Jays Rant #1

At the start of the season, much was made about the Blue Jay's bevy of rookies. Seven rookies made the team out of Spring training and, we fans were told, this was because they were the best players. This was an important point emphasized by the broadcast team, as is there wont, over and over again: the coaching staff chose the best players. The implicit message was this: this is not a rebuilding season. We have a lot of rookies (making the Jays, by my reckoning both one of the oldest and youngest teams) but we are "in it to win it."

A month into the season and, amid serious signs of panic on the part of the Jays managerial team, four of rookies are gone.  This is further evidence -- evidence that has been mounting for some time -- that the Jays as an organization simply don't know how to develop young players, how to transition players from the minors to the majors. Or, even what players should be on their team.

Think about this: Hynes, Norris, Pompey, and Castro have now all been sent out. So … how were these the best players out of Spring training? If they were the best players, why are they not with the team right now? If they weren't the best players … why take them? Why take players only to send them out at something approximating the first signs of trouble.

The answer, clearly, is that they Jays don't know what they are doing and don't trust their own judgement. They yo-yo players and up and down to address what are short term problems while leaving long-term problems unaddressed. They have duplicate skills all over their lineup but serious deficits in other area.

Consider this. The Jays have the following players who can play first base reasonably well:

Encarnacion

Smoak

Valencia

Batista

But, they broke camp without a fourth outfielder and so messed around with Valencia, Goins, and Tolleson in the outfield.

The truth of the matter is no self-respecting contender actually breaks camp without a backup outfielder. Detroit, you recall, last year signed Raj Davis away from the Jays. Good call on their part; bad on ours for not taking him because outfield depth was a problem for the Jays all season. The point is that Detroit knew that to contend, they needed a backup outfielder who was something much more than a stopgap emergency measure. The Jays didn't know that … although exactly why is not clear.

Same thing if you look at third base. At one point the Jays had Tolleson, Valencia, Donaldson, and Encarnacion (with Batista a possible emergency sub) who could play third but no one would could come in as a defensive sub in LF or play more than a few innings at Short. From a baseball perspective this does not make a great deal of sense.

The Jays have addressed their weaknesses by bringing players up and down from AAA to the point where someone must be getting some serious frequent flyer points. Last year, it got to be a joke. Its like a treadmill, which has the effect of burning options and creating instability on the team.

The cause of all of this is the desire to compete without, frankly, having the talent to compete. The Jays have good players but that is something different from having a team that will be playing baseball after the regular season is over. Everyone wants to be competitive, everyone wants to win. Good management has to dispassionately look at a team and decide whether or not it can win this year. If it can or it can't, that affects the decision one makes.

For example, a rebuilding team will let young players work out problems in the majors. They will let young starters get roughed up and not worry about it, providing coaching and positive reinforcement. It will let rookie relievers take a few hits and keep trotting them out there. That is what rebuilding is all about. The Jays, however, can't do this; they can't -- won't -- take the time to develop players because they focus is on *now*.

Teams that want to contend strive to avoid these the problem of learning on the job en masse. They tend not to load themselves down with young players. For instance, a team that will contend will make space for a guy like Delabar (because there is less of a chance he will implode than a rookie). Likewise, Jenkins. Delabar has had problems but … he's now in the majors as the solution the Jays rookie woes problem.

The real problem with the Jays so far this year is that they thought they could have their cake and eat it too … whatever that means. They thought they could win while they rebuild. Or, perhaps this was just wishful thinking.  This does happen, but it is rare.  The Jays moves suggests that they now see things that way, too.  That they recognize how rare it is to rebuild and compete at the same time.

I do hope the Jays get their act together. I'm a fan. We will have to see what the future holds, but moving players around at light speed is almost certainly not the right course of action.

Democrats, Republicans, Rob Ford and Idiots

Rob Ford became mayor of Toronto, in part, by promising to end the "gravy train." His election represented a bit of a populist grass roots revolt against what was seen as overpaid out of touch municipal civil servants and -- for some -- unions. I even think Rob Ford believed what he was saying: that the problems with municipal finances were the result of a relatively small number of fat cats who were using tax dollars as their gravy train. There are -- to be sure -- some serious problems with "fat cats" and "gravy." I'll address those in another post. Right now, what I would like to point out is that what is evident is that Toronto is in a financial mess and that that mess cannot be solved by cutting back on a few people who are doing things in an untoward way. Instead, it will involve deep cuts to services for seniors, to daycare spots, the layoff of up to one third of the firefighters in the city and cuts to the police department as well. In other words, essential services will need to be cut to balance the books. Or, if not essential services, then services the merits of which are not in doubt (no one, to the best of my knowledge, believes seniors or children should be without proper care).

Now, it might be easy to gloat at Ford, particularly in the wake of his failure to appear at Pride events. He is still saying that labour costs are "four time too high", but one might notice that that begs questions: four times too high as compared to what? Does that mean workers in Toronto are paid 400% the national average? (So, if the national average for a civil servant were $50 000, according to Ford, Toronto bureaucrats make $200 000.) Or, that Toronto has 400% more workers then other cities the same size? Who determined the wage rate anyway? Ford is willing to argue that wages are 400% too high but he will not show his math. I suspect even a lot of those people who supported him are starting to think that this is a figure he pulled out of the air with little or nothing to substantiate it.

What should we learn from this? Should we learn that Rob Ford is an idiot. There are people -- particular some people who support Pride -- who seem to feel this way and fair enough. The quick math I just did above suggests that Ford must have failed grade six math. But, this is not the lesson that is important to learn. There are those who will believe what Ford says because they want to believe. They want to believe that municipal finances are in mess because of a small group of lazy gravy trainers. Heck, I want to believe this. If it were true, it would mean that we could solve our financial problems relatively easily. We could solve those problems without losing fire and police protection. We could solve our problems while ensuring that children had safe care and seniors weren't left to their own devices in run-down flats. What we need to learn from Rob Ford's financial problems are that this is not true and we need to learn it soon. We need to learn that solving our financial problems will require a mature approach. We need to learn that there will always be Rob Fords: people who will rail against unions and wage rates and gravy trains but we then need to ask them to "show their math" rather than voting for them.

Is this -- my comment -- biased? No, not in the least. This is not an anti-right wing statement. Everyone should be asked to show their math. The fact that Rob Ford was not and the fact that he is not will only create serious human problems for Toronto. I lived in Ontario during the Mike Harris cuts. I saw the legacies of homelessness, violence against women, health problems, loss of municipal services, conflicts with Original Peoples, and the like that went on. That is what we need to avoid and we can avoid it only by asking to see the math and behaving in a mature way.

In politics, there will always be those who say "vote for me, the answer is easy." Or, "vote for me and you'll be rich." Rob Ford is one of those. He said "vote for me because some fat cats on the gravy train are costing you money." Instead of believing him we need to be responsible and mature and use our own minds.  What is a mature approach? Two things strike me as important:

First, we need to investigate issues so that we can make informed decisions. It is possible that some fat cat gravy trainers are ruining the system. In Toronto, of course, this turned out not to be the case. If voters had investigated this before hand, they would have found this out. Just like those who look into his claims about labour costs and municipal government will have serious questions about his math.

Second, we need to consider what taxes are used for. There is a long-standing anti-tax position in our society that has gotten worse over the years but … taxes are not all bad. Indeed, and perhaps I will post on this later, they can serve very useful purposes. Until we come to grip with this point -- taxes are not just empty -- we will not be able to have serious and meaningful discussion of this issue.