CNBC had an interview with the great Paul Godfrey today, discussing the Canadian dollar and the effect on the team. Godfrey says that a $0.01 move upwards in the Canadian dollar equates to $730,000 improvement on the bottom line. Godfrey also states how much the payroll budget has gone up since the dollar has moved from the lows of $0.65 a few years back.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=597201328
The question is: will they increase payroll next year? I hope they are hedging it at these levels, my spidey sense says the Canadian dollar is going below par again soon.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Bonds took steroids, who knew?
For me this is a non story. I never doubted that he took steroids. I never questioned that he deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. And I still believe he is the best player I have ever seen. I am glad it took the Mitchell report 4 years to finish the investigation and Bonds was able to break a record he deserved. Everyone seems to ignore Bonds' numbers before steroid consumption, everyone also seems to ignore that steroids were not illegal in baseball during the time frame Bonds used. The big victim in all of this is Bonds, who hurt his body and long term health because he wanted to be recognized for what he was, the best player in the game. I am not saying steroid use is good, but I am saying Bonds has been treated unfairly. Everyone in the media chose to turn a blind eye at Sosa and McGwire's steroid use during the chase to 61. And it was this chase that apparently drove the vastly superior skilled Bonds to juice up. However, it wasn't until Bonds broke McGwire's record that people started to question steroid use in baseball. Why did the media let McGwire and Sosa get away with it and not Bonds? Because Bonds is a jerk. Because the media doesn't like Bonds. "Tit for tat, clarice, tit for tat." It became a personal Vendetta, much like the similar petty bullshit we see coming from the Toronto media towards JP.
At the end of the day, Bonds career is probably done. He probably doesn't make the Hall of Fame, and at worst his achievements are are belittled. That is the real shame in all this.
At the end of the day, Bonds career is probably done. He probably doesn't make the Hall of Fame, and at worst his achievements are are belittled. That is the real shame in all this.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Tigers Deal for Renteria - Why Didn't We?
I'd been avoiding espn.com today, because I didn't want to read about the Red Sox, or the Yankees' fascinating search for a new manager. But at 5 p.m., after I've already gone for my third coffee of the afternoon, what the fuck else am I going to do? So I log on, see this headline, and slam my head against the desk.
Renteria hit .332/.390/.470 last season for the Braves. Those are ludicrous numbers and he's unlikely to repeat them next year at age 33, but he's not going to put up a J-Mac .251/.279/.333 either. Renteria's expensive at $10MM (with the Braves apparently paying some of that), but all it took was a 21 year-old pitching prospect with the improbable name of Jair Jurrjens and a single-A OF to make the deal.
If J.P. had made that trade (with an equivalent pitching prospect and low-minors hitter), Canate probably would have called him an idiot, but I'd have been all set for Spring Training '08. Renteria was one of the few available solutions to our gaping lineup hole. Now that he's gone, the odds that McDonald's going to go out there another 125 times just got a little shorter. Crap.
Renteria hit .332/.390/.470 last season for the Braves. Those are ludicrous numbers and he's unlikely to repeat them next year at age 33, but he's not going to put up a J-Mac .251/.279/.333 either. Renteria's expensive at $10MM (with the Braves apparently paying some of that), but all it took was a 21 year-old pitching prospect with the improbable name of Jair Jurrjens and a single-A OF to make the deal.
If J.P. had made that trade (with an equivalent pitching prospect and low-minors hitter), Canate probably would have called him an idiot, but I'd have been all set for Spring Training '08. Renteria was one of the few available solutions to our gaping lineup hole. Now that he's gone, the odds that McDonald's going to go out there another 125 times just got a little shorter. Crap.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Leo Mazzone fired, sweet!
The O's fired Leo Mazzone. I guess his work with Eric Bedard and Jeremy Guthrie just wasn't up to whoever the fuck their actually GM is standards. He probably goes back to Atlanta but who knows, he could end up with the Yanks or Sox. They do have a lot of young stud pitchers that could benefit from being turned into Cy Young candidates. As for the Jays, don't expect him to come here, you can't really mess with a good thing (or you can; see Mike (mr. video) Barnett and Mickey Brantley). Regardless, you wouldn't want to mess with Arnsberg and his results.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
JP Ricciardi, you are on the clock
If the Jays do not make the playoffs next year, the should do everything in their power to sign John Schuerholz, who stepped down today as GM of the Braves. Fuck the head hunting firm, fuck Terry Ryan, fuck everyone else. This guys record is amazing. Spend whatever money it takes to hire this guy. By next off season he should be in full Pat-Gillick-ready-for-a-new-challenge mode. Entice him with competing in the east, pay him in Canadian funds (been saving that one for a while), Leo Rautins his marriage with the hottest stripper in town, whatever it takes, do it Paul Godfrey.
Of course, knowing the luck of the Jays, we'll probably make the playoffs next year and Schuerholz will sign with the Orioles.
Of course, knowing the luck of the Jays, we'll probably make the playoffs next year and Schuerholz will sign with the Orioles.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Jays Hire Gary Dumbo (sorry I mean Denbo) as New Hitting Coach
The Blue Jays hired Gary Denbo as their new batting coach.
Denbo hit .208 in his minor league career of 206 games over 4 seasons. His only major league experience was as the Yankees hitting coach in 2001. The Yankees BA in 2001 was 0.267 with an OBP of 0.334. The Yankees scored 804 runs in 2001, vs. 871 in 2000 and 897 in 2002 (you can argue that adding Jason Giambi and Soriano in 2002 definitely helped). His numbers and his team's numbers (in 2001) are hardly things to write home about.
Maybe Jordan Bastian can enlighten us about this signing, in another puff piece. Is Gary Denbo just another dumbo?
Denbo hit .208 in his minor league career of 206 games over 4 seasons. His only major league experience was as the Yankees hitting coach in 2001. The Yankees BA in 2001 was 0.267 with an OBP of 0.334. The Yankees scored 804 runs in 2001, vs. 871 in 2000 and 897 in 2002 (you can argue that adding Jason Giambi and Soriano in 2002 definitely helped). His numbers and his team's numbers (in 2001) are hardly things to write home about.
Maybe Jordan Bastian can enlighten us about this signing, in another puff piece. Is Gary Denbo just another dumbo?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A bit more on small ball and hindsight, which I have heard is 20-20
I'm happy to let our Brattainologist-in-residence, Razzer, lead the way here, but I wanted to add my two cents to the debate.
First of all, thanks John for your kind words about our blog and for the opportunity to engage with you. As you know, we love this sort of shit.
Stripped of all nuance, I think it's fair to say that the essence of John's argument goes something like this: the Jays have a particular offensive philosophy; the Jays have sucked offensively in 2007; the Jays should occasionally have deviated from their rigid philosophy in the hopes of reducing their suckitude. (If that's not a fair summary, I hope and expect that JB will defend himself in the comments)
Part of our problem with John's articles, both on MSN and in the Hardball Times, is that one gets the sense that the data have been selectively plucked to prove a point. As Razzer points out, for every time the Jays failed to advance a runner and failed to squeeze a run from an inning, there may well be a counter-point waiting to be brought to light in which their willingness to eschew the bunt led to a big inning.
The Jays, who are obviously well aware of the Brattain-MOE argument and who apparently like us better than they like John, were nice enough to weigh in on the debate by doing the following in the top of the second tonight:
Now, if Gibby - properly chastened by the season's offensive failings and a recent convert to Brattainology - had decided to go all Ozzie Guillen on our asses (sorry John, I know that throwing you and Ozzie in the same camp is the unkindest cut of all, but if it looks like a crazed Venezuelan and sounds like a crazed Venezuelan...), the inning may well have looked like this:
Thomas single to centre.
Hill single to right (I don't think even JB would suggest they should bunt with Hurt at first).
Zaun bunts, runners advance to second and third.
Thigpen (focusing on doing the "little things" to bring in the runner) flies out, Thomas scores.
Lind grounds out to first, inning over.
Two hits, one run, small-ball advocates explode with delight.
In the big scheme of things, we'd obviously have won tonight's game anyway. But I'd argue that playing small ball in that situation would have cost us two runs and, under different circumstances, the game. And of course, you'd never know it, because the doubles you don't hit when you decide to bunt never show up in the boxscore. In fact, I dare say that the Guillenites would call my hypothetical second inning a success ("the shitty bottom part of the order did the little things and brought the runner home - great success!") without ever knowing of the counterfactual 3-run inning that their philosophy rendered an impossibility.
Our point, I think, is that the Jays' offensive philosophy is the right one, even though in hindsight using a different approach in a number of games may have led them to score a few more runs in those particular games (and again, you don't know which games those are until after the fact, nor do you ever know when that different approach might have kept the team from putting together a big inning that would have been the difference between a win and a loss).
Stick with the philosophy, hopefully avoid the crippling injuries, remember that the season starts in April, not in July, and just get on base more often, and the glory wil be ours. Blue Jays and Gore in 2008.
First of all, thanks John for your kind words about our blog and for the opportunity to engage with you. As you know, we love this sort of shit.
Stripped of all nuance, I think it's fair to say that the essence of John's argument goes something like this: the Jays have a particular offensive philosophy; the Jays have sucked offensively in 2007; the Jays should occasionally have deviated from their rigid philosophy in the hopes of reducing their suckitude. (If that's not a fair summary, I hope and expect that JB will defend himself in the comments)
Part of our problem with John's articles, both on MSN and in the Hardball Times, is that one gets the sense that the data have been selectively plucked to prove a point. As Razzer points out, for every time the Jays failed to advance a runner and failed to squeeze a run from an inning, there may well be a counter-point waiting to be brought to light in which their willingness to eschew the bunt led to a big inning.
The Jays, who are obviously well aware of the Brattain-MOE argument and who apparently like us better than they like John, were nice enough to weigh in on the debate by doing the following in the top of the second tonight:
| F Thomas singled to center. | 0 | 0 |
| A Hill singled to right, F Thomas to second. | 0 | 0 |
| G Zaun doubled to left, F Thomas scored, A Hill to third. | 1 | 0 |
| C Thigpen singled to left center, A Hill scored, G Zaun to third. | 2 | 0 |
| A Lind grounded into double play, first to catcher to third to first, G Zaun out at home, C Thigpen to second. | 2 | 0 |
| J McDonald doubled to deep right center, C Thigpen scored. | 3 | 0 |
| R Johnson lined out to right. | 3 | 0 |
Now, if Gibby - properly chastened by the season's offensive failings and a recent convert to Brattainology - had decided to go all Ozzie Guillen on our asses (sorry John, I know that throwing you and Ozzie in the same camp is the unkindest cut of all, but if it looks like a crazed Venezuelan and sounds like a crazed Venezuelan...), the inning may well have looked like this:
Thomas single to centre.
Hill single to right (I don't think even JB would suggest they should bunt with Hurt at first).
Zaun bunts, runners advance to second and third.
Thigpen (focusing on doing the "little things" to bring in the runner) flies out, Thomas scores.
Lind grounds out to first, inning over.
Two hits, one run, small-ball advocates explode with delight.
In the big scheme of things, we'd obviously have won tonight's game anyway. But I'd argue that playing small ball in that situation would have cost us two runs and, under different circumstances, the game. And of course, you'd never know it, because the doubles you don't hit when you decide to bunt never show up in the boxscore. In fact, I dare say that the Guillenites would call my hypothetical second inning a success ("the shitty bottom part of the order did the little things and brought the runner home - great success!") without ever knowing of the counterfactual 3-run inning that their philosophy rendered an impossibility.
Our point, I think, is that the Jays' offensive philosophy is the right one, even though in hindsight using a different approach in a number of games may have led them to score a few more runs in those particular games (and again, you don't know which games those are until after the fact, nor do you ever know when that different approach might have kept the team from putting together a big inning that would have been the difference between a win and a loss).
Stick with the philosophy, hopefully avoid the crippling injuries, remember that the season starts in April, not in July, and just get on base more often, and the glory wil be ours. Blue Jays and Gore in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)