Jump to content
Jays Centre
  • Create Account

InsideThePark

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    497

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Toronto Blue Jays Videos

2025 Toronto Blue Jays Top Prospects Ranking

Toronto Blue Jays Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Toronto Blue Jays Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by InsideThePark

  1. InsideThePark
    The way arbitration works Chapman was getting a raise next year regardless so even a bad year would have seen him get 9.5 this year and something like 12 next year. So a 3.5 overpay and losing out on the opportunity to non tender if he’s a total disaster. If he had a good season he could easily have gotten 18, which the current deal is a 3.5 underpay. And we avoid having to go to a hearing. So it seems fair to me. Possible overpay, possible underpay, lose out on the small non tender chance, gain goodwill of not having to s*** talk him in a hearing
  2. InsideThePark
    Springer Bo Vladdy Teo Chapman Kirk Gurriel Biggio/Espinal Jansen Charlie will play Grichuk instead of Kirk though
  3. InsideThePark
    Wouldn't AA be communicating mostly with his agent anyway? There was a rumored offer both ways.
  4. InsideThePark
    The Yankees
  5. InsideThePark
    The 26th man was announced before covid hit so it's here to stay. I would prefer that Kirk is the most common DH and that would require McGuire on the roster and thus a 4 man bench, 8 man pen configuration. I get the feeling the team doesn't like that though as they haven't wanted to do that in the past so a 9/3 config is possible. If the season starts with a 28 or 30 man rosters because of the short spring things obviously open up considerably.
  6. InsideThePark
    Rosters are 26 now and there's been talks of it being a bit more in April with the shortened spring but nothing confirmed. Pen will be at least 8 but 9(or more) is possible
  7. InsideThePark
    Double that Teo number and you'd be closer. He's not signing for 15 million per year
  8. InsideThePark
    Runner on 1st starting in the 12 inning I could stomach. It's still difficult to score a runner from 1st but it would end games sooner. Plus it gives 2 extra innings of normal baseball before we bring the partial farce into play. anything different in the 10th and any inning with a runner starting on 2nd is a no.
  9. InsideThePark
    Yes. I wouldn't say no to another arm, but pending how much money is left to spend there are a couple other ways I'd spend it first. Romano, Mayza, Cimber, Richards, Merryweather, Garcia is a pretty solid. Especially if Pearson gets some work out of the pen as well. You could upgrade on Borucki for the last spot, but it's not vital with the other guys we have in there. If a bunch of guys get injured and it goes to s*** again, oh well, I don't think that's a problem you solve by spending a lot of money on the pen itself. Just being a little more selective where you spend it.
  10. InsideThePark
    Not a huge fan of this. Can't entirely put my finger on why I've never really liked Kukuchi. He'll be an above average 5th starter for sure, but 3 years at that price on a guy I'm not that confident in has me nervous, and after signing Gausman, and Berrios, Ryu still having 2 years and Manoah here for a while a chunk of the rotation is locked in for a while so I wasn't looking for someone for 3 years. I trust this front office though so we'll see how it goes.
  11. InsideThePark
    What are the rules for unvaccinated Canadians returning to Canada? If we signed an unvaccinated Canadian the country has to let them back into their own country. Would they have to quarantine thus making it unfeasible?
  12. InsideThePark
    Wild idea. Team QO's a player, if he declines the team gets the pick regardless of whether he resigns or not. Maximum of a team getting 1 pick per player to avoid continuous 1 year deals to get a pick every year. Maybe you can put in some has to be a multi year deal clause to avoid teams QOing a borderline player, having them "decline" and then sign them to the exact same deal anyway for 1 year just to game the system. Teams get rewarded for developing players worth a QO. Get compensation for them when they leave, but also get it if they stay. It's probably ridiculous but I've liked the QO comp pick system and will be sad to see it go.
  13. InsideThePark
    Can someone please explain to me why they haven't seemed to even consider keeping the QO system but the pick given to the team losing the player is a new pick entirely, the signing team doesn't give up any picks. It seems like the obvious solution. MLB has been more than willing to add picks with the competitive balance rounds that exist, and in that scenario the signing team doesn't give up anything so there's no leverage issue that the players have been concerned about. They're not stupid so obviously it has to be something that's been considered so why don't they want to go that route?
  14. InsideThePark
    I know that but it initially became a talking point because it makes it too difficult to get a hit and a lot of hitters became frustrated. I feel like that's the incentive, not because the games became boring. I know Gallo's not a 1 trick pony, just the phrasing I used. He's a lot better of a player if teams can't use 4 outfielders and/or put 3 infielders on the same size of 2nd against him. If the shift gets banned next year he's a 5 win player, and I get annoyed players like that will be getting their way over more adaptable players.
  15. InsideThePark
    I hate banning the shift. I'm of the mind that if players can't beat the shift they don't deserve the help. More adaptable players will figure it out to some extent and make themselves more valuable and the 1 trick ponies like Gallo less valuable or obsolete completely. That being said I'm trying to keep an open mind and see how it goes. We've had shifts for a while now and most of the players are somewhat still 1 trick ponies rather than the handful that do hit to all fields. I think a lot of that has to do with the speed that almost all pitchers throw these days that it's more optimal to accept the strikeouts and ground outs to get the power. At that point maybe banning the shift makes the game a little more exciting? Not for me, but for the general population who doesn't spend 162 days a year watching a baseball game for 3 to 4 hours. Banning the shift because Joey Gallo is sad he can't hit doubles is moronic. But if they're doing it because it makes the game more entertaining for more fans than I can live with it.
  16. InsideThePark
    It's all a zero sum game though. If catcher value goes down then everyone else goes up very slightly as teams will spend less on catchers. If there are more balls called then yeah some pitcher values go down, but some pitchers value will go up because they're more accurate. I suspect it\s more pitchers hate it, hitters are probably split. Leads to more players hating it overall
  17. InsideThePark
    Michael Dominguez is great. Going to be a great pen arm for us in 4 years.
  18. InsideThePark
    Prospects on the 40 man roster can't play in the minors until there's a CBA. That means no Lopez, Smith or Jimenez. This is probably just backfill for those minor league spots in case there's no CBA anytime soon.
  19. InsideThePark
    See you mid April
  20. InsideThePark
    It doesn't feel like a thing you'd bargain though. There's always a rule 5 draft, they're not debating about whether they're removing it for good, that's not on the table. So it shouldn't be on the table to remove it this year. It's just an annoyance about rescheduling it. Really it should have been moved up to before Dec 1st to begin with. But it takes like an hour to complete and I'm sure teams have prepared for it already. They should be able to fit it in.
  21. InsideThePark
    I understood it correctly, I just assumed it was an option for both 12 and 14 team playoffs. My point still stands if the 2 seed gets a bye, the 7 doesn't make it. 6 still plays 3 and 3 shouldn't get a "ghost win" unless they are clearly superior to 6, which last year in the AL wouldn't have happened.
  22. InsideThePark
    I don't mind the ghost win idea but it should only be a thing if the division winner reaches a certain threshold above the WC team. lets say the division winner has to have at least 5 more wins than the WC team to be awarded a ghost win. A division winner getting a free game against a team playing in a tougher division that won more games than them in a would be a complete sham. Last year for example the Astros would have still gotten a ghost win over the Mariners(5 game difference), but the Jays/White Sox series(2 game difference) would have been on even terms. Brewers get a ghost win against the Phillies(13 game difference), Braves get a ghost win over the Reds(5 game difference). Most of the time the division winners will be good enough to be more than 5 games better than seed 6 and 7, but the occasional year where 1 division has 4 great teams, or occasional year where 1 division is so bad only 1 team barely breaks .500 the advantage doesn't apply
  23. InsideThePark
    I feel like that's not something the players would be ok with. It's literally one of 2 avenues that prevent teams from holding players back if they good enough, the other being option years. Given the fact protecting players has already happened it wouldn't be a total farce, but players who are good enough need to be available to be taken if not protected., otherwise that's a free year teams get to hold guys back. I'd be happy to not lose any of the Jays though as there's a couple I'm concerned we lose.
  24. InsideThePark
    If the lockout continues into the regular season the minor leagues still start on time right? Prospects on the 40 man roster not allowed to play? Rule 5 eligible guys will end up starting their minor league season only to get plucked by someone else when the lockout ends and the rule 5 happens?
  25. InsideThePark
    Does that mean teams losing free agents don't get any compensation anymore, or just that the signing team doesn't give up the pick the comp pick essentially comes out of thin air? I like teams losing guys getting picks, I just think those should be new picks added not have to be given up by the signing team. I also assume this kicks in next year and doesn't affect this offseason which is already half complete?
×
×
  • Create New...