Toggle sidebar

Blue Jays Discussion: The off-season is on. (Robbie Ray wins AL Cy Young)

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
  • We're expeting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see a scenario where the Jays have a payroll at $160M and think giving $18M to Matz is wise. Unless they plan to spend $180M, I'd rather target a Gray or someone else for half the price and find next guy. $18+M per year is reserved for more proven guys, even if it means term compared to a one year QO.
 
Interesting scenario for Matz. Does he not take the qualifying offer in hopes of getting a longer term deal at a smaller annual rate? We’ve seen guys squeezed the last few years and left unsigned until ?June?.

or does he just take the 18 and work with Walker again in hopes of securing that big contract next offseason without draft compensation? He’s had injuries on the past so that’ll be an interesting scenario watch play out.
 
Leafin said:
Interesting scenario for Matz. Does he not take the qualifying offer in hopes of getting a longer term deal at a smaller annual rate? We’ve seen guys squeezed the last few years and left unsigned until ?June?.

or does he just take the 18 and work with Walker again in hopes of securing that big contract next offseason without draft compensation? He’s had injuries on the past so that’ll be an interesting scenario watch play out.
Click to expand...

IMO, it goes like this. I offer Matz a multi-year deal at something like 15. If he doesn't accept that, I make a QO.

If he accepts 18.4 for one, I don't change my offers to Ray and Semien but if I strike out on one or both, I might strongly consider the trade route to replace them (for someone with a lower contract). If all 3 accept, we either need a little extra from the warchest or Randal is on the move.

If he doesn't accept 18.4 (given his stats in the AL East, he might honestly get a better offer), I leave the 15 on the table for him for a 2-3 years or one year x 18.4. We need to set a standard for future players that are in this position where they don't see a QO from Toronto as a kiss of death (like previous management regimes have done with using it as a poison pill to try to force the player to come crawling back).
 
ryno23 said:
A's just let Bob Melvin talk to the Padres about their manager job and he took it. Oakland is slashing money and saves $4 million by letting him go. Melvin is a very good manager and if Oakland is selling to save money well let's call them for Chapman and Manea and all it takes is prospects which the Jays have a lot of.
Click to expand...

Baseball trade value has this

Chapman 24.1
Manea 18.5
= 42.6

So according to the speculated median trade values, we'd need to offer them something like this

Kirk 15.8
Groshans 24.5
Smith 2.7
= 43
 
weems said:
Baseball trade value has this

Chapman 24.1
Manea 18.5
= 42.6

So according to the speculated median trade values, we'd need to offer them something like this

Kirk 15.8
Groshans 24.5
Smith 2.7
= 43
Click to expand...

I would make that deal but I dont think Oakland does. They definitely would want a pitcher or 2 back.
 
Heres all the Jays median trade values on the site for anyone interested.

Bichette 127.7
Guerrero 76.1
Manoah 68.8
Moreno 56.5
Berrios 34.8
Hernandez 25.3
O Martinez 25
Groshans 24.5
Romano 22.7
Gurriel jr 18.6
Kirk 15.8
Jansen 14.9
Biggio 12
Hoglund 9.3
Pearson 9.1
Espinal 8.5
Hiraldo 8.5
Cimber 7.1
Springer 6.6
Lopez 6
McGuire 4.6
Mayza 3
Smith 2.7
Merryweather 0.7
Ryu -6.9
Grichuk -12.2
 
Last edited:
it should also be noted that values of some 3B we might be interested in are:
Chapman 24.1
Ramirez 73.7
Seager 0
Anderson (MIA) 15.1
Candelario 15.8
 
GreytWun said:
With streaming becoming a norm for most people I wouldn’t put much stock in these numbers.
Click to expand...

I would. It's almost as if fans (who aren't specifically fans of one of the teams) don't want to see one of LAD, NYY, BOS, HOU win the World Series every year.
 
Bjindaho said:
I would. It's almost as if fans (who aren't specifically fans of one of the teams) don't want to see one of LAD, NYY, BOS, HOU win the World Series every year.
Click to expand...

I know that’s a factor but if you think streaming becoming the norm doesn’t have an impact I don’t know what to tell you. I can find an illegal stream in 30 seconds now a days if I don’t want to watch or have access to the TV.
 
Bjindaho said:
I would. It's almost as if fans (who aren't specifically fans of one of the teams) don't want to see one of LAD, NYY, BOS, HOU win the World Series every year.
Click to expand...

Assume its the opposite. The WS's with the Cubs/Red Sox/Dodgers did the best there. Houston is a decent TV market but not a historical power so they don't drive ratings and Atlanta sans-Acuna is pretty meh.

As the guy above noted streaming is 100% a factor as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreytWun
Bjindaho said:
I would. It's almost as if fans (who aren't specifically fans of one of the teams) don't want to see one of LAD, NYY, BOS, HOU win the World Series every year.
Click to expand...

1) This doesn't seem to be a problem in literally any other major sport.

But more importantly:

2) Your statement isn't even true. Here are the past 10 World Series winning teams:

2020 - Dodgers
2019 - Nationals
2018 - Red Sox
2017 - Astros
2016 - Cubs
2015 - Royals
2014 - Giants
2013 - Red Sox
2012 - Giants
2011 - Cardinals

Only the Red Sox and Giants have won more than once, and you see a wide-range of completely different and unique teams. The last 7 winners have all been unique winners - this is FAR better parity than virtually every other major pro sport. Didn't the NBA boom into extreme popularity during a ~20-30 year period when the same team would win year after year (ie: the Bulls, and then the Lakers, then the Spurs dynasty, then the Heat and Warriors, etc)? The point is not only inaccurate, it's also illogical as evidenced by the fact that you see far LESS parity in all the sports that are more popular than baseball. Don't even get me started on soccer.
 
metafour said:
1) This doesn't seem to be a problem in literally any other major sport.

But more importantly:

2) Your statement isn't even true. Here are the past 10 World Series winning teams:

2020 - Dodgers
2019 - Nationals
2018 - Red Sox
2017 - Astros
2016 - Cubs
2015 - Royals
2014 - Giants
2013 - Red Sox
2012 - Giants
2011 - Cardinals

Only the Red Sox and Giants have won more than once, and you see a wide-range of completely different and unique teams. The last 7 winners have all been unique winners - this is FAR better parity than virtually every other major pro sport. Didn't the NBA boom into extreme popularity during a ~20-30 year period when the same team would win year after year (ie: the Bulls, and then the Lakers, then the Spurs dynasty, then the Heat and Warriors, etc)? The point is not only inaccurate, it's also illogical as evidenced by the fact that you see far LESS parity in all the sports that are more popular than baseball. Don't even get me started on soccer.
Click to expand...

Since 2016:
Dodgers beat Rays
Nationals beat Astros
Red Sox beat Dodgers
Astros beat Dodgers
Cubs beat Indians

Fans will watch the same team win over and over again, but they don't want the same 4 or 5 be the only ones that can win.

I don't deny that streaming is hurting, but the league needs other storylines.
 
Bjindaho said:
Chapmon 24.1
Mannea 18.5

vs

Kirk 15.8
Pearson 9.1
Lopez 6
Biggio 12

?

It's .1 lower from us but a big time pitching prospect
Click to expand...

Do not think the Jays would deal Pearson with his value being what it is right now. He needs one full season of above average results and then they decide where to go. If Matz doesnt come back Pearson becomes a viable option for the rotation or 6th man out of the bullpen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kurtz
upload_2021-10-29_18-40-17.jpeg
Click to expand...

I would take this and run.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: canucksfan and weems
Yeah, I like Groshans and think we'd be selling low on Biggio but that's a yes. Probably take longer to say yes than most but it's still a yes.

On a related note, is #13 top prospect a thing? Feels like the word top shouldn't be there. #13 prospect.
 
Canada4Gold said:
Yeah, I like Groshans and think we'd be selling low on Biggio but that's a yes. Probably take longer to say yes than most but it's still a yes.

On a related note, is #13 top prospect a thing? Feels like the word top shouldn't be there. #13 prospect.
Click to expand...

It says "TOR" prospect for Toronto's 13th prospect, not "TOP".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom