the Jays lost 7-3 to the New York Yankees last night.

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/05/blue-jays-players-wanted-to-defer-portions-of-salary-to-try-to-sign-santana

 

Again, that doesn't mean there was no way they could sign him without a deferral, but I'm hard-pressed to understand why the players would offer that unless they felt they needed to

[wardhenke1]

It's a simple balance of probabilities equation.

 

1) We clearly need a starting pitcher and a second baseman in the off-season. Tanaka goes begging, reports surface everywhere that players were asked to defer salary to sign Santana and no second base help arrives.

 

2) We have spent almost the entire season picking up scrubs from the scrapheap looking for a bargain with little real success.

 

3) We now clearly need a trade to bolster our infield, outfield and pitching for a stretch run. Reports again surface that we have told other teams we cannot take on any more payroll and no-one of significance has yet been added.

 

Now in lawyer talk there is no documented, signed, sealed and delivered evidence that would hold up before a court of law that the FO has no more money to spend. But you'd have to do a true ostrich act to not at least see some sort of pattern there.

[Sammy225]

Do you know what lets put this to sleep. Nobody knows 100% for sure and I keep looking in here to see if there are any other rumors out their regarding anyone lol. You guys are really causing me some distress lol.

[IBTrini]

Players don't just offer to do this without reason. And GMs who clearly need to add pieces in the offseason don't stand pat unless there's a reason. Clearly money is an issue.

If you do not know the reason they suggested it then you really don't have a case to use it to bolster a point of view. Maybe they also got caught up in the "Rogers don't have money to spend" hype and out of desperation made that offer. Until someone can provide a source showing that they came up with that reason because of communications with the FO about Rogers financial position then I will not buy into that.

 

Clearly there is a lot of speculation with no concrete evidence to show otherwise.

[pickoff22]

If you do not know the reason they suggested it then you really don't have a case to use it to bolster a point of view. Maybe they also got caught up in the "Rogers don't have money to spend" hype and out of desperation made that offer. Until someone can provide a source showing that they came up with that reason because of communications with the FO about Rogers financial position then I will not buy into that.

 

Clearly there is a lot of speculation with no concrete evidence to show otherwise.

 

I made it very clear it's a matter of taking the information you have and using it to come up with a reasonable assumption. The players making that offer and going to the players union can't be ignored. It's a powerful piece of the puzzle. And although some might choose to ignore it, I don't. You don't think Bautista or the players have a better idea then we do about what sorts of financial limitations the team has?

 

Why else would they offer a deferral especially when Bautista is so connected to the front office? Just to sign another Dominican is the only reason I can think of. But if AA just didn't think he was worth 14 million then what would a deferral accomplish - it's still 14 million that Rogers pays eventually for him.

[43211234]

Seeing that the Jays had

http://i.imgur.com/l6O3vbH.jpg

 

Wow he used to be so thin.

 

LAMB. NOT EVEN ONCE.

 

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img853/698/rvcl.gif

[pickoff22]

And you would have said the same thing before the 2013 offseason ... And would have been wrong. They bid on Tanaka. They were going to acquire Anderson (+ payroll), they were going to acquire Kinsler (++ payroll), they allegedly had Santana "signed" before a better destination was obtained. They are allegedly scouting higher priced talent ... Rios, et al.

 

So, again, all you're left with in the world of rumor-mongering, is that they haven't spent ... And we don't know why. And there's no balance of probabilities unless you are wont to believe one side or the other and then make your argument.

 

Don't need courtroom level of proof. Just need to learn not to believe the soap opera world of sports writing/reporting.

 

Well at least prior to 2013 you had front office come right out and state there were instances of missed signings. Beltran not coming here because of the turf as an example. They flat out said that there were times they were the highest bidder for free agents but couldn't get the deal done.

 

You sure didn't have that this offseason.

 

And I don't recall there ever being a case prior to 2013 of players offering to defer salary in order to sign any of the free agents they were targeting.

[wardhenke1]

And you would have said the same thing before the 2013 offseason ... And would have been wrong. They bid on Tanaka. They were going to acquire Anderson (+ payroll), they were going to acquire Kinsler (++ payroll), they allegedly had Santana "signed" before a better destination was obtained. They are allegedly scouting higher priced talent ... Rios, et al.

 

So, again, all you're left with in the world of rumor-mongering, is that they haven't spent ... And we don't know why. And there's no balance of probabilities unless you are wont to believe one side or the other and then make your argument.

 

Don't need courtroom level of proof. Just need to learn not to believe the soap opera world of sports writing/reporting.

 

http://media2.giphy.com/media/keuNoOuTb1D4A/200_s.gif