The Blue Jays were officially the Atlanta Thrashers, Detroit Lions and Portland Trailblazers of destinations for free-agents in major league baseball – think about that before passing judgement.

I realize this is a basketball comparison, but the Celtics used to be that team before KG arrived. Then, suddenly, they were the place to be. I know that in baseball it's difficult for one player to singlehandedly change a team's fortunes, but do the Jays have the chips to, potentially, acquire a team-changer? Halladay and prospects for Jose Reyes or David Wright, for instance?

Ted Lilly took less money to sign with Cubs, Gil Meche even took less to sign with the Kansas City Royals – to name a few.

I have a hard time believing that Kansas City is a more attractive destination for free agents than Toronto is.

If defense actually led to won/loss results on the field, then Riccardi's powerful defensive clubs should have contended once or twice in his reign. Having a good defensive club for the sake of having a good defensive club doesn't do anything for you.

Ted Lilly took less money to sign with Cubs, Gil Meche even took less to sign with the Kansas City Royals – to name a few.

Lilly wasn't going to resign with the Jays, since he and Gibbons didn't get along at all. It's amazing how getting in a fight with a manager will drive a player away.

Meche took more to sign with KC. That's what prompted JP's public rant about how Meche was more concerned with money than he was with playing for a winner.

I have a hard time believing Gil Meche was offered more than the 5yr / $55M he got from KC, especially since TOR had just given BJ Ryan & AJ Burnett their double-figure multi-year contracts in the '05 offseason.

EDIT -- [4] confirms my suspicions.

I realize this is a basketball comparison, but the Celtics used to be that team before KG arrived. Then, suddenly, they were the place to be. I know that in baseball it's difficult for one player to singlehandedly change a team's fortunes, but do the Jays have the chips to, potentially, acquire a team-changer? Halladay and prospects for Jose Reyes or David Wright, for instance?

I'd argue it's different in basketball:

-- One player can have far more of an impact on his team in basketball
-- Players interact much more in basketball both on and off the court - being on the same page and playing as a team is infinitely more important - and so a personality/influence like Garnett would have far more impact here as well

To put it another way, I don't see a single MLB player who could a) improve his team by 20 or so games on his own and b) completely overhaul the culture of the locker room. I just don't think it's the way things work in baseball. Has anyone signed with the Cardinals because they wanted to play with Pujols, for example?

If you wanted to argue that the Blue Jays could become a better FA destination by becoming a perennial contender, well, great, but that's a bit of a catch-22 in this example.

I have a hard time believing that Kansas City is a more attractive destination for free agents than Toronto is.

They have a crazy way of loving there, and Gil was gonna get him some.

He said JP had a NOSE for talent. Funny.

Isn't the "he" really you? Aren't these links to your own web site?

If you wanted to argue that the Blue Jays could become a better FA destination by becoming a perennial contender, well, great, but that's a bit of a catch-22 in this example.

Yep. I still wonder what would happen to the team's fortunes if they somehow pried Pujols from the Cardinals. He'd be a mood-swinger if I ever saw one.

Isn't the "he" really you? Aren't these links to your own web site?

Don't be silly. He's just a reader from the other site who happened to stumble across this site, just as the other guy got a lecture about self linking, and who does nothing but submit links from that site. It's completely coincidental.

Yep. I still wonder what would happen to the team's fortunes if they somehow pried Pujols from the Cardinals. He'd be a mood-swinger if I ever saw one.

Well, since he'd be going from the NL to the AL, he'd basically be another Adam Lind, and we've already got one of those.

It's defence!!

Well, since he'd be going from the NL to the AL, he'd basically be another Adam Lind, and we've already got one of those.

Awesome.

The Jays were one of the top defensive teams in the game nearly every season JP Ricciardi was at the helm – and I don’t think it was by mistake.

I do. Trading Hudson for Glaus should tell you all you need to know. Or not switching Rios and Wells.

JP claimed that he trusted his eyes more than numbers when looking at defense. If he was doing something cutting edge he wasn't clever enough to hide it - he would blab it to everyone.

He didn't trade for Overbay because of his defense, he was the only 1B that he could trade for that offseason. He traded for Rolen because he had to dump Glaus and the Cardinals were looking to dump Rolen. John McDonald is just a utility player that got forced into playing because there were no other options. Wells (when he could field) and Rios were part of a great defensive OF for a period, but he didn't acquire either player, he inherited both. LF has always been below average except for Reed Johnson who he inherited as well. Did he draft Hill with the intention he'd be a plus defender? I don't recall any of that talk; he moved to 2b because he couldn't handle SS.

JP often had good defensive players, but I don't think it was ever by design to have a superior defensive team because defense was undervalued.

And I'll join the chorus of those thinking its poor form to link to your own articles.

Ricciardi's defenders now remind me of the line in Jaws after Dreyfusses character continued to argue with Shaw's character about it being a sandshark or something, and after he continued to deny reality Shaw said he could recognize "kids who don't have the education to admit when they're wrong". The smugness from 2001 turned into the endless array of excuses which have now continued for years. Toronto's in an economically impossible situation - caught in a division where the rules of the sport are that teams can buy their way into the playoffs. In the rare year, one of New York or Boston won't make the playoffs, but that's the institutional exception. In a period where the only way to win was drafting very well his late '90's gimmick of drafting strictly college players was no longer a path to success. As BP put it, Ricciardi was still trying to exploit a market efficiency which no longer existed, and in the talent-laden 2002 draft, where he had two high picks with tons of hs talent staring him in the face (and urged on him by the Scouting Dept.), Ricciardi came up dry due to his out-dated strategy, which he continued in a dogmatic fashion for the next few years.

Ricciardi was in a virtually impossible division, but he probably couldn't have been a worse choice for the job. His remaining supporters talk up players like Jeremy Accardo, who if he is lucky, could have the career of Brandon Lyon, a player Ricciardi inherited, underestimated as he did most of what he inherited, and released for nothing. In a situation where he needed to obtain cheap high-impact talent, he became a guy who relied virtually entirely on obtaining players with Rogers' money -either through other teams dumping salary like, Overbay, Hllenbrand, Glaus etc.- or by overpaying wildly on the free agent market and then buying out an absurd number of contracts. The end result is a lousy farm system and a lousy major league team.

In actuality, Ricciardi offered Gil Meche almost identical money (on a seasonal basis) to the Royals' offer, but the Royals were willing to go five years while Toronto would only go four. Toronto offered something right at four years $44 million, KC five years $55 million. More money? Technically, I suppose, but Meche has always said the extra year was the deciding factor for him.

Toronto offered something right at four years $44 million, KC five years $55 million. More money? Technically, I suppose, but Meche has always said the extra year was the deciding factor for him.

The extra year was the deciding factor because it came with an additional $11M - it's not like he threw in that year for free. I don't see how there's any "technically" needed, with respect to it being "more money."

As BP put it, Ricciardi was still trying to exploit a market efficiency which no longer existed, and in the talent-laden 2002 draft, where he had two high picks with tons of hs talent staring him in the face (and urged on him by the Scouting Dept.), Ricciardi came up dry due to his out-dated strategy

Was 2002 talent-laden? Not really seeing as Adams looks like he has had one of the top 20 careers amoung hitters drafted that year, and Bush in the second round(55th overall pick, not sure where the other high pick you were talking about came from) was good value. I know at the time he did state that they were drafting that way to help fill the upper minors with players as at the time there was some top level talent(Hudson, Rios), but very thin after.

Jonas's comment is the best one-paragraph description of Ricciardi's career I've seen so far. Somehow it even seems fair.