Blue Jays Discussion: The Vladimir Guerrero Jr. injury overreaction thread

[stickty111]

They choked. They know it, we know it.

I agree. The team built by AA crumbled in the post season.
Shapiro>AA

 

[Genghis Keon]

Which is incredibly stupid because mindset doesn't win championships. Look at the 2015 team... they got as far as the 2016 team with what you deem opposite "mindsets." Heck the Indians had the mindset to go all in and they lost too.

The Jays were in a great position during the 2016 deadline. Healthy and the beat rotation in the AL. The 2nd best lineup in the AL. The pen needed help and they got the pen help.

Theory is a stupid thing to hold onto at this point. The focus is on the secondary aspects of a deal. The Jays acquired 6 players to their 2016 team to improve the roster (some improved the team and some didn't) but here we are discussing the 2 prospects over the 6 players.

The discussion makes no sense as your points suggest that teams were offering the Jays ways to improve their contending team for 2016 but Shapiro and Atkins said "no no, we prefer the mid level prospects." No one can bethat dense - well i knowone person.

This discussion is as idiotic as it gets because anyone in agreement with Zeke's standpoint would "theoretically" agree that had the prospects not been involved in the deal and it was just Liriano for Hutch then "mindset"-wise it looks better because it was a AAA pitcher for a major league pitcher.

Hutch for Liriano, Ramirez and McGuire looks bad because by some illogical theoretical POV it looks like you are trading for prospects.

So by that logic it would have been better of the Jays just traded Hutch for Liriano? Because that is what Zeke is saying. He is saying that the Jays look bad because they traded for prospects well if the prospects weren't included then the Jays look better. Which isnt the case its hia illogical hate for Shapiro/Atkins and his undying love for the previous regime.

What you say is true. However, all we know is what happened. What happened was the Jays got Liriano and two prospects. Which showed both teams agreed that Hutchison was worth more than Liriano, and that the Jays were fine taking two prospects (with no current impact) to balance the deal. You don't think there's anything wrong with that, zeke does, probably because he sees it as representative of his view of management's approach, which is to hedge, when zeke (and most likely AA) holds that you have to strike when the iron is hot.

AA's approach got us to two ALCSs and tonnes of excitement after 20+ years of nothing, so there's unquestionably value there. I hope the Shapiro/Atkins reign does even better (and I'm super excited for the Vladdy/Bo era), but until it does, it's all just hope and belief in the process. It is what is.

 

[The Nemesis]

What you say is true. However, all we know is what happened. What happened was the Jays got Liriano and two prospects. Which showed both teams agreed that Hutchison was worth more than Liriano, and that the Jays were fine taking two prospects (with no current impact) to balance the deal. You don't think there's anything wrong with that, zeke does, probably because he sees it as representative of his view of management's approach, which is to hedge, when zeke (and most likely AA) holds that you have to strike when the iron is hot.

AA's approach got us to two ALCSs and tonnes of excitement after 20+ years of nothing, so there's unquestionably value there. I hope the Shapiro/Atkins reign does even better (and I'm super excited for the Vladdy/Bo era), but until it does, it's all just hope and belief in the process. It is what is.

Not necessarily. It could just as easily show that the Pirates were desperate to cut salary, and the price for the Jays to exchange Hutchison and the $4.5m* of 2016/17 salary for Liriano's $27m+* 2016/17 salary was that the Pirates had to chip in prospects.

So Toronto gets the pitching depth help they wanted and because they were willing do do it in a deal that saw them taking so much owed money off of Pittsburgh's hands, they got a sweetener in the form of McGuire/Ramirez.

In fact it's entirely possible that Hutchison's place in the deal was entirely perfunctory simply because the Jays had to send someone off the 40-man that was expendable and Hutch at least had marginal value as a possible reclamation project. Meaning that his value in the trade as a baseball player could very well be wholly moot.

And again, Shapiro/Atkins approach shows in Cleveland, who are to their legacy what the pro-AA camp holds that the 2016 Jays and their playoff run was to Anthopoulos.

The greater point is that Zeke's issue is at the very least silly in its presentation because it acts like it's presuming that management certainly or highly probably left MLB-roster-improving value on the table by taking those prospects when it's just as easily rationalized that the prospects were payment for eating all of Liriano's salary irrelevant of Liriano's suitability as an MLB roster improvement. And, as someone mentioned earlier, it comes across like the biggest issue is simply the optics of taking prospects in a deadline deal when they were a playoff contender (validating the apparent belief that if the trade was Hutchison for Liriano it would've made the trade more 'respectable' because it would've been a straight acquisition of an MLB asset to bolster depth). And at the most it's even more silly for condemning management for being able to extract additional value out of what was most significantly a trade to help the club's pitching depth in a necessary way and assuming that it also somehow points to the possibility/probability that they left MLB value on the table when for all we know there wasn't another team that was willing to give up a player as good as Liriano or better for a fair price. Though I guess in deference to Zeke, it's pretty much rule 1 of being a fan to assume that all trades are interchangeable math equations where if teams X and Y make a trade, and you as a fan of team Z can come up with an equivalent value package to either X or Y, that it should've been an easy matter for Z's management to place themselves in the deal and make the trade themselves instead.


*I know those #s aren't dead accurate because I'm using the whoel value of their salary remaining for both seasons, but I didn't want to do the math to figure out the fractional amount still owed for 2016. But even if you just rub out 2016 entirely, it was still like $2.5m for Hutch in 2017 vs over $13m in 2017 for Liriano.

 

[phillipmike]

What you say is true. However, all we know is what happened. What happened was the Jays got Liriano and two prospects. Which showed both teams agreed that Hutchison was worth more than Liriano, and that the Jays were fine taking two prospects (with no current impact) to balance the deal. You don't think there's anything wrong with that, zeke does, probably because he sees it as representative of his view of management's approach, which is to hedge, when zeke (and most likely AA) holds that you have to strike when the iron is hot.

AA's approach got us to two ALCSs and tonnes of excitement after 20+ years of nothing, so there's unquestionably value there. I hope the Shapiro/Atkins reign does even better (and I'm super excited for the Vladdy/Bo era), but until it does, it's all just hope and belief in the process. It is what is.

Which is short sighted, dense and illogical. It is looking at it from a theoretical model as opposed to the individual deal in practicality.

So tell me, when the Jays made the Marlins deal they were trying to get better... then why did they trade Mathis and Escobar? Why did we give up a MLB player for Donaldson? Weren't we trying to get better? AA said he wanted to acquire Donaldson then move Lawrie to 2B. Then why did he subtract MLB help Lawrie from the team?

Was it because they weren't trying to win or was it because they were needed aspects of the deal to get it done?

Liriano was the better pitcher than Hutch but the contracts is what gave the Jays added leverage. Liriano was owed 18M from that point on... 18M to a 90M payroll team is worth a lot more than a 160M payroll team so the Jays were compensated in what they had to give up and what they got back as add ons. They got the better player and 2 prospects on top of that.

Its funny because people complain that Rogers is cheap but management used their financial resources to get the better player AND prospects but nope its a problem now.

The answer to the question is there if you want to look - the Jays were looking to make their team better and an opportunity they weren't looking for arose. It was an opportunity cost, a secondary part of the deal... Jays targeted Liriano and got extra value in the 2 prospects. What did you want them to say "no we cant take the prospects, what would the fans say and the AA loveboys think?"

Blue Jays trade for Francisco Liriano, two other arms

“Francisco, specifically, was one of the guys two months ago that we started to do work on,” said Atkins. “But I’m looking at a list in front of me and that list is 20-deep. As you work through alteratives and acquisition costs, you’re only presented with so many decision that you can choose from.”

“He has a great arm and we’re looking to reunite him with Russell (Martin),” said Gibbons. “When he was really rolling, Russell was catching him over there in Pittsburgh. Some guys just work better with certain catchers. One of Russell’s big strengths is bringing the best out of pitchers.”

Blue Jays cash in with late Liriano swap | The Star

The inclusion of prospects — afforded by the Jays’ ability to take on salary — made the deal lopsided in the Jays’ favour in the eyes of many evaluators, not to mention Pirates’ fans.

Atkins said he didn’t set out to add to the farm system at the deadline, “but we were opportunistic when it presented itself.”

Why accept less when someone is willing to give you more?

So there was no hedging here as you seemed to pull out of nowhere. Jays targeted Liriano because they wanted him and got more than just Liriano rather than what you may think happened - that they targeted the prospects.

 

[hoc123]

What you say is true. However, all we know is what happened. What happened was the Jays got Liriano and two prospects. Which showed both teams agreed that Hutchison was worth more than Liriano, and that the Jays were fine taking two prospects (with no current impact) to balance the deal. You don't think there's anything wrong with that, zeke does, probably because he sees it as representative of his view of management's approach, which is to hedge, when zeke (and most likely AA) holds that you have to strike when the iron is hot.

AA's approach got us to two ALCSs and tonnes of excitement after 20+ years of nothing, so there's unquestionably value there. I hope the Shapiro/Atkins reign does even better (and I'm super excited for the Vladdy/Bo era), but until it does, it's all just hope and belief in the process. It is what is.

In that case, who should they have gotten from Pittsburgh that would have helped?

 

[hoc123]

Which is short sighted, dense and illogical. It is looking at it from a theoretical model as opposed to the individual deal in practicality.

So tell me, when the Jays made the Marlins deal they were trying to get better... then why did they trade Mathis and Escobar? Why did we give up a MLB player for Donaldson? Weren't we trying to get better? AA said he wanted to acquire Donaldson then move Lawrie to 2B. Then why did he subtract MLB help Lawrie from the team?

Was it because they weren't trying to win or was it because they were needed aspects of the deal to get it done?

Liriano was the better pitcher than Hutch but the contracts is what gave the Jays added leverage. Liriano was owed 18M from that point on... 18M to a 90M payroll team is worth a lot more than a 160M payroll team so the Jays were compensated in what they had to give up and what they got back as add ons. They got the better player and 2 prospects on top of that.

Its funny because people complain that Rogers is cheap but management used their financial resources to get the better player AND prospects but nope its a problem now.

The answer to the question is there if you want to look - the Jays were looking to make their team better and an opportunity they weren't looking for arose. It was an opportunity cost, a secondary part of the deal... Jays targeted Liriano and got extra value in the 2 prospects. What did you want them to say "no we cant take the prospects, what would the fans say and the AA loveboys think?"

Blue Jays trade for Francisco Liriano, two other arms



Blue Jays cash in with late Liriano swap | The Star



Why accept less when someone is willing to give you more?

So there was no hedging here as you seemed to pull out of nowhere. Jays targeted Liriano because they wanted him and got more than just Liriano rather than what you may think happened - that they targeted the prospects.

From what is sounds like they are saying Shapkins should have added more MLB roster help from Pittsburgh instead of getting the two prospects back. The thing is, I don't think they could have, as from what I remember Pittsburgh wasn't selling, and I think they were maybe in the playoff hunt at the time. Even if they weren't their wasn't many positions the Jays really needed to upgrade. This wasn't a trade where Pittsburgh was trying to sell off players to re-build or reset, this was them trying to move one very specific player to get rid of his large salary, and the Jays used their financial power to get an upgrade to their roster plus some assets.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Swept the Indians. That was easy

 

[zeke]

C D.Jansen (23)

AAA: 101pa, 14.9b%/9.9k%, 3.4swst%, .352bip/.341avg, .235iso, 187wrc+

 

[The Nemesis]

Pulling the algebraic example from earlier, but using actual #s for illustrative purposes

Zeke's apparent assumptions look like this:

Let's say that Liriano's trade value is 5. McGuire's is 3, and Ramirez is 2. Total trade value outgoing on the Pirates side is 10.

Since the expectation is that for the trade to appear fair to both teams its value has to be pretty much equal, the assumption in a "solve for X" sort of way is that Hutchison's trade value must be roughly 10 so that the ledger is balanced.

It is therefore a failure of Blue Jays management not to use Hutchison's excess trade value over Liriano's (+5) to bring back 10 points of MLB assets instead of taking 5 points of prospects

What I and I believe most others are arguing is:

Let's presume for the sake of argument that the Pirates side of the trade has the same values (5, 3, 2 respectively). Let's also assume that relative talent/performance/potential that Hutchison isn't an unknown variable that needs to be solved for. Rather that we can safely guess that his value is, say, 4

Now the equation becomes

Liriano (5) + McGuire (3) + Ramirez (2) = Hutchison (4) + X

where X must equal 6 for balance's sake.

That 6 points of trade value is thus not contained in Hutchison, but rather in the Pirates internally assigned value of getting rid of the money owed to Liriano over the next year and a half. Those prospects taken back then represent less of a batch of value filler to raise the Pittsburgh side of the deal to Hutchison's level and more of a premium paid to the Blue Jays in exchange for eating the full value of the contract attached to Liriano. A premium that the Pirates felt more comfortable paying out of the minors than out of 5 points of MLB talent (that they may not have wished to part with or that the Jays may not have needed, like say additional outfielders, or another 1B/DH type or whatever)

now I know that this will lead to questions like "so why not restructure the deal to take Liriano + some negligible 1-point org filler piece for the 6 points of salary relief and a valueless piece like a do-nothing warm body or the famous PTBNL, and then use Hutch's 4 points elsewhere?"

The within-the-model answer is that perhaps there weren't other pieces in play for both teams that would let the deal come together except in this configuration. Perhaps the Jays needed to ship out some of Hutch's salary and his 40-man spot in return and they couldn't have made up the Liriano + salary value without making the trade more complicated or touching pieces that the Jays preferred not to part with.

The real answer is that this is, of course, a silly hypothetical math model to illustrate the point and in no way represents the full scope of variables that go into any sort of baseball transaction.

 

[The Nemesis]

C D.Jansen (23)

AAA: 101pa, 14.9b%/9.9k%, 3.4swst%, .352bip/.341avg, .235iso, 187wrc+

When Maile's hot streak inevitably starts fading, I would strongly want to replace him with Jansen and use the rest of the season as a slow, gradually re-balancing timeshare that starts with Martin getting most of the playing time and works its way to Jansen being the majority starter by season's end once he's had time to learn and adjust and shift his way towards an MLB starting-catcher workload.

It eases Jansen into the lineup and avoids just Arencibia-ing him into the deep end of the pool, and it saves face for Martin instead of simply demoting him to backup.

But of course, I wanted Jansen instead of Maile on the MLB roster even back in spring training, so maybe I'm a bit biased already.

 

[zeke]

Pulling the algebraic example from earlier, but using actual #s for illustrative purposes

Zeke's apparent assumptions look like this:

Let's say that Liriano's trade value is 5. McGuire's is 3, and Ramirez is 2. Total trade value outgoing on the Pirates side is 10.

Since the expectation is that for the trade to appear fair to both teams its value has to be pretty much equal, the assumption in a "solve for X" sort of way is that Hutchison's trade value must be roughly 10 so that the ledger is balanced.

It is therefore a failure of Blue Jays management not to use Hutchison's excess trade value over Liriano's (+5) to bring back 10 points of MLB assets instead of taking 5 points of prospects

What I and I believe most others are arguing is:

Let's presume for the sake of argument that the Pirates side of the trade has the same values (5, 3, 2 respectively). Let's also assume that relative talent/performance/potential that Hutchison isn't an unknown variable that needs to be solved for. Rather that we can safely guess that his value is, say, 4

Now the equation becomes

Liriano (5) + McGuire (3) + Ramirez (2) = Hutchison (4) + X

where X must equal 6 for balance's sake.

That 6 points of trade value is thus not contained in Hutchison, but rather in the Pirates internally assigned value of getting rid of the money owed to Liriano over the next year and a half. Those prospects taken back then represent less of a batch of value filler to raise the Pittsburgh side of the deal to Hutchison's level and more of a premium paid to the Blue Jays in exchange for eating the full value of the contract attached to Liriano. A premium that the Pirates felt more comfortable paying out of the minors than out of 5 points of MLB talent (that they may not have wished to part with or that the Jays may not have needed, like say additional outfielders, or another 1B/DH type or whatever)

now I know that this will lead to questions like "so why not restructure the deal to take Liriano + some negligible 1-point org filler piece for the 6 points of salary relief and a valueless piece like a do-nothing warm body or the famous PTBNL, and then use Hutch's 4 points elsewhere?"

The within-the-model answer is that perhaps there weren't other pieces in play for both teams that would let the deal come together except in this configuration. Perhaps the Jays needed to ship out some of Hutch's salary and his 40-man spot in return and they couldn't have made up the Liriano + salary value without making the trade more complicated or touching pieces that the Jays preferred not to part with.

The real answer is that this is, of course, a silly hypothetical math model to illustrate the point and in no way represents the full scope of variables that go into any sort of baseball transaction.

You guys keep on going on about value.

My point is that when you have a contender, you shouldn't be trying to win value deals for prospects at the deadline.

The indians traded frazier and sheffield for miller. They apparently clearly "lost" that deal value wise, even though frazier and sheffield look doubtful to ever become quality mlb starters.

 

[Eyedea]

Yankees aren’t asking for a Frazier or a Sheffield from the Jays though, they would have wanted a Vlad.

 

[Kurtz]

Yankees aren’t asking for a Frazier or a Sheffield from the Jays though, they would have wanted a Vlad.

Yep. Our chance to get Miller was when he was a free agent and was way undervalued because he didn't have many saves to his name. Once he became a Yankee, there was no way we were getting him without blowing up the farm.

 

[Genghis Keon]

Pulling the algebraic example from earlier, but using actual #s for illustrative purposes

Zeke's apparent assumptions look like this:

Let's say that Liriano's trade value is 5. McGuire's is 3, and Ramirez is 2. Total trade value outgoing on the Pirates side is 10.

Since the expectation is that for the trade to appear fair to both teams its value has to be pretty much equal, the assumption in a "solve for X" sort of way is that Hutchison's trade value must be roughly 10 so that the ledger is balanced.

It is therefore a failure of Blue Jays management not to use Hutchison's excess trade value over Liriano's (+5) to bring back 10 points of MLB assets instead of taking 5 points of prospects

What I and I believe most others are arguing is:

Let's presume for the sake of argument that the Pirates side of the trade has the same values (5, 3, 2 respectively). Let's also assume that relative talent/performance/potential that Hutchison isn't an unknown variable that needs to be solved for. Rather that we can safely guess that his value is, say, 4

Now the equation becomes

Liriano (5) + McGuire (3) + Ramirez (2) = Hutchison (4) + X

where X must equal 6 for balance's sake.

That 6 points of trade value is thus not contained in Hutchison, but rather in the Pirates internally assigned value of getting rid of the money owed to Liriano over the next year and a half. Those prospects taken back then represent less of a batch of value filler to raise the Pittsburgh side of the deal to Hutchison's level and more of a premium paid to the Blue Jays in exchange for eating the full value of the contract attached to Liriano. A premium that the Pirates felt more comfortable paying out of the minors than out of 5 points of MLB talent (that they may not have wished to part with or that the Jays may not have needed, like say additional outfielders, or another 1B/DH type or whatever)

now I know that this will lead to questions like "so why not restructure the deal to take Liriano + some negligible 1-point org filler piece for the 6 points of salary relief and a valueless piece like a do-nothing warm body or the famous PTBNL, and then use Hutch's 4 points elsewhere?"

The within-the-model answer is that perhaps there weren't other pieces in play for both teams that would let the deal come together except in this configuration. Perhaps the Jays needed to ship out some of Hutch's salary and his 40-man spot in return and they couldn't have made up the Liriano + salary value without making the trade more complicated or touching pieces that the Jays preferred not to part with.

The real answer is that this is, of course, a silly hypothetical math model to illustrate the point and in no way represents the full scope of variables that go into any sort of baseball transaction.

Good post and I agree.

I don't even necessarily agree with zeke, but I see where his stance is coming from and I think there are too many unknowns to say he sounds stupid or categorically call him wrong. People can disagree all they want, but there's no need to be a dick about it--there's no value to anyone there. And yes I know zeke is often (intentionally) provocative, here and on other forums.

 

[phillipmike]

You guys keep on going on about value.

My point is that when you have a contender, you shouldn't be trying to win value deals for prospects at the deadline.

The indians traded frazier and sheffield for miller. They apparently clearly "lost" that deal value wise, even though frazier and sheffield look doubtful to ever become quality mlb starters.

They weren't trying to win deals they were trying to win games. They targeted Liriano because they wanted him. When his value outweighed his salary the Pirates gave up prospects to make up for it. As stated Atkins was never looking to add to the farm rather the opportunity presented itself.

Atkind targeted Liriano and not the prospects. Liriano went on to give you 8 starts and 6 of them were quality starts during the regular season. Plus he had a huge role in the wildcard game as well.

I once again will ask, would the deal look better to you if the prospects weren't included... if it were just Hutchison for Liriano?

 

[phillipmike]

Good post and I agree.

I don't even necessarily agree with zeke, but I see where his stance is coming from and I think there are too many unknowns to say he sounds stupid or categorically call him wrong. People can disagree all they want, but there's no need to be a dick about it--there's no value to anyone there. And yes I know zeke is often (intentionally) provocative, here and on other forums.

And there are too many knowns to say that the Jays traded for prospects during playoff run when it is the smallest part of the equation. Its a narrow minded opinion and as much as you want to defend Zeke's free speech you have to understand he can have any opinion he wants but when he posts it for the world to see whether right or wrong he opens himself up to criticism or support. You are supporting him and everyone else is criticizing him... doesn't mean one is wrong and one is right.

But just remember this discussion started when someone said they were happy with Shapiro and Atkins for the Liriano deal as it got the Jays Hernandez. A poster was happy with Hernandez's play and happy this FO got him for practically nothing.

Then Zeke gave his illogical opinion... again... in what was to be a positive post.

 

[The Nemesis]

You guys keep on going on about value.

My point is that when you have a contender, you shouldn't be trying to win value deals for prospects at the deadline.

The indians traded frazier and sheffield for miller. They apparently clearly "lost" that deal value wise, even though frazier and sheffield look doubtful to ever become quality mlb starters.

The point that's been made though is that the org targeted Liriano with no eye towards the prospects. It's a trade they would've made regardless. The fact that they also extracted a pair of prospects in the exchange was gravy.

You're essentially chastising the org for daring to do a better job on that trade than they initially intended. Saying that if they had just traded non-roster Hutchison for a useful roster player in Liriano it would've been a "better" trade solely for the fact that they didn't devote any aspect of the deal to prospects. Your issue comes across entirely like an optical one. You don't like the deal because acquiring prospects sends some sort of bad 'signal' about the club's intentions, regardless of whether or not you can still justify the trade if they weren't there. You'd rather them take a bad deal that looks better in your eyes rather than manage to turn a good deal into a superior one by squeezing a little more out of the other side for no appreciable increase in cost. Because it's not like adding the prospects to that trade suddenly meant the Jays were harming hteir MLB depth. They swapped Hutch for Liriano, got better, and got a bonus on top of that.

And given your well-known dislike for Shapiro and Atkins, I can't help but think that if they had just straight-up traded Hutchison for Liriano and not taken back the prospects, then later it came out that they were offered prospects but refused them out of some twisted sense of maintaining a positive image of the deal in the eyes of people who view prospect acquisition as antithetical to contention that you would've been front and center to ream them out for leaving assets on teh table and not getting the most out of Hutchison that htey could've

Besides that, trying to remove value from the context is laughable because valuation is an integral part of any trade. It's just that the only way you can even attempt to defend this increasingly ludicrous position from the onslaught of people explaining how ludicrous it is is to try to chop out the key weakness in your stance and pretend it doesn't make the whole concept fall apart.

And for the record, the Miller trade is not a 'clear' loss for Cleveland. The balancing effect comes in the form of them trading the future benefits of the Frazier/Sheffield package for 2 and a bit years of Miller. They traded for an elite player now as a non-rental and paid the price in potential elite players down the road. It's a reasonable trade to make even if you think Sheffield and Frazier were going to become key MLB players at the time.

 

[Kurtz]

Liriano was a gift that kept on giving. Got us 2 prospects when we dealt for him. Pitched extremely well for us that season, while allowing us to rest Sanchize with the 6-man rotation. So good, in fact, that we almost started him in the wildcard game against Baltimore. Then he still ended up being huge for us in that game getting us 5 outs in the waning innings. And then he got us another good prospect on the way out.

That whole series of moves was awesome for us, and anyone who chastises Shapkins/Rogers for them is either trolling or was wrong about it in the past and now just refuses to admit to that.

 

[Genghis Keon]

And there are too many knowns to say that the Jays traded for prospects during playoff run when it is the smallest part of the equation. Its a narrow minded opinion and as much as you want to defend Zeke's free speech you have to understand he can have any opinion he wants but when he posts it for the world to see whether right or wrong he opens himself up to criticism or support. You are supporting him and everyone else is criticizing him... doesn't mean one is wrong and one is right.

But they did trade for prospects. It happened. We don't know their intentions, all we know is they got prospects at the trade deadline. Nothing can change that fact. You read nothing into, zeke does (or says he does).

But just remember this discussion started when someone said they were happy with Shapiro and Atkins for the Liriano deal as it got the Jays Hernandez. A poster was happy with Hernandez's play and happy this FO got him for practically nothing.

Then Zeke gave his illogical opinion... again... in what was to be a positive post.

He definitely prefers AA to Shapkins. No need to get excited about it.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Liriano was a gift that kept on giving. Got us 2 prospects when we dealt for him. Pitched extremely well for us that season, while allowing us to rest Sanchize with the 6-man rotation. So good, in fact, that we almost started him in the wildcard game against Baltimore. Then he still ended up being huge for us in that game getting us 5 outs in the waning innings. And then he got us another good prospect on the way out.

That whole series of moves was awesome for us, and anyone who chastises Shapkins/Rogers for them is either trolling or was wrong about it in the past and now just refuses to admit to that.

It's not a bad way to use some financial muscle that is for sure.

 

[Kurtz]

Hey, we dodged Kluber, and that's 2 less games we have to play without JD.

Pretty good outcome.

 

[phillipmike]

But they did trade for prospects. It happened. We don't know their intentions, all we know is they got prospects at the trade deadline. Nothing can change that fact. You read nothing into, zeke does (or says he does).



He definitely prefers AA to Shapkins. No need to get excited about it.

We know exactly what their intentions are and were... if you read my posts you would have seen it;

Blue Jays trade for Francisco Liriano, two other arms

“Francisco, specifically, was one of the guys two months ago that we started to do work on,” said Atkins. “But I’m looking at a list in front of me and that list is 20-deep. As you work through alteratives and acquisition costs, you’re only presented with so many decision that you can choose from.”

“He has a great arm and we’re looking to reunite him with Russell (Martin),” said Gibbons. “When he was really rolling, Russell was catching him over there in Pittsburgh. Some guys just work better with certain catchers. One of Russell’s big strengths is bringing the best out of pitchers.”

Blue Jays cash in with late Liriano swap | The Star

The inclusion of prospects — afforded by the Jays’ ability to take on salary — made the deal lopsided in the Jays’ favour in the eyes of many evaluators, not to mention Pirates’ fans.

Atkins said he didn’t set out to add to the farm system at the deadline, “but we were opportunistic when it presented itself.”

They targeted Liriano and the prospects were a by product of the deal after the fact.

No one is getting excited about anything. Remember this all started from a positive post about a current player on the Jays who was acquired by the current FO. Zeke turned it into a negative thing.

I dont know why you take offense... Zeke said something that many disagree with and we are just voicing our opinions in response. Zeke is a big boy... he can defend himself. He doesn't need you to tell us that there are so many unknowns (which is completely false) that we should leave him alone and let his opinion go without response. You aren't bringing anything to the discussion by ignoring what others are posting then saying leave Zeke alone. It accomplish nothing.

 

[zeke]

And there are too many knowns to say that the Jays traded for prospects during playoff run when it is the smallest part of the equation. .

the jays quite clearly traded for prospects during a playoff run.

 

[Discoverer]

the jays quite clearly traded for prospects during a playoff run.

I asked this before and I'm still kind of curious... would you have been ok with the trade if it was Hutchison for Liriano with Pittsburgh retaining half of Liriano's salary?

 

[zeke]

The point that's been made though is that the org targeted Liriano with no eye towards the prospects. It's a trade they would've made regardless. The fact that they also extracted a pair of prospects in the exchange was gravy.

You're essentially chastising the org for daring to do a better job on that trade than they initially intended. Saying that if they had just traded non-roster Hutchison for a useful roster player in Liriano it would've been a "better" trade solely for the fact that they didn't devote any aspect of the deal to prospects. Your issue comes across entirely like an optical one. You don't like the deal because acquiring prospects sends some sort of bad 'signal' about the club's intentions, regardless of whether or not you can still justify the trade if they weren't there. You'd rather them take a bad deal that looks better in your eyes rather than manage to turn a good deal into a superior one by squeezing a little more out of the other side for no appreciable increase in cost. Because it's not like adding the prospects to that trade suddenly meant the Jays were harming hteir MLB depth. They swapped Hutch for Liriano, got better, and got a bonus on top of that.

And given your well-known dislike for Shapiro and Atkins, I can't help but think that if they had just straight-up traded Hutchison for Liriano and not taken back the prospects, then later it came out that they were offered prospects but refused them out of some twisted sense of maintaining a positive image of the deal in the eyes of people who view prospect acquisition as antithetical to contention that you would've been front and center to ream them out for leaving assets on teh table and not getting the most out of Hutchison that htey could've

Besides that, trying to remove value from the context is laughable because valuation is an integral part of any trade. It's just that the only way you can even attempt to defend this increasingly ludicrous position from the onslaught of people explaining how ludicrous it is is to try to chop out the key weakness in your stance and pretend it doesn't make the whole concept fall apart.

And for the record, the Miller trade is not a 'clear' loss for Cleveland. The balancing effect comes in the form of them trading the future benefits of the Frazier/Sheffield package for 2 and a bit years of Miller. They traded for an elite player now as a non-rental and paid the price in potential elite players down the road. It's a reasonable trade to make even if you think Sheffield and Frazier were going to become key MLB players at the time.

You have it completely backwards.

I don't dislike this deal because i don't like shapkins....I dislike shapkins because of deals like this.

Shapiro himself admitted this offseason that he wanted to tear down and rebuild this team at least a year earlier (which would have been the end of that 2nd ALCS season). If he were being completely honest i bet he'd say he wanted to tear it down and rebuild from the moment he got here.

And every move he has or hasn't made since being here has made it clear that winning was never the main priority, but only a secondary aim at best. This even though he inherited a back to back ALCS team - something he never accomplished in his 15yrs in cleveland.

And that most definitely includes this trade, in which he traded for prospects during a playoff run.

What makes it sadder is that this year, when our odds are much worse than they were then, is the first offseason where they legitimately tried to make real upgrades to the roster, even to the point of trading prospects for vets. So finally we had a worthy offseason - but damn it's annoying that he waited until we weren't good before trying to legitimately upgrade the team, when he could have done it then just as easily.