Blue Jays Discussion: Back in Toronto AND things are happening (trade deadline @ 4pm ET/1pm PT today)

[TheBeastCoast]

Shame. I was hoping Zeuch would become one of those Buerhle types, but that usually requires quite a bit of experience.

And being good generally.

 

[trellaine201]

Wasn’t he better than Barnes etc?

 

[The Nemesis]

Sure, but when you're scoring 10 runs a game against all of the bad teams, your numbers are going to inflate real fast.

You keep saying that like it's a proven fact that it's true, but haven't provided any real evidence to that end other than cherry-picked anecdotal points or "it's what happened" generalizations.

It shouldn't be for me to have to go drag up the actual numbers to illustrate your point but:

As of what I'm assuming is yesterday's game (via B-Ref. I believe they don't update until the end of the day) the Jays score 5.18 runs per game, which is 3rd in the league behind only the Astros and Dodgers.

From the beginning of the season, here's where they scored more than that amount of runs:

Spoiler

Apr 5 @ Tex (6)
Apr 10 vs LAA (15)#
Apr 13 vs NYY (7)*
Apr 21 @ Bos (6)*
Apr 27 vs Wsh (9)
Apr 30 vs Atl (13)#
May 1 vs Atl (6)#
May 2 vs Atl (7)#
May 5 @ Oak (9)*
May 6 @ Oak (10)*
May 8 @ Hou (8)*
May 13 @ Atl (8)#
May 16 vs Phi (10)#
May 18 vs Bos (8)*
May 20 vs Bos (7)*
May 21 vs TB (7)*
May 24 vs TB (8)*
May 25 @ NYY (6)*
May 28 @ Cle (11)#
Jun 2 vs Mia (6)
Jun 5 vs Hou (6)*
Jun 9 @ CWS (6)*
Jun 12 @ Bos (5)*
Jun 12 @ Bos (7)*
Jun 13 @ Bos (18)*
Jun 19 @ Bal (10)
Jun 20 @ Bal (7)
Jun 24 vs Bal (9)
Jun 26 vs Bal (12)
Jun 29 vs Sea (9)*
Jun 30 vs Sea (7)*
Jul 2 vs TB (11)*
Jun 3 vs TB (6)*
Jun 7 @ Bal (10)
Jun 16 @ Tex (10)
Jun 18(g2) @ Tex (10)
Jul 14 vs NYM (10)*

In that list I've marked games against teams that are clearly over .500 (as of right now, because figuring out records at the time would be like 10x the amount of work) with a *. I've marked teams that are against teams that are at or within a couple of games of .500 right now with a #. Games of 10 or more runs are in bold.

So overall, the Blue Jays have 37 games in which they've scored a better than average amount of runs (6+) out of 94 total games on record up to the end of play on Saturday. Of those 37:

• 20 of them have come against teams that are at least 5 or 6 games over 500
  
• 15 of that 20 are against teams that are leading or in the immediate vicinity of leading their division (Boston, Tampa Bay, Chicago White Sox, Houston, and the Mets). For everyone that's not the Mets that means a winning % that's close to or above .600
  
• 7 additional games beyond the 20 are against close-to-500 teams (Angels, Braves, Phillies, Cleveland. This group is .495-.500). That means 27 of 37 games in which the Jays scored 6+ runs are against teams that would qualify as "not terrible", and thus:
• Only 10 of them are the Jays beating on up on bad teams like the Orioles, Rangers, and Marlins (and the bad-but-not-that-bad Nationals)

If we limit this to just 10+ run games on the premise of the team only feasting on terrible opponents they have:

• 4 against strong teams (1 each vs Oakland, Boston, Tampa Bay, and the Mets)
• 4 against middling teams (1 each vs Angels, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Cleveland)
• 5 against bad teams (3 vs Baltimore, 2 vs Texas)

So.... sorry. But you're pretty much wrong. The available evidence shows pretty clearly that the Jays are not padding their stats vs bad teams and then going in the tank against better ones. They're a strong offence that can explode, do well, do alright, or potentially struggle on any given night they take the field. And for the most part they're just as likely to torch a very good team as they are a poor one.

And even besides that, of course they're going to do better against bad teams. Everyone does. That's how this works. Stronger opposition means it's harder to score runs. I imagine if you look across baseball there are very few if any teams that are just as good against strong teams as they are against weak ones unless "just as good" means "equally terrible"

 

[Dr.Funk]

You keep saying that like it's a proven fact that it's true, but haven't provided any real evidence to that end other than cherry-picked anecdotal points or "it's what happened" generalizations.

It shouldn't be for me to have to go drag up the actual numbers to illustrate your point but:

As of I'm assuming yesterdays game the Jays score 5.18 runs per game, which is 3rd in the league behind only the Astros and Dodgers.

From the beginning of the season, here's where they scored more than that amount of runs:

Spoiler

Apr 5 @ Tex (6)
Apr 10 vs LAA (15)#
Apr 13 vs NYY (7)*
Apr 21 @ Bos (6)*
Apr 27 vs Wsh (9)
Apr 30 vs Atl (13)#
May 1 vs Atl (6)#
May 2 vs Atl (7)#
May 5 @ Oak (9)*
May 6 @ Oak (10)*
May 8 @ Hou (8)*
May 13 @ Atl (8)#
May 16 vs Phi (10)#
May 18 vs Bos (8)*
May 20 vs Bos (7)*
May 21 vs TB (7)*
May 24 vs TB (8)*
May 25 @ NYY (6)*
May 28 @ Cle (11)#
Jun 2 vs Mia (6)
Jun 5 vs Hou (6)*
Jun 9 @ CWS (6)*
Jun 12 @ Bos (5)*
Jun 12 @ Bos (7)*
Jun 13 @ Bos (18)*
Jun 19 @ Bal (10)
Jun 20 @ Bal (7)
Jun 24 vs Bal (9)
Jun 26 vs Bal (12)
Jun 29 vs Sea (9)*
Jun 30 vs Sea (7)*
Jul 2 vs TB (11)*
Jun 3 vs TB (6)*
Jun 7 @ Bal (10)
Jun 16 @ Tex (10)
Jun 18(g2) @ Tex (10)
Jul 14 vs NYM (10)*

In that list I've marked games against teams that are clearly over .500 (as of right now, because figuring out records at the time would be like 10x the amount of work) with a *. I've marked teams that are against teams that are at or within a couple of games of .500 right now with a #. Games of 10 or more runs are in bold.

So overall, the Blue Jays have 37 games in which they've scored a better than average amount of runs (6+) out of 94 total games on record up to the end of play on Saturday. Of those 37:

• 20 of them have come against teams that are at least 5 or 6 games over 500
  
• 15 of that 20 are against teams that are leading or in the immediate vicinity of leading their division (Boston, Tampa Bay, Chicago White Sox, Houston, and the Mets). For everyone that's not the Mets that means a winning % that's close to or above .600
  
• 7 additional games beyond the 20 are against close-to-500 teams (Angels, Braves, Phillies, Cleveland. This group is .495-.500). That means 27 of 37 games in which the Jays scored 6+ runs are against teams that would qualify as "not terrible", and thus:
• Only 10 of them are the Jays beating on up on bad teams like the Orioles, Rangers, and Marlins (and the bad-but-not-that-bad Nationals)

If we limit this to just 10+ run games on the premise of the team only feasting on terrible opponents they have:

• 4 against strong teams (1 each vs Oakland, Boston, Tampa Bay, and the Mets)
• 4 against middling teams (1 each vs Angels, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Cleveland)
• 5 against bad teams (3 vs Baltimore, 2 vs Texas)

So.... sorry. But you're pretty much wrong. The available evidence shows pretty clearly that the Jays are not padding their stats vs bad teams and then going in the tank against better ones. They're a strong offence that can explode, do well, do alright, or potentially struggle on any given night they take the field. And for the most part they're just as likely to torch a very good team as they are a poor one.

And even besides that, of course they're going to do better against bad teams. Everyone does. That's how this works. Stronger opposition means it's harder to score runs. I imagine if you look across baseball there are very few if any teams that are just as good against strong teams as they are against weak ones unless "just as good" means "equally terrible"

 

[CherryToke]

Stay in Buffalo

 

[TGB]

You keep saying that like it's a proven fact that it's true, but haven't provided any real evidence to that end other than cherry-picked anecdotal points or "it's what happened" generalizations."

Other than predicting future results, heh. Funny how everyone is conveniently ignoring that.

But, hey, it's easy to argue with someone when you're currently threatening to ban them. I say anything even remotely resembling a rebuttal and it's "inflammatory speech", heh. So, whatever you say, dude. It's just some random thoughts at a forum for me. But we'll see how it works out (spoiler: I'm usually right).

 

[TF97]

You really never can tell what AJ Preller might do. I am hoping they pay a hefty amount and it makes it more difficult for them to be in the Gallo sweepstakes (assuming he doesn't sign an extension). But, this is Preller we are talking about, so anything is possible.

 

[Brock Boeser Laser Show]

You really never can tell what AJ Preller might do. I am hoping they pay a hefty amount and it makes it more difficult for them to be in the Gallo sweepstakes (assuming he doesn't sign an extension). But, this is Preller we are talking about, so anything is possible.

There goes all of Kim’s playing time. Not that he deserves to play given his production but have to wonder if he’d like a do over now that he’s been buried in the depth chart

 

[TF97]

Well now... things are happening. Apparently Jerry Dipoto couldn't handle AJ Preller possibly making the most unexpected deal of the day

 

[hockeywiz542]

 

[habamillions]

Good time to trade semien. He will fetch a lot. Especially if a team was going after frazier and merrifield and were unsuccessful

 

[Brock Boeser Laser Show]

Return is kinda meh. If Padres don't have to trade top prospects for controllable pieces neither should the Jays.

 

[TF97]

Good time to trade semien. He will fetch a lot. Especially if a team was going after frazier and merrifield and were unsuccessful

They are 4.5 games back of the second wild card with an already stacked farm system. The Blue Jays are undoubtedly better off buying and trying to win with the roster they have now. The team is undoubtedly flawed, but still a good team that can compete for a wild card spot. Besides, they will at worst get a comp pick back for Semien should he leave in free agency. Now, this is of course assuming they don't completely collapse in the next few days before the trade deadline and a key player or two get injured.

 

[SDig14]

Good time to trade semien. He will fetch a lot. Especially if a team was going after frazier and merrifield and were unsuccessful

If a team wants to trade like a top 50 prospect in baseball for Semien, then I would listen. Otherwise, I will just extend him a QO and take the comp pick of he signs elsewhere. We don't really need 3-4 average prospect quantity bundle since we have have a really good system already.

 

[phillipmike]

Also although the Jays havent been good over the last 5 games, we still haven’t lost much ground on Oakland. We are 4.5 GBs of the A’s because Seattle beat them twice and they are leading in the 9th for the sweep.

If Oakland loses we 4 GBs of Oakland. 8.5 of the Rays and 9.5 back of Boston.

If we can maintain that or trim away before the deadline AND add some pieces AND return to the RC infront of fans - that’s a huge bump for the Jays going into the stretch run.

We already have a 2 “deadline additions” coming: we actually get home games infront of home fans and we have advantageous schedule to finish out the season.

 

[Deebo]

I am hoping Pearson can be a key bullpen addition. Like when Sanchez was added to the 2015 bull pen.

 

[The Nemesis]

Other than predicting future results, heh. Funny how everyone is conveniently ignoring that.

But, hey, it's easy to argue with someone when you're currently threatening to ban them. I say anything even remotely resembling a rebuttal and it's "inflammatory speech", heh. So, whatever you say, dude. It's all just entertainment to me. We'll see how it works out (spoiler: I'm usually right).

I'm not threatening to ban you, nor would addressing the issue in a civil manner count as "inflammatory speech." This fake martyr bullshit isn't really an effective shield against the fact that you're completely avoiding the actual issue you yourself brought up and were refuted on. It just looks like a ploy to dodge admitting that you gambled on broad proclamation and lost because the data says it's incorrect.

Further, this response kind of proves that you don't really want to have a debate or examine the issue. You seem to want people to simply accept that you're right because you say you are. You're apparently not even going to pretend there's actual evidence in your favor that you can present, just that you say your assertion "predicts future results" (which it can't, because it's wrong) and people are ignoring that (which isn't true, multiple people have confronted you about your claim. It's just that they're not accepting it on face value alone).

You claim that the Jays are beating up on bad teams and their offence looks good because of it. That has been the crux of your argument for a while now. I just posted a detailed analysis of why that's not the case.

It would seem rather convenient how you're the one ignoring things by just sidestepping all of that so you can take the opening comments of my post and go off on a different track that doesn't involve confronting the fact that the entire basis for your claims up until now is concretely, factually, irrefutably untrue. You want to claim the Jays offence is what you say it is? Then why is it that everything from how they've performed this season is contrary to your claim? Look at those Blue Jays beating up on all those bad teams to get their 10-run games. Like the Division-Leading Red Sox. or Division-Leading Rays. Or Division-Leading Mets. Or Division-Leading Astros. Or the not awful Nationals or Cleveland or Oakland? Why is it that only 5 of the 13 times they've scored 10+ runs this season has been against an abjectly terrible team? Seems like that's a pretty big stake through the heart of "they're just beating up on bad teams and then sucking against the good ones." as a characterization of the Blue Jays offence. Seems like the fact that there's just 1 less 10+ run game against division leaders who are posting a .600ish winning % than there are against the dregs of the AL in Texas and Baltimore kinda says that they're equally capable of sticking it to a good team as a bad one. Kinda looks like your whole house of cards has fallen apart and your only response is "but I'm right!" and pretending that you're not allowed to fight back because I've threatened you (which is completely untrue.) and hope that it all blows over. That's not happening though. So I'll invite you: You want to prove you're right? Take apart my counterargument from the last post. The actual factual one, not the lead-in characterizations of your argument history. You're free to tell me that it's wrong. That it's stupid. That it's faulty. As long as you do not cross the line and fire a shot at me personally, it's fair game and not against the rules and I or any other moderator wouldn't do anything about it. There's a clear and distinct difference between "that's a stupid argument because X" and "you're an idiot if you believe X" that forms the basis as to why one is allowed and one isn't. I don't think it's a big deal for that to be recognized.

You can pretend to be the victim and unfairly picked on all you want, but when you strut in, make a bunch of claims with no real evidence, and then rather arrogantly claim that whatever you say is fine because you're "usually" right, how do you expect people to respond? Do you think they're going to go "golly gosh, this person is confident and says they're right. I'd better believe them because they tell me to!" or do you think perhaps that they're going to go "look at this person haranguing and browbeating people with baseless claims and the rather arrogant-sounding presumption that they're right simply because they say they are. That's irritating and not conducive to actual discussion or examination of the issues and will unsurprisingly make people defensive about being treated as if they're stupid if they don't believe these flimsily supported assertions on nothing more than "because I say so" cajoling."?

You might also want to be careful about admitting that you find this to all be "entertainment". Because then it looks an awful lot like you're admitting to being obtuse and combative for kicks, which is where it starts to skirt into the site rules definition of trolling. It's nothing of consequence right here, but a lot of moderation is about the benefit of the doubt and it's hard to hang onto that when it appears someone has said that they enjoy riling people up on purpose.

Please understand that this is in no way intended as any amount of threat or attack. It's me explaining things to you and having a strongly-worded but still within-bounds argument about both the subject of the team and your method of addressing it. I'm sure there's more than enough people on here that will tell you I'm not some vindictive monster that's out to harass the user base. It usually takes quite a lot to get me this annoyed.

 

[phillipmike]

The 2021, Jays are 49-46. +87 run differential. 4 GBs of the WC and 9.5 GBs of the division.

On July 28, 2015 the Jays were 50-51 with a +96 run differential. 3 GBs of the WC and 8 GB of the division.

On that day the Jays traded for the Rockies SS and a few days later made a few more trades.

In 2021, the Jays have younger, better and more controllable players with a much much better farm and financial flexibility.

Also keep in mind the 2021 Jays accomplished this record and those feats playing all their games on the road.

Ball is in Shapiro’s court.

 

[LeafsOHLRangers98]

Also although the Jays havent been good over the last 5 games, we still haven’t lost much ground on Oakland. We are 4.5 GBs of the A’s because Seattle beat them twice and they are leading in the 9th for the sweep.

If Oakland loses we 4 GBs of Oakland. 8.5 of the Rays and 9.5 back of Boston.

If we can maintain that or trim away before the deadline AND add some pieces AND return to the RC infront of fans - that’s a huge bump for the Jays going into the stretch run.

We already have a 2 “deadline additions” coming: we actually get home games infront of home fans and we have advantageous schedule to finish out the season.

The schedule is going to be a huge factor. You need to find a way to take 6 out of 8 against the Red Sox. If you can do that you can really make up some ground this month coming up with:

3 games with the Royals
4 games with Cleveland
4 games with the Angels
3 games with Seattle* Need to win series
2 games against Washington
6 games against the Tigers
3 against Baltimore
4 games vs. the White Sox

 

[phillipmike]

MLB Prospect Watch: Realistic trade chips sellers could move at the deadline

Toronto Blue Jays

Reliever Patrick Murphy has made 10 big-league appearances over the past two seasons. He has a hard mid-to-upper-90s sinker and a top-down curveball to keep batters honest. He also has an extensive injury history, including both Tommy John surgery and an operation to correct his thoracic outlet syndrome. Murphy could appeal to teams as a readymade bullpen piece.
Middle infielder Leo Jimenez is bereft of in-game power (he's yet to homer in nearly 600 professional regular-season plate appearances), but he's skilled at putting the ball in play and he's a quality defender. A team might glance at his birthdate (he won't turn 21 until next May) and convince themselves there's more than a utility ceiling here.

Sign me up if we can make impactful additions while only giving up prospects like Murphy and Jimenez.

 

[stickty111]

Other than predicting future results, heh. Funny how everyone is conveniently ignoring that.

But, hey, it's easy to argue with someone when you're currently threatening to ban them. I say anything even remotely resembling a rebuttal and it's "inflammatory speech", heh. So, whatever you say, dude. It's just some random thoughts at a forum for me. But we'll see how it works out (spoiler: I'm usually right).

Aside from most of the topics you have discussed, yes you are right.
Why didn't you discuss the rest of his post? It showed you were wrong? Thanks for admitting it then.
Also accusing Nem of using authority on a point, bad look man.

 

[stickty111]

I'm not threatening to ban you, nor would addressing the issue in a civil manner count as "inflammatory speech." This fake martyr bullshit isn't really an effective shield against the fact that you're completely avoiding the actual issue you yourself brought up and were refuted on. It just looks like a ploy to dodge admitting that you gambled on broad proclamation and lost because the data says it's incorrect.

Further, this response kind of proves that you don't really want to have a debate or examine the issue. You seem to want people to simply accept that you're right because you say you are. You're apparently not even going to pretend there's actual evidence in your favor that you can present, just that you say your assertion "predicts future results" (which it can't, because it's wrong) and people are ignoring that (which isn't true, multiple people have confronted you about your claim. It's just that they're not accepting it on face value alone).

You claim that the Jays are beating up on bad teams and their offence looks good because of it. That has been the crux of your argument for a while now. I just posted a detailed analysis of why that's not the case.

It would seem rather convenient how you're the one ignoring things by just sidestepping all of that so you can take the opening comments of my post and go off on a different track that doesn't involve confronting the fact that the entire basis for your claims up until now is concretely, factually, irrefutably untrue. You want to claim the Jays offence is what you say it is? Then why is it that everything from how they've performed this season is contrary to your claim? Look at those Blue Jays beating up on all those bad teams to get their 10-run games. Like the Division-Leading Red Sox. or Division-Leading Rays. Or Division-Leading Mets. Or Division-Leading Astros. Or the not awful Nationals or Cleveland or Oakland? Why is it that only 5 of the 13 times they've scored 10+ runs this season has been against an abjectly terrible team? Seems like that's a pretty big stake through the heart of "they're just beating up on bad teams and then sucking against the good ones." as a characterization of the Blue Jays offence. Seems like the fact that there's just 1 less 10+ run game against division leaders who are posting a .600ish winning % than there are against the dregs of the AL in Texas and Baltimore kinda says that they're equally capable of sticking it to a good team as a bad one. Kinda looks like your whole house of cards has fallen apart and your only response is "but I'm right!" and pretending that you're not allowed to fight back because I've threatened you (which is completely untrue.) and hope that it all blows over. That's not happening though. So I'll invite you: You want to prove you're right? Take apart my counterargument from the last post. The actual factual one, not the lead-in characterizations of your argument history. You're free to tell me that it's wrong. That it's stupid. That it's faulty. As long as you do not cross the line and fire a shot at me personally, it's fair game and not against the rules and I or any other moderator wouldn't do anything about it. There's a clear and distinct difference between "that's a stupid argument because X" and "you're an idiot if you believe X" that forms the basis as to why one is allowed and one isn't. I don't think it's a big deal for that to be recognized.

You can pretend to be the victim and unfairly picked on all you want, but when you strut in, make a bunch of claims with no real evidence, and then rather arrogantly claim that whatever you say is fine because you're "usually" right, how do you expect people to respond? Do you think they're going to go "golly gosh, this person is confident and says they're right. I'd better believe them because they tell me to!" or do you think perhaps that they're going to go "look at this person haranguing and browbeating people with baseless claims and the rather arrogant-sounding presumption that they're right simply because they say they are. That's irritating and not conducive to actual discussion or examination of the issues and will unsurprisingly make people defensive about being treated as if they're stupid if they don't believe these flimsily supported assertions on nothing more than "because I say so" cajoling."?

You might also want to be careful about admitting that you find this to all be "entertainment". Because then it looks an awful lot like you're admitting to being obtuse and combative for kicks, which is where it starts to skirt into the site rules definition of trolling. It's nothing of consequence right here, but a lot of moderation is about the benefit of the doubt and it's hard to hang onto that when it appears someone has said that they enjoy riling people up on purpose.

Please understand that this is in no way intended as any amount of threat or attack. It's me explaining things to you and having a strongly-worded but still within-bounds argument about both the subject of the team and your method of addressing it. I'm sure there's more than enough people on here that will tell you I'm not some vindictive monster that's out to harass the user base. It usually takes quite a lot to get me this annoyed.

I apoogize on his behalf.

 

[SDig14]

Groshans up to .293/.372/.448 before the game today where he had 2 doubles. Really starting to heat up after a slow start.

 

[TF97]

MLB Prospect Watch: Realistic trade chips sellers could move at the deadline


Sign me up if we can make impactful additions while only giving up prospects like Murphy and Jimenez.

I could see Jimenez easily fetching one of the higher end rental relievers such as Ian Kennedy or one of the better controllable arms such as Cole Sulser. I would be comfortable with moving Jimenez for either of those arms or a player in the same category as them.

 

[phillipmike]

To trade or not to trade? For these five MLB teams, it's not an easy decision

Toronto Blue Jays

Short history: After three straight losing seasons, the Blue Jays made the playoffs in 2020 thanks to the expanded postseason. With youngsters Vladimir Guerrero Jr. and Bo Bichette ready to hit their prime, the Jays sort of went all-in for 2021. They gave big money to George Springer and signed Marcus Semien to a one-year deal, but they really only went halfway on the pitching staff, re-signing Robbie Ray (coming off a bad year), trading for Ross Stripling and signing Tyler Chatwood. Still, the belief was the Blue Jays could be strong contenders in the AL East.


What's happened in 2021: Guerrero has exceeded expectations with a Triple Crown chase, Semien has had a huge season and the rotation has been pretty good (Ray is 8-4 with a 2.93 ERA). The bullpen gets a lot of blame, but it's middle of the pack in ERA in the majors (13th) and win probability added (15th). Not great, not horrible. They've underperformed their expected record by six wins (they're 6-10 in one-run games, but have more blowout wins than losses). A return to Toronto, after playing in Dunedin and Buffalo so far, could be an energizing boost.
Biggest problem: Everyone points to the bullpen and that's worth upgrading, but the offense does have some holes: their catchers are 23rd in the majors in OPS, their DHs 11th out of 15 AL teams, and Randal Grichuk and Lourdes Gurriel Jr. both sport sub-.300 OBPs. Adding another starter feels paramount.
Thinking big: OK, you're not going to upgrade catcher. Kyle Gibson just got shelled, but he's available, was great in the first half, has a reasonable salary and is signed through 2022. Nelson Cruz would be a nice fit at DH, although another lefty bat would be nice (Cavan Biggio is the only regular lefty in the lineup).
Thinking small: They already traded for relievers Adam Cimber and Trevor Richards, and since their chances of winning the division are small -- 8.8% entering Tuesday, via FanGraphs -- that may be as all-in as owner Rogers Communications desires to go.
What they should do: Yes, climbing past both the Rays and Red Sox will be difficult, but that still leaves the wild card in play. The Blue Jays do have a strong farm system to deal from and they can add around the edges without dealing any of their top prospects. Is adding around the edges enough? Note that the Blue Jays have a better run differential than the Red Sox or Rays, so I think it's reasonable to suggest they are as good as those two clubs, but just haven't had the ball bounce their way.
I really like the idea of trading for Cruz. He's owed about $4.5 million the rest of the season and the market for him won't be super robust since several of the AL contenders are already locked in at DH. Finally: Max Scherzer is a fit here. Even if you end up as a wild card, at least the Blue Jays could hand the ball to him and like their chances.