2012 Toronto Blue Jays Thread

[Kin]

Obviously small sample size...

Scott Cullen ‏@tsnscottcullen

From my R.A. Dickey column, in the last three seasons, his interleague numbers: 7-0, 1.78 ERA, 0.89 WHIP, 71 K in 71 IP over 10 starts. #MLB

I can't help but think though that a big part of that is that in interleague games he's pitching against hitters he's never faced before and who may very well never have seen a knuckleball in their life.

 

[Fanatic]

Sportsnet is reporting that the physical is done. Trade will now be finalized. No surprise, but mentioning it anyway.

 

[Fanatic]

@RADickey43: Now that its official, I want to say that I don't have the words to express how grateful I am to you for the steadfast support and encouragement I received from all of you.Ive always felt that there was a connection beyond the uniform.Thank you for making me feel wanted

@RADickey43: Looking forward to a new chapter with the Jays.

 

[Justin]

The final deal is R.A Dickey, Josh Thole, and Mike Nickeas for Travis D'Arnaud, Noah Syndergaard, John Buck, and Wulimer Becerra.

For what it's worth, Nickeas is a 29 year old Canadian catcher (born in Vancouver). He hit a miserable .174 in 47 major league games last year and has shuttled up and down from the minor leagues over the past 3 years. 

EDIT: The Jays are now the 8/1 Vegas favourites to win the World Series next year. The top 5 teams are as follows:

Toronto Blue Jays 8/1 
Los Angeles Angels 17/2 
Los Angeles Dodgers 17/2 
Washington Nationals 9/1 
Detroit Tigers 10/1 

 

[#1PilarFan]

Well, no. Ace, to me anyway, doesn't just mean #1 starter. Every team has a #1 starter but not every team has a guy who should be fronting a rotation. Both Dickey and JJ can be an ace but they're not a Sabathia or a Verlander or Kershaw or Hernandez or....whoever. Dickey has one year, according to both BR and Fangraphs, of being a 4+ win pitcher. Johnson's done it twice but a few arm injuries ago. 

So they have a couple guys who can pitch at that level, yes, but they don't have guys who have great track records of being there.

Well, that's kind of the point. Between Johnson, Dickey and (yes I'm going there) Morrow, the odds are pretty good that one of them will have an Ace-like year, given that JJ and Dickey have done it before. So we will have that ace presence at the top of the rotation, we just don't know who it'll be. And AA's acquired enough depth to spread the risk around.

I think that's...strong concerning Janssen. He had a good year closing last year, and had a great year out of the pen the year before, but is he a lockdown guy at the backend? Maybe. But he doesn't have the track record.

As a closer only, sure, but Janssen's been a very good reliever for quite some time. He's pitched over 277 innings with an ERA of 2.82 and his peripherals all look good. Last year he demonstrated that he can handle the pressure of closing. I don't know how you can say he doesn't have a track record.

I think the offense can be good. One of the best in the league? Eh...I'm not sold. Either way, I agree with you a lot. I very much like the Marlins trade. I don't know how I feel about the Dickey trade as reported because it seems to me as though the Jays have now traded three of their top five prospects and five of their top ten and they didn't land anyone at the very top of the heap. Like Peter D. said, I think that it would have been more prudent to see how the team did with the Marlins additions and if Arencibia can finally hit enough before making another move for a pitcher.

I disagree only that I really don't mind the timing, I'm just not sure I love the acquisition.

 

[Kin]

Well, that's kind of the point. Between Johnson, Dickey and (yes I'm going there) Morrow, the odds are pretty good that one of them will have an Ace-like year, given that JJ and Dickey have done it before. So we will have that ace presence at the top of the rotation, we just don't know who it'll be. And AA's acquired enough depth to spread the risk around.

I suppose, then, that the root of our disagreement is just how you're figuring those odds.

As a closer only, sure, but Janssen's been a very good reliever for quite some time. He's pitched over 277 innings with an ERA of 2.82 and his peripherals all look good. Last year he demonstrated that he can handle the pressure of closing. I don't know how you can say he doesn't have a track record.

Of being a great, lock-down closer? Because he doesn't. He was good last year, yeah, but he wasn't great.

 

[Andy007]

Well, that's kind of the point. Between Johnson, Dickey and (yes I'm going there) Morrow, the odds are pretty good that one of them will have an Ace-like year, given that JJ and Dickey have done it before. So we will have that ace presence at the top of the rotation, we just don't know who it'll be. And AA's acquired enough depth to spread the risk around.

I suppose, then, that the root of our disagreement is just how you're figuring those odds.

As a closer only, sure, but Janssen's been a very good reliever for quite some time. He's pitched over 277 innings with an ERA of 2.82 and his peripherals all look good. Last year he demonstrated that he can handle the pressure of closing. I don't know how you can say he doesn't have a track record.

Of being a great, lock-down closer? Because he doesn't. He was good last year, yeah, but he wasn't great.

22/25 saves, 0.9 whip and 2.5 era is pretty damn good. He might not be Rivera in his prime but that's a lot better than just good.

 

[Kin]

22/25 saves, 0.9 whip and 2.5 era is pretty damn good. He might not be Rivera in his prime but that's a lot better than just good.

Of the guys ESPN counted as team's closers last year, Janssen finished 12th in ERA, 15th in SV% and 6th in WHIP. I'm relatively comfortable with "good".

 

[Andy007]

22/25 saves, 0.9 whip and 2.5 era is pretty damn good. He might not be Rivera in his prime but that's a lot better than just good.

Of the guys ESPN counted as team's closers last year, Janssen finished 12th in ERA, 15th in SV% and 6th in WHIP. I'm relatively comfortable with "good".

Well there weren't a lot of save opportunities because there was barely a starting staff to speak of. 12th in era, which isn't much of a significant stat for a closer anyway, and 6th in whip cements him as better than good in my book.

 

[Kin]

Well there weren't a lot of save opportunities because there was barely a starting staff to speak of. 12th in era, which isn't much of a significant stat for a closer anyway, and 6th in whip cements him as better than good in my book.

Well, he ranked 31st in fWAR amongst relief pitchers so our disagreement about proper adjective use is going to have end in a draw.

 

[#1PilarFan]

I suppose, then, that the root of our disagreement is just how you're figuring those odds.

Well I am being pretty optimistic, but we have one guy who has had two 6+ WAR seasons, and another guy who is coming off a 5+ WAR season, so you have to figure one of them will be the 4+WAR guy you're looking for. Morrow is of course the dark horse, and you never know, maybe the 6+ WAR Romero will emerge again. 

They all have their question marks, and nothing's guaranteed, but I like those odds. 

Of being a great, lock-down closer? Because he doesn't. He was good last year, yeah, but he wasn't great.

Well, I don't really think he needs to be Kimbrel for the Jays to be competitive, and that's really what this is about. But it's not like Janssen came out of nowhere - he's been a good reliever for quite some time. Plus, we do have Santos in the wings should he stumble.

I mean, these are risky moves that AA is taking and it could blow up in his face, but I think at some point you do need to take some risks. The only unfortunate thing about this offseason (other than what I think both of us agree is the high cost of Dickey) is that Adam Lind is still a Toronto Blue Jay.

 

[#1PilarFan]

They still have Price, Niemann, Moore, Hellickson and Cobb in the rotation (as things stand right now) - still one of the best rotations in the bigs. They also added Escobar, which is an upgrade for them. Shields will be a loss, but considering their depth, a fairly small one. They'll miss his innings much more than they'll miss the quality of his performances.

Again, I think you're understating the value of Shields. KC shouldn't have paid that price to get him, but he's a steady 200+IP who has had some very good years for Tampa. Really, a healthy Niemann will be replacing Shields. That's a downgrade. And Escobar may not be much of an upgrade - his OPS was actually worse than Elliot Johnson's last year, though his defense is better.

 

[Kin]

Well I am being pretty optimistic, but we have one guy who has had two 6+ WAR seasons, and another guy who is coming off a 5+ WAR season, so you have to figure one of them will be the 4+WAR guy you're looking for. Morrow is of course the dark horse, and you never know, maybe the 6+ WAR Romero will emerge again. 

They all have their question marks, and nothing's guaranteed, but I like those odds. 

Well, alright, but all you're really doing is re-stating my original point about having a bunch of question marks. To that end, a 4.0 bWAR is pretty low end stuff for an "ace".

Well, I don't really think he needs to be Kimbrel for the Jays to be competitive, and that's really what this is about. But it's not like Janssen came out of nowhere - he's been a good reliever for quite some time. Plus, we do have Santos in the wings should he stumble.

Well, I'd argue that in a division as competitive as the AL East what this is really about is whether or not the Jays bullpen is going to be a strength and, considering who the other closers are in the division, there is something to be said for being in the upper echelon of things. That said, I think just who is in the bullpen is undecided enough to this point so that we don't know the extent to which it will be a strength/weakness.

I mean, these are risky moves that AA is taking and it could blow up in his face, but I think at some point you do need to take some risks. The only unfortunate thing about this offseason (other than what I think both of us agree is the high cost of Dickey) is that Adam Lind is still a Toronto Blue Jay.

But I think that by combining all of the moves of the off-season into one you're sort of presenting this false dichotomy where you're either pro-risk or anti-risk and I don't think that holds. The Miami deal is risky. I like it. The Cabrera deal is risky, I like that one too. Absent the Dickey deal AA already had a plenty risky off-season.

So "at some point, you do need to take risks" yeah. AA took risks. At some point taking lots of risks is, well, too risky. Likewise I don't necessarily think the "at some point" is now. And, more to the point, even if I agree with the general point that doesn't obligate you to think that any risk is therefore a good move to make.

 

[Kin]

Again, I think you're understating the value of Shields.

Over the last four seasons Shields has averaged a 1.7 bWAR and last year he was at 2.2. It's a fair argument to say that he's had better seasons and might be better next year if the question is who won the trade but if you're addressing it strictly from the point of whether or not Tampa will be better next year all you need to do is replace those numbers.

 

[bustaheims]

And Escobar may not be much of an upgrade - his OPS was actually worse than Elliot Johnson's last year, though his defense is better.

Last season, maybe, but overall, it's decidedly in Escobar's favour. I mean, you're comparing Johnson's career high (albeit, in a very short career) to Escobar's career low. And, even with that, Escobar was a 2.5 WAR compared to Johnson's 0.5.

 

[Justin]

They still have Price, Niemann, Moore, Hellickson and Cobb in the rotation (as things stand right now) - still one of the best rotations in the bigs. They also added Escobar, which is an upgrade for them. Shields will be a loss, but considering their depth, a fairly small one. They'll miss his innings much more than they'll miss the quality of his performances.

Again, I think you're understating the value of Shields. KC shouldn't have paid that price to get him, but he's a steady 200+IP who has had some very good years for Tampa. Really, a healthy Niemann will be replacing Shields. That's a downgrade. And Escobar may not be much of an upgrade - his OPS was actually worse than Elliot Johnson's last year, though his defense is better.

Don't forget that BJ Upton is a pretty big loss for them, if only in the short-term until Myers is ready.

 

[Kin]

Well, if we've moved on from talking about what impact that one trade will have on Tampa's season to the more general question of whether they'll be better on the whole for the season I think that the most significant change will be a healthy Longoria. The difference between what Longoria did last year and what he'd done consistently while healthy could account for the loss of Upton/Shields on his own.

 

[#1PilarFan]

Over the last four seasons Shields has averaged a 1.7 bWAR and last year he was at 2.2. It's a fair argument to say that he's had better seasons and might be better next year if the question is who won the trade but if you're addressing it strictly from the point of whether or not Tampa will be better next year all you need to do is replace those numbers.

No, replacing his numbers would not make the Rays better.

 

[#1PilarFan]

Well, alright, but all you're really doing is re-stating my original point about having a bunch of question marks. To that end, a 4.0 bWAR is pretty low end stuff for an "ace".

I'm pretty sure you're the one who made that distinction.

Well, I'd argue that in a division as competitive as the AL East what this is really about is whether or not the Jays bullpen is going to be a strength and, considering who the other closers are in the division, there is something to be said for being in the upper echelon of things. That said, I think just who is in the bullpen is undecided enough to this point so that we don't know the extent to which it will be a strength/weakness.

I can understand that. Like I said, they've got a ton of live arms and depth. Sure, they lack the high-end closer, but other than that, they look pretty good. But I can see how it wouldn't be a clear strength given some uncertainty regarding the bullpen.

But I think that by combining all of the moves of the off-season into one you're sort of presenting this false dichotomy where you're either pro-risk or anti-risk and I don't think that holds. The Miami deal is risky. I like it. The Cabrera deal is risky, I like that one too. Absent the Dickey deal AA already had a plenty risky off-season.

Well, the Cabrera deal really isn't what I'd call risky. He'd have to be dead not to at least match last year's LF output, and even if he flames out or it was all the juice, he still only cost some money. Even if he had a horrible year, I still don't think AA would struggle to unload him.

I suppose the reason that I'm including the Miami deal with the Dickey trade is because they really are cut from the same cloth. Both are giving up youth for established major league talent - talent that admittedly comes with question marks. I don't think Dickey comes with any more question marks than Johnson, Buerhle or Reyes. It just came at, what I think we both agree, an uncomfortably high price.

So "at some point, you do need to take risks" yeah. AA took risks. At some point taking lots of risks is, well, too risky. Likewise I don't necessarily think the "at some point" is now. And, more to the point, even if I agree with the general point that doesn't obligate you to think that any risk is therefore a good move to make.

Like I said, I don't love the deal. Beyond that, once he made the deal with Miami (given that the Jays only have control of JJ for this season), you almost have to go all in. Was Dickey the right player  and did the cost make sense? I think there's an argument to be made there either way, but there's no point in leaving any unfinished business.

 

[Kin]

I'm pretty sure you're the one who made that distinction.

I said that Dickey, before this season, had never even had a season over 4.0 bWAR and that Johnson had only had two. That's to highlight the relatively low value of their other seasons, not suggesting that 4.0 is a great season. BR, whose formula you've been using, puts an "all-star" season at 5.0

It's like if a player had a big year after two years of hitting .260 or something and I said "He's not that great, he's never even hit .270 before this", that doesn't make .270 a benchmark for greatness. 

I suppose the reason that I'm including the Miami deal with the Dickey trade is because they really are cut from the same cloth. Both are giving up youth for established major league talent - talent that admittedly comes with question marks.

I disagree to an extent here because the Miami deal was largely motivated, I think we can agree, by salary issues and so the Jays got an inordinately large return on what they gave up. The Mayor of New York isn't going to be petitioning Major League Baseball to overturn this deal.

I don't think Dickey comes with any more question marks than Johnson, Buerhle or Reyes. It just came at, what I think we both agree, an uncomfortably high price.

Well, I completely disagree about Buehrle as the guy is about as consistent a property as you get in the bigs. I'd disagree specifically about the other two, as I think Reyes and Johnson's only real question marks are health, whereas Dickey's are that he hasn't established a consistent level of terrific play and age and the general unpredictability of the kind of pitcher he is and on and on.

Like I said, I don't love the deal. Beyond that, once he made the deal with Miami (given that the Jays only have control of JJ for this season), you almost have to go all in. Was Dickey the right player  and did the cost make sense? I think there's an argument to be made there either way, but there's no point in leaving any unfinished business.

So the Jays should trade Sanchez then for a marginal left-handed reliever? Osuna and Gose for a good bat off the bench? Why leave any cards in the deck if this year is all or nothing and winning in 2013 is paramount to all other considerations?

Of course not. That's not a reasonable argument. We're talking about where a line gets drawn, not whether there is one or not. There will be a 2014, even if Josh Johnson isn't around. Making the Miami deal, paring down the club's prospect depth to acquire players who you yourself say have question marks, is reason to be more careful with future deals, not less. D'Arnaud and Syndergaard weren't going away. Trades can be made in-season. There was no rush or need to compound the risk of the Miami deal by immediately making another risky deal.

Even if you did believe that nothing matters more than the upcoming season there are ways to go heavier on it that aren't this, that don't carry the risk of trading away two of the team's top three prospects. Spending a bunch of money on Edwin Jackson/Adam Laroche might be dumb but nobody would say "Boy, is that risky" and they combined for the same 5.6 WAR last season that Dickey had.

But more to the point, you keep glossing over the specifics as if it's immaterial to what I'm saying when it's the bulk of what I'm saying. Whether or not Dickey is worth what they gave up is the bulk of why I don't like this deal, not a blanket aversion to risk(even if I do feel risk shouldn't be compounded by more of it).