General 2019 Blue Jays Discussion Thread

[Boxcar]

We call those exceptions in the real world.

 

Jim doesn't live in the real world. He lives in some kind of weird dystopian future that he likely wrote about in one of his erotic fan fiction novels, where Russia controls everything and losing is a way of life. Except for Jim who gets to bang the wives of multiple billionaires.

[Bobthe4th]

You want the team to be s*****, I get it.

 

I want to see as many wins as possible without any long term deals and upgrading the bullpen is the best way to do that. It's not even that we signed bad relievers. We didn't have enough warm bodies to fill the 'pen and we made some stupid panic signing to make up for it.

 

The FO made a mistake by not adding appropriate depth (which was available for cheap) and they should be called out for it. Guerra and Hudson have no business bring on a MLB team. If it were a guy with some potential then there wouldn't be an issue.

 

Disagree. In a rebuilding year payroll flexibility is important to facilitate deals later in the season where we take on salary to get prospects. IMO this is a better approach than spending every bit of the budget upfront on relievers, hoping that they have a good year so that you can flip them.

[Bobthe4th]

Alright Jim, you must be right. Young players will clearly develop better on crappy teams. They obviously have superior coaching and development teams to allow them to lose so many games.

 

You are assuming that signing a few more relievers would significantly improve the team, which is unlikely.

[Jimcanuck]

Agreed. 70 wins is better than 69 wins. 71 wins is better than 70 wins etc. Though I think you're mixing up Krylian's Eeyore-like pessimism with Jim's active cheering for failure because of his loser mentality that a team needs to tank for a high draft pick rather than drafting and developing players competently. Baseball needs draft lottery and some other kind of incentive for non-playoff teams to win per Boras so guys like Jim STFU. Actively cheering for your team to suck is the most f***ing annoying thing ever.

 

Clearly Shatkins didn't bother signing a bunch of warm bodies in the hope of going from 70-something to 80-something wins. 2019 is being punted. Many here have said it is better to finish a good chunk below .500 than .500. Rather they beat the Yanks up repeatedly 3-4 years from now than squeeze out a win here and there against them.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Jimcanuck

[BTS]

Clearly Shatkins didn't bother signing a bunch of warm bodies in the hope of going from 70-something to 80-something wins. 2019 is being punted. Many here have said it is better to finish a good chunk below .500 than .500. Rather they beat the Yanks up repeaotedly 3-4 years from now rather than squeeze out a win here and there against them.

 

Baseball isn’t hockey. You don’t need top-five picks to build elite teams. I think it’s objectively much better that the team’s recent additions work out and the team finishes 0.500 than have all of the additions tank and the team lose 95 games. Building some positive momentum under the new coaching staff and bringing Vlad and Bo into that would be the best outcome for this season. And if the team is sub-70 win terrible it means that the FO was wrong on a lot of guys, which doesn’t exactly bode well for the future.

[Jimcanuck]

Baseball isn’t hockey. You don’t need top-five picks to build elite teams. I think it’s objectively much better that the team’s recent additions work out and the team finishes 0.500 than have all of the additions tank and the team lose 95 games. Building some positive momentum under the new coaching staff and bringing Vlad and Bo into that would be the best outcome for this season. And if the team is sub-70 win terrible it means that the FO was wrong on a lot of guys, which doesn’t exactly bode well for the future.

 

Maybe, but 2014 Astros lost 91 games. Following summer they picked Bregman 2nd. 2017 version won the WS. Anecdotal, sure, but I don't believe there is a link between the team outcome and player developmental progress. I was searching for such a study last night, nada. Nor do I believe the 2019 win result will be indicative of future win results.

[Boxcar]

Maybe, but 2014 Astros lost 91 games. Following summer they picked Bregman 2nd. 2017 version won the WS. Anecdotal, sure, but I don't believe there is a link between the team outcome and the developmental progress of the players. I was searching for such a study last night, nada. Nor do I believe the 2019 win result is indicative of future win results.

 

Oh yes, how could they possibly have won the WS minus a single 3 win player

[Jimcanuck]

I didn't say that Boxy. If you read it that way, that's not the intent of what I wrote. 91 losses didnt seem to affect Altuve, Springer, Keuchel and others, and the resulting high pick has turned out extremely valuable. A top 5 pick is far better than a 10-15 pick. So I don't give a s*** if they lose ~90 games this year.

 

Don't you have better things to do than follow me around BJMB and insult me?

[BTS]

Maybe, but 2014 Astros lost 91 games. Following summer they picked Bregman 2nd. 2017 version won the WS. Anecdotal, sure, but I don't believe there is a link between the team outcome and the developmental progress of the players. I was searching for such a study last night, nada.

 

On the other hand, many of the best teams in the league were built with shrewd moves and never tanked to get where they are: none of the Dodgers, Red Sox, Brewers, Rays, Athletics, Yankees, Cardinals and Indians are relying on picks given to them for being an unwatchable s*** show in order to be good. For a team with Rogers’ resources to be relying on a high draft pick to compete is f***ing absurd.

 

What would 100 losses even look like? Vlad hurt, Stro and Sanchez ineffective again, most of the recent additions flopping (Drury, McKinney, Shoemaker, Buchholz, Grichuk, Gurriel, Thornton etc...). It would be terrible, both now and for the future. And there’s a nonzero chance Rogers would start thinking about whether Shatkins are the guys for the job if they’re running a complete clusterf*** 4 seasons into their tenure.

 

I’d much, much rather see this team be more 2018 Rays and A’s than 2014 Astros. Give me 82 wins and I’ll enjoy the f*** out of the season.

[Jimcanuck]

On the other hand, many of the best teams in the league were built with shrewd moves and never tanked to get where they are: none of the Dodgers, Red Sox, Brewers, Rays, Athletics, Yankees, Cardinals and Indians are relying on picks given to them for being an unwatchable s*** show in order to be good. For a team with Rogers’ resources to be relying on a high draft pick to compete is f***ing absurd.

 

What would 100 losses even look like? Vlad hurt, Stro and Sanchez ineffective again, most of the recent additions flopping (Drury, McKinney, Shoemaker, Buchholz, Grichuk, Gurriel, Thornton etc...). It would be terrible, both now and for the future. And there’s a nonzero chance Rogers would start thinking about whether Shatkins are the guys for the job if they’re running a complete clusterf*** 4 seasons into their tenure.

 

I’d much, much rather see this team be more 2018 Rays and A’s than 2014 Astros. Give me 82 wins and I’ll enjoy the f*** out of the season.

 

I would rather they win 82 also, but I don't care if instead of 82 wins, they win 72, similar to the 2014 'stros

 

By the way, the Jays team makeup when Shatkins took over was far different than the Rays, Brewers, etc. An old, declining team with a bottom third farm. It would have been far more challenging for Shatkins to maintain a competitive team given what they had.

 

Also, seems like Bo Bichette is the fave of the important middle aged and elderly women segment. As long as he comes up this year, Shatkins should be fine.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Jimcanuck

[Bobthe4th]

Baseball isn’t hockey. You don’t need top-five picks to build elite teams. I think it’s objectively much better that the team’s recent additions work out and the team finishes 0.500 than have all of the additions tank and the team lose 95 games. Building some positive momentum under the new coaching staff and bringing Vlad and Bo into that would be the best outcome for this season. And if the team is sub-70 win terrible it means that the FO was wrong on a lot of guys, which doesn’t exactly bode well for the future.

 

IMO the projection of a 77 team is pretty accurate and there are pluses and minuses to a 5-10 game swing either way. Realistically with the moves made so far we’re likely to be under rather than over and we are rank outsiders to challenge for the playoffs no matter what happens.

 

But for all the reasons you said I don’t believe trading everyone who isn’t a prospect and trying to bottom out is the correct thing to do. If we didn’t have high end prospects like Jansen, Vlad and Bo just starting their careers then sure go full tear down, but that isn’t the case.

[Boxcar]

I didn't say that Boxy. If you read it that way, that's not the intent of what I wrote. 91 losses didnt seem to affect Altuve, Springer, Keuchel and others, and the resulting high pick has turned out extremely valuable. A top 5 pick is far better than a 10-15 pick. So I don't give a s*** if they lose ~90 games this year.

 

Don't you have better things to do than follow me around BJMB and insult me?

 

You amuse me, so it's an activity I enjoy. Some would say that insane conspiracy theorists are low hanging fruit, and I guess that's true but I'm ok with that.

 

The Astros weren't planned to be bad. They were bad because their front office was bad. They improved their front office and were no longer bad.

 

New York has had a great front office for over 20 years, and since the death of The Boss, they've cut spending substantially, yet never really ever ended up in the toilet. They've consistently had excellent farm systems while almost always picking at the back of the draft.

 

Player development and knowing what to value in players is far more important than where you pick. The Jays grabbed Nate Pearson. The Jays grabbed Jordan Groshans. The Jays grabbed Bo Bichette. How many guys who were picked ahead of them are now behind them on prospect rankings? Almost all of them. The Jays have a top 3 farm while not having a top 10 pick in a really long time. The Orioles have sucked ass for more years than not, as have the Twins and neither has much to show for it.

 

Cheering for your team to lose is dumb. Maybe it doesn't hurt the players involved but it certainly doesn't help, and more revenue is better than less revenue.

[Grant77]

You are basically saying Eloy is going to turn out worse from playing on the Chisox than he would playing on the Yankees.

 

On the whole, yes I think players would develop better on a great team like the Yankees than a crappy team. Look at all of the great prospects that came up through the 90's and 2000's Pirates for example. I think part of it was scouting, but a lot of times they got the right guys and they just came into that losing culture and didn't develop properly. Would Derek Jeter be what he was on the Pirates? I have my doubts.

 

In short, no I don't believe that prospect development is completely independent of the team. I think that winning and winning soon will help in the development of Vlad and Bo.

[Jimcanuck]

On the whole, yes I think players would develop better on a great team like the Yankees than a crappy team. Look at all of the great prospects that came up through the 90's and 2000's Pirates for example. I think part of it was scouting, but a lot of times they got the right guys and they just came into that losing culture and didn't develop properly. Would Derek Jeter be what he was on the Pirates? I have my doubts.

 

In short, no I don't believe that prospect development is completely independent of the team. I think that winning and winning soon will help in the development of Vlad and Bo.

 

Operative word here is 'believe'. Without any evidence, I'm inclined to believe it doesn't make a difference. Eloy could become like Miguel Sano, or he could become like Frank Thomas. His talent and ability to adjust will determine this, the fact he plays for the Chisox is a nil/negligible factor.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Jimcanuck

[Grant77]

Operative word here is 'believe'. Without any evidence, I'm inclined to believe it doesn't make a difference. Eloy could become like Miguel Sano, or he could become like Frank Thomas.

 

Whatever floats your boat, Jim. This stuff is all clearly predetermined by your god before a player is even drafted.

[Jimcanuck]

Whatever floats your boat, Jim. This stuff is all clearly predetermined by your god before a player is even drafted.

 

No, its determined by the individual player talent and ability to make adjustments.

[Grant77]

No, its determined by the individual player talent and ability to make adjustments.

 

So there is no input from coaches, development programs, or teammates? A player is what he is on any team and nothing can change it.

[Jimcanuck]

So there is no input from coaches, development programs, or teammates? A player is what he is on any team and nothing can change it.

 

Of course there is coaching, but it is primarily the player. Teams assess player makeup for a reason.

 

Anyway the only way to answer the question is a study to look for correlation between prospect ranking, WAR outcome, and team winning percentage when the player is promoted to MLB.

[Boxcar]

So there is no input from coaches, development programs, or teammates? A player is what he is on any team and nothing can change it.

 

What are you talking about, Grant? Byron Buxton was destined to suck and adopt a ground ball, all fields approach even if it doesn't suit him. No amount of coaching could have prevented him from becoming a bust.

[G-Snarls]

So Shoemaker signed for 1 year 3.5M

 

But if he has a decent year we can keep him as an arb-3 next year too?

[Frag]

So, I wrote my first article for Bluebird Banter. Check it out:

 

https://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2019/3/30/18287539/opening-day-2019

[KevinGregg]

So Shoemaker signed for 1 year 3.5M

 

But if he has a decent year we can keep him as an arb-3 next year too?

 

If he doesnt have 6 years service time then we would control him in arbitration same as normal

[P2F]

So, I wrote my first article for Bluebird Banter. Check it out:

 

https://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2019/3/30/18287539/opening-day-2019

 

I really enjoyed this well-written piece.

[Grant77]

Of course there is coaching, but it is primarily the player. Teams assess player makeup for a reason.

 

Anyway the only way to answer the question is a study to look for correlation between prospect ranking, WAR outcome, and team winning percentage when the player is promoted to MLB.

 

I'm certain that there would be a positive correlation between winning and prospect success if you were able to account for playing time. That seems so obvious.

[Laika]

So Shoemaker signed for 1 year 3.5M

 

But if he has a decent year we can keep him as an arb-3 next year too?

 

Yes. Technically he will be arb-4. Super 2 player!

[Jimcanuck]

I'm certain that there would be a positive correlation between winning and prospect success if you were able to account for playing time. That seems so obvious.

 

Oh, so now you change your claim. Typical Grant.

[Grant77]

Oh, so now you change your claim. Typical Grant.

 

My saying that prospects will develop better on winning teams kind of implies that they will also do worse on losing teams. That's not me changing my claim, they go hand in hand.

[Krylian]

You say that you want them to fail for a variety of reasons and you have said it many times. To each their own, but your version of fandom has always been a strange one.

 

Because I saw the writing on the wall in 2017 and 2018 and those teams were balls. Patchwork roster doesn't work. Get rid of dead weight, stock up on prospects, and get the youth movement going. That 'keep asses in the seats' nonsense pissed me off and I wanted the losing to be pronounced (as I expected it would be) so they would finally pull the trigger on a full rebuild...which we finally are in now. It's not really a difficult concept to understand. I don't want the organization to try and feed me ********.

[Krylian]

Agreed. 70 wins is better than 69 wins. 71 wins is better than 70 wins etc. Though I think you're mixing up Krylian's Eeyore-like pessimism with Jim's active cheering for failure because of his loser mentality that a team needs to tank for a high draft pick rather than drafting and developing players competently. Baseball needs draft lottery and some other kind of incentive for non-playoff teams to win per Boras so guys like Jim STFU. Actively cheering for your team to suck is the most f***ing annoying thing ever.

 

Oh bother...

[jays4life19]

THE BLUEJAYS ARE IN FIRST PLACE IN THE AL EAST.

 

cf