Flashman

Fine. How about Jay Sartori and Joe Sheehan, then? http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/2011/02/22/sartori_adds_beautiful_mind_to_jay_equation.html?cta=bottom&utm_expid=6682428-0.pmAbpHPsSSS1W5v3cyeVhw.2&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F

Straw man. I didn't say that there is any 'reliance on statistics', and I'm not interested in that discussion. I did cite Tom Tango's involvement with the organisation that the Jays aren't completely stat-opposed, which itself was an insane argument from Olerud for Beeston's apparent incompetence.

So I take it that all the coaches and scouts who have been fired in the past few years were not part of this Beeston clique?

Once again you are speculating, not providing evidence! Cito was under contract for that remaining year; there was nothing controversial about him staying on for one more year in a non-contending season, for heaven's sake. AA was entrusted to build for a post-Cito era. Blame for what? Two World Series? Moving AAA to Buffalo? Convincing ownership to push the payroll to $120m? Redesigning the kit? Boosting attendances and revenue?

What are you talking about? I've argued that the president does matter, and I've praised Beeston's accomplishments. For crying out loud, you are now hinging your entire argument on Tom Tango's employment? You're all over the place with this irrational dislike of Beeston.

This is just speculation. It is baseless. AA's appointment was broadly welcomed for the first few years, the type of 'young gun' GM that you are now suggesting Beeston wouldn't hire. It doesn't add up. Again, it is just speculation. I don't think the Cito farewell tour mattered one bit -- the Jays weren't going to contend that year, Cito was loved by much of Toronto, and there was no harm in giving him a nod for his service. What evidence do you have that Beeston isn't savvy or passionate? Two World Series were won under his watch. Toronto also has the likes of top statistician Tom Tango working for the organisation, as well as hiring cutting edge coaching in the velocity training guy. I'm sure there are many others. Because the numbers of Rogers corp aren't good? Gaston and James is a disingenuous comparison; try James v Tango, or any of the other in-house stat nerds the Jays likely have. You really think Andrew Friedman would be more hamstrung at the Blue Jays than he currently is at the Rays?

He has always 'f***ed the casuals'. He started by trading away Halladay, followed by other franchise faces like Wells, Hill and McDonald. Given the enormous range of chaff we've seen over the last few years, from Fred Lewis to Jayson Nix, it's fair to say he has always done things his own way. If anything, his moves this season have f***ed over the 'smrt' baseball fans ...

Is Epstein relevant? He took a promotion to go to the Cubs and obviously has a lot of latitude in shaping the franchise as he sees fit. That's an exceptional situation, certainly not the norm. The implication of your argument is that the president is as responsible for the on-field product as the GM is, in which case why bother having both roles? If Beeston interferes with baseball decisions in the same way that Paul Godfrey was alleged to have done (e.g. the Wells contract), then yes, I could understand the criticism. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.

I hate to call you on this, but the only Revlon-smeared pig appears to be your argument. It is varnished with spite and devoid of reason. I'm not sure what more you can expect of a franchise president than what Beeston has already done. Delivering the winning team on the field is on the GM's shoulders; we've seen it accomplished by GMs with big wallets (Cashman) and those with small ones (Friedman).

Just to play devil's advocate ... A quick look at the Buehrle rumours news feed at MLBTR shows that he's had plenty of interest since leaving the White Sox, even while a Marlin (with this contract). He's a recognisable name in MLB, as durable as an ox, has the experience GMs seem to value, and his numbers -- which aren't that awful -- could only improve in another division. I wouldn't bet against a PTBNL-salary dump trade.

Harsh - and then some! Is there any good reason to believe he does 'no real work'? I can't say I'm very familiar with Beeston's history, but he seems to have been effective since returning. Under his watch we've seen the return of the classic uniform design, positive stadium renovations, the likelihood of grass being installed, a $120m payroll, and so forth. He is a charming man, or 'schmoozer', but that's no bad thing for an organisation's president when he's out there communicating with fellow big-hitters or the fanbase at large. And he's super-connected throughout baseball, perhaps giving the Jays leverage in all sorts of negotiations that we'll never know about. It certainly can't hurt.

I reckon if he makes it through the season healthy, he'll be happy to push for being a starter again. I'm sure he'd be driven by his desire to live up to his potential after he's grown secure with his arm again, but that 2015 option is also a little tricky. $4m for a reliever in his 30s with a long injury history might limit his market a bit. Trying out as a starter again might feel risky, but it's probably a decent calculated gamble.

Wilner citing confirmation bias against a caller. Some nerve to start hitting others with logical fallacies!

I remember how desperate the Jays were for a 3B after Rolen left. Took ages to finally get some comfort with Lawrie there. No sooner than that's solved, 2B becomes the chronic issue. Bah.

You have to wonder how much Tabler hurts the lead commentator. Perhaps the likes of Black, Campbell, Martinez and Devlin would be better with a strong colour guy alongside them. Perhaps he inspires the tedious and wearisome.

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).

Oh calm down. It's discussing hypothetical scenarios -- the lifeblood of baseball discussion. Any attempt to win an argument by insulting your opponents is desperate. 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?

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!" 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. 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. 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. 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.

Can't say I have a problem with it. It's the players the fans want to see. It was kinda amusing to see Jon Heyman lose his s*** over Delabar and Cecil after writing off Bautista as MVP candidate because he wasn't with a contender.

IMO it is completely subjective. For example, the Jays signed some players for a $1000 signing bonus. They had no leverage, so to speak, but were obviously glad to take the opportunity for a career in baseball. Other players might dearly want the college experience and so hold out for a can't-resist amount of money. It all depends on circumstances. I just think if we're talking about a player wanting $4m and the organisation holding firm at $3.5m, then it's nuts to gamble with your future. Again, IMO, I think that's where greed can come in. I'm not sure how else it could be described when we're talking about that level of money. As much or little as the player allows, really. Ultimately they have the free will to sign whatever deal they want (I'm assuming?)

Bit of a straw man, that. I don't think jays_fever was saying that every player should accept a predetermined amount of money. But we have seen kids turn down life-changing sums of money, as well as the opportunity to get on with their development as ball players, only to find that decision bites them in the ass. It just seems nuts to risk losing that entire package by quibbling over a small percentage of dollars.

Too sweeping. I was never part of that consensus. I'm sure others weren't, either. I think that's an exaggeration. Again, sweeping. The season has gone badly so far, and perhaps it has prompted a lot of fans to ask why that is the case, and to re-evaluate their previous beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as it is considered.

Yeah, that's why I said 'and the aftermath' (implying the Taylor-Wallace-Gose cycle). We know that AA wanted Gose as part of the original deal, so I think it's simpler to see it as one package. But I would argue against the real impact of scouting at that point; usually the prospects have been in the system for a while, had big league coaching, and most of the scouting books out there form a general consensus around the top two or three prospects. I don't mean to minimise it to nothing, but I think it'd be a bit much to give the scouts a pat on the back for recommending Drabek and D'Arnaud. There's the rub. Offer a stupid amount of money or don't draft the fella.

I don't think anybody forgets that. But there are three top-of-the-head responses: 1. the Halladay trade (and its aftermath) went a long way towards establishing that, with D'Arnaud and Gose consistently near the top of the list. That had little to do with drafting and scouting. 2. AA had a lot of decent picks over the years thanks to the supplementals. It would have been a profound failure not to significantly boost the farm with so many high selections. 3. it doesn't detract from individual criticisms which must be debated on their own merits, e.g. the McGuire and Beede picks, not signing Bryant and Paxton, the 'middling' strategy which didn't result in any top 3 picks despite non-contention, and so on.

The Jays don't tank and they don't crawl. They are the doggy-paddlers of baseball.