Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, March 08, 2014

Blue Jays To Sign Ervin Santana

A pitcher with injury concerns signing with the Jays. What could go wrong?

The Blue Jays have agreed to terms with Ervin Santana on a one-year, $14MM deal, Dionisio Soldevila of ESPN Deportes tweets. Earlier in the day, Soldevila had reported that Santana would sign with an AL club for $14MM. Santana has until recently been represented by Proformance, although there have been recent reports about the possibility of Santana ending his relationship with that agency.

Santana pitched 211 innings with the Royals in 2013, posting a 3.24 ERA with 6.9 K/9 and 2.2 BB/9. After the season, he rejected a $14.1MM qualifying offer, hoping to strike it big on the free agent market. Obviously, that didn’t happen, as the issue of draft pick forfeiture supressed the market for Santana and several other players. The Blue Jays have two first-round picks, at No. 9 and No. 11, and both are protected. So they’ll have to give up the No. 50 overall pick for signing Santana.

Santana’s one-year deal gives him the opportunity to hit the free agent market again next offseason, when he will turn 32. If he performs well, however, he may still have to deal with the qualifying offer issue.

 

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 01:41 PM | 126 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: blue jays, ervin santana, free agents

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4668272)
Man, that draft-pick compensation thing is a ##### for middle tier FA's. And with a choice of Santana for 1/$14 or Ubaldo for 4/$50, I choose Ervin every time.

   2. Paul D(uda) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4668275)
Now there are reports that this isn't official until 5PM, as he's going to give the Orioles a chance to beat it before then.
   3. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: March 08, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4668276)
Wow, this was a lot more than I expected after Cruz' deal. Drew might not get burned for rejecting the qualifier after all. Morales certainly will, though.
   4. JJ1986 Posted: March 08, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4668282)
Lots of bad reporting on this one. Here are the Rotoworld blurbs on Santana from today:

Dionisio Soldevila of ESPN Deportes reports that Ervin Santana will sign a one-year, $14 million contract with an American League team.


Jon Heyman of CBS Sports reports that Ervin Santana is talking to the Blue Jays, Orioles and one unnamed National League team.


Dionisio Soldevila of ESPN Deportes reports that the Blue Jays and Ervin Santana have reached an agreement on a one-year, $14 million contract.


Jon Morosi of FOX Sports reports that while the Blue Jays and Ervin Santana are talking, there has been no deal finalized yet.


There was also one announcing the signing as fact, but that's since been edited.
   5. Eric P. Posted: March 08, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4668294)
About that last bit from the excerpt, I'd be gobsmacked if this deal doesn't carry with it an understanding that he won't be qualified after the season.
   6. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4668303)
I'd be gobsmacked if this deal doesn't carry with it an understanding that he won't be qualified after the season.


I believe MLB frowns upon side deals like that. I'm not sure if they have acted upon it, or what they would do though.
   7. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4668313)
Yeah, mid-tier free agents have gotten screwed by the QO. It's amazing that Santana is looking at just 1/14m.
   8. bookbook Posted: March 08, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4668317)
Seattle, wherefor art thou?
   9. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4668320)
It seems kind of crazy to me to give up a draft pick for one year of Ervin Santana, but I guess they're Toronto's resources to spend if they want.

Is AA in pure "don't get fired" mode at this point?
   10. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4668321)
Max Wildstein ?@MaxWildsteinMLB 25m
Source: All signs point to P Ervin Santana and the #Orioles agreeing on a deal



It seems kind of crazy to me to give up a draft pick for one year of Ervin Santana, but I guess they're Toronto's resources to spend if they want.


Its the 50th pick, and Santana, while erratic, can be a 3 WAR pitcher for you. They've already put their chips in this much, this doesn't seem like a terrible use of resources if you're looking to contend.

If they sign him, which appears to be in doubt now.
   11. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 08, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4668322)
It seems kind of crazy to me to give up a draft pick for one year of Ervin Santana, but I guess they're Toronto's resources to spend if they want.


Especially if you agree to forgo the chance to get one back next year, which is why I'd be gobsmacked if this deal did carry an understanding that he won't be qualified after the season.

If a player really wants to make sure he doesn't get a QO after the season, he can just wait until after opening day to sign. But again, why would a team do that? They'd still have to give up a pick and wouldn't have a chance to get it back in a year.
   12. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 08, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4668323)
I believe MLB frowns upon side deals like that. I'm not sure if they have acted upon it, or what they would do though.


I don't think it's really a side deal, it's no different than under the old system when occasionally a player would have a team agree not to offer arbitration (the old way of getting the draft pick). Pudge Rodriguez with the Marlins is the example that immediately comes to mind and I know it happened other times as well and I don't think MLB ever had an issue with it. In substance it's not really different than Japanese players getting contracts that make them free agents at the end even if they're under six years of service time.
   13. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4668325)
Is AA in pure "don't get fired" mode at this point?


I think probably yes, but I'm not sure where ownership stands. From the outside looking it it certainly would appear that he's reached the point where it's playoffs or fired.
   14. JJ1986 Posted: March 08, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4668331)
If the Orioles get Santana, they should go ahead and sign Drew as well.

Are there still rules about the number of compensation-required FAs a team can sign? I haven't heard anything about them under the new QO system.
   15. Matthew E Posted: March 08, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4668334)
For the Jays' ownership to fire Anthopoulos, they would first have to care about how well the team is doing. If they care about how the team is doing, then why haven't they made more money available to improve the team this off-season? If they do care, and have made the money available, then for Anthopoulos not to have spent it must mean that either a) he believes in the talent he already has, and/or b) he's not worried about getting fired. Of course, it's possible that they do care but haven't made the money available, in which case it doesn't really matter what Anthopoulos does because he's doomed anyway.

As far as Santana goes, I'm okay with the Jays signing him or not signing him. This team has problems that go way beyond the absence of Ervin Santana.
   16. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4668335)

I don't think it's really a side deal, it's no different than under the old system when occasionally a player would have a team agree not to offer arbitration


I know teams used to do that, but I thought I read under the new system, MLB wanted to discourage that. I could be wrong.
   17. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: March 08, 2014 at 04:57 PM (#4668336)
If the Orioles get Santana, they should go ahead and sign Drew as well.


To play... second base?

Are there still rules about the number of compensation-required FAs a team can sign? I haven't heard anything about them under the new QO system.


The draft picks received are always sandwich picks, so probably not.
   18. Greg K Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:15 PM (#4668340)
I believe the Jays are 9th in the league in payroll, 8th if this Santana contract happens (apparently there is a 5pm announcement).

God knows you can make a lot of criticisms about Jays management but I'm not seeing an unwillingness to spend money. If they aren't willing to add on payroll then why did they add those massive Buehrle and Reyes contracts last winter? It seems relatively simple; AA saw last year as the chance to spend ownership's money on a gamble to contend. That gamble didn't pay off and now the Jays are in a bad spot. I'm pretty sure this level of payroll is what ownership spending to win looks like. When you can't contend in the top third of the league's payrolls, a willingness to spend isn't the problem.

The gamble didn't work, so your only choice really is to take your lumps and hope you hit that 2% chance that everything goes right. It's that or blow it up and sit on the similarly slim hope that there's a team out there who is going to give you something significant for Buehrle at 2/37 or Reyes at 4/80.
   19. Matthew E Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:20 PM (#4668342)
I'm pretty sure this level of payroll is what ownership spending to win looks like.
No, that's true. But, given that the Jays do have the talent they do at the ages they are signed to the contracts they're signed to, they have to figure that it's now or never for this batch of players. They can't afford to play the long game with this roster; it's just squandering talent. So why not make expensive emergency moves to put these guys over the top?

I mean, I could see why they don't want to do that, but if they don't, why not just sell 'em all off? It's appropriate that we're talking about Santana here: make it real or else forget about it.
   20. formerly dp Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4668344)
The gamble didn't work, so your only choice really is to take your lumps and hope you hit that 2% chance that everything goes right. It's that or blow it up and sit on the similarly slim hope that there's a team out there who is going to give you something significant for Buehrle at 2/37 or Reyes at 4/80.
I agree-- but still think they could have done something to plug their 2B hole, if the 2% chance is the path they want to wander down. They have a very solid bullpen, a bunch of arms milling around with some upside, and a potentially-explosive offense. They were talking up Navarro's game-calling abilities during the broadcast today; maybe he's the one to unleash the potential of Hutchison and the rest. Probably not, but rebuilding seems like it will take too long, given what they've got at the top of the system.
   21. formerly dp Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4668347)
I mean, I could see why they don't want to do that, but if they don't, why not just sell 'em all off? It's appropriate that we're talking about Santana here: make it real or else forget about it.
If they don't sign him over a couple of million in incentives, that's not good...
   22. Greg K Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4668348)
I think the problem is they think there's a slim chance they contend...I mean, if you thought this team could contend last year (which obviously they did, otherwise why make those trades?) then I'm not sure one season changes their opinion drastically.

Balancing on the other side is, who would net anything of value in return? Bautista is on a short, reasonable contract, but coming off his second straight injury-plagued season? Encarnacion will likely land you something useful. I suspect if the season is bad enough we will see some deadline movement, certainly Rasmus I would think, possibly Morrow if he's holding up ok. But I'm just not sure there's that much young talent to be won in a blow up scenario.

Perhaps it's my dominant fan characteristics of fatalism and extremely cautious optimism. We're living in the aftermath of a roll of the dice that failed, thems the breaks. There's not much to do other than hope for that miraculous 2% chance that everything goes right, and then wait around for the next roll of the dice in 2019 or whenever.
   23. Greg K Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:34 PM (#4668349)
I agree-- but still think they could have done something to plug their 2B hole, if the 2% chance is the path they want to wander down. They have a very solid bullpen, a bunch of arms milling around with some upside, and a potentially-explosive offense. They were talking up Navarro's game-calling abilities during the broadcast today; maybe he's the one to unleash the potential of Hutchison and the rest. Probably not, but rebuilding seems like it will take too long, given what they've got at the top of the system.

Oh I agree, I was very disappointed with the lack of imagination this off-season...they didn't necessarily need to spend big bucks, but trying for some young guy that's been a bit of a disappointment with his present team, Ackley, or Ruben Tejada or someone. I was somewhat relieved to hear that Kinsler had nixed a trade to the Jays, to confirm that AA actually realized there was a problem. But big mistake of the off-season if you ask me, going with Goins.
   24. formerly dp Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4668351)
But I'm just not sure there's that much young talent to be won in a blow up scenario.
I sort of agree, but look at what the Jays gave the Mets for Dickey, and what they gave the Marlins for Reyes and company. If they blew it up entirely, they could definitely restock the upper levels of the system.

A lot of 'ifs' obviously, but if Lawrie takes a step forward, Rasmus and Lind maintain their production from last year, and Cabrera's 2013 was impacted by playing through a pretty awful injury, they'll be scoring enough runs to overcome mediocre pitching. Reyes healthy for a full season would be huge, and he's talking up his running game this year.
   25. formerly dp Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4668352)
but trying for some young guy that's been a bit of a disappointment with his present team, Ackley, or Ruben Tejada or someone.
The Jays weren't getting Tejada, unless the Mets signed Drew. The Mets literally have no one else to stand out there.
   26. Greg K Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:44 PM (#4668353)
The Jays weren't getting Tejada, unless the Mets signed Drew. The Mets literally have no one else to stand out there.

Hey, I wasn't expecting him for nothing, the Jays would have happily given the Mets international super star Munenori Kawasaki!

EDIT: Dan Murphy has always been a bit of a favourite with me too...what's his story?
   27. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4668355)
I don't think it's really a side deal, it's no different than under the old system

The new CBA apparently prohibits agreements not to make a QO.

Also, citing Max Wildstein is pure folly. His batting average makes Mario Mendoza look like Ted Williams.
   28. Matthew E Posted: March 08, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4668358)
I'm just not sure there's that much young talent to be won in a blow up scenario.
Maybe not. But what you are doing is reducing the price of mediocrity. Which is not something that you or I care about, but it does make a difference for ownership.

The other thing is this: if you're expecting the Jays to use the fruits of such a fire sale to build a contender in a couple of years, then I agree that you're going to be disappointed. But if you expect, like me, that the Jays will never be able to build a contender no matter how long you give them, then you're not going to be any more disappointed than normal.
   29. Lassus Posted: March 08, 2014 at 06:00 PM (#4668361)
The Jays weren't getting Tejada, unless the Mets signed Drew. The Mets literally have no one else to stand out there.

Not entirely true, literally. The Quintanilla Shitsperience was out there today.
   30. Greg K Posted: March 08, 2014 at 06:09 PM (#4668371)
But if you expect, like me, that the Jays will never be able to build a contender no matter how long you give them, then you're not going to be any more disappointed than normal.

I'm sorry to hear that, that must take a lot of the fun out of watching baseball.

Considering the Jays were, in my lifetime, one of the best teams in baseball over a 10 year period, and have an ownership willing to spend, I'm a bit more optimistic about the long-term possibility of contending, even if the immediate future isn't great. I'm not sure I see a vast difference between the current Jays and the late 90s, early 00s Tigers, or the Angels of the 90s, or the Rangers of the 80s. Nevermind long suffering teams like the Pirates who have the added obstacles of low budgets and actually poor teams rather than mediocre ones who provide a recent example of coming out of the doldrums. I mean, I get that being a Jays fan these past 20 years has been frustrating, but I don't think there's anything special about the Jays that make them unable to compete forever more. They're not the Cubs!
   31. formerly dp Posted: March 08, 2014 at 06:14 PM (#4668374)
Not entirely true, literally. The Quintanilla Shitsperience was out there today.

I don't want to say I'd forgotten about him, because who could, but I think the Mets recognize that he shouldn't be more than a Plan C.

I would actually be OK with Kawasaki at SS for a year. He's what Quintanilla aspires to.

EDIT: Dan Murphy has always been a bit of a favourite with me too...what's his story?
Back when the Jays were thinking about Lawrie at 2B, I was thinking Murphy would be a good fit for Toronto. At this point, though, who could they send the Mets back? I don't think Murphy's worth Rasmus, and that would just open another hole anyway (Gose might not ever be ready; is Sierra a CF?).
   32. ursus arctos Posted: March 08, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4668381)
5 comes and goes, and reports now that his decision could take "days"
   33. Greg K Posted: March 08, 2014 at 06:21 PM (#4668382)
At this point, though, who could they send the Mets back?

That is the sticky wicket. Used up all their money last winter, and used up most of their viable minor league bargaining chips. They've got relief arms to spare in a trade. Everyone could always use more relief arms!
   34. formerly dp Posted: March 08, 2014 at 06:28 PM (#4668383)
They've got relief arms to spare in a trade. Everyone could always use more relief arms!
John Rauch and Frank Francisco, Round 2?
   35. Matthew E Posted: March 08, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4668384)
I don't think there's anything special about the Jays that make them unable to compete forever more.
Special? No, I don't either; I just think that they're broken, that there's nobody in the organization who knows how to fix them, and that there's nobody in ownership who knows how to hire people who can fix them, and that ownership is unlikely to change in this or any other respect in the short or long term. It doesn't help that they're in the AL East; it doesn't help that they're in Canada.
   36. formerly dp Posted: March 08, 2014 at 06:41 PM (#4668389)
It doesn't help that they're in the AL East
Lots of griping during the broadcast about the unbalanced schedule-- I get the "sucks to play Boston and NY so often" complaints (and agree), but they were followed by "and Tampa's well-run," as if it's not fair the Jays should be in a division where franchises are run competently.
   37. Matthew E Posted: March 08, 2014 at 06:51 PM (#4668391)
Yeah. There's no reason that the Jays can't be the Rays only with more money. Except, well, just look at them: obviously they can't. It's like saying, "There's no reason that Otis can't be Luthor." Which, there isn't. But he can't.
   38. Greg K Posted: March 08, 2014 at 07:04 PM (#4668393)
Yeah. There's no reason that the Jays can't be the Rays only with more money. Except, well, just look at them: obviously they can't. It's like saying, "There's no reason that Otis can't be Luthor." Which, there isn't. But he can't.

Things can change pretty quickly though. It's quite funny to listen to Buck Martinez say "the Rays have been successful for years and years by doing X". I'm sure when Maddon took over the team in 2006 it wasn't especially obvious how Tampa was all of a sudden going to become a stable, successful team.
   39. Matthew E Posted: March 08, 2014 at 07:08 PM (#4668395)
Things can change pretty quickly though.
They sure can. Just a few years ago I thought the Jays were doomed to perpetual mediocrity. Now I yearn for those optimistic times.
   40. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: March 08, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4668420)
So Ervin Santana would cost them the #50 pick overall. Understanding the limits of such things, in the history of the draft (1965-present), there have been nine players picked at #50 who ended up having career WARs above 1.1:

Eckersley
Al Leiter
Brian Roberts
Adam Dunn
Bart Johnson
Joe Hesketh
Bo Jackson (!) (The Yankees used the #50 pick on him as a high school SS prospect in 1982!)
Seth Smith
Micah Owings (though most of his WAR value comes from his hitting, not his pitching)

13 other players appeared in the big leagues, usually for a short amount of time.
27 others never appeared in the big leagues (though four of them were drafted recently enough that they could conceivably still make the Big Show one day).

So you could argue that something like a little under in five #50 picks have ended up having a career. In three of the last four years, Santana has produced almost exactly the same WAR - about 3. Would you trade the odds listed above in exchange for reasonably good chance that Santana will give you a 3 WAR season...which would, by itself, be the 10th highest career WAR total for any #50 draft pick?

I think I would...
   41. Curse of the Andino Posted: March 08, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4668424)
They sure can. Just a few years ago I thought the Jays were doomed to perpetual mediocrity. Now I yearn for those optimistic times.


Hey, I thought the O's would never again be good in my lifetime. We mostly imitate what the Rays do at this point, spending a little more money than they do, and it's working though we don't have the young stud pitchers (yet.) Things change.
   42. Matthew E Posted: March 08, 2014 at 08:51 PM (#4668429)
Hey, I thought the O's would never again be good in my lifetime. We mostly imitate what the Rays do at this point, spending a little more money than they do, and it's working though we don't have the young stud pitchers (yet.)
So you'd think the Jays would be able to figure it out.
   43. Walt Davis Posted: March 08, 2014 at 09:01 PM (#4668435)
This would seem to be a sign either that teams REALLY don't like Drew or Drew is strongly resistant to moving to 2B (or possibly 3B with Lawrie moving to 2B).

That said folks are writing off the Jays much too easily. It would take some luck but they were badly snakebit last year. 31 pitchers -- that's just nuts. Only 3 guys over 100 IP, 13 different guys starting at least one game -- those are pretty extreme numbers. And despite all that misery, they managed a 96 ERA+, hardly embarrassing. This staff is stronger than it looks, especially if some combo of Buehrle, Dickey, Morrow can bounce back a bit.

The Jays also had only 3 guys qualify for the batting title, two of those barely (AL average is 5) and they won't be giving 500 PA to Arencibia. Obviously expecting full health out of all three of Reyes, Lawrie and Melky is optimistic, you can expect more than 3 guys to make 120 starts. And hopefully the Rasmus performance is what he'll do in his prime.

The Jays have all the earmarks of one of those teams that will "inexplicably" add 15-20 wins between seasons just because they get 140 starts from their top 5 instead of 110 and a healthy Reyes ... which means they also have all the earmarks of a team that will disappoint and win 75.
   44. Matthew E Posted: March 08, 2014 at 09:16 PM (#4668440)
I've been having disagreements with people all winter about this. In 2012 the Jays failed, got hurt, failed and got hurt, and got hurt and failed. So they made a bunch of changes and in 2013 they got hurt, failed, got hurt and failed, and failed and got hurt.

So is that bad luck, or is that just what the Jays do? After 2012 I would have said it was bad luck. After 2013, I can't make myself believe that anymore.

31 pitchers is indeed nuts. 13 starters is nuts. But in 2012 they had 33 pitchers and 12 starters. So is it really nuts, or is this just what the Jays do?

I have come to believe that this is just what the Jays do, and I don't see any reason to expect that they won't keep doing it.
   45. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 09:38 PM (#4668447)
I remember years ago, back in the Ricciardi Administration, rumor was that A.J. Burnett wanted to sue the Blue Jays over their medical handling of him, but was talked out of it by the union and/or his agent.

I just read Dirk Hayhurst's new book, and though he invested a couple paragraphs near the end of it in "the Blue Jays are a classy organization and it was an honor to be a part of it", the Blue Jays don't come off well at all in the book in handling his shoulder injury; after the surgery he came to camp and was foisted off on an apparently incompetent trainer* whose attitude was "yeah, sure, do whatever, why not?", and was never given any structure, or even schedule, for rehabbing. They sent him to the Andrews Clinic only after he aggravated the injury; actually they just sent him home, and then sent him to Andrews only after he called them up a month later and complained about it.

*EDIT: I mean that the trainer was incompetent to oversee post-surgical rehab. I don't know about his competence as a trainer.

I came away from the book wondering if that's just standard practice when dealing with fungible middle relievers, or if there's something seriously wrong with the Blue Jays' handling of injuries (or both). I remain unsure why, if the team was willing to pay to send him to the Andrews Clinic, they didn't send him there in the first place.

I need to write a review of the book actually. It's a fascinating read as a self-reflective psychological profile.
   46. Matthew E Posted: March 08, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4668451)
or if there's something seriously wrong with the Blue Jays' handling of injuries
Wouldn't surprise me.
   47. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 08, 2014 at 11:03 PM (#4668464)
Isn't it a pretty small sample size to conclude anything about the way a franchise handles injuries? Pitchers just get hurt sometimes.

I don't really get the defeatist attitude by Jays fans either. Well, I do, but its not rational. The team was projected by many reputable projection systems to be a 83-90 win team last year. They had an inordinate amount of injuries. Its not likely that will happen again. Even the too early CAIRO projections last December projected 84-78 for the Jays in 2014. There is no reason to think this can't be a pretty good team next year. Adding Santana and a MLB second baseman (Stephen Drew?) would put them right in the mix I think. Punting on a season only makes sense if you're clearly a sub-.500 team. There have been too many surprise contenders the last five years to make me think totally punting if you have a halfway decent team is a good idea.

   48. frannyzoo Posted: March 08, 2014 at 11:54 PM (#4668472)
I don't really get the defeatist attitude by Jays fans either. Well, I do, but its not rational.


I don't really get the defeatist attitude by sports fans either. Well, I do, but it's not rational.

Sorry, I can never get the strikethrough to work. FTFY and all that...
   49. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 12:37 AM (#4668481)
The team was projected by many reputable projection systems to be a 83-90 win team last year. They had an inordinate amount of injuries. Its not likely that will happen again.
It did happen again. That, last year, 2013, that was it happening for a second year in a row.

"Well, then, it can't possibly happen three years in a row!" The hell it can't. I know perfectly well it can.

Not that I'm saying the Jays should punt the season. I mean, I can say that the Jays are doomed to perpetual failure unless Rogers sells the team and the new owners fire and release everybody and start fresh. But I'm just a fan. Obviously the Jays themselves are not free to adopt that attitude. They have to believe that it's possible for them to succeed if they just do the right things. Yes, get a second baseman; get more pitching; get a guy to platoon with Lind; get some young outfield talent to take over when Rasmus and/or Cabrera leave. Try! It's worth doing even if it's hopeless.
   50. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: March 09, 2014 at 12:44 AM (#4668483)
Dude, you're being ridiculous. It's two ####### seasons, not Ragnarok.
   51. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 12:48 AM (#4668484)
Oh, I lost hope after 2009. That's when I knew that this team was incapable of doing anything that worked. The only thing that's changed in the last two years is my idea of just how bad things could get.
   52. Dan Posted: March 09, 2014 at 12:52 AM (#4668487)
I don't think it's really a side deal, it's no different than under the old system when occasionally a player would have a team agree not to offer arbitration (the old way of getting the draft pick). Pudge Rodriguez with the Marlins is the example that immediately comes to mind and I know it happened other times as well and I don't think MLB ever had an issue with it. In substance it's not really different than Japanese players getting contracts that make them free agents at the end even if they're under six years of service time.


A few people have alluded to the fact that the current CBA bans this type of agreement, and that is true. There is a specific rule against written or even handshake/verbal agreements for a team to forgo the qualifying offer. From page 90 of the CBA:

(c) A Club and Player (or their designated representatives) shall not enter into any agreement, understanding or contract, or make any representation, promise or commitment, whether implied or explicit, either orally or in writing, that the Club will not make a Qualifying Offer to a Player, or that a Player will not accept a Qual- ifying Offer if one is tendered to him. Any Club or Club employee that violates this provision will be subject to discipline by the Com- missioner, including the potential forfeiture of draft selections.


If Santana has another good year and the Jays feel safe extending a QO, then they could profit from this deal by exchanging their 2nd round pick in this year's draft for a sandwich pick in next year's draft. I think when you add that on top of getting a year of Santana's pitching then this deal looks pretty good for the Jays.
   53. Walt Davis Posted: March 09, 2014 at 01:00 AM (#4668490)
Oh for crying out loud. The Jays have averaged 78 wins after 2009, it ain't exactly the Royals. I know it's frustrating to be in the same division as the Yanks and Sox and that the extra WC came along too late but they haven't had a disaster season since 2004. Get back to us when your team actually sucks.
   54. Select Storage Device Posted: March 09, 2014 at 01:06 AM (#4668492)
It's tough being a fan of a team that is pretty good when you know they still have a mountain to climb every single year. It's not the worst; it's just tough.
   55. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 01:07 AM (#4668493)
Get back to us when your team actually sucks.
I have a hunch that this is going to be that year. Of course, it's only a hunch.
   56. AROM Posted: March 09, 2014 at 01:49 AM (#4668501)
Bo Jackson (!) (The Yankees used the #50 pick on him as a high school SS prospect in 1982!)


If I ever find a time machine, I'm adding watching Bo play shortstop to the list of things to see.
   57. Paul D(uda) Posted: March 09, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4668515)
I mean, the Jays haven't played a meaningful September game since 1993. That's a long time.
   58. JLAC is engulfed in a harmless burst of flame Posted: March 09, 2014 at 09:48 AM (#4668517)
Paul's statement has been one I've used myself for some time and recently something was bothering me about it and it turns out it's not quite accurate. The Jays were in the thick of the wild card race for a week or so in 1998, when a 4-game weekend sweep of the Red Sox (I believe I was at one of those games, it was in my first week of classes at U of T law school) followed by 3 of 4 against the juggernaut Yankees the next weekend in the Bronx put the Jays three out of the wild card spot on Sunday evening, the 13th. They promptly kicked it all away, but there were a couple of meaningful September games there.
   59. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4668543)
I understand the argument that those are meaningful games, but they don't/didn't feel meaningful to me. Three out of the wild card in mid-September? It's a frayed thread of hope, sure, but if that's the best example they've got, I'm going to stick with "haven't played a meaningful September game since 1993".

More to the point, they haven't had a team that has deserved to play a meaningful September game in all that time. They've had some decent if-everything-breaks-right teams, but no actual good teams.

And when they do things like punt the entire second-base position, or go with an eight-man bullpen because it's more important to have Jeremy Jeffress on the roster than it is to win ballgames, it sends me the message that having a good team is too much trouble for them and they'd rather field a decent if-everything-breaks-right team.
   60. formerly dp Posted: March 09, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4668554)
It's hard to make Met fans look cheerful by comparison, but you've pulled it off.

Agree with the specific criticisms, though. It should not have been difficult to find a better option at 2B-- no clue how they talked themselves into thinking that Goins is a competent Plan A, unless they wanted someone to fill Arencibia's role as the lineup's automatic out. They do have Chris Getz as an option, but he's not much better.

Any reason to think Lind will continue to be good? What happened to him last season?
   61. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 11:32 AM (#4668556)
Lind's track record is so spotty that it's hard to count on him to repeat last year's performance, but there's no reason he can't. He shouldn't play against lefthanders, though.
   62. donlock Posted: March 09, 2014 at 11:55 AM (#4668564)
The Orioles just signed Santana to a minor league deal and he will be back to his Cy Young form by June.

What?

Oh, never mind.
   63. Squash Posted: March 09, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4668571)
If Santana has another good year and the Jays feel safe extending a QO, then they could profit from this deal by exchanging their 2nd round pick in this year's draft for a sandwich pick in next year's draft. I think when you add that on top of getting a year of Santana's pitching then this deal looks pretty good for the Jays.

Has anyone come up with a solution as to how to fix the system so mid-tier guys don't get screwed? I looks to me like roughly the same number of guys are getting it currently as opposed to the Type A/B system, which isn't that many, but it still sucks to be one of those guys.
   64. Bug Selig Posted: March 09, 2014 at 05:30 PM (#4668732)
Has anyone come up with a solution as to how to fix the system so mid-tier guys don't get screwed?


Yes, when you're a mid-tier guy, YOU TAKE THE $14 MILLION DOLLARS. There's nothing wrong with the system - morons gotta moron.
   65. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 09, 2014 at 06:02 PM (#4668747)
I don't get the doom & gloom about the Blue Jays. Toronto is a large market. Media-wise, the Blue Jays have the entire Canadian market, although maybe not so much Quebec. The Blue Jays won back-to-back World Series and drew over 4 million fans 3 straight seasons. They may need more competent management, but everything else is in place for success.
   66. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 06:24 PM (#4668752)
They may need more competent management
I have been wondering for a while if the Jays have a hard time hiring anybody who isn't desperate to break into the business. They've only ever had one GM who held the position before coming to Toronto for the first time, and two managers. (Bavasi, Cox, Fregosi.) If you're good enough of a GM or manager that someone might actually want to hire you, do you want to take a job in Toronto? I really don't know. Maybe I'm wrong: the Jays have had other guys in their front office who are supposed to be really capable and well-respected; farm directors and cross-checkers and assistant GMs and stuff.

In the past I've been critical of their hiring for positions like this, and how they end up going with whoever was standing next to the previous guy when he got fired. The other side of that is, maybe they were just smart enough to collect people who'd be good replacements so that they'd be available in the first place. So I go back and forth on it.

But when you look at the results...
   67. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 09, 2014 at 06:41 PM (#4668761)
If you're good enough of a GM or manager that someone might actually want to hire you, do you want to take a job in Toronto?

I don't know why one wouldn't. The positives seem to far outnumber the negatives.

In the past I've been critical of their hiring for positions like this, and how they end up going with whoever was standing next to the previous guy when he got fired.

This might have been true a while back, but I think a bigger problem is Toronto's apparent obsession with being a Canada-centric team in all respects, including front office hires. Is there anyone who thinks Anthopoulos would have been elevated to the GM job at age 32 if he wasn't Canadian?

Over the winter, I probably had a hundred hours' worth of conversations regarding the Blue Jays with people currently or formerly with the Jays, and they painted an ugly picture of the team's baseball operations. It had been a while since I had spoken with people so openly disdainful of their team's GM and other top bb ops people. I never took the "AA is a ninja" nonsense seriously, but I also wouldn't have expected that he was so unpopular internally.
   68. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 09, 2014 at 08:08 PM (#4668792)
I have been wondering for a while if the Jays have a hard time hiring anybody who isn't desperate to break into the business. They've only ever had one GM who held the position before coming to Toronto for the first time, and two managers. (Bavasi, Cox, Fregosi.) If you're good enough of a GM or manager that someone might actually want to hire you, do you want to take a job in Toronto? I really don't know. Maybe I'm wrong: the Jays have had other guys in their front office who are supposed to be really capable and well-respected; farm directors and cross-checkers and assistant GMs and stuff.


AA and JP were both highly thought of when they were hired. Toronto has a good history, is a cool city, and has way more resources than many small market clubs. Of course its an attractive job. If Oakland and their terrible situation can keep Billy Beane, I don't see why Toronto couldn't attract good management. Not to mention the fact that many times the people "desperate to get into the business" make excellent GMs. You don't really want a retread like Ed Wade do you?

As a Royals fan, I find this "woe is me" talk a bit silly.
   69. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 09, 2014 at 08:21 PM (#4668798)
AA and JP were both highly thought of when they were hired.

JP, yes. Not sure it was as true re: AA. I don't remember a lot of talk of him being an in-demand GM candidate back in 2008–09.
   70. Paul D(uda) Posted: March 09, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4668799)
I don't think that AA was hired because he's Canadian, he was hired because he was there, works cheap, has a history with the team, etc.
   71. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: March 09, 2014 at 08:28 PM (#4668800)
Ah, but was he hired as assistant GM because he was more Canadian than the other candidates?
   72. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 08:29 PM (#4668801)
Well, as I say, I don't feel like I'm on firm ground on this point. It's something I've wondered about, but don't have a settled opinion about.
   73. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 08:38 PM (#4668803)
As a Royals fan, I find this "woe is me" talk a bit silly.
I am not a student of the Royals, and so I don't know if their misadventures over the past twenty-some years provide the same indications of insoluble problems that I see in the Jays.

I do find it interesting that there are three American League teams, either expansion teams or teams in new cities, who had one great run where they were considered the class of the major leagues, ending with a World Series win, and all three have done almost nothing since then. Baltimore has had the most success of the three, both in the '90s and last year, while the Royals and Jays have yet to emerge from whatever this funk is. I wonder if there are any other factors they have in common.
   74. Snowboy Posted: March 09, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4668821)
Are the Jays punting the 2B position by continuing to use Ryan Goins? And will it be any worse than 2013?

Last year Bonifacio and Izturis played the same number of games for the Jays at second base, and about the same number of innings. Izturis graded as below average defensively at 2B, and Bonifacio was average. Meanwhile Goins was graded as a very good defender (UZR of 6.6, Bonifacio was 0.3, Izturis -8.9 while at 2B).

In his 282 PA with the Jays, Bonifacio hit .218, and Izturis hit .236 over 399 PA. We know Goins isn't going to win the Silver Slugger, but is he going to be that much worse? He doesn't have any speed on the bases, but with Bonifacio going 12 for 18 and Izturis 1 for 6, you could argue those two didn't contribute much either in the steal department. If Goins truly is a plus defender, couldn't that make up for his lack of hitting, and maybe even make him a positive contributor?
   75. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 09, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4668823)
Ah, but was he hired as assistant GM because he was more Canadian than the other candidates?

Under Canadian law, a non-Canadian can only be hired if a qualified Canadian can't be found. The lower a job is on the hierarchy, the tougher it is to get an exemption.

***
I don't think that AA was hired because he's Canadian, he was hired because he was there, works cheap, has a history with the team, etc.

The guys I know with the Jays universally refer to AA as "Beeston's boy," so that relationship undoubtedly was a large factor. But there's also no doubt the team is increasingly Canada-centric, on the field, off the field, and even in the minor leagues (e.g., moving a Rookie team 3,000 miles away to Vancouver).
   76. Greg K Posted: March 09, 2014 at 09:18 PM (#4668826)
Are the Jays punting the 2B position by continuing to use Ryan Goins? And will it be any worse than 2013?

I'd say
Yes.
and
Probably not.

2B was a disaster last year and likely will be again.
   77. FrankM Posted: March 09, 2014 at 09:22 PM (#4668827)
#67 - Joe, without naming names of the people you talked to, could you be a little more specific about the reasons for the disdain?
   78. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 09, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4668835)
#67 - Joe, without naming names of the people you talked to, could you be a little more specific about the reasons for the disdain?

Arrogance, ineptitude, cronyism, unprofessionalism, dishonesty — you name it.

As much as Matthew E's comments above seem overwrought, the general tone sounds almost exactly like the guys I've spoken with. It's possible some of it was just the frustration of a very disappointing season, but I was surprised by the animus, both personal and professional, that was expressed toward the top guys in the Jays' baseball operations.

It was a small sample size of Jays bb ops staffers, but it sounds like the Jays have some systemic problems, starting with some basic baseball fundamentals, which are apparently lacking from top to bottom.
   79. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 10:19 PM (#4668843)
In his 282 PA with the Jays, Bonifacio hit .218, and Izturis hit .236 over 399 PA. We know Goins isn't going to win the Silver Slugger, but is he going to be that much worse? He doesn't have any speed on the bases, but with Bonifacio going 12 for 18 and Izturis 1 for 6, you could argue those two didn't contribute much either in the steal department. If Goins truly is a plus defender, couldn't that make up for his lack of hitting, and maybe even make him a positive contributor?
Goins, if he plays every day, will certainly contribute more with the glove than Izturifacio did. So in that sense he'll be an improvement, yes, but he'd need to exceed his offensive projections by a lot to be an actual positive contributor.
   80. JRVJ Posted: March 09, 2014 at 10:28 PM (#4668844)
64, I absolutely agree with this.
   81. Matthew E Posted: March 09, 2014 at 10:41 PM (#4668850)
Arrogance, ineptitude, cronyism, unprofessionalism, dishonesty — you name it.

As much as Matthew E's comments above seem overwrought, the general tone sounds almost exactly like the guys I've spoken with. It's possible some of it was just the frustration of a very disappointing season, but I was surprised by the animus, both personal and professional, that was expressed toward the top guys in the Jays' baseball operations.

It was a small sample size of Jays bb ops staffers, but it sounds like the Jays have some systemic problems, starting with some basic baseball fundamentals, which are apparently lacking from top to bottom.
I have absolutely no idea whether any of this is true or not, or, more to the point, whether it's more true of the Jays than of a typical major-league baseball team. And I don't pretend to know what the implications would be if it were true.

But the Jays are, after all, owned by Rogers Communications, and there is literally nothing bad that could be said about Rogers that I could not be led to believe.
   82. RJ in TO Posted: March 10, 2014 at 12:38 AM (#4668877)
But the Jays are, after all, owned by Rogers Communications, and there is literally nothing bad that could be said about Rogers that I could not be led to believe.


I strongly agree with the above statement.
   83. Squash Posted: March 10, 2014 at 01:57 AM (#4668893)
Yes, when you're a mid-tier guy, YOU TAKE THE $14 MILLION DOLLARS. There's nothing wrong with the system - morons gotta moron.

No tears will be shed for anyone making $14 million a year, but what's "wrong" is that guys who do that are always going to be on one-year deals and never get the security of a multi-year contract like everyone else in the league.
   84. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 10, 2014 at 07:28 AM (#4668908)
No tears will be shed for anyone making $14 million a year, but what's "wrong" is that guys who do that are always going to be on one-year deals and never get the security of a multi-year contract like everyone else in the league.

I don't think that analysis really holds up. The guys who are really getting screwed, are the ones who would only have gotten 1 or maybe 2 year offers anyway. The pick goes either way, regardless of how long the contract is. In fact there is a rather strong incentive for teams to only give up a pick for multi-year deals, since they are only giving up e.g. 1/4 of a pick per year, on a 4 year deal.

If a team would normally give a player 4/50, they aren't going to turn around an insist on a 1-year deal because they are going to lose a pick. They might only want to offer 4/46 or whatever they think the pick is worth. But for a team that wants to commit multiple years to a player, the pick is not going to be a deal-breaker. The guys who are getting shafted should have taken the QO, because the market for a multi-year deal wasn't there. And in that case a guaranteed 14m is going to look a lot better than the offer he will get once the cost for a pick is factored in.
   85. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 10, 2014 at 07:52 AM (#4668910)
Yes, when you're a mid-tier guy, YOU TAKE THE $14 MILLION DOLLARS. There's nothing wrong with the system - morons gotta moron.


And when all the mid-tier guys are taking the $14M, teams will start thinking twice about offering the $14M to all the mid-tier guys. Unless they actually want the player, and not just the sandwich pick.

...there's something seriously wrong with the Blue Jays' handling of injuries...


Goddamned socialized medicine.
   86. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 10, 2014 at 07:58 AM (#4668911)
Oh, I lost hope after 2009. That's when I knew that this team was incapable of doing anything that worked. The only thing that's changed in the last two years is my idea of just how bad things could get.


Me too, I hate to say, So to continue with the defeatist attitude, when I see that we've signed Santana, its only an answer to the question "which starter will lead the AL in homers allowed?".
   87. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 10, 2014 at 08:17 AM (#4668915)
As for Jays projections, I still had some optimism last year just because of all the new blood. But when you look at players like Morrow, Lind, Lawrie and Dickey, their established upside is AS-level (SSS caveat for Lawrie) but their downside is replacement level. Given the injury history of other key players like Bautista and Reyes, I don't think anyone can say the Jays have a winning squad with any certainty. Yes, they certainly have the talent to win 90 games this year, but it could just as easily be 68.
   88. Matthew E Posted: March 10, 2014 at 08:31 AM (#4668916)
Me too, I hate to say, So to continue with the defeatist attitude, when I see that we've signed Santana, its only an answer to the question "which starter will lead the AL in homers allowed?".
No, no; here's how you do the defeatist attitude with Santana.

Santana may well turn out to be a good signing, if the Jays do sign him. But if he is, then that just means that something's going to go wrong somewhere else, like Buehrle gets bitten by one of his dogs on the pitching arm, or something.

I haven't sunk quite as low as to say that Santana will have a good year if he signs with Baltimore but he'll have a bad year if he signs with Toronto. It's a little tempting to think that, but really I don't think it.
   89. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 10, 2014 at 08:57 AM (#4668918)
But the Jays are, after all, owned by Rogers Communications, and there is literally nothing bad that could be said about Rogers that I could not be led to believe.


In general, I've never had any truly bad dealing with Rogers Communications. I was one of the original internet-over-cable-lines subscribers (in London, around 1997-98), and that positive event may have hidden any flaws I've had with them. When you're getting internet speeds at 20x-100x faster available at the time than your friends, you tend to overlook small flaws.

I will say that when I called to complain about my bill (in order to see if I could get a better deal), the fact that the retention department got me an upgraded PVR, faster internet speeds, AND saved me $35/month on my bill...now I have to ask why was I being overcharged so much before hand...

The one thing I can say is that the vitriol I've heard about Rogers from customers is still less angry than for Bell from their customers.
   90. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: March 10, 2014 at 08:59 AM (#4668919)
I watched the Mariners lose 100 games with a $100 payroll. I cordially invite you to quit your ########.
   91. Matthew E Posted: March 10, 2014 at 09:07 AM (#4668921)
The one thing I can say is that the vitriol I've heard about Rogers from customers is still less angry than for Bell from their customers.
Listen, I'm no big fan of Bell. Bell is a huge monopoly corporation with all the stupidity and bureaucracy that that entails. I've got my own problems with Bell.

But, for all that, they're no more malevolent than is necessary or routine for such a corporation. Rogers, on the other hand... the only reason they haven't killed us all is that we haven't suffered enough yet.
   92. Greg K Posted: March 10, 2014 at 09:12 AM (#4668923)
The one thing I can say is that the vitriol I've heard about Rogers from customers is still less angry than for Bell from their customers.

That's my problem. Complaints about phone/cable/internet providers is fairly constant amongst friends in Toronto, in a way that isn't something I've ever heard anywhere else I've lived. Though I tend to tune it out and never remember if the person is complaining about Rogers or Bell. I've never had a cell phone, or cable...except for a year in Saskatchewan, though that was neither Rogers nor Bell, some local thing, SaskTel perhaps?

I remember my dad once had a "complaint" with Bell in that he had been given HBO and a bunch of movie channels on a free trial for a month, but 3 years later he was still getting the channels on one of his boxes. So he brought it up once when Bell called to do a customer satisfaction survey, and they promptly corrected the issue. He did something similar once when he hadn't received a hydro bill for 10 months.
   93. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 10, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4668926)
No tears will be shed for anyone making $14 million a year, but what's "wrong" is that guys who do that are always going to be on one-year deals and never get the security of a multi-year contract like everyone else in the league.


There should be a rule that if you accept a QO, you can't be offered another one for 3 years.
   94. FrankM Posted: March 10, 2014 at 09:55 AM (#4668933)
It was a small sample size of Jays bb ops staffers, but it sounds like the Jays have some systemic problems, starting with some basic baseball fundamentals, which are apparently lacking from top to bottom.

This I certainly agree with. Also John Farrell made some oblique references to this after he left for Boston.

As for Rogers and Bell, I have to say as a customer of both that my experiences with Rogers have been more positive.
   95. Squash Posted: March 10, 2014 at 11:29 PM (#4669322)
I don't think that analysis really holds up. The guys who are really getting screwed, are the ones who would only have gotten 1 or maybe 2 year offers anyway. The pick goes either way, regardless of how long the contract is. In fact there is a rather strong incentive for teams to only give up a pick for multi-year deals, since they are only giving up e.g. 1/4 of a pick per year, on a 4 year deal.

If a team would normally give a player 4/50, they aren't going to turn around an insist on a 1-year deal because they are going to lose a pick. They might only want to offer 4/46 or whatever they think the pick is worth. But for a team that wants to commit multiple years to a player, the pick is not going to be a deal-breaker. The guys who are getting shafted should have taken the QO, because the market for a multi-year deal wasn't there. And in that case a guaranteed 14m is going to look a lot better than the offer he will get once the cost for a pick is factored in.


You don't think Santana would already have a multi-year contract under normal circumstances? That strikes me as not accurate. Likewise Drew (although you could say he would be more of the 2-3 year variety). But particularly the way pitching is being rewarded, especially guys who can be counted on taking the ball on a consistent basis, Santana would definitely have signed a multi-year offer for a considerable amount of money a couple of months ago. Look what Garza got, Nolasco, Jimenez: all in the 4/50 range, and you take Santana over any of those guys.

There should be a rule that if you accept a QO, you can't be offered another one for 3 years.

I would agree with that. Particularly that the same team cannot make you another qualifying offer in two consecutive years - if you get traded, you can choose to waive that right, or if you are released that right voids out (perhaps), but it doesn't seem right that a player can be continually renewed essentially by a team on a one-year basis - that starts to smack a little close to the reserve clause for me. Though I agree circumstances such as that would be fairly rare.
   96.     Hey Gurl Posted: March 10, 2014 at 11:36 PM (#4669325)
I watched the Mariners lose 100 games with a $100 payroll. I cordially invite you to quit your ########.


What is the difference between winning 78 games and winning 60 games? In both cases our teams are out of the playoff race by August; the 100-loss team is probably more entertaining.
   97. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 11, 2014 at 08:00 AM (#4669371)
if you get traded, you can choose to waive that right, or if you are released that right voids out (perhaps)


You have to spend the entire season with one team to be eligible for a QO, so it's moot if you get traded or released mid-season.
   98. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 08:59 AM (#4669385)
I will say that when I called to complain about my bill (in order to see if I could get a better deal), the fact that the retention department got me an upgraded PVR, faster internet speeds, AND saved me $35/month on my bill...now I have to ask why was I being overcharged so much before hand...


That's standard procedure in the industry. If you want more stuff for less money, just call your cable company and inform them you're ending your service and signing on with a competitor, and hang up and wait for them to call you back.
   99. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 09:21 AM (#4669398)
What is the difference between winning 78 games and winning 60 games?


18 wins.
   100. Paul D(uda) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 08:08 AM (#4670027)
Santana to the Braves.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(13 - 7:15am, Oct 25)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(22 - 3:24am, Oct 25)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(81 - 2:03am, Oct 25)
Last: Dan

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(916 - 1:29am, Oct 25)
Last: J. Sosa

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3736 - 12:23am, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 0.6244 seconds
52 querie(s) executed