John Farrell & DCarpenter to Red Sox, Mike Aviles to Jays

[Izenhart]

Escobar and Izturis wouldn't even have to reach their career offensive numbers to be valuable for their respective positions and to be well worth what the Jays will pay them next year

So tell me, at what point does "value" finally give way to mundane abstractions such as "production" and "winning"?

Well, real baseball is like an ongoing auction draft where everyone has a different amount to spend, you may get a $4 player for $1 and that's a good thing, but nothing to get excited about, and you certainly don't want a whole team of guys like that, even at a discount.

Value gives way to production and winning when you're small investment produces more than what a significantly larger investment would have returned. Escobar/Izturis don't really have that type of upside.

This thread is a good example. 6 full pages of John Farrell, DCarpenter, Mike Aviles, Escobar and Izturis? Didn't see that coming.

[mweir145]

Escobar and Izturis wouldn't even have to reach their career offensive numbers to be valuable for their respective positions and to be well worth what the Jays will pay them next year

So tell me, at what point does "value" finally give way to mundane abstractions such as "production" and "winning"?

Value equates to production and wins. And creating a good enough team to make the playoffs, especially when your owner isn't willing to spend any of their vast hordes of money, requires getting excess value out of cheap players like these. It's quite simple: the more positive value moves you make, the more production/wins you get and the better off your team is.

None of this is to say that the Toronto Blue Jays specifically are the sort of position where adding Izturis' value will get them very far or that they can build an entire team full of Izturises. They need more impact players and they need to stop wasting the ones they already have/had (Delgado, Halladay, Bautista, etc). But it all adds up.

Value gives way to production and winning when you're small investment produces more than what a significantly larger investment would have returned. Escobar/Izturis don't really have that type of upside.

I disagree as far as Escobar goes. He was one of the best SS in baseball in 2011 and still has the talent to have a season like that again for a cheap price. Let's just hope the team's GM isn't shortsighted enough to sell low on him.

[mweir145]

Escobar and Izturis wouldn't even have to reach their career offensive numbers to be valuable for their respective positions and to be well worth what the Jays will pay them next year

So tell me, at what point does "value" finally give way to mundane abstractions such as "production" and "winning"?

When they base playoff contention on Pythagorean Record.

Haven't been able to fall back on that one for a while now. The Jays have fallen into the Mets' level of futility of late.

[Skin Blues]

Value equates to production and wins. And creating a good enough team to make the playoffs, especially when your owner isn't willing to spend any of their vast hordes of money, requires getting excess value out of cheap players like these. It's quite simple: the more positive value moves you make, the more production/wins you get and the better off your team is.

In theory, yes. In reality, not really. Getting a bunch of cheap players on good deals will give you a great win per dollar ratio and then you can allow yourself to be complacent about signing/acquiring impact players at not-so-great values. The first 70 wins are easy. The cost per win goes up exponentially from there. They could be extremely efficient at getting to 80 wins, but who cares about that? I'd rather they were inefficient about getting to 90 wins, and most fans are probably in the same boat. And I think the added attendance and viewership is enough to offset the inefficiency inherent in turning the Blue Jays into a 90 win team, but it's risky. And for a team with billions of dollars, they're awfully risk averse.

[bigh0rt]

So tell me, at what point does "value" finally give way to mundane abstractions such as "production" and "winning"?

When they base playoff contention on Pythagorean Record.

Haven't been able to fall back on that one for a while now. The Jays have fallen into the Mets' level of futility of late.

Welcome to the club.

[mweir145]

Value equates to production and wins. And creating a good enough team to make the playoffs, especially when your owner isn't willing to spend any of their vast hordes of money, requires getting excess value out of cheap players like these. It's quite simple: the more positive value moves you make, the more production/wins you get and the better off your team is.

In theory, yes. In reality, not really. Getting a bunch of cheap players on good deals will give you a great win per dollar ratio and then you can allow yourself to be complacent about signing/acquiring impact players at not-so-great values. The first 70 wins are easy. The cost per win goes up exponentially from there. They could be extremely efficient at getting to 80 wins, but who cares about that? I'd rather they were inefficient about getting to 90 wins, and most fans are probably in the same boat. And I think the added attendance and viewership is enough to offset the inefficiency inherent in turning the Blue Jays into a 90 win team, but it's risky. And for a team with billions of dollars, they're awfully risk averse.

Well, I agree, this is what I pretty much said below that paragraph. If the Jays aren't willing to take the extra step, none of the minor value moves *really* matter anyway. The difficult part is acquiring players to get to that elite level and the Jays haven't been successful at all in doing that (I would argue, though, that they haven't even tried to win since 2006-2008). That added risk is not something Rogers is willing to take on.

[bayside]

I dont want to quote all the responses to my last post, but ill just say this:
Good teams worry about finding ways to maximize talent per roster spot.
Mediocre teams worry about maximizing talent per dollar.

[mweir145]

I dont want to quote all the responses to my last post, but ill just say this:
Good teams worry about finding ways to maximize talent per roster spot.
Mediocre teams worry about maximizing talent per dollar.

And when you're a cheap/poor team that isn't willing to spend to win (or has a finite amount to spend), you have to worry about both.

But again, this is pretty basic stuff. Look no further than Tampa Bay and their recent run of success for an example of a team that is required to make such bargain value deals to contend (and a team that has managed to do it quite well).

[mweir145]

Seems relevant to bump this thread up.

None of this is to say that the Toronto Blue Jays specifically are the sort of position where adding Izturis' value will get them very far or that they can build an entire team full of Izturises. They need more impact players and they need to stop wasting the ones they already have/had (Delgado, Halladay, Bautista, etc). But it all adds up.

Well that's a good start. Jose Reyes and Josh Johnson could probably qualify as impact players.

I disagree as far as Escobar goes. He was one of the best SS in baseball in 2011 and still has the talent to have a season like that again for a cheap price. Let's just hope the team's GM isn't shortsighted enough to sell low on him.

I guess I'll take selling low on him if we're replacing him with Jose Reyes.

[Mookie4ever]

Jays close to announcing new manager. Reports are that it is between Jim Tracey and Riggleman. Dark horse is Phil Jackson.