Mail bag: On Thornton's role, El Receptor de Tijuana, Tanner Roark, banning the shift, and more!
We’re less than a week from Opening Day, and while the Jays aren’t quite as healthy as you’d like to see them, they are still in a great place to embark on what will be, if nothing else, a fascinating season of baseball as the franchise moves closer to being a genuine championship threat. It might even end up better than that!
It’s a time of excitement and optimism, in other words. And while March always is that in the baseball world, this is one of those rare years when Jays fans don’t even have to kid themselves to believe it. Vladdy is hitting laser beams this spring, Pete Walker’s magic seems to have the rotation on track, a wealth of young arms are waiting to be pressed into bigger roles, George Springer plays for the Blue Jays, so too do Bo Bichette, Cavan Biggio, Marcus Semien, Hyun Jin Ryu, Teoscar Hernández, Lourdes Gurriel Jr, Alejandro Kirk, and, well, a whole lot of genuinely exciting players with the potential to be stars — if they aren’t already. Things are good!
And so it is in that positive spirit that I’m opening up the ol’ mail bag this week, taking a crack at all sorts of your questions about how the Jays’ roster, and season, are shaping up.
Once again I could barely get all of your questions in before running into Substack’s post length limit, so thank you so much everybody. And thank you especially to those who subscribe, and those have been able to pay to do so.
Speaking of that, while I have you here, if you appreciate what I’m doing in this little corner of the internet, I would love it if you’d tell your friends.
And if you’ve been sent here by a friend, or would like to upgrade to a paid membership in order to really show your support, or so you can ask questions the next time I open up the ol’ mail bag, click below to become a subscriber.
Now on to the questions! As always, I have not read any of Griff's answers.
Your post on the Yates injury says that Roster Resource's projects Trent Thornton to make the bullpen. Do you think the Blue Jays' brass are ready to pull the pin on him as a starter? His stuff might play up in the pen. But I was kinda' hoping they'd keep him stretched out as a starter. With Pearson delayed and Hatch injured, might it be more prudent to keep Thornton starting for now, and roll with an AJ Cole type for that last bullpen spot? [I guess this is a long winded way of asking for your longer-term projection on Thornton.] — Player to be Named Later
I definitely don’t think they’ve changed their view of him as a starter, long-term. Ross Atkins said as much on Tuesday when he spoke to the media about the club’s rash of injuries. Though, as usual, he couldn’t help himself but be a bit cagey about what the plans actually are.
“It looks like he's back to the Trent Thornton that we saw before, and we're very pleased by that. So we'll see what role, or what shape that could take, based on the next week and what our alternatives are. But he is certainly a very good option for us to be in our major league bullpen, and if not we'll consider what other strategies we can take from him.”
Here’s how a follow-up exchange with Mike Wilner of the Toronto Star went.
WILNER: You said ‘has a chance to be part of the major league bullpen,’ so, we take from that he just won't have the opportunity to be stretched out enough over the course of the next week and a half?
ATKINS: Well that's what I was referring to. So right now if he made the team it would be as a reliever, but if he doesn't then we'll consider what another strategy could be.
WILNER: But you still see him...
THORNTON: As a starting option, yes.
The way I see it is that the Jays are built to have a lot of pitchers on the roster at any given time this season. Their rotation has exactly one guy you’d expect to have pitching into the seventh inning on a regular basis, and a number you’d be happy just to see get through five unscathed. That’s going to leave a lot of innings for the bullpen, which I think can be OK for a couple of reasons: one, they’ve got some quality arms back there, and two, their collection of position players is versatile enough that they can get away with running a three-man bench fairly comfortably.
At another point in his media session Tuesday, Atkins referred to “the 12 or 13, or potentially 14 pitchers, that you have on your 26-man roster,” and I think it’s definitely possible (if not likely) that they’ll go with 14 — if not right from the jump, then at least for most of their string of 16 games in 16 days that begins on April 3.
That means carrying five starters — Ryu, Ray, Matz, Roark, Stripling — and nine relievers. Five of those nine relievers are one-inning guys that are basically already locks to make the team: Romano, Dolis, Phelps, Chatwood, and Borucki. (Chatwood did have a two-inning appearance this spring, and has started in the past, but it looks more like he’s going to be part of this group than the multi-inning guys).
Atkins has already said, regarding Julian Merryweather, that “the way he was used last year is the way we're thinking about him for this year,” so I think at this point you can consider him in the bullpen as well. One of the three remaining relievers is, I think, going to be Francisco Liriano, who has pitched well enough this spring and the Jays love as a person. That leaves them with two spots to fill, one of which definitely needs to be someone who can give them multiple innings until Pearson gets back. With Hatch hurt, that basically leaves Thornton, T.J. Zeuch, and Anthony Kay (though he’s now dealing with a leg contusion suffered in Saturday’s game) for that long man spot. Or maybe even for both of the final two spots in the bullpen.
This was all discussed by Atkins back on March 16, when he was asked about Kay and Zeuch specifically.
We believe those guys can start, and want to keep them on that trajectory, but if we're building a team for a couple of weeks and our best chance to put the best roster in place for those seven to fourteen days involves making an adjustment — without losing site of that long-term growth and development, and knowing that we are in a very different time, when they're not going to be sliding right into a Triple-A rotation — we will have a slightly different look to things. We've just missed a season of development for some of them, that wasn't quote-unquote quite as traditional. So we are open to thinking about guys in a short-term different capacity, but want to make sure that we don't lose sight of the value of a starting pitcher. And could not be more encouraged about the names you have mentioned, and would add Trent Thorton to it as well.
So, what he’s saying is that he views all three guys as starters still, but thinks there’s a chance to use them — or at least one of them — as multi-inning guys in the bullpen early on before getting them stretched back out a little bit more. That would be an unusual way to do it, but they’re in an unusual situation with the minor league season being delayed.
I think you’re right to be a little worried about Thornton, because there’s a chance that he — or any of the three — is so good in a relief role that it might become hard for the Jays to send him away to become a starter again. However, given some of the starters ahead of him, it could definitely work the other way, where Thornton gets pressed into a rotation spot because of an injury or poor performance and can fairly easily ramp up his workload over the course of a few starts. The Jays are definitely going to need more than six starters this season, so the opportunity should be there.
As for Thornton’s long-term projection, I think he can be really useful to the Jays in whatever role he falls into. He was really good in a huge proportion of his starts in 2019, so I’d be happy to see him get another chance at a rotation job. But the Astros were always careful with him — in 2018 he consistently started on either five or six days or rest — and last year’s elbow surgery suggests that they were right to be. A full starter’s workload may not be a thing he can regularly handle, but you’re right that it’s worth finding out for sure. Fortunately the Jays seem to agree.
Hey Andrew, I was just wondering what the service time implications would be if Kirk makes the team out of camp? I hope he breaks camp with the team, the best players should, but if the team keeps him in the minors for the first few weeks, would they get postpone his free agency another year? — Ron
In order to get an extra year of cheap control out of him they’d have to hold him down long enough to ensure he doesn’t reach 172 days of service by the end of the year. A season typically lasts 187 days, but players get credited with a full year once they reach 172, meaning Kirk would have to be held in the minors for a little over two weeks, plus another 47 days to offset the number of days he was in the majors last season.
Kirk was not in the big leagues for 47 days last year, of course, but because it was a shortened season the 17 days he spent on the Jays’ active roster were prorated out to 47. So, the Jays would have to hold him down until early June in order to gain an extra year.
It seems pretty clear they’re not going to do that, nor should they. And hopefully no one out there thinks they should!
If the Jays were embarking on a season in which they didn’t expect to be in the playoff conversation, and every incremental positive didn’t matter. And if Kirk was a player whose late-20s or early-30s you thought had a better chance to be valuable. And if your livelihood was tied to your ability to project incremental savings for Rogers a dozen years down the line. And if modern sports fandom had finally managed to get you to turn off the part of your brain that appreciates fun. Then maybe — maybe — it would be worth worrying for a second about whether or not the Jays should burn a year of Alejandro Kirk’s eventual free agency.
Otherwise, let the young lad eat.
If in five years Kirk is an incredible player the Jays wish they had locked up for longer sooner, that would be an unbelievable outcome. If the Jays need to pay him a bunch of money to lock him up then, we should all be thrilled to see them do it — not ruing the fact that they might have been able to have had him cheaper for an extra year.
Acting like the Rays maybe makes sense when you’re allowed to operate in the kind of vacuum they do, where nothing the team does actually matters to anyone. For most of us, however, cheering for teams to manage “assets” to within an inch of their lives is no fun (not to mention against the rules, hence the twisting of truth teams have to do in order to provide plausible deniability of service time manipulation). And while I’m not saying that teams shouldn’t be cognizant of their long-term outlook, I am saying what are even we doing when we’re worried about six years down the line in the career of a guy who may not have that kind of longevity, who may not necessarily even stick in the big leagues the whole time, and whose service time may not even matter on the other side of MLB’s next CBA negotiations with the Players Association?
How long of a leash will the “Diesel engine” Roark get? Charlie can’t go get him in the 1st and then put him back in the 2nd once bullets start to fly. Sadly he feels like a $12 million dollar Sam Gaviglio. Only good for mop up. — David Maynard
I wouldn’t even trust him with that, to be honest. He’s either a starter or he’s not worth having around, I think.
Which would be a shame, honestly. It’s easy — very, very easy — to look at his performance as a Blue Jay and be dismissive or Roark, but I think he’s a guy fans would quite like if things were going better for him. Though maybe that’s just my natural inclination to appreciate veteran players now that I’m older than most of the league myself.
As for what the Blue Jays think, it’s hard to gauge. They know they’re going to need innings from all over the place this year, so they’re not going to just give up on him flippantly. But if he pitches like he did last season, things are going to get untenable real quick. Having a second guaranteed year on his contract may well have saved him from the waiver wire in 2020, but that won’t be the case in 2021. Maybe, if he struggles out of the gate, they could drop him into a long-man role and hide him until he figures something out, but at that point what are you even waiting for, really?
Hopefully he’s fine and we don’t have to worry about this stuff, of course, but if it isn’t I suspect the leash will be pretty short by front office standards, but pretty long by fan standards.
Hi — I am asking you to revisit the Sportsnet TV/Radio simulcasting situation. Have you seen any plausible explanations for this corporate decision? I am still struggling to understand the thinking behind this. I find it very hard to accept that the cost savings (and/or safety issuers) are enough to justify this decision. Knowing that the road TV broadcasts will managed from people's homes and that Ben Wagner is in Florida, I am astounded that they will not simply add a dedicated radio feed. My mother has a very jaded opinion that Rogers is hoping to have evidence of a diminished Canadian baseball market in 2020 so that they can justify selling the team to a USA city. I would imagine that given all the pandemic border issues, MLB might be open to having all of its teams located within the USA. Plus think of how attractive this team is right now for the future of MLB and increasing the MLB USA revenues!! Corporations rarely make a decision without a plan, I don't like this potential plan but sadly it makes more sense to me than other things I have read, I am hoping that I may have missed something. — Colleen Evans
Hi Colleen, thanks so much for your question! I completely understand your frustration on this, but I have to say, I think the whole situation says more about what Rogers thinks of radio than what Rogers thinks of the Blue Jays.
Currently there are 13 teams excluded by MLB from receiving revenue sharing based on the size of their market, and the Blue Jays are one of those teams. So, while obviously the border has been a huge obstacle during the pandemic, I really don’t think MLB is in any sort of rush to get out of a market the size of Canada.
As for radio, it’s a vital way to follow the team for so many baseball fans, and though it’s been declared a dying industry for at least couple decades now, live games on the radio with a dedicated crew perform well enough that every other MLB team has them. So, in that sense, it’s a puzzling decision.
Doubly so considering Ben Wagner is now having to be shoehorned into Sportsnet’s TV broadcast.
Ben could do a great job calling the games himself, but there’s still a technical crew that would need to be paid for to produce the games, and I guess that’s all it takes for the whole thing to be deemed too expensive by Sportsnet (who, as you note, are feebly trying to use pandemic-related safety issues as their excuse).
I don’t think it’s good for the Fan 590, I don’t think it’s good for Sportsnet, and I don’t think it’s good for the Blue Jays, but some clown in a suit saw an opportunity to use the pandemic as cover to cut costs, and that apparently trumps anything else. Those kinds of decisions are made easier, I’m sure, when you’re either too dim to realize why simulcasting is a disaster for radio listeners, or have enough contempt for your audience to figure they should just accept it and move on.
I honestly don’t think it’s any more sinister or calculated than that, though. It’s probably just a way some mediocre person has found to marginally pretty up a line item on a budget sheet and get a pat on the head from their boss.
Hey Stoeten, I’ve noticed your support for banning “the shift” on Twitter. I’ve always appreciated your insight and would love to know your full thoughts on why “the shift” is a bad thing. If a player’s swing is so one-dimensional that the defence is better off leaving an entire side of the infield unguarded, shouldn’t the onus be on the hitter to find a way to get on base? Won’t rules about where infielders stand (as I believe they’re trying in AA this season) lead to frustrating challenges? For example, challenges leading to a batter being awarded first base because on video review an infielder had one foot outside the dirt when the pitch was thrown. — Andrew.p
We’ve heard for years — especially those of us who’ve listened to a lot of Buck Martinez and Pat Tabler — that guys are passing up free base hits by not bunting or going the other way against the shift, and very, very, very obviously this is not the calculation that teams and hitters are making.
So, first of all, when we talk about the onus being on hitters to adjust, we need to think about what a hitter’s day-to-day job is and what we’re actually asking them to do there. Here’s something Ross Atkins said recently about Vladimir Guerrero Jr., explaining why the club felt it was so important for him to get into better shape, specifically as it relates to his swing.
“If you think about the reps that it takes and how many swings they'll take before they get into a batter's box to understand what's going to happen with a bat path at the right time to create the right trajectory of their swing, which creates the right trajectory on the ball, so much of it is about the athleticism that you can repeat. The better shape that you're in, the more repeatable things are going to be, because you're able to repeat them more in your practice.”
Repetition is incredibly important, both in-game and in practice sessions, and only gets more important as major league pitching gets better from year to year. The league average fastball was 89 mph in 2002 and by 2020 it had risen to 93.1, meaning hitters have less and less time to react. To be successful they need to be able to repeat their best possible swing as often as possible, and that becomes a harder task when you’re spending a bunch of your time working on a shift-beating swing that is mechanically, physically different. The same, I think, goes for bunting — a lost art that many fans get bent out of shape about modern players’ inability to do well, despite the fact that it’s just obviously not really an optimal use of their practice time.
Using bunts or a different approach to beat the shift is made even more difficult by the fact that pitchers pitch to the shift — they tend not to throw left-handed hitters soft stuff outside that it would be easy to poke the other way, for example — and the fact that in baseball it’s incredibly hard to mimic game conditions in practice, because guys who have big league quality stuff can only throw so many pitches.
That’s sort of the current trend, at least. And that reality is a big part of why I’m completely unbothered by the idea of banning the shift. Putting the onus on hitters just isn’t nearly as simple as saying “hit it over there, dummy!”
The other part of why I’m unbothered about banning the shift is that I just don’t think we’d be losing anything of value. You could have played 99% of baseball history with the “two infielders on either side of second base, all infielders on the dirt” rule in place and nobody would have noticed.
It only works so well now, and has proliferated, because it exploits the fact that hitters’ swings have become so specialized because pitchers throw so hard, and it’s so difficult to put even more on a big league hitter’s plate. It’s something that the rules of the game never really saw fit to address. In a way, then, it’s a loophole. And we tolerate it for what? To rob the game of a something it could actually use: a bunch of extra balls in play?
Yes, there could be unintended consequences of changing the rule, but if so you just find a way to fix those. Concerned about challenges? Make it so a team can only contest a defender’s positioning before a pitch is thrown. Whatever. More importantly, I’d say that today’s extreme shifts are themselves the unintended consequence of not having any clarity on infield positioning in the first place and ought to be fixed under the same guiding principle. It won’t solve all of the game’s problems — it may not solve any of them — but it absolutely won’t hurt anything about the product or the sport either. Adding a few more balls in play and making life a little more difficult for pitchers? Works for me.
Still loving what you are doing and look forward seeing new articles dropping in my inbox!
There has been a lot of “Bo can’t play shortstop” and the usual “Vladdy isn’t a third baseman” lately, but I was wondering aren’t these premium positions anyhow? Isn’t the strategy of getting great offensive players to be passable at positions like this the right one? At some point it is diminishing returns and your infield is a sieve, but it has to be worth a shot. There are about five guys at each position in the league that are offensive and defensive superstars, because it is really freaking hard to be good at both. At least you can try to teach defence. Because it is easy enough to find Freddy Galvis types with defensive wizardry but a wRC+ around 75. Then the complaint is you have a rally killer/black hole in your lineup instead? Plus, when you need to plug holes, it is a heck of a lot easier to find 1B, 2B and DH’s. — giant_badger
Well, I don’t think there’s been all that much “Bo can’t play shortstop” lately, but I know what you mean. There has been talk that he might be better off at second base long-term.
I also know what you mean about premium positions, though I definitely don’t think the strategy is to find guys who are merely passable defensively. At least not for most teams.
The Reds seem like they’re going to try out not caring about infield defence this year, moving Eugenio Suárez from third base to shortstop and Mike Moustakas from second back to third. MLB.com’s Mike Petriello looked at that experiment in a recent piece and found plenty of reasons why it might work — among them the fact that positions are more nebulous than ever now because of shifts, and that the number of fielding opportunities for shortstops keeps dropping (in 2007 shortstops saw 0.25 plays per inning, per Eno Sarris of the Athletic, while last year that rate was down to 0.16).
Thing is, Cincinnati is doing this more out of necessity than design. They don’t really have any appealing options at short, and they need to get some offence into their lineup, so it makes sense for them. The calculation is different for, say, playing Vlad at third base, where you have a better defensive option on hand in Cavan Biggio, and either a 1B or DH spot for Vlad to hit from every day as well.
So, you’re absolutely right in that there’s a balance that has to be struck between offence and defence, and shifts and the lack of balls in play that we see in the modern game is helping tilt that balance towards offence. I don’t think that should upend the strategy of having an excellent defender at your most important positions entirely, though. It’s really about — *extreme Ross Atkins voice* — opportunities and alternatives.
Hey Andrew,
Long time, first time. Love your content, keep up the good work.
My question - I have long been a proponent of robo-calls for balls and strikes. I find it so frustrating that a dozen plus potentially game-altering calls per game, which could be made consistently and accurately, are instead left to human judgement. It's impossible for any man to call ~300 pitches correctly each game, let alone when the likes of Angel Hernandez are involved. We have the technology (works well in tennis, for instance) so why not use it to create consistency and fairness? You mentioned last month that you worry about the development of catchers to frame pitches - but if we actually get the call right each time that odd skill would become moot. Please help me understand the other side of this! — Jeff
Hey Jeff, thanks for the kind words and the question!
First thing’s first, my concern about catcher development was specific to the guys in the one minor league where they’ll be testing this technology out. The young catchers in that league won’t be able to develop that skill if there’s no way to steal strikes, and that could put them at a disadvantage going forward if the technology doesn’t catch on farther up the chain. It’s a small concern, but not great for those kids.
As for robot umpires in general, while I wouldn’t be outraged if MLB shifted to an automated strike zone, I’m actually pretty OK with some human error occasionally cropping up in the game from time to time. It’s part of the spectacle, and it’s quaint, and I’ve seen enough of VAR in soccer to know that technology isn’t always the answer.
Thing is, I fully understand that, as a Jays fan, I can really only hold this opinion because I was so drunk by the ninth inning of Game 6 of the 2015 ALCS that my memory of the Ben Revere call remains blissfully fuzzy, meaning I just wasn’t as scarred by it in the moment as other, less fun Jays fans. Because you’re right that it’s unfair to hitters who work so hard to be so good at their craft to have, as José Bautista would put it, their “production being affected by somebody else’s mediocrity.”
The Jays’ PR team seems hellbent on calling Alejandro Kirk “Captain Kirk.” I hate The Star War so how can we convince them to go with Locomotive Kirk, or my preferred name “The Tijuana Tuna Can”? — Didymus Henley
I don’t think one needs to hate “The Star War” to agree that “Captain Kirk” lacks zazz. I discovered a new personal preference this week, when certain reports out of Mexico were saying that Kirk had officially been told he’d made the team.
The recent news of Yates’ injury got me thinking about guaranteed contracts in baseball. I assume the Jays are on the hook for paying his entire $5.5 million salary even though he won’t pitch an inning for them. In what scenario will baseball teams rely on insurance companies to pick up the tab? As always, love the work you’re doing. — Steve D.
Thanks for the kind words, man. Insurance in MLB is a difficult subject. "Unlike the NBA and NHL, Major League Baseball has no mandatory insurance policy that clubs buy into, insuring the five most expensive contracts on a roster should they miss a certain number of consecutive games. (In the NHL, it’s 30.)," explained Barry Svrluga in a 2016 Washington Post piece. "Baseball clubs must go into an open marketplace and try to purchase insurance on their own."
Teams definitely do get some contracts insured, but a lot of times they don't.
"Policies aren’t for every club," Svrluga wrote. "The Nationals have issued four contracts worth at least $100 million, those to Ryan Zimmerman (six years, $100 million), Jayson Werth (seven years, $126 million), Strasburg and Scherzer (seven years, $210 million). But people with knowledge of their thought process say they have found insuring such deals vexing and expensive. They haven’t done it."
If a company would have even been willing to insure Yates — a 34-year-old coming off of elbow surgery who didn't have a clean physical — I imagine the cost of the policy would have been very high, and probably not justifiable for the Jays. So I think you’re right that they’ll be on the hook for the whole deal.
When teams do get their players insured, apparently it’s usually younger guys on longer-term deals. But the data on that just isn’t readily available.
I may be in the minority, but I actually like the depth the Jays have built on their pitching staff. Obviously they could fit another ace or two into the rotation if they came upon them, but I feel like this team is reasonably insulated (you can't keep great replacements in AAA for long or they'd be starters somewhere else, etc).
I think the consensus is that the rotation to start the year will be Ryu-Ray-Matz-Roark-Stripling plus Pearson replacing Stripling at some point. Aside from these guys, how would you rank the depth guys that will likely form the AAA rotation for this season? As in, if there are injuries, or someone like Roark gets clobbered a lot and ends up DFA'd, in what order would you bring guys up to replace them as they happen (of course being AAA performance will impact this once the season gets going)? — WAMCO
It’s an interesting question, but I think the best part about it for the Jays is that there isn’t a right answer, and there really doesn’t have to be. At least not until we feel a little more comfortable with the idea of actually throwing Alek Manoah into the mix.
Which, uh, could be soon?
It still definitely seems early to start thinking about Manoah coming to help the 2021 Blue Jays, but I could think of worse ideas than having him warp past the rest of the guys on the depth chart if something needs to be done about Roark very early on. They won’t be able to send him to the minors anyway, so maybe you see what he can do for a few starts, and if he takes the ball and runs with it like he has this spring, giddy up.
More realistically, until he proves otherwise, Stripling looks like he’ll have the job of spot starter. Trent Thornton is likely next in line, depending on how stretched out they can get him. Then it’s Anthony Kay (contusion permitting) and T.J. Zeuch — the Jays have been so positive about Zeuch this spring that I’m not sure which way to order them. Thomas Hatch may jump ahead of those guys once he gets healthy, but his performance will determine that. Then you’re probably looking at Anthony Castro, who has looked quite good this spring and has basically been a starter to this point in his career (though he did intermittently pitch multiple innings out of the bullpen in Double-A back in 2019), as well as Jacob Waguespack. It’s likely only at that point that you start thinking about someone like Simeon Woods Richardson, though he’s been very good this spring also.
That’s how I think the Jays basically have it right now, other than my stanning for Manoah, and I think that’s about right. Of course, once there are actual games for these guys to get in, everything is going to change.
To begin the season, the likely core of a AAA rotation for the Jays could be Nate Pearson, Thomas Hatch, Anthony Kay, Trent Thornton and T.J. Zeuch. I picked that order out of personal preference on how likely I think they are going to matter as starters long-term, but what's the likelihood that all five make at least five major league starts for the Jays this year? (I would take the over for sure if it wasn't for Zeuch.) I'm relatively confident in Ryu, Matz and Ray, I'm somewhat confident that they'll get all of Roark that they can given all the likely innings limits this year, and I think Stripling's a long man again before too long. But even if they're all healthy, there has to be a lot of starts out of 162 those 5 won't cover. Thoughts? — Mister MEH
You’re absolutely right that Stripling will be the long man just as soon as Pearson’s healthy. And I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if the Jays ended up using all of those guys to start games at various points also. Whether it’s five each or not, I couldn’t possibly say. In 2019 the Jays had 11 starters make at least five starts, but in 2018 the number was only nine, in 2017 it was eight, and in 2016 it was six. There just aren’t that many starts to go around. Not usually, at least.
I think I know the answer you’ll give but I’ll ask anyway. In light of the Pearson, Hatch and Yates injuries and given we’re near the end of spring training, might it be time to shop the catching surplus around or do you think it’s still better to await the trade deadline? — Byngski
I don’t think the surplus is all that much of a surplus, to be honest. Trading Reese McGuire isn’t going to get you much more than a warm body. EL RECEPTOR must go nowhere. Danny Jansen is still an essential part of the 2021 Blue Jays. And Gabriel Moreno may be the guy the Blue Jays like best of all. Maybe you’d move one of them for a quality pitcher with term remaining, but those guys aren’t very available at the moment. I could see them considering it at the trade deadline though, like you say.
That leaves Riley Adams, who I’d imagine has some trade value, but enough to bring back someone who moves the needle? I highly doubt it. Not when the team already has enough depth that guys like Kay and Hatch will likely be starting the year in the minors.
Loving the potential of the Jays this season and I have high expectations. But, big but, I am totally not enamored with Grichuk and Roark (big butt). Can someone please take them off our hands? Could trading them for a starter bring back anything decent? I'd rather see Davis as the 4th outfielder and anybody other than Roark on the mound. Ross, get on the phone and ship these guys out. — Bob Sorger
I totally understand not particularly wanting to watch those guys this year, but both those contracts are under water right now. Grichuk is owed $29 million over the next three years, and Roark is owed $12 million for this year, and if they had both been free agent over the winter, I don’t think teams would have given either of them that much. So the Jays are in a situation where they’d have to pay somebody — or eat money — in order to get those deals off the books, and because there’s still definitely a chance that both will be useful players for them this year, I don’t think that’s much of an option, realistically.
Hey Stoeten, I've *really* enjoyed your "Shapiro Speaks" and "3 up, 3 down" features this spring. It's been great to get all your analysis and summaries in my inbox, and I'm happy to be a subscriber.
No question, just praise. Thanks, and keep it up! — Joe
Thanks so much, Joe! Appreciate it that you appreciate it, and I’m looking forward to really getting into gear once the regular season starts!
Re the Jays moving - the Globe and Mail article from a couple months ago about Rogers looking build a new Jays stadium with private money is a pretty good sign that's not something to worry about!