Olerud363

Yeah... sad to say. Key player doesn't develop as expected (hoped)... just like Snider, Gose, Lind, Hill. When develop I don't mean just get to the majors, I don't mean just have a good season. I mean have a run of good seasons.

That's my point... My understanding is that Beeston doesn't really have a boss... he was hired to find a president for Roger's and he chose himself. Nobody else high up at Rogers has any idea how to evaluate baseball operations. Beeston doesn't have a clue either, but he thinks he does.

Of couse Beeston isn't the owner... But in terms of baseball operations they are at the same level. They are the guy. In moneyball who gave the big sell to Billy Beane?? John Henry. Who hired Bill James and sets the culture for the entire red sox front office?? John Henry. Who sets the culture for the Blue Jays?? Paul Beeston.

As I said about Sierra... minor league numbers just don't compute. Could surprise... I would say more of a chance for him to surprise then Sierra.

I would of voted Paul Beeston if it was allowed... he is the one who brought us all this... (not AA... AA is a smart 30 something who found a once in a life time shot at a dream job by playing dumb with a real dumb guy).

He might get better, agreed, and I'm always one to point out the "ceilings" of guys are much higher then most people acknowledge. A good rule of thumb is that the if all goes right, and the player improves that he will be able to match his minor league numbers in the majors. For example .300 .400 .500 in aaa might project to .270 .350 .450 in the majors (depending on park). But then the guy might also improve and eventually hit his minor league line in the majors. The problem with Sierra is his minor league numbers aren't good at all. Look at Eric Thames, Travis Snider (who didn't make it but still could I suppose), Nelson Cruz, Jose Bautista (who eventually came around late). Their minor league numbers are way better then Sierra's. Sierra has a minor league slugging percentage barely above .400... he had a 17-100 or something bb/k in Buffalo. I don't know if there has ever been a successful major league player with those kind of numbers. I'm always a glass half full when it comes to minor league players. If somehow everything went right for But if everything goes right for Sierra he's Mark Whiten light?? Hard to find a comparable because I don't think any players similar to Sierra have had significant mlb time... though I learn something everyday.

Each has their own defination of good. I've said on a number of ocassions the Boston management isn't necessarilly people you'd want to be best buddies with... they will eat their young. But that is why they are good for the fans. If you are best buddies with Beeston he will look after you, protect you at all costs, give you job after job, make huge sacrafices to the greater goals in order to benefit one person or a small group of people. If you are best buddies with John Henry... don't turn your back. If your behaviour may cost him money, or something he wants (like a winning baseball team) he will destroy you. But in the end John Henry produces a winning organization. Paul Beeston does not.

I don't even have 500 posts... living my life is not a problem. Taking a deep breath?? Yes. That is a problem. I seem to go nuts on a few issues.... One of which is those who go to ridiculous ends to find positivity and defend this franchise.... - acceptable positivity - "I've personally scouted Dickey, Nolin, and Stroman. I also hacked into blue jays mainframe and have Romero's psyche reports. Good news. My scouting indicates Dickey will rebound and Nolin and Stroman are the real deal. Furthermore the psyche reports indicate Romero can be fixed once they find the right dose of medication. I also talked to a hip specialist and Bautista does not have the same injury Bo Jackson did!!!!! He will be back and will play 145 games next year. And Gose, Goins will be great. I am positive next year will be wonderful!!" - unacceptable positivity- Jays 20 back of sox?? wft?? That's positive?? OK. Deep breath. Your right. Back to the real world.

OK. So Komodo's thread just got closed. I have no problem with that, there are community standards, there was a little bit of foolishness in the thread.. however there was also an actual serious premise. Komodo's premise (whether he meant it serious or not) is that in this rubbish pile of a season there are some positives to take. One of them apparently being the fact that we are the best team 20 games back. Which is because 1. We are in a 20 year cycle where we never tank badly enough to break the cycle. So even when things go bad, we are the best of the bad teams, and do not get a top 3 draft pick, or a "house-cleaning". 2. Our rival, the Boston Red Sox have the best record in baseball. They are possibly the best organization in baseball, good farm system, best management, best people (A topic of debate to be sure, but some think this). So this is a premise worthy of discussion. That this situation (being the best of the worst so to say) is actually the worst possible situation. Being the best of the 20 game back teams means. 1. Our rival(s) are really, really good. So we have just as much work to do to catch up but unlike the baddest bad teams we don't get a top 5 pick (life in the AL East). 2. We're not bad enough to break the 20 year cycle of mediocre teams and management. 3. People who think like Komodo (and who could very well work for Rogers) find small positives which are (ironically) huge negatives, because they just extend the cycle a few more years. So the way the conversation was worded was a bit foolish, OK Beeston may not be Satan incarnate, but he is incompetent (in my opinion) and I should find nicer ways to word it. Really it was just a little bit of satire and exagerration, underneath which there is a serious premise.

What is this?? We are 20 games behind the best organization in baseball. The organization that represents truth and justice. The organization of John Henry, and Bill James, and John Farrell. Men who care about the common fan. And you think this is a positive?? There are seriously corrupt problems with this organization. They start with Paul Beeston and Cito Gaston. Parasites who did nothing. Pat Gillick could of won 110 games and set the all time win record with the Jays. But Gaston and Beeston took 15 wins a year away with their greed. John Henry, Bill James, and John Farrell... care... not about their crony friends but about people, about numbers, about thinking, the only way to help the common fan is to care about these things. Paul Beeston and Cito Gaston only care about themselves and their small circle of crony friends. Their greed is insane and so is yours if you follow them. AA is just a guy... a guy who knows that if he says "yes mr. Beeston, yes sir" he gets a dream job. Not an idiot. Smart guy... knows how to get promotions from Beeston. OK. I am rambling like a madman... way over the top I know.... but we should all be hanging our heads in shame for this franchise and curse the madmen who run it... and wish for the day that real men like Henry, James and Farrell lead our team.

You mean no GM other than Billy Beane would of traded Romero after 2011. Beane traded Haren, and Cahill and Gio Gonzales at about that point. Now Parker, Malone, Ryan Cook, Derek Norris, John Jaso, are big parts of a playoff team. I'm not saying that AA could of predicted that Romero would stumble... I'm saying that if he went "all-in" to the farm system from day one... meaning once Halladay was traded keep cycling any mlb players with 3 or more years experience, until the team hits 85 wins. Trade Lind, Hill, Bautista, Romero, treat mlb like aaaa... Players that do good at aaa, get a promotion and 500 at bats in Toronto... no pressure. No demotions (unless extreme circumstances). Then when the team hits 85 wins change directions... then acquire the last pieces... Instead it's gone the opposite 85, 81, 73, 7x... Would of been nicer to see 6x, 7x, 7x, 8x... now (with a huge farm) go all-in for 2014.

I wouldn't say never... but it would be nice as an organization philosaphy to do everything possible not to sell low... Hill, Escobar, Snider, Thames, all sold low. Admittedly Snider and Thames went lower. But imagine if AA went all-in to the farm system. Selling Bautista and EE, maybe even Hill, Lind, Romero when they hit a high points....

A casual would go to the Jackie Robinson movie, see all the moves Jackie was making on the basepaths (in the movie) then high five Beeston and AA because they got Bonifacio who makes cool moves on the base paths too... Jackie had years where he walked 80 times and struck out 25... Jackie hit .320... line drive power... He was like the anti-Joe-carter. Jackie was worth about 3 or 4 times what Carter was (judging by WAR and stuff). If you asked Beeston who was better he'd say "had to be Joe... 100 rbis a year". Anyway the point is Branch Rickey chose Jackie because he was a great, great ball player and did the things that win games.... He didn't take a risk on a wild swinger Joe Carter type for this... he knew to break the color barrier he needed a seriously great player and Rickey knew what a seriously great player was... Branch Rickey was great, the original "money baller" or "sabermetric guy". Rickey was President, there was no need for a GM. Rickey was both. I mean in the 40s and 50s they knew all this stuff, farm system, on base percentage, aging curves. They didn't have advanced stats just common sense.

So when I heard AA talk about defense the other day it just sounded like a bunch of ******** by a guy who just wants to keep his job. Throw something to the suits. Give some complicated mumbo jumbo that "defense" is the problem. Not offense, not pitching, not age, not injuries, not "greneral incompentence and vast insults to the Bill James way of thinking". I thought I'd look at some numbers... take this with a grain of salt, if you have numbers from other systems I'd be very interested to see them. Here are the bbfef offense, defense and pitching WARs for the contenders and Toronto. Among this group (I didn't consider all teams just Toronto compared to the best teams) Toronto is second last in offense, last in pitching and 3rd last in defense. They are about 11 wins behind the best offense, about 15 wins behind the best pitching, and 4.5 wins behind the best defense. So the problem is defence?? The problem is bad team in all areas. The defense isn't great. But according to these numbers moving the defense to elite (assuming it could be done without affecting offense) wouldn't help much. Maybe get the 14th overall pick instead of the 11th. And if the offense took a step back?? Get another 11th pick. Oakland and Detroid have the worst defenses... but it doesn't matter because of good pitching and offense (at first I was surprised by the Oakland numbers... but then took a look at the park factor, Oakland is a good offensive team playing in a pitchers park). Any other numbers or ways to look at this?? Team oWar, dWar, pWar (from bbref) Boston 28.9 2.9 17.5 Detroit 26.6 -2 22.9 Oakland 22.1 -2.6 15.6 Texas 19.8 4.7 17.1 Tampa 21.4 0.5 12.2 Baltimore 19.4 4.8 9.3 New York 11.5 2.1 14.8 Toronto 18.1 0.2 7.6

If you missed it there was a fan590 interview with AA yesterday, summarized on mlbtraderumors. One tidbit that caught my eye... AA is blaming defense for the trainwreck. Now before I go on I'm a big believer in defense... and I do think this is a bad defensive team. However I am also a big believer in a transmission for my car. Blaming this season on defense is like totalling a car then after the fact blaming the wreck on the transmission. Afterwards every thing is a mess including the transmission. But a bad transmission wasn't the root cause. Brett Lawrie is a good defensive player but he misses 60 games a year. Melkly Cabrerra was a good defensive player but he is suffering from steroid withdrawal. Colby Rasmus is a good defensive player but injured. I have heard mixed reviews of Bautista's defense. My understanding is it was good enough at 29. But he is now just about 33 and missing 60 games a year... In fact the entire outfield is gone for the last 1/3 of this season. How can you blame defense here?? Injuries. Age. Steroid withdrawal,. OK. Lind/EE?? I don't think you can pin a bad team defense on the first basemen. And what would you do about it anyway?? Buy James Loney at a high point?? (OK this is Beeston's blue jays we are talking about... maybe they would). Now we get to our favourite whipping boy, Mr. Arencibia of the .240 on base percentage. In fact our catchers have about a .240 on base percentage for the year. 2nd basemen .250 something. Now are you telling me they are also bad defensively?? So this team has 2 positions carrying a combined .250 on base percentage AND those positions have bad defense?? What do we do about it?? Give up some offense to get better defensively?? Finally Reyes. Reports have always been mixed and struggles this year are related to the injury. So is the problem defense here or injury?? Is it defense or the fact that Reyes will be 31 next year?? Defense or age and injury?? And what do we do?? This guy is our highest paid position player. Signed for big bucks for 4 more years. And now we are saying he's bad defensively?? Is the real problem defense?? No. The problem is this team is an incompetent trainwreck. Incompetent trainwrecks have injuries, low on base percentages and bad defense. We can solve this mess by improving the defense?? How?? Move Reyes to 2nd?? Not any time soon with Cito as a consultant. And besides Reyes will probably get more injuries playing second. Goins at second?? Early reports indicate good defense but what will he hit? Can we carry a sub .300 on base percentage at a position again?? Replace the outfielders?? With who?? And what do we do with the present crew? Here is what could help. Somehow replace the .250 combined oba at c/2b with a .320... somehow get Lawrie/Reyes/Rasmus/Bautista on the field for 145 games each. Somehow get Romero's head straightened out. Somehow get Morrow healthy for atleast 150 innings. Out of Nolan, Stroman, Hutch, Drabek, McGowan, Redmond somehow find a 5th/6th/7th starters. And somehow getting another veteran starter (without giving up more youth) would be nice. A lot of somehows but it's a framework for getting the Jays into a wild card race. This management crew looking for "defense"?? Sounds more like a recipe for a .290 team on base percentage and 74 wins.

Yes. Management thinks like some of these fans. This guy that likes Joe Carter... his thinking is on par with Beeston's. (note I don't blame AA... AA is a clever 30something... clever enough to game the draft pick system a while back to get extra picks... also clever enough to become Gm at 33... this means he is very good at figuring out how to get guys like Beeston to like him... so it starts and ends with Beeston, AA is just doing what gets him "the job"). So anyway.... Our rivals. Boston, Tamba, NY, are run by guys with true trader and business backgrounds... Beeston on the other hand is essentially a politician. John Henry (owner of the red sox) knows trading... Joe Carter at 1.5 million dollars a year?? Maybe... kind of like some real estate at a good price. Joe Carter at 4.5 million (93 dollars) a year?? No way. Johnson, Buehrle, Reyes, Dickey at x dollars and x young players?? Henry... I'll pass. Beeston "clutch vets... yes!!!!" It all fails. Beeston "Cito old buddy, they don't make 'em clutch like Joe anymore... maybe next year we should go for Soriano?? That guy is clutch I think."

Keep in mind his salary... You are saying that using 4.5 million a year in 92 dollars doesn't get you something equal or better to Carter?? He was a replacable part. His salary gets you something equal or better very, very easily. If Alomar disapeared you do not get another Alomar for Alomar's money, if Olerud disapears you do not get another Olerud very easily. If Winfield/Molitor disapears... it gets hard to replace them easily. That's why they were great pickups. It is hard to get a veteran DH who can still take a lot of walks, hit for average. If Carter disapears for 92 and 93 can you get 4.5 WAR for the 9 million we paid him. Yes. If Winfield/Molitor aren't there in 92 93 can you get 10 WAR for the 5.7 million we paid them?? Maybe. But difficult. Carter could of been easily replaced. This is so ridiculous. We have Beeston because people like you refuse to use simple numbers. Numbers like 3, and 6, and 4. All you need to do is say 4.5 WAR for 9 million (93 dollars)?? Good deal?? Irreplacable?? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Christ. The fans deserve this. Clutch Joe. Shake Beeston's hand. Way to go Cito!!! Just such a ******** culture around this team.

This is wrong. Joe Carter was an exceptional player in 1991. Otherwise he was a replacable part from 92-94. From 95 to 97 Joe Carter was damaging the franchise creating negative value. The entire mess we are in right now (I do believe) is because the franchise is being run by someone who doesn't understand numbers (Paul Beeston). Who can't believe that "clutch" Joe was so/so from 92-94 and incompetent from 95-97. Every single person in the universe needs to understand without doubt the truth about Joe Carter.. only then when we all understand will Rogers also understand and finally rid us of Paul Beeston. In 1992 Joe Carter was 6th in Blue Jays position players in value... behind Alomar, White, Winfield, Olerud and Manny Lee. Manny Lee. Manny Lee was more valueble then Joe carter in 1992. Per 162 games Maldonado and Jeff Kent were also better then Joe. In 1993 Joe was also 6th in terms of total WAR among position players. With notables such as Rob Butler ahead in WAR/162. In 1993 John Olerud was 4 times as good as Joe. Alomar, Molitor, and White were 3 times as good. Olerud had almost 8 WAR, Alomar, Molitor, White were at 6... great players. Joe was at 2... repacable part. Joe could of disapeared after 1992 and it wouldn't of made much of a difference. You get into a little bit of butterfly effect (maybe the World Series ending would of been more ordinary... or maybe Alfredo Griffin wins it with a triple... more exciting... "take a bow Alfredo... you will never get a bigger hit"). Anway, without Joe the Jays would of still made the 93 playoffs, probably won a couple of more games actually... Joe's replacement would of very likely been better. For example Joe signs with KC after 92, Jays trade with Mets to get Bonilla instead, Bonilla is worth a win or 2 more. Given his contract and who his replacement could of been with that money Joe was likely costing the Jays a win or two a year between 92 and 94 and 4 or 5 wins a year between 95 and 97. Joe Carter signifies the insanely flawed thinking of Paul Beeston. The only way to fight Beeston and return the blue jays to glory is for all of us to understand the truth about Joe. Despite providing us with an extra ordinary moment Joe was a very ordinary player... insert slightly below average slugger here... Joe Carter - replacable part.

Carter was pretty much done at Bautista's age (33).... He did hit a world series homer ofcourse. But his WAR at age 31 was 4.7, then 2.5 at 32... then went 2, 0,7, -0.2, -0.5, -0.8. Bautista is not Carter, he is starting at a higher level... but he is also more injury prone. If he declines at the same rate as Carter will quickly be a 3 or 4 WAR player per 162... but that become maybe 2 if he plays 100. I doubt Bautista's WAR goes negative like Carters quickly did, but with injuries he might only provide a WAR or 2 a year going forward. Molitor on the other hand had a great run starting at Bautista's age... averaging about 5 WAR over a 5 year period from age 33 to 37. At age 33 he was still struggling with injuries. Then he started DHing atleast 100 games a year. No more injury problems. Might be a good idea to convince Bautista it is time to DH.

After all my ranting on Travis Snider who at a point this april looked good... I will have to refrain. However I will put it on record... if in September 2014 the blue jays STILL suck, and Boni is playing well in over 300 at bats or more... and the Royals are in the pennant race, and the Jays look like they'll get the 8th pick (but as ussual they will win enough in Septemeber to get 14th). Then I will go as nuts as I can... and that is pretty nuts. Mark your calendars. If current trends continue for one more year then in September 2014 there must be a public embarassment of Paul Beeston where he publically admits he is basically a woman (OK I shouldn't insult women by comparing them to Beeston... he will have to admit he is a retarted neutered cocker spaniel or something) and pays tribute to real men... including Gillick, Farrell and Boni among many, many others.

C'mon. The Jays did not lose because of "motivation". That's worth about .00001 wins or less. Lost 2 or 3 wins from Melky because of steroid withdrawal. Lost 3 wins or so from Johnson because of complete physical breakdown. Lost 3 wins or so from Romero because of complete mental breakdown. Etc, etc, etc. Stoeten summarrized it pretty well in a way, 20 wins gone because of extreme disastrous underperformance. Where I disagreed with him was that disastrous underperformance is pretty common for underperforming teams (obviously). Disastrous underperformance is pretty common for old injury prone teams. There is one question. Not motivation. Not mistakes. Not fundamentals. The question is who thought "all-in with old men, injury risks and former steroid users" was a good idea?? The thought process that led to "all-in with old men, injury risks, and former steroid users" is the problem. The people whos thoughts led to these player acquistion strategies are responsible for this mess and any continueing mess into the future. John Gibbons is a good man, a working man, and is not responsible.

Another Gibby thread, but this is more to discuss the different types of insufferable sourpusses, I truly believe the "fire-gibby" sourpusses are a very different breed then the "fire-beeston-clean-house" sourpusses. They are all insufferable mind you, but very different creatures. http://blogs.thescore.com/djf/2013/08/26/should-he-stay-or-should-he-go/ I agree with him completely here. Even though I am an insufferable sourpuss I have never wanted Gibby fired at all. I said for a while fire Beeston, make AA sweat (as they search for a new president, but eventually keep AA), keep Gibby for as long as it takes to get him some good young players, new President has one stipuliation keep Gibby... otherwise do whatever you want. I just hope Stoeten realizes that the "fire Gibby" people are completely different then the "fire Beeston" people. Maybe we are all crazy. But the "fire Gibby" people tend to think that the problem is character, work ethic, "clutch", discipline, winning attitude, hustle, sac bunts, etc. etc. The fire Beeston people tend to think the problem is "buy high sell low", player development, on base percentage, analytics, aging curves, advanced injury analysis and prevention, etc. etc. We view Beeston as an old road apple that is influenced by a group of his old crony friends and scouts. We think Cito Gaston may still have Beeston's ear. Whether it's all nuts or not... "Fire Gibby" is completely different then "Fire Beeston".

So I guess Stoeten is accomplishing something, because I am going to his blog more often to see what he's writing about. I think I've seen this a couple of times. Stoeten takes the 7 blue jays underperforming players, Reyes, Johnson, Morrow, Dickey, Cabrerra, Lawrie, Izturus and compares their 2012 WAR to 2013. They had like 20 WAR in 2012, and -0.5 or something this year. This kind of stuff just gets my blood boiling. He sort of frames it as if the Blue Jays were hit by this once in a life time stroke of bad luck. Nobody can be blamed for this. Who could of saw it coming?? Nothing like this has ever happened before to any team in the history of baseball. A once in a lifetime black swan. 2013 Washington Nationals: Laroche, Span, Espinosa, Gonzales, Storen, Mattheus, Trace, 2012 WAR 19.3, 2013 - 0.5. WHAT?? It happened to them too?? This once in a life time stroke of bad luck hit two teams in one year?? It's utter nonsense. The 2013 Jays are a team that (if together) would of won 90 in 2012, they will win around 70 in 2013. They belong in the category of teams that won 90 and then won 70. In this category there is nothing unnussual about them. Stoeten is trying to frame it as if, in the context of a collapse, it is a terribly unlucky collapse. No. It is a run of the mill collapse. It not unnusual for a team that underperforms by 20 wins to have 5-9 hugely underperforming players. So the pattern of collapse is typical. The next question is whether this is a predictable collapse or not. Within the collapsed players are a steroid guy, a couple of injury prone guys, a once in a life time cy young guy. Did we expect 20 WAR from these guys?? No one expected 0 certainly. A good way to frame it would of been the baseball prospectus way. Where they give a collapse percentage for each player. Izturus - 18% Laroche 1% Lawrie - 1% Span 3% Reyes - 3% Espinoza 4% Dickey - 26% Gonzales 26% Johnson - 24% Storen 24% Morrow - 29% Mattheus 21% Cabrerra - 7% Tracy 13% Interesting. Dickey, Johnson, Izturus, and Morrow are relatively high. Cabrerra not so high but the system probably doesn't account for steroid withdrawal. Once in a life time stroke of bad luck that no one, ever, could of seen coming?? I don't know. To be fair the collapse percentages for pitchers always seem high. Dickey, Johnson and Morrow are a bit high... but Gonzales is also at 26%. Maybe it's just never a good idea to trade for a boatload of established pitchers because established pitchers collapse more than established players?? Would developing pitchers and trading for position players be the better route?? Anyway instead of framing this as a terribly unlucky random disaster, it should be framed for what it is, a typical collapse. Then take a look at why the collapse happened, and what can be done differently in the future.

So I guess Stoeten is accomplishing something, because I am going to his blog more often to see what he's writing about. I think I've seen this a couple of times. Stoeten takes the 7 blue jays underperforming players, Reyes, Johnson, Morrow, Dickey, Cabrerra, Lawrie, Izturus and compares their 2012 WAR to 2013. They had like 20 WAR in 2012, and -0.5 or something this year. This kind of stuff just gets my blood boiling. He sort of frames it as if the Blue Jays were hit by this once in a life time stroke of bad luck. Nobody can be blamed for this. Who could of saw it coming?? Nothing like this has ever happened before to any team in the history of baseball. A once in a lifetime black swan. 2013 Washington Nationals: Laroche, Span, Espinosa, Gonzales, Storen, Mattheus, Trace, 2012 WAR 19.3, 2013 - 0.5. WHAT?? It happened to them too?? This once in a life time stroke of bad luck hit two teams in one year?? It's utter nonsense. The 2013 Jays are a team that (if together) would of won 90 in 2012, they will win around 70 in 2013. They belong in the category of teams that won 90 and then won 70. In this category there is nothing unnussual about them. Stoeten is trying to frame it as if, in the context of a collapse, it is a terribly unlucky collapse. No. It is a run of the mill collapse. It not unnusual for a team that underperforms by 20 wins to have 5-9 hugely underperforming players. So the pattern of collapse is typical. The next question is whether this is a predictable collapse or not. Within the collapsed players are a steroid guy, a couple of injury prone guys, a once in a life time cy young guy. Did we expect 20 WAR from these guys?? No one expected 0 certainly. A good way to frame it would of been the baseball prospectus way. Where they give a collapse percentage for each player. Izturus - 18% Laroche 1% Lawrie - 1% Span 3% Reyes - 3% Espinoza 4% Dickey - 26% Gonzales 26% Johnson - 24% Storen 24% Morrow - 29% Mattheus 21% Cabrerra - 7% Tracy 13% Interesting. Dickey, Johnson, Izturus, and Morrow are relatively high. Cabrerra not so high but the system probably doesn't account for steroid withdrawal. Once in a life time stroke of bad luck that no one, ever, could of seen coming?? I don't know. To be fair the collapse percentages for pitchers always seem high. Dickey, Johnson and Morrow are a bit high... but Gonzales is also at 26%. Maybe it's just never a good idea to trade for a boatload of established pitchers because established pitchers collapse more than established players?? Would developing pitchers and trading for position players be the better route?? Anyway instead of framing this as a terribly unlucky random disaster, it should be framed for what it is, a typical collapse. Then take a look at why the collapse happened, and what can be done differently in the future.

"This might be one of those pointless ‘what if’ questions (and I’ll get hammered by DJF I’m sure), but I’m curious to get your opinion on what the state and future of the Jays might have been if the Florida and Dickey trades had not been made in the off season. There would have been some tinkering with the lineup of course, but would we have been in a better position going into 2014 if they had never happened? I was really buying into the build for the future concept, but also bought into the trades." Rob Brander - Sydney Australia... Hi Rob - It appears Stoeten did not bash your question but instead took it as a grand opportunity to go into full Rogers apology mode. I'll try to answer it. Sorry for the grammar and spelling and disrespect for Beeston and company. Keep in mind I'm just an insufferable sour puss, not a paid part of the media complex, and am just typing this out quickly in 20 minutes as I eat my breakfast and prepare for a day of work. According to Stoeten the Jays had to go "all in" because of their stellar aging core of Bautista and EE... By the time the prospects develop in 2016 Bautista and EE will be too elderly to contribute. (note. Bautista may allready be too elderly... a great, great player but 33 next year missing 50 games a year). This brings us back to the question of whether Bautista at 32 coming off of an injury and EE at 30 with one great season were really the kind of core players one goes "all in" with. In 1991 the core was really Alomar (23), and White (28) who would amass about 35 WAR over 91-93. Over these years their combined age was 25-27. I love Bautista and EE as hitters... and at their best are a core you'd go "all-in" with. But the reality is that Bautista's best won't even overlap with EEs best.... Do you go all in with a 30-32 year old and a 32-34 year old with huge injury flags?? Stoeten cherry picks a few failures (Snider, Drabek) and acts like he can predict the future path of prospects. He also does some sleezy tricks like failing to mention Syndegard in the list of core pitchers because apparently he is to young for a full work load... valid in a way, but disengenious in that Syndegard has just as much chance of providing 150 great innings next year as Morrow does. So without the trades (and lets undo the Happ, Snider, and Thames trades as well.. they were really part of "all-in") the potential starters are Romero, Morrow, Syndegard, Hutch, Drabek, Nicolina, Woj, Stroman, Nolin, Redmond, DeSclafani. That's a very deep group. Young pitchers fail. But if you start with 10 and add in some guys who aren't on the radar yet?? I like the chances. Without the trades there is depth at multiple positions. Escobar/Hech at short, Arencibia/D'arnaud at catcher, Gose/Marisnick/Rasmus in center, Snider/Thames/Pillar. Lawrie. And you still have Bautista/EE who can contribute or be moved for other young pieces. So without the "all-in" the Jays would have tremendous depth. Would this translate into a good team?? It's easy to point out that many of these players have weaknesses or can be expected to fail. But (to give him credit) Stoeten rightly points out veterans fail as well. Baseball players both young and veteran often crash, burn and fail. I remember in the late 90s the Jays had 4 good looking young middle infield prospects, Izturus, Lopez, Michael Young, and Aberthny. All were eventually discarded. Only Michael Young had a good run. Anyway when they were prospects no one predicted Young would be the best... The point is that no one, not the scouts, not the numbers guys, knows exactly how these guys will turn out. You need to start with multiple guys, and then have a player development process to develop and sort through them. John Farrell mentioned the other day the Jays lack player development. Player development is often a process of taking many, many, many young players, teaching them, sorting through them and getting a few major leaguers out of the process. With a good player development system and a good base of young players an organization will do well in the long run. So IF the Jays had a good player development process they would of been much, much better without "all-in". But John Farrell argues that the Jays don't have a good player development process. So I suppose in the end, if Farrell is right, the Jays had to go "all-in". If the Jays can't develop players, the only choice is to collect old guys and hope they defy age. Great and complicated question. Best wishes.