Jays Roster Discussion

[Kin]

But I'm not talking about screwing up Bichette's development, am I?  I'm talking about calling him up about 2 weeks earlier to get a better determination of his abilities before the trade-deadline.

Right. And what you're using as "evidence" that doing that wouldn't have negatively affected Bichette's development is that the route they did take seems to have worked. Which is, again, a curious thing to take away as a piece of criticism for when the Jays' handling of Bichette.

Realistically, calling up Bichette a few weeks earlier or later wouldn't have a huge impact on his development but equally realistically the sort of guy the Jays could have gotten for Galvis at the deadline wouldn't be someone who'll have a big impact on the Jays fortunes. If it comes down to erring on the side of an extra C or D grade prospect or erring on the side of letting the Jays decide when to call up a top prospect regardless of a trade deadline...I'll go with the latter.

The deals weren't much good, I'm convinced, but I bet it was better than the zero that they got from the Reds.

The problem with that line of thinking is that, to some extent and especially with marginal prospects, these sorts of things are a zero sum game to an extent. The prospect that Jays maybe could have gotten from someone at the deadline for Galvis would have to have a roster spot and having a roster spot in the Jays organization means forcing out of a roster spot another marginal prospect. Not making a deal at the deadline could just be a sign that the guys that they could have acquired aren't more appealing to them than the guys they already have.

Minor prospects aren't nickels where if you can stuff enough in your pocket eventually they add up to a dollar. You have to decide if they represent a real upgrade or option organizationally. Just looking at this as "Atkins could have added something but didn't" the way we might look at adding a 6th or 7th round pick at the NHL deadline just isn't a reflection of how MLB teams build a prospect base.

 

[Kin]

Either way letting "Atkins didn't get a minor asset for Galvis at the deadline" be a bigger factor in your evaluation of him than "the guy Atkins drafted 66th overall is currently breaking records held by Ted Williams" is a heck of a take.

 

[Deebo]

But I'm not talking about screwing up Bichette's development, am I?  I'm talking about calling him up about 2 weeks earlier to get a better determination of his abilities before the trade-deadline.

I was reading Shi Davidi's article this morning...Atkins quoted:

?But it?s a matter of what other teams are willing to do. They were transparent about that at the deadline and there wasn?t a deal we were comfortable doing.?

The deals weren't much good, I'm convinced, but I bet it was better than the zero that they got from the Reds.

Personally, I don't think the timing of Bichette being called up would have changed anything. If there was a deal for something that they actually valued available for Galvis, they would have made it like they did with Sogard. There wasn't, so they didn't. I also don't think they should have altered their development plan for Bo at all just so they could get some marginal prospect in a trade for Galvis.

I really don't get why anyone would bemoan the fact that they might have got some non-prospect if they took whatever was available at the deadline. It's like being upset that someone saw a quarter on the street and didn't pick it up. The insurance that Galvis provided in the event Bichette have faltered and had to have been sent back down was probably worth more to the team than some teams 28th ranked prospect or something.

 

[Highlander]

But I'm not talking about screwing up Bichette's development, am I?  I'm talking about calling him up about 2 weeks earlier to get a better determination of his abilities before the trade-deadline.

I was reading Shi Davidi's article this morning...Atkins quoted:

?But it?s a matter of what other teams are willing to do. They were transparent about that at the deadline and there wasn?t a deal we were comfortable doing.?

The deals weren't much good, I'm convinced, but I bet it was better than the zero that they got from the Reds.

Personally, I don't think the timing of Bichette being called up would have changed anything. If there was a deal for something that they actually valued available for Galvis, they would have made it like they did with Sogard. There wasn't, so they didn't. I also don't think they should have altered their development plan for Bo at all just so they could get some marginal prospect in a trade for Galvis.

I really don't get why anyone would bemoan the fact that they might have got some non-prospect if they took whatever was available at the deadline. It's like being upset that someone saw a quarter on the street and didn't pick it up. The insurance that Galvis provided in the event Bichette have faltered and had to have been sent back down was probably worth more to the team than some teams 28th ranked prospect or something.

Speaking of Sogard, I wonder what they are getting back for him, a sack of magic beans or some ruby red shoes?  Probably has some form of performance based incentives on what the return will be. And when does it have to be announced?

 

[Deebo]

Speaking of Sogard, I wonder what they are getting back for him, a sack of magic beans or some ruby red shoes?  Probably has some form of performance based incentives on what the return will be. And when does it have to be announced?

There was a report that the Jays can select 2 PTBNL from a list of Rays pitching prospects at a later date.

You probably won't have heard of them just like you probably had never heard of Sogard prior to the Jays signing him, I know I hadn't.

 

[Frank E]

But I'm not talking about screwing up Bichette's development, am I?  I'm talking about calling him up about 2 weeks earlier to get a better determination of his abilities before the trade-deadline.

I was reading Shi Davidi's article this morning...Atkins quoted:

?But it?s a matter of what other teams are willing to do. They were transparent about that at the deadline and there wasn?t a deal we were comfortable doing.?

The deals weren't much good, I'm convinced, but I bet it was better than the zero that they got from the Reds.

Personally, I don't think the timing of Bichette being called up would have changed anything. If there was a deal for something that they actually valued available for Galvis, they would have made it like they did with Sogard. There wasn't, so they didn't. I also don't think they should have altered their development plan for Bo at all just so they could get some marginal prospect in a trade for Galvis.

I really don't get why anyone would bemoan the fact that they might have got some non-prospect if they took whatever was available at the deadline. It's like being upset that someone saw a quarter on the street and didn't pick it up. The insurance that Galvis provided in the event Bichette have faltered and had to have been sent back down was probably worth more to the team than some teams 28th ranked prospect or something.

Listen, I really don't know enough about baseball assets to have a strong opinion here, but I'm a business guy, and there are people that just aren't easy to deal with that just don't succeed well in my business.

I'm just reading stuff that is suggesting that the Jays aren't winning these trades at face value lately.  I'm wondering why that is, and is it possible that Atkins just isn't a guy that other GM's are wanting to do business with?

 

[Kin]

There is literally a scene in a major Hollywood motion picture about the best GM in Baseball being happy to deal with Shapiro.

 

[Highlander]

what are PTBNL prospects?

 

[IJustLurkHere]

I'm just reading stuff that is suggesting that the Jays aren't winning these trades at face value lately.  I'm wondering why that is, and is it possible that Atkins just isn't a guy that other GM's are wanting to do business with?

The impression I have is that Atkins just doesn?t factor in the trade-by-trade micro-analysis into his decision making. One of the reasons the NHL trade market has dried up so much is that GMs are scared of ?losing? every deal... Atkins seems unperturbed by the fan disquiet at ?giving away? a player if that ?loss? doesn?t impact his big picture plans.

I know I?d have felt better if there was some kid coming the other way, even if likely result is the kid never gets past double-A. But if there was a handshake deal with Galvin before he signed, that trumps my insecurity.

 

[hockeyfan1]

what are PTBNL prospects?

This article here explains quite a few things.  The PTBNL (Player To Be Named Later) for the Jays from the Sogard trade to the Rays will consist of 2 PTBNL from a prospect list of pitchers.

...having earlier sent Eric Sogard to the Tampa Bay Rays for two players to be named later, whom they will pick from a group of four pitchers in the lower levels of the minors, according to an industry source.

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/an-attempt-to-figure-out-what-the-blue-jays-got-for-eric-sogard-175913571.html

 

[Frank E]

The impression I have is that Atkins just doesn?t factor in the trade-by-trade micro-analysis into his decision making. One of the reasons the NHL trade market has dried up so much is that GMs are scared of ?losing? every deal... Atkins seems unperturbed by the fan disquiet at ?giving away? a player if that ?loss? doesn?t impact his big picture plans.

I think that sort of statement is a bunch of horseshit trotted out by people that make bad decisions...the big picture plans are executed through these individual asset transactions. 

And really, I think the unrest is more taking into account a bunch of trades lately...so if the argument is that this is an over-reaction to a small move, then they're not paying attention.

I know I?d have felt better if there was some kid coming the other way, even if likely result is the kid never gets past double-A. But if there was a handshake deal with Galvin before he signed, that trumps my insecurity.

I guess I can appreciate it if they're doing a solid by the player, if only strictly for the benefit of the teams' reputation among future prospective FAs.

 

[Kin]

Another important thing worth noting is that the idea that people are complaining about these deals is in and of itself somehow noteworthy and being used as cumulative weight by people who are self-proclaimed to not be terribly knowledgeable about this stuff doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny.

Any time a team is trading actual contributing major leaguers for futures there are going to be fans complaining about how the team didn't do well enough. The better the player, the better the prospects received but also the more advocates that player will have for keeping them or getting an even better return. Some people just don't like the idea of rebuilding. Some think
"rebuilding" should be trading your guys for players who are MLB-ready. And then there are just those who are always going to think the return could be better.

Shapiro and Atkins had a tough job taking over for a popular guy like Anthopoulos and they've been criticized by some for virtually every move they made, even ones that have been proven absolutely correct(anyone out there want to pay David Price 100 million dollars over the next three years?). So "I'm hearing some people say the Jays 'lost' this trade" being a major part of what you're putting forth is suspect to say the least.

 

[Champ Kind]

While I understand the argument that some people are deal makers and others aren't, I honestly can't buy into the idea that Atkins is so incompetent that EVERY trade he makes is poor.  The notion that he couldn't coax, cajole or sprinkle enough magic dust to materialize a return for Freddie Galvis is ridiculous.  Despite his decent stats on a poor team, Galvis is, at best, an average player who plays a premium position.  I'm also sure that other teams weren't lining up to do the Blue Jays any favours and that any interested teams, like the Reds, likely foresaw that the Jays' hands would be forced with the emergence of young players to waive Galvis.

If the argument is that Atkins is a bit hokey and possibly disingenuous in his comments and interviews, or that the Jays' player evaluation methodology seems out of whack with principles generally utilized by the League's most successful teams (ie. Grichuk contract, Fisher trade, etc.), then I'm all ears. 

 

[IJustLurkHere]

The impression I have is that Atkins just doesn?t factor in the trade-by-trade micro-analysis into his decision making. One of the reasons the NHL trade market has dried up so much is that GMs are scared of ?losing? every deal... Atkins seems unperturbed by the fan disquiet at ?giving away? a player if that ?loss? doesn?t impact his big picture plans.

I think that sort of statement is a bunch of horseshit trotted out by people that make bad decisions...the big picture plans are executed through these individual asset transactions. 

And really, I think the unrest is more taking into account a bunch of trades lately...so if the argument is that this is an over-reaction to a small move, then they're not paying attention.

I know I?d have felt better if there was some kid coming the other way, even if likely result is the kid never gets past double-A. But if there was a handshake deal with Galvin before he signed, that trumps my insecurity.

I guess I can appreciate it if they're doing a solid by the player, if only strictly for the benefit of the teams' reputation among future prospective FAs.

Wow, okay. I don?t love giving away Galvis just to open up a roster spot or anything, but if you?re actual smart business guy, try weighting the actual outlook of the team as parts of the rebuild are coming to fruition - they actually look pretty good right now - against your arbitrary ?bad decisions? because of an imaginary threshold of asset management you?ve decided is required... simply, I?m not the one full of horseshit. But you keep on being aggressively wrong and enjoy that. This is the internet after all.

 

[Kin]

I know I?d have felt better if there was some kid coming the other way, even if likely result is the kid never gets past double-A.

So I think you and I are in general agreement about most of this but I just have to pause to ask about this. Each year, because of the way Baseball does their draft and international signings, each team is going to add 30 or so prospects to the organization. Then with international signings you're probably looking at 30-40 prospects added each year, most of whom are in the "unlikely to get past AA" category.

So when you say that getting one more guy in a Galvis trade would make you feel better...is it just a matter of principle? I'm not trying to be overly literal or sarcastic I just genuinely am puzzled by this sort of attitude when, quite literally, the Jays could go out right now and sign a whole basket-full of probably meaningless prospects who got passed over in the draft if they wanted to. Why does one extra for Galvis matter at all?

 

[hockeyfan1]

Gurriel on the shelf:

[tweet]1162758301022658560[/tweet]

Vladdy leaves game:

[tweet]1162817136676474880[/tweet]

 

[Deebo]

Pearson is getting promoted to AAA Buffalo.

 

[Highlander]

Good news, lets get him up here before the season ends, even if he only starts a few games.

 

[hockeyfan1]

That?s good news indeed.  Can hardly wait to see what he?s got.  He?s #14 on the MLB Pipeline prospect list and #15 on Baseball America?s prospect list.

He?s the Blue Jays #2 prospect behind Bichette.

 

[Highlander]

That?s good news indeed.  Can hardly wait to see what he?s got.  He?s #14 on the MLB Pipeline prospect list and #15 on Baseball America?s prospect list.

He?s the Blue Jays #2 prospect behind Bichette.

Bichette should be off the list as he has already attained GodHead status