any body notice?

In article <7976-4705A2E3-1604.RemoveThis@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>,
Shoeless Joe <slooooohand.RemoveThis@webtv.net> wrote:
>That Lilly with the cubs had 15 wins and
>Escabar had 18 wins hell even Spier has
>a sparkling .288 era in 51 games he was
>in.
>
>kudos to the block heads you run the jays!!

1) According to reports, both Lilly and Meche turned down MORE from the Jays
to go to their respective clubs (Cubs, Royals).

2) The good years they had actually somewhat validate the fact that the Jays
pursued them, and not some other blockheads who had a 7.xx era.. I.e. we
tried to get the best pitchers available: they didn't want to come (back) to
Toronto for whatever reason.

3) Life in the NL is generally easier for a pitcher to the tune of 0.5 ERA.
So, inflate Lilly's ERA by 0.5. It's still good.

4) The fact that you're using wins to measure performance shows you don't
understand pitching

5) Escobar is definitely someone they should have kept.

6) The Jays said they would have liked to keep Speier, but like
Catalonotto, he ended up outside the Jays' overall budget. btw, you might
want to look at a few other players the Jays had, who pitched quite a bit in
2007:
Accardo: 2.14 ERA
Downs: 2.17 ERA
Jannsen: 2.35 ERA
Wolfe: 2.98 ERA

Note that these 4 together probably made LESS than Speier. It doesn't make
sense to overpay for pitching, when you can get better or as good
performance for much cheaper from guys you already have on your roster.
Plus, due the Speier signing, we got another draft pick.

I'd be much more upset over the Catalonotto departure: we could have REALLY
used his 780 OPS and had Stairs play more first or DH while Overbay was
hurt, or facing tough righties - Jays had a real tough time against righties
this year. Of course, Anaheim went out and gave him a WHOPPER of a deal that
the Jays couldn't match ($4M/year or something).

oh, btw, don't you love how JP turned total loser Hillenbrand (600 OPS this
year - worse than McDonald, I think) into super-closer Accardo of 2.14 ERA
AND reduced salary at the same time! I think that was a STEAL!!

Other things he's done, haven't been as great.

MH
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

"MH" <mghembru RemoveThis @eceunix.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:fep8gi$22j$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> In article <7976-4705A2E3-1604 RemoveThis @storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>,
> Shoeless Joe <slooooohand RemoveThis @webtv.net> wrote:
>>That Lilly with the cubs had 15 wins and
>>Escabar had 18 wins hell even Spier has
>>a sparkling .288 era in 51 games he was
>>in.
>>
>>kudos to the block heads you run the jays!!
>
> 1) According to reports, both Lilly and Meche turned down MORE from the
> Jays
> to go to their respective clubs (Cubs, Royals).
>
> 2) The good years they had actually somewhat validate the fact that the
> Jays
> pursued them, and not some other blockheads who had a 7.xx era.. I.e. we
> tried to get the best pitchers available: they didn't want to come (back)
> to
> Toronto for whatever reason.
>
> 3) Life in the NL is generally easier for a pitcher to the tune of 0.5
> ERA.
> So, inflate Lilly's ERA by 0.5. It's still good.



not a factor, since it affects everyone in the league.




>
> 4) The fact that you're using wins to measure performance shows you don't
> understand pitching
>
> 5) Escobar is definitely someone they should have kept.
>
> 6) The Jays said they would have liked to keep Speier, but like
> Catalonotto, he ended up outside the Jays' overall budget. btw, you might
> want to look at a few other players the Jays had, who pitched quite a bit
> in
> 2007:
> Accardo: 2.14 ERA
> Downs: 2.17 ERA
> Jannsen: 2.35 ERA
> Wolfe: 2.98 ERA
>
> Note that these 4 together probably made LESS than Speier. It doesn't make
> sense to overpay for pitching, when you can get better or as good
> performance for much cheaper from guys you already have on your roster.
> Plus, due the Speier signing, we got another draft pick.
>
> I'd be much more upset over the Catalonotto departure: we could have
> REALLY
> used his 780 OPS and had Stairs play more first or DH while Overbay was
> hurt, or facing tough righties - Jays had a real tough time against
> righties
> this year. Of course, Anaheim went out and gave him a WHOPPER of a deal
> that
> the Jays couldn't match ($4M/year or something).
>
> oh, btw, don't you love how JP turned total loser Hillenbrand (600 OPS
> this
> year - worse than McDonald, I think) into super-closer Accardo of 2.14 ERA
> AND reduced salary at the same time! I think that was a STEAL!!
>
> Other things he's done, haven't been as great.
>
> MH
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

MH!

Another year older but MH still whistling the same I love Riccardi
tune.

Do you possible think they'll contend in 2008? You've got to be
kidding!


>
> 1) According to reports, both Lilly and Meche turned down MORE from the Jays
> to go to their respective clubs (Cubs, Royals).

Dig deeper, why did they turn it down. Meche chose to be with the
worst team in the league over being with Riccardi.

>
> 2) The good years they had actually somewhat validate the fact that the Jays
> pursued them, and not some other blockheads who had a 7.xx era.. I.e. we
> tried to get the best pitchers available: they didn't want to come (back) to
> Toronto for whatever reason.

Or it indicates Jays the jays can't coach or manage their players.
Miguel Baptista has 30 wins as starter since he was a lame closer with
the Jays. He was included in the Orlando Hudson deal. The best second
baseman in baseball plus a 15 game winner for a steriod-inflated,
injury-prone 240 hitter. A classic deal in the Doyle Alexander for
Kurt Schilling category.


>
> 3) Life in the NL is generally easier for a pitcher to the tune of 0.5 ERA.
> So, inflate Lilly's ERA by 0.5. It's still good.

15 wins is actually harder to accomplish in the NL because your more
likely to be pulled for offense.
>
> 4) The fact that you're using wins to measure performance shows you don't
> understand pitching
>
> 5) Escobar is definitely someone they should have kept.

And Carpenter and Hudson. Dave Bush will probably make the Overbay
deal look brutal by the time he's finished.

>
> 6) The Jays said they would have liked to keep Speier, but like
> Catalonotto, he ended up outside the Jays' overall budget. btw, you might
> want to look at a few other players the Jays had, who pitched quite a bit in
> 2007:
> Accardo: 2.14 ERA
> Downs: 2.17 ERA
> Jannsen: 2.35 ERA
> Wolfe: 2.98 ERA
>
> Note that these 4 together probably made LESS than Speier. It doesn't make
> sense to overpay for pitching,

Riccardi pays 13 mil a year for Burnout, 4 mil a to Towers. For Christ
sake he's the King of overpaying pitchers!

Throw in 11 mil for Glaus and 10 mil for Thomas and you have over 1/2
the Colorado pay roll.



> I'd be much more upset over the Catalonotto departure: we could have REALLY
> used his 780 OPS and had Stairs play more first or DH while Overbay was
> hurt, or facing tough righties - Jays had a real tough time against righties
> this year. Of course, Anaheim went out and gave him a WHOPPER of a deal that
> the Jays couldn't match ($4M/year or something).

They can pay 1-10 Josh Towers a WHOPPING 4 mil but not Catlanatto.


>
> oh, btw, don't you love how JP turned total loser Hillenbrand (600 OPS this
> year - worse than McDonald, I think) into super-closer Accardo of 2.14 ERA

Even a blind pig gets an occasional truffle.

He's a good set up guy but no super closer.

> Other things he's done, haven't been as great.

He been great at excuses and convincing a diminishing crop of JP
lemmings, like my friend MH, that somehow next year will be
different.

JC
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

<jchristow.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192497131.989258.166320@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> MH!
>
> Or it indicates Jays the jays can't coach or manage their players.
> Miguel Baptista has 30 wins as starter since he was a lame closer with
> the Jays.

In 2006, Batista threw 206.1 innings with a 4.58 ERA while opposing
batters hit .288/.357/..426 (BA/OBP/SLG) off of him. In 2007, he threw 193
innings with a 4.29 ERA while opposing batters hit .276/.353/.420 off of
him, with a 1.52 WHIP. In 2007, the AL hit .271/.338/.423, while the league
average WHIP for pitchers was 1.41. In short, Batista provided bulk
innings, but looks like a fourth or fifth starter. No great loss.

> He was included in the Orlando Hudson deal. The best second
> baseman in baseball plus a 15 game winner for a steriod-inflated,
> injury-prone 240 hitter.

The last two years, Hudson has hit .287/.354/.454 and .294/.376/.441.
Good numbers for sure, but not the best second baseman in baseball (see
Utley, Chase). The same two years, Glaus hit .252/.355/.513 and
..262/.366/.473. That's a pretty clear edge for Glaus. Even given the
injury-filled year he had in 2007, he still managed to outhit Hudson.

> A classic deal in the Doyle Alexander for
> Kurt Schilling category.

Curt Schilling was never traded for Doyle Alexander.

> And Carpenter and Hudson. Dave Bush will probably make the Overbay
> deal look brutal by the time he's finished.

Bush is about to turn 28 and has a career ERA of 4.53. His 2007 ERA was
5.12. He might still turn the corner, but right now he looks an awful lot
like another fourth starter. Not that exciting.

I'm not a fan of everything Riccardi's done (multiyear deal for John
McDonald?), but I don't really see much to get upset about here.

Chris Johnston
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

>
> The last two years, Hudson has hit .287/.354/.454 and .294/.376/.441.
> Good numbers for sure, but not the best second baseman in baseball (see
> Utley, Chase). The same two years, Glaus hit .252/.355/.513 and
> .262/.366/.473. That's a pretty clear edge for Glaus. Even given the
> injury-filled year he had in 2007, he still managed to outhit Hudson.

Are you kidding? The only superior stat is slugging %. And I would
hope Glaus is better in that area. Hudson also had more hits more
rbis, more walks and less strikeouts. He plays spectacular D, was a
gold glover, an allstar, and is a great clubhouse guy. You trade that
plus a 15-10 pitcher for a defensive liability whose only batting
advantage is slugging %. On top of all that Hudson makes 2.3 mil and
Glaus pulls-in 11mil almost 4 times what Hudson makes. And you think
the Jays got the better of the deal?

Must be the new math because I'm missing something. If that makes
sense to you I can see why you're a Riccardi fan.


>
> Curt Schilling was never traded for Doyle Alexander.

Sorry I believe it was John Smoltz. A better example might have been
Quantrill and Izturis foe Luke Prokopec. Are you going to spin that as
a good deal too?

>
> Bush is about to turn 28 and has a career ERA of 4.53. His 2007 ERA was
> 5.12. He might still turn the corner, but right now he looks an awful lot
> like another fourth starter. Not that exciting.

Well Bush is no 4 mil, 7-20, in the last 2 years Josh Towers but he
did run off 8 wins in a row.

>
> I'm not a fan of everything Riccardi's done (multiyear deal for John
> McDonald?), but I don't really see much to get upset about here.

Actually if you're a fan of mediocrity there's a lot to cheer about.
If you don't like penant races you're routing for the right team.

The guy decimated an allstar team, destroyed the farm system, made
horrible deals and worse off season signings. He lacks class, has
brutal people skills, deliberatly lies to the fans and has built a
team that has zero chance of winning; other than that, you're right,
not much to get upset about.
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

<jchristow DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192574889.890149.195310@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> The last two years, Hudson has hit .287/.354/.454 and .294/.376/.441.
>> Good numbers for sure, but not the best second baseman in baseball (see
>> Utley, Chase). The same two years, Glaus hit .252/.355/.513 and
>> .262/.366/.473. That's a pretty clear edge for Glaus. Even given the
>> injury-filled year he had in 2007, he still managed to outhit Hudson.
>
> Are you kidding? The only superior stat is slugging %. And I would
> hope Glaus is better in that area. Hudson also had more hits more
> rbis, more walks and less strikeouts. He plays spectacular D, was a
> gold glover, an allstar, and is a great clubhouse guy. You trade that
> plus a 15-10 pitcher for a defensive liability whose only batting
> advantage is slugging %. On top of all that Hudson makes 2.3 mil and
> Glaus pulls-in 11mil almost 4 times what Hudson makes. And you think
> the Jays got the better of the deal?

You're comparing an injury-filled season for Glaus with Hudson's best
season. In 2006, which was a typical Glaus season (and where he was an
all-star, FWIW), Glaus was the better player. And going forwards, I think
Glaus is more likely to hit like he did in 2006 and Hudson is to hit like he
did in 2007.

>> Curt Schilling was never traded for Doyle Alexander.
>
> Sorry I believe it was John Smoltz. A better example might have been
> Quantrill and Izturis foe Luke Prokopec. Are you going to spin that as
> a good deal too?

Well, as it turned out it wasn't a good deal, but it was hardly an awful
deal. In 2000, at age 23, Prokopec spent most of the year at AA, where he
posted a 2.45 ERA and struck out 124 batters in 128.2 innings. He spent
most of 2001 in the rotation in LA, where he wasn't terribly effective, but
not awful for a 24-year-old rookie. He then got traded to Toronto where he
got hurt and never amounted to anything. Quantrill spent 2 good years in
the Dodger bullpen in 2002 and 2003, a mediocre year in the Yankee bullpen
in 2004 and bounced between three teams in 2005 when he was obviously
finished. Izturis, despite the good glove, is a career .259/.295/.334
hitter, which is pretty much useless. Very little difference between him
and John McDonald (not that I'm endorsing John McDonald).

Essentially, that turns out to losing two good years and one mediocre
one of Quantrill for a bad half-season of Prokopec. Didn't work out, but
might have if Prokopec hadn't gotten hurt, and still isn't an awful trade in
retrospect.

>> Bush is about to turn 28 and has a career ERA of 4.53. His 2007 ERA
>> was
>> 5.12. He might still turn the corner, but right now he looks an awful
>> lot
>> like another fourth starter. Not that exciting.
>
> Well Bush is no 4 mil, 7-20, in the last 2 years Josh Towers but he
> did run off 8 wins in a row.

Yes, clearly the team would have been better off the last two years with
Bush instead of Towers, but you were originally arguing that Bush was going
to make the Overbay deal look bad, to which I said there was little evidence
to support that position. You're not refuting that.

Chris Johnston
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

> > On top of all that Hudson makes 2.3 mil and
> > Glaus pulls-in 11mil almost 4 times what Hudson makes. And you think
> > the Jays got the better of the deal?
>
> You're comparing an injury-filled season for Glaus with Hudson's best
> season. In 2006, which was a typical Glaus season (and where he was an
> all-star, FWIW), Glaus was the better player. And going forwards, I think
> Glaus is more likely to hit like he did in 2006 and Hudson is to hit like he
> did in 2007.

You're initail claim was Glaus had superior numbers. The opposite is
true. Even though the stats you sight are number of at bats
independant you believe somehow they;re injury affected. Now, you
inexplicabley claim, using some oracle available to only you and JP,
Hudson's numbers will go down and Glaus's will skyrocket?
>
> Well, as it turned out it wasn't a good deal, but it was hardly an awful
> deal. In 2000, at age 23, Prokopec spent most of the year at AA, where he
> posted a 2.45 ERA and struck out 124 batters in 128.2 innings. He spent
> most of 2001 in the rotation in LA, where he wasn't terribly effective, but
> not awful for a 24-year-old rookie. He then got traded to Toronto where he
> got hurt and never amounted to anything. Quantrill spent 2 good years in
> the Dodger bullpen in 2002 and 2003, a mediocre year in the Yankee bullpen
> in 2004 and bounced between three teams in 2005 when he was obviously
> finished. Izturis, despite the good glove, is a career .259/.295/.334
> hitter, which is pretty much useless. Very little difference between him
> and John McDonald (not that I'm endorsing John McDonald).
>
> Essentially, that turns out to losing two good years and one mediocre
> one of Quantrill for a bad half-season of Prokopec. Didn't work out, but
> might have if Prokopec hadn't gotten hurt, and still isn't an awful trade in
> retrospect.

If Mike Sirotca hadn't had been hurt that might have been a good deal
too.

No it essentially means 2 good years of Quantrill and an allstar
shortstop for absolutely nothing. We haven't had a decent shortstop
since your buddy Riccardi took over. And because he dumped all 3
bonefide big league shortstops, Gonzales, Lopez and Izturis he was
forced to pass on Scott Kazmir in the draft and select Russ (the
sieve} Adams.

This is why you're alone on the same page as JP. You believe trading
2 allstars for nothing is a good deal.

It's great you're content with bad deals, poor signings, absymal
drafting and horrible people skills. Other than those short comings JP
might be a good GM. However, I feel, most fans would prefer a winner.

> Yes, clearly the team would have been better off the last two years with
> Bush instead of Towers, but you were originally arguing that Bush was going
> to make the Overbay deal look bad, to which I said there was little evidence
> to support that position. You're not refuting that.
>

Bush ran off 8 wins in a row and generated a lot of NL hype. Many
analysts peg this guy as a potential ace.
After a horrible start he went 12-10 and had a much better year on the
mound than Overbay had in the field so there plenty of evidence
supports my position.

JC
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

<jchristow.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192804789.100093.140110@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> > On top of all that Hudson makes 2.3 mil and
>> > Glaus pulls-in 11mil almost 4 times what Hudson makes. And you think
>> > the Jays got the better of the deal?
>>
>> You're comparing an injury-filled season for Glaus with Hudson's best
>> season. In 2006, which was a typical Glaus season (and where he was an
>> all-star, FWIW), Glaus was the better player. And going forwards, I
>> think
>> Glaus is more likely to hit like he did in 2006 and Hudson is to hit like
>> he
>> did in 2007.
>
> You're initail claim was Glaus had superior numbers. The opposite is
> true. Even though the stats you sight are number of at bats
> independant you believe somehow they;re injury affected. Now, you
> inexplicabley claim, using some oracle available to only you and JP,
> Hudson's numbers will go down and Glaus's will skyrocket?

Acutally, my initial claim was that Glaus was much better in 2006 and
about the same as Hudson in 2007, when Glaus played hurt, probably dragging
down his performance. Why do I think that Glaus will be better going
forwards? Because he's a career .254/.358/.500 hitter and Hudson is a
career .278/.343/.430 hitter. No oracle required.

>> Well, as it turned out it wasn't a good deal, but it was hardly an
>> awful
>> deal. In 2000, at age 23, Prokopec spent most of the year at AA, where
>> he
>> posted a 2.45 ERA and struck out 124 batters in 128.2 innings. He spent
>> most of 2001 in the rotation in LA, where he wasn't terribly effective,
>> but
>> not awful for a 24-year-old rookie. He then got traded to Toronto where
>> he
>> got hurt and never amounted to anything. Quantrill spent 2 good years in
>> the Dodger bullpen in 2002 and 2003, a mediocre year in the Yankee
>> bullpen
>> in 2004 and bounced between three teams in 2005 when he was obviously
>> finished. Izturis, despite the good glove, is a career .259/.295/.334
>> hitter, which is pretty much useless. Very little difference between him
>> and John McDonald (not that I'm endorsing John McDonald).
>>
>> Essentially, that turns out to losing two good years and one mediocre
>> one of Quantrill for a bad half-season of Prokopec. Didn't work out, but
>> might have if Prokopec hadn't gotten hurt, and still isn't an awful trade
>> in
>> retrospect.
>
> If Mike Sirotca hadn't had been hurt that might have been a good deal
> too.

It would have been. But pitchers get hurt. All the time. In every
organization. You can't forsee the extent of those injuries. The problem
with the Sirotka deal was that the Jays knew he was seriously hurt when they
traded for him, and traded for him anyways. That was idiotic.

> No it essentially means 2 good years of Quantrill and an allstar
> shortstop for absolutely nothing. We haven't had a decent shortstop
> since your buddy Riccardi took over. And because he dumped all 3
> bonefide big league shortstops, Gonzales, Lopez and Izturis he was
> forced to pass on Scott Kazmir in the draft and select Russ (the
> sieve} Adams.
>
> This is why you're alone on the same page as JP. You believe trading
> 2 allstars for nothing is a good deal.

I don't care how many all-star appearances Izturis has made, he's
useless. He cannot hit. He never has hit. He never will hit. There is no
real difference between him and John McDonald. He is no loss. Gonzalez was
never great, spent only two more years as a starter (and he was awful in the
second of those years) and is now out of baseball. No real loss there
either. I always thought trading Lopez was a mistake, but he hasn't really
worked out either - one good year, one OK year, and not much else. With bad
defence. I suspect that if Toronto had kept him, the team would probably
still be looking for an answer at SS.

So, again, losing a couple of good years of Qunatrill for essentially
nothing? Not a positive, but hardly the end of the world.

>> Yes, clearly the team would have been better off the last two years
>> with
>> Bush instead of Towers, but you were originally arguing that Bush was
>> going
>> to make the Overbay deal look bad, to which I said there was little
>> evidence
>> to support that position. You're not refuting that.
>
> Bush ran off 8 wins in a row and generated a lot of NL hype. Many
> analysts peg this guy as a potential ace.
> After a horrible start he went 12-10 and had a much better year on the
> mound than Overbay had in the field so there plenty of evidence
> supports my position.

After a horrible start? He had a 5.47 ERA after the all-star break. He
didn't get better as the season went on, he got worse. And he's about to
turn 28. He's highly unlikely to suddenly develop into an ace. Overbay's
nothing special at 1B, but there's zero reason to believe Bush is anything
special either.

There's lots of moves Riccardi has made which seem questionnable: Royce
Clayton. Multi-year deal for John McDonald (who he traded for twice.
Twice!). The Wells extension, which has the potential to be an albatross
for years to come. Russ Johnson as a starting corner OF. The Delgado
fiasco. Losing Doug Davis for nothing (that's the pitcher he gave away that
people should be complaining about). But I don't think that the
Hudson/Glaus, Quantrill or Bush deals belong on that list.

Chris Johnston
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

On Oct 19, 2:09 pm, "Chris Johnston" <john....DeleteThis@primus.ca> wrote:
> <jchris....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192804789.100093.140110@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> > On top of all that Hudson makes 2.3 mil and
> >> > Glaus pulls-in 11mil almost 4 times what Hudson makes. And you think
> >> > the Jays got the better of the deal?
>
> >> You're comparing an injury-filled season for Glaus with Hudson's best
> >> season. In 2006, which was a typical Glaus season (and where he was an
> >> all-star, FWIW), Glaus was the better player. And going forwards, I
> >> think
> >> Glaus is more likely to hit like he did in 2006 and Hudson is to hit like
> >> he
> >> did in 2007.
>
> > You're initail claim was Glaus had superior numbers. The opposite is
> > true. Even though the stats you sight are number of at bats
> > independant you believe somehow they;re injury affected. Now, you
> > inexplicabley claim, using some oracle available to only you and JP,
> > Hudson's numbers will go down and Glaus's will skyrocket?
>
> Acutally, my initial claim was that Glaus was much better in 2006 and
> about the same as Hudson in 2007, when Glaus played hurt, probably dragging
> down his performance. Why do I think that Glaus will be better going
> forwards? Because he's a career .254/.358/.500 hitter and Hudson is a
> career .278/.343/.430 hitter. No oracle required.
>
Even by your number's only Glaus's slugging % was higher in 2006 and
apparently those numbers were HGH inflated. You also totally disregard
Hudson's defense which is meteorically better than Glaus. That's why
they got him not for his bat. Even without the bat it was a bad trade.
The fact that he out hits Glaus, makes a fraction of the money and
they through in a 4th starter makes it a terrible trade.



>
>
> >> Well, as it turned out it wasn't a good deal, but it was hardly an
> >> awful
> >> deal. In 2000, at age 23, Prokopec spent most of the year at AA, where
> >> he
> >> posted a 2.45 ERA and struck out 124 batters in 128.2 innings. He spent
> >> most of 2001 in the rotation in LA, where he wasn't terribly effective,
> >> but
> >> not awful for a 24-year-old rookie. He then got traded to Toronto where
> >> he
> >> got hurt and never amounted to anything. Quantrill spent 2 good years in
> >> the Dodger bullpen in 2002 and 2003, a mediocre year in the Yankee
> >> bullpen
> >> in 2004 and bounced between three teams in 2005 when he was obviously
> >> finished. Izturis, despite the good glove, is a career .259/.295/.334
> >> hitter, which is pretty much useless. Very little difference between him
> >> and John McDonald (not that I'm endorsing John McDonald).
>
> >> Essentially, that turns out to losing two good years and one mediocre
> >> one of Quantrill for a bad half-season of Prokopec. Didn't work out, but
> >> might have if Prokopec hadn't gotten hurt, and still isn't an awful trade
> >> in
> >> retrospect.
>
> > If Mike Sirotca hadn't had been hurt that might have been a good deal
> > too.
>
> It would have been. But pitchers get hurt. All the time. In every
> organization. You can't forsee the extent of those injuries. The problem
> with the Sirotka deal was that the Jays knew he was seriously hurt when they
> traded for him, and traded for him anyways. That was idiotic.

The Sox new he was hurt not the Blue Jays. Boomer Wells didn't do much
for Chicago anyway so by your standard it wasn't a bad deal.

> > No it essentially means 2 good years of Quantrill and an allstar
> > shortstop for absolutely nothing. We haven't had a decent shortstop
> > since your buddy Riccardi took over. And because he dumped all 3
> > bonefide big league shortstops, Gonzales, Lopez and Izturis he was
> > forced to pass on Scott Kazmir in the draft and select Russ (the
> > sieve} Adams.
>
> > This is why you're alone on the same page as JP. You believe trading
> > 2 allstars for nothing is a good deal.
>
> I don't care how many all-star appearances Izturis has made, he's
> useless. He cannot hit. He never has hit. He never will hit. There is no
> real difference between him and John McDonald. He is no loss. Gonzalez was
> never great, spent only two more years as a starter (and he was awful in the
> second of those years) and is now out of baseball. No real loss there
> either. I always thought trading Lopez was a mistake, but he hasn't really
> worked out either - one good year, one OK year, and not much else. With bad
> defence. I suspect that if Toronto had kept him, the team would probably
> still be looking for an answer at SS.

Two starters for nothing is a bad deal made worse, because getting rid
of 3 short stops forced him to take Russ Adams over Kasmir.
What do you consider bad? Letting Carpenter go for the league minimum?
Was that good? How about signing Burnout for more than twice what the
Bosox signed Beckett. Brilliant!!

What does this clown have to do before you raise an eyebrow? ( Besides
sign MacDonald)
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

Old message but it amused me,so as to the number of deals discussed here , the Hudson deal i didnt like from the beggining but batista had nothing to do with that,

the overbay deal will be about even.

As for the sighning of burnett , when he's right he's an ace but he's not often right and more often injured,so yeah.

multi year for john mac, whatever it was back up money
towers deal was 2 years 5 mil
he did land accardo
also drafted russ adams though
he wasn't responsible for some of the bad deals that r on here
the not re-sighnings Cat had a horrible year, speir was at a position of strength,
escobar got too much money at that time copared to his production and inconsistency at thet time,his upside was large though.

Carpenter had shown flashes but was really injury prone and at that time was asking for too much,and isn'y he injured right now?

Quantrill was out of their buget wich is why that trade happened.(and with izturis lopez ang gonzo,they are no closer any of those years to wining and are looking for help at shortstop still) though they just signed eckstein so we'll see i guess.

i know im missing some deals but this is too long.

Oh and i'm not a hge fan of J.P. but the team he broke up was hardly an allstar team,the had some guys who could hit but no defence or pitching.
and the farm system was kaput when he got there.
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice? 

If the Jays were in any other division they could prolly win more than half of em and be contenders in the rest.
 >> Stay informed about: any body notice?