First, we have learnt that the word "aggressive" seems to have a specific meaning. The Jays did not, of course, opt in on any top name free agents ... sort of (more on this in my next blog). No one expected them to sign Cole or Rendon but, we were assured, they were being aggressive. The problem was that this word -- "aggressive" -- seemed to be more of a talking point than an description of what was actually going on and it was only a short period of time until someone asked "what do you actually mean?" Does aggressive mean that you are actually trying to sign players or does it mean that you are just sort of kicking the tires and taking the odd second hand model out for a test drive?
From what I can tell this seemed to take Shapiro and others aback because ... well ... it exposed the fact that their efforts to reassure fans through the media were a bit of smoke and mirrors. It also exposed the fact that media commentators were willing to start asking tougher -- and perhaps better -- questions. The real problem, however, occurred because concern over the exact meaning of the word "aggressive" merged with concern over another metaphor: "waves of talent," whereby the minor league system will be supposedly producing new talent ready for the major league level every year or two. The problem was that at least some commentators were having a difficult time understanding where this talent was, say, with regard to the outfield or bullpen or the starting rotation. In the wake of this concern, speculation, then became rife that a fair number of players were, or might be, on the block with the exceptions of Grichuk, Biggio, Bichette, and Guerrero. Said differently, if there were no waves of talent (at least at specific positions), might not the Jays turn to trades to make their team competitive? And, if so, who would be traded?
What we learnt, then, was that the Jays were approaching this off season in basically the same way they had approached other off seasons: they were looking for bargains, but they were trying to disguise that fact by using words like "aggressive." When pressed on the word and its meaning, Jays sources clarified that what they meant was that they had been more aggressive in talking to free agents. This is something different than actually being aggressive in the market and attempting to sign free agents. In reality, their approach was basically the same as it had been and, in relatively short order, the Jays signed (or completed the deals, which are not quite the same thing, with) Tanner Roark, Chase Anderson, and Shun Yamaguchi (three 30+ pitchers).
This fits the same patterns as the last couple of years. It is no more or less aggressive. The contracts were relatively low in terms of cost and for relatively short durations. In the short term, they help the Jays address problems with their pitching staff. In the medium term, if one of these guys, say along with Giles, gets hot, they can be flipped at the All Star break for a prospect or two, likely middle range and perhaps someone who has worn out their welcome with elsewhere. Said differently, this was not aggression, but more of the same: Jays management was shopping for bargains or players that could be traded for prospects.
Let me be clear: I am not objecting to bargain shopping. I have some questions about the "more of the same" approach of the Jays, but I also thought the complaints last year that the Jays should have been in on the top level free agent market were horribly misplaced and displayed only a misunderstanding of the talent level that the Jays had on the field. They also mistook early season good play by the Phillies and Padres -- who had signed high priced free agents -- for dramatic improvement, something that did not really pan out over the entire season. What I object to is the semi-dishonesty of the matter. In fact, I find the whole "we are doing all we can to improve the Jays" discourse troubling because it begs a question: isn't that what you are paid to do? Are there team presidents and GMs out there who are *not* doing everything they can to improve their teams? And, if so, how long to they remain presidents and GMs?
The second and related point is that I am not certain how well more of the same will serve the Jays in the near future. In my view, Shapiro and Atkins found themselves in a mess when they took over the Jays. They had an old and expensive team, whose best prospects were in the low minors. The team was years away from being competitive, was saddled with large contracts, and old players who were spending a lot of time on the DL. They didn't have an option but to bargain shop. They needed to rid the Jays of salary (which included the reality that the team was going to eat a lot of it, but again that was not their fault), needed to see if any of the low prospects were good, and needed implement their own draft philosophy. In this context, picking up and flipping good low cost veterans was a legit strategy while allowing time to develop and draft younger players.
I wonder, however, if this strategy is coming close to the limits of its effectiveness and I wonder if the Jays management is starting to think the say way. One problem is that everyone is doing it and that is making those bargains ... well ... less bargainful than they were a couple of years ago. The other thing is that if we assess where the Jays are now, they are a team with remarkable strengths and considerable weaknesses. I am going to guess that the Jays are going to play close to .500 ball by the time the season is done. I expect the Yankees and Red Sox to lead the way with Tampa continuing to play good ball. What this means is that the Jays can play good and exciting ball but they are not going to be in the hunt and may be more than even this year away for being seriously competitive. I think that is how the Jays think about it, too, hence, their bevy of stop-gap contacts.
With regard to pitching, I suspect that the Jays will start the season with a rotation that looks something like this:
- Anderson
- Shoemaker (or Kay)
- Roark
- Ryu
- Thornton
I suspect they will end of year with a rotation that looks much more like this:
- Zeuch
- Pearson
- Thornton (or Kay)
- Borucki
- Ryu
And, I don't mind this at all because, truth be told, with the possible exception of a free agent signing down the road, this is likely the staff that will be pitching for the Jays when the are competitive, perhaps in two years time. For this year, Shoemaker, Anderson and Roark could be traded or transitioned to the bullpen, where they might be good and able to extend their careers for another two or three years. The bullpen is a bit of a mess but my guess is that the Jays will try to figure that out as the season goes along. Giles, Yamaguchi, Kay (if he is not in the rotation), Pannone, Gaviglio, Romano and Font are all likely to get long looks and I expect Reid-Foley will as well as Waguespack, who might sub in for Thornton if he does not go forward.
If this is the Jays approach, it is not a bad one. In fact, it has much to recommend it. What I can't figure out, then, is why the spin? What the Jays management has done over the last several years might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it has a logic to it, it made use of the resources that they could make use of, and accomplished a number of goals.
There is a third and final thing that we have learnt about the Jays that relates to the outlier in all this: the Ryu signing. I'll address that in a later blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment