Mail Bag (Part Two): Electric Boogaloo

On Soto, Vlad, Springer, Vlad, Horwitz, Soto, Kirk, Vlad, Bo, aesthetics, Vlad, Soto, Mike Trout, the radio, and more!

It’s finally mail bag time, everyone! Or… hmm… actually, not quite everyone just yet.

Yeah, take a knee, folks. You see, after threatening more times than I can count that I might at some point actually start using the paywall Substack provides me with, I’ve decided that I’d like to see what happens if I actually do it. This little test run might not have the desired effect—more people paying to read my work, in case that somehow wasn’t clear—and it might not tell me a whole lot about whether I should use it again in the future, because I’m going to be absolutely up front with you right now that I’m going to remove the paywall and let everybody read this mail bag in its entirety on Friday. And also that for the moment I don’t plan on doing this regularly, and certainly not on more time-sensitive stuff.

But, well, a lot of works goes into a post like this, I like to think my work has value, and as much as I don’t like the idea of keeping it hidden from anybody who’d like to read it, I also like getting my rent paid on time, you know? So we’ll try this out, at the very least once…

Oh, and the Blue Jays are good again, George Springer might be uncooked, Vlad simply will not let up, Juan Soto would be a very nice fit here, the future doesn’t feel as bleak as it did a few weeks ago, and here’s my latest mail bag. More on that tomorrow night Friday morning, or you can turn to another channel.

Oh. Do not turn to another channel.

As always, I have not read any of Griff’s answers…

---

Jon Heyman says the Jays have a 1-25 chance of signing Soto. I'm thinking he would love to play with his buddy Vladdy. Do you think there's a chance they both get a truckload of cash from Rogers this winter? — BobTV

Thank you so much for the question, and your support, Bob. I… well… I would never say that there isn’t a chance. If there was a chance on Ohtani—and there was—there’s certainly a chance with Soto. It’s just, why would he do that? Why would he come to a franchise with all kinds of questions dangling over it when there will be a bunch of marquee organizations, perennial winners, lining up to give him just as much money?

I don’t want to start the mailbag here on a down note, especially with the team being eminently more watchable lately, but I don’t think it’s news to anybody that 2024 has not gone well, nor should it be news that the prospect of signing on for a decade here would not be as enticing today as it was a year ago. Money matters the most in contract negotiations, but the state of a team’s roster matters too, as does the chance to compete year in and year out. Consider, for example, the fact that José Berríos had an opt-out put into his contract after 2026, giving him a little bit of leverage in the event of a rebuild.

Perhaps you’ve noticed, but the idea of sustainable championship contention is a tougher sell here than it once was—especially now that we’ve seen the Yankees bounce back from a rough 2023, the Orioles do it again, the Red Sox make strides and the Rays reset. Meanwhile, Bo looks nothing like a foundational piece, he and Vlad are now just a year away from departing, Springer’s star has significantly dimmed, Varsho and Kirk aren’t hitting enough to be considered stars despite their excellent glove work, the club’s top three starting pitchers are entering their age-31, 34, and 36 years respectively, and the bullpen needs to be rebuilt.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Rob Manfred’s changes have set the bar for success so low that there’s plenty of reason to believe the Jays can patch things up and genuinely make a go of it next season. And I think the commitments Rogers has made to payroll, and the Jays to their facilities, probably go a lot farther than we understand toward overcoming some of the roster’s deficiencies and questions. I have no doubt that they’ll be able to continue playing at the higher end of the market. It’s just those best-in-class, generational types like Soto, who could go literally anywhere they wanted, that I have a very hard time seeing landing here.

And yeah, playing with a friend like Vlad may have some appeal for Soto. But I doubt he lacks for friends throughout the league, so I’m not sure that it would be enough.

Would be happy to be wrong, of course. And either way, sure, there’s a chance.

Hey Stoeten, do you think Pete Alonso’s free agency this winter helps to set the market for Vlad and potentially move the parties closer together to getting a deal done? Pete is a few years older but the career WAR numbers are pretty similar.

Naturally they should just pay the man, because the alternative is too miserable to contemplate, but this might help with a useful indication of where the market is for AAV? — Simon F

Thanks so much for the question and the support, Simon! I definitely didn’t realize how similar Alonso’s career numbers are to Vlad’s. Both debuted in 2019, have just under 3,500 games played, and right now we’re looking at 17.2 fWAR and 132 wRC+ for Alonso, 16.3 and 137 for Vlad. Granted, Alonso has been much more prolific in terms of home runs, with 220 to Vlad’s 157, but that’s sort of the thing. Vlad came into the league as a 20-year-old who was good enough to hold his own but not fully developed in terms of power. And we all know that development hasn’t always come easily for him.

Putting a value on Alonso in free agency will actually be a bit tricky, I think. Earlier in the season the same thing would have been said about Vlad, but he’s been answering the biggest questions about him very loudly for several months now—and doing so at 25 years old. Alonso’s best year by both WAR and wRC+ was as a rookie in 2019, when he was already 24. It has hardly been all downhill since, but his worst two full years as a big leaguer have been last year and this one. Take away Vlad at his youngest and the difference between the two as hitters is actually fairly stark. Since 2021, Vlad has been the better hitter by 15 points of wRC+ (145 to 130). Since 2022 Vlad leads 138 to 130. Over the last two years it's Vlad by 141 to 123. And this year it's currently 168 to 125.

Vlad’s got two seasons that are 22 and 24 points of wRC+ better than Alonso’s single best, and even though his youth is mostly a factor in terms of the length of a deal, it will show up in where his AAV lands too, I think. His ceiling is just so much higher, and because of that I think his AAV will probably also be in a different stratosphere.

Do you think Springer has enough left to not eat his contract? Who (internal or not) plays RF if you decide he’s not the guy? — Blair F.

Thanks for the question and the support, Blair. Now, to be fair to you, I must first point out here that you submitted this question a couple weeks ago, and that since the day you did Springer has posted a 144 wRC+ on the strength of four home runs (and has another from Monday’s conclusion to the June 26th game at Fenway that had been suspended due to rain). But even when it I first saw it come in I thought that I really couldn’t see the Jays cutting bait on him.

Not while he’s still a positive-WAR player (1.4 this season so far). Not with two years and $45 million remaining on his deal. And not with 19 home runs, a career-low .240 BABIP, and an outstanding July to point to as reasons some kind of a bounce back at the plate might still be possible.

I mean, I’ve certainly been wrong before, and I don’t think those are particularly good reasons to expect a bounce back in any sort of a significant way. The reasons for concern—his age, his miserable output overall, the struggles last year, the multiple years of decline—remain much more compelling, unfortunately. But I think there are ways to squint and see a guy who might still have a chance to find a way to be a productive hitter. Or at least ways to sell that. And I have to believe the Jays are going to do him the courtesy of trying that rather than immediately lighting the money he’s owed on fire.

It’s not even crazy.

Springer has produced a 125 wRC+ since May 26th, and while obviously that was almost entirely because of his July surge, there was a real flourish at the end of May (hence my using arbitrary endpoints rather than looking at it by specific months) and, and I noted above, his last couple weeks have been very good as well. And we can see what's changed, I think: through May 25th he'd struck out just 16.8% of the time, produced a .085 ISO, and hit three home runs in 197 PA. Since then his strikeout rate has jumped to 20.4%, his ISO to .220, and he's hit 16 homers in 324 PA. His pull rate has also gone from 34.5% to 45.9%. And if we look month-to-month at Statcast's bat speed data, we see a clear dip in his percentage of competitive swings, and a rise in bat speed, fast swing rate, and blasts since the end of May.

The story of those last numbers isn't quite as tidy as my description suggests—his incredible July looks more like May than June or August in terms of bat speed and fast swing rate—but the general trends are fairly clear. He's swinging harder, being a little less selective, pulling the ball more, and producing more power.

For me, that's exactly what an aging hitter with the kind of 30+ home run power Springer showed earlier in his career should be doing when faced with the abyss. I don't think we can throw out those two awful months to start the season, or just hand-wave away a rough early August, and a pedestrian June, because July was so good—especially after last year. But I can accept that there's possibly still a process to go through before he figures out how to be the best kind of hitter his nearly 35 year old body will allow. He has so much natural talent that I refuse to believe he can't carve himself out a role, even if obviously the days of him being all but guaranteed a spot in the lineup have to be over.

As for potential replacements, I think Addison Barger’s arm makes him the most intriguing of the internal candidates, provided he can hit enough to play a lot. Only two outfielders have thrown harder on average this season, and of 317 fielders of all positions with at least 100 throws, he’s one of just 14 to have hit 100 mph. Joey Loperfido is maybe more of a left fielder, but he could fit there also, I suppose.

And, of course, Juan Soto can play right field.

What is your least favorite feeling about Manfredball? For me it's the cold, slimy sensation of seeing Justin Turner batting cleanup for a contender who intentionally traded for him and knowing that it makes sense. — Conrad B.

Ohhhhhh, either that or the fact that the Jays remain poised to enter September less than ten games back of the final AL Wild Card spot, WHICH MEANS WE GOT A CHANCE, BABY!

Spencer Horwitz definitely looks like a long term keeper. I'm a big fan of his approach, his steady hitting and the great guy he appears to be. Could you reinforce my thoughts on him so I don't sound like a gushing fan boy? — BobTV

I’d love to reinforce your thoughts, Bob, but I think we ought to be pretty cautious before getting our hopes up when a relatively unheralded prospect hits the majors and immediately looks like he belongs. I know that many people had very similar thoughts about Davis Schneider at various points over the last year and, well, that’s not goin’ so hot at the moment, is it?

That said, there is a lot to like about Horwitz, who absolutely does take a nice at-bat, and would especially look like a real player if he can ultimately handle second base. But the thing about that is, the Jays have only had him there three times in his last 22 starts, and he’s already a -5 DRS in only just 285 innings. Statcast likes him better than that, and a big part of the reason he’s been elsewhere is that clearly the Jays want to take a long look at Will Wagner there, but I think it changes the equation a little bit if he’s not a second baseman.

It also changes the equation a bit, I think, when we remember that Horwitz is really not the home run hitter we've seen him be in the majors so far. He's hit eight in 273 plate appearances with the Jays this season, but had just four in 259 PA for Buffalo this year, and just 10 in 484 PA for the Bisons last year.

That said, FanGraphs Depth Charts projections are more bullish on his rest of the season (117 wRC+) than any Blue Jays player other than Vlad. Mostly that's a sad comment on what the data suggests the expectations should be for Bo (114), Kirk (113), Springer (112), or Varsho (106), but it's far from out of the question that what we're seeing here could be real.

Perhaps I’m just a little bit scarred because I remember looking up similar numbers for Schneider early in the season, when the conversation about moving Springer out of the leadoff position was at its height, and... well... you know…

When Vladdy was clearly out of shape the fan base as well as broadcast crews showed him no mercy in pointing out his lack of fitness and the effect it was having on his game. Why is the scrutiny not being applied to the man who all are looking to be the number one catcher next year?

I'm not trying to fat shame anyone but Alejandro Kirk is a professional athlete and like all must be held accountable. If the worry is that he wears down with too heavy of a workload (for him) hence affecting his offence, wouldn't he benefit from getting rid of 20+ pounds? Quicker bat, less weight to wear him down, quicker all around, less prone to injury, and all around more athletic. Why does no-one talk about it and why does the team not demand it? Why doesn't he take it upon himself in the hope of prolonging his career? — william

And if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass when it hopped.

Thanks for the question and the support, man. I suppose you're right that some fans made a thing of Vladdy's weight at times, but no, broadcast crews absolutely did not show Vlad “no mercy” because of it. I don't think anyone worth listening to was saying anything about the effect it was having on his game, because we absolutely do not and can not know how much—if any—of that there might have been.

At least to my memory, Vlad's weight or fitness really only became a talking point—outside of very general “he's going to have to keep his weight in check” stuff from back when he was a very young prospect—when he was moved off of third base coming out of the shut-down in the earliest days of the pandemic, or when he addressed it himself. In coverage of the team it was mostly treated respectfully, I think. As it should be. Sure, it was always in certain people's minds, because far too many people love to think about this stuff and will go so far as to create a quasi-serious pretext to mask their weird need to gawk at peoples’ bodies and scold them for supposedly not meeting arbitrary standards. But the idea that this was ever a major conversation? Or an appropriate conversation to have? No.

As for Kirk, he's always been a big guy. Is he bigger now than a couple years ago? What am I, some kind of freak who takes a magnifying glass to my TV going over before-and-after shots like it's the Zapruder film? I don't know or care. What I do know is that he has become an elite defensive catcher, currently ranking second in MLB among 31 guys with at least 500 innings by FRV (Statcast's all-encompassing metric). A lot of that is framing, but he's been above average at throwing and blocking as well.

In other words, he’s gotten better at a thing that requires athleticism. So we can't act like his game has gone entirely downhill just because his hitting has taken a step back. And even if we could say that it has, we couldn't definitively tie it to his size anyway.

Worrying about this is pointless. If Kirk and the team think it's appropriate for him to drop some weight and he comes back next spring having done that, great. If they think it's appropriate and he can't, well, that's how weight works sometimes. If they’re not overly concerned about it, neither am I. And I assure you that, outside of having to answer mail bag questions like this one every once in a while, I'm not going to spend a second thinking about it.

Should Toronto be interested in Elias Díaz? — Daniel L.

Well, the Padres have picked him up now anyway, so moot point. But the 33-year-old whose 80 wRC+ this year is right in line with his career mark of 78? Who was just released by a franchise maybe even more hopeless than the White Sox? Who has been exactly replacement level for his career by fWAR (0.0)? And who will be a free agent at the end of the year anyway? Nah.

I mean, I completely get why you ask—he’s carved out a nice career behind the plate, was an All-Star last year, has showed a little bit of power, and has produced nice batting averages the last couple years—but nah.

Would be lots of hurdles and might be impossible, but if Vladdy won't sign... maybe there is a window to trade Vlad for Mike Trout? Angels need to change things up. Mike Trout in the AL East! — Jay M.

Oh man. Thanks for the support and the question, Jay! But yowza, as much as I love Mike Trout and everything he’s done in his career, I’ve gotta say that I don’t exactly think trading for Reds-era Ken Griffey Jr. so you can him $37.1 million per season through 2030 is a great idea.

And, honestly, calling Trout that at this point is actually doing a disservice to Griffey. There were some rough years in the middle of Junior’s Reds tenure in terms of health, but by the time he left in that Deadline Day deal to the White Sox in 2008, he’d played in 77% of his team’s games since arriving from Seattle. Trout, by the time this season ends, Trout, will have played in only 52% since signing a 12-year, $426.5 million extension ahead of the 2019 season.

It would be great if he could come back next season, get healthy for a few years, and really put this most recent chapter of his career behind him. He only just turned 33 and is still a great hitter when on the field. You can’t not root for it. I will always have time for Mike Trout. A guy who credibly resembled Mickey Mantle in his prime was a hell of a thing to have watched. But notice the past tense.

Given the financials, I think it will be a long, long time before we ever see Trout in a uniform belonging to a team other than the Angels.

So if they do end up signing Vlad for huge money long term, and maybe Bo too, is that enough of an anchor to build around? If this season is not a blip anymore, it seems like next year won't be much different either without a few free agent signings, which ideally round the roster out as opposed to overpaying a big star or two to come on a contract that won't age well. I don't see the path of Vlad and Bo's aging curves, plus those of free agent additions (if we were to splash this offseason or next), and the next crop of players in our system. Your thoughts on Vlad and Bo's prime and timing of new crop having an impact. — Dave

Thanks so much for the support, Dave! As for your question, not to be too glib about it, but yeah… I think it’s fine. And that’s not just because the last couple of weeks have felt a whole lot better than things did when you submitted this question. I mean, it’s not exactly the same, but Soto and Aaron Judge seem to be doing just fine carrying an offence, no?

Vlad is 25 and Bo is 26. Sure, anyone they sign—and they should definitely aim as high as possible and not worry about deals that “won’t age well,” because free agent deals almost never do anyway—will be older, unless we’re talking about Juan Soto, but that’s simply the nature of free agency.

The problem with the Jays’ next crop of players isn’t timing, it’s whether there’s enough talent there. Even an impossibly young guy like Arjun Nimmala should be reaching the majors well before Vlad turns 30. Whether there are any guys who could start for a championship calibre team among the group we’re already seeing in the majors or on the cusp is the much bigger question. But if Rogers is willing to keep spending to fill out the roster until that question is answered, or some guys from below emerge, I’m not really seeing the problem. At least as long as they get Vlad extended and avoid flushing money down the toilet on bad long-term signings.

Totally agree that the season has been a miserable, frustrating failure, and that with expectations removed, it's now just a failure. I'm looking forward to watching some baseball qua baseball, with nothing riding on the outcome. And seeing some young bucks get a chance is always fun. Nice to share in the joy of someone's first major-league whatever.

Record aside, I think we can all agree that the Jays were frustrating and not very fun to watch last year. Ditto this year up to the deadline, and for largely similar reasons. It doesn't seem like the front office has taken that lesson to heart. Shapiro has talked a lot about winning as the goal, the importance of winning, etc., but I don't think I've heard him talk about the importance of fielding an entertaining team and you know, being fun to watch, although maybe I've missed it.

I think a lot of the negative fan reaction to the offseason was at its core a complaint that the team sucked to watch and the front office didn't rectify that. Hanging on to narrow leads through great defense and a lockdown bullpen is fun now and again, but it seems like it's too stressful maybe? Too demoralizing when it doesn't work and you lose yet another 3-1 game? And it doesn't seem like this front office realized that. Even if that approach “works” in terms of winning enough games to make the playoffs, it doesn't work as an entertainment product. Are they, paradoxically, maybe too focused on winning?

Have you seen any discussion or quantification (because baseball nerds love quantification!) of what makes teams fun to watch or not? Or any sign of front offices (especially this one) taking that into account when putting the team together?

What are your thoughts on what makes a team “fun” or entertaining beyond just winning ball games and the responsibility of a front office to take that into account? — Argos

Great question, Argos! Thanks for it and for the support, man. I don't think you've missed someone like Mark Shapiro talking about fielding an entertaining team, because I don't think that's something baseball people do, or maybe even should do. Yes, he's been open about the team being an "entertainment product," but a lot of that was regarding improvements to everything else at Rogers Centre, not about there being a right way to play or a certain style that should come even before results. When if comes to soccer I'm an Ajax fan, so I assure you I know a little bit about that stuff and can appreciate it when fans demand that their team forge some kind of stylistic identity. But I'm not sure it applies in the same way to baseball, and I'm honestly probably more in line with Shapiro's notion that winning really is the only thing that matters or will win fans here over.

You're definitely right that it's been tough watching the brand of baseball the Jays have been playing for most of these last couple of years—I've groused about it plenty myself—particularly because so many games have felt so hopeless once their opponents get a couple runs on the board. But I don't think the days of having to worry about the bullpen imploding—though that's obviously been a worry this year as well—or the defence kicking the ball around and letting teams back into games was a whole lot better. I'm sure plenty of fans then weren't having fun either, and would have assured you that pitching and defence wins championships.

For me, the problem the Jays have had with their approach is that they simply haven't been good enough at it. If the 2023 Jays had won six more times—just one loss per month turned into a win—they win 95 games and I genuinely don't think anybody cares about this at all. Honestly, given the atrocious RISP luck last year’s team had for like three whole months of the season, I sort of get not tossing out the concept immediately. It should have worked better than it did.

Stoeten, thanks for providing the perspective I needed to endure this season. I'm on to the next already. Here's my dream offseason:

1. Vladdy extension.

2. Sign Soto.

3. Find a legit internal third baseman between Clement, Wagner or Orelvis, or sign Bregman.

4. Fix the bullpen.

Horwitz has earned regular second base reps IMO. Kirk is fine at catcher (no one has great catching, so don't spend here), and Yariel/Bloss/Francis should be a cost-effective back of the rotation. If not Bregman, you’ll need a legit power bat for DH/3B.

I'm not going to accept the right players weren't there for them again this offseason. Ohtani switched teams. So did Soto. Quit signing aging vets on short term deals and go get proven studs and pay the market rate, unless there are legit pillow deals to be made.

Are you on board with this plan, or should we just etch in stone our 32nd straight season without playing for the World Series? To me, it is something pretty aggressive or might as well sell Guerrero, Bichette, Bassitt and Gausmann. The middling middle is maddening. — Seth

Thanks so much for the question and the support, Seth. Yeah, the middle is maddening, but as Jerry Dipoto would tell you, it gets results. In most years, at least.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for that. I just think it’s important to be realistic that top-of-the-market free agents have plenty of reason to go to plenty of other well-situated clubs, and that’s OK. The kind of fallback position we saw the Jays take this past winter isn’t ideal, and it obviously wasn’t well-executed, but it still makes sense as a concept. I don’t think you just stop trying because you can only compose a roster that looks like it might have to pull an upset in the playoffs—something that literally happens all the time—rather than curb-stomping its way to some kind of preordained victory. A healthy mix of short- and long-term, upper- and middle-tier free agents should be fine.

I think we also really need to stop using the World Series as our benchmark here just because it makes us appear more long-suffering than we really are. I know that’s the prize, the goal, but the Yankees haven't been to the World Series since 2009, and that's their only win since 2000. The Dodgers have won once since 1988. Those are unbelievably successful franchises. That they can’t figure out how to win it every single year speaks to just how much luck really is involved.

Appreciate what you can appreciate, I say. I think Jays’ fans relationship with the 2015 team, even though the World Series didn’t take place that year, is a beautiful thing. You obviously want trophies, but it can’t only be about that.

What do you think of the whole starting pitchers have to throw at least 6 innings rule that's getting tossed around? I think I'm all for it!

Thanks for the coverage. Reading your website and listening to the pod are two of my favourite things about baseball. :) — Adam L.

Thanks for the support and the kind words, Adam! The idea is certainly an interesting one. For those who missed it, the proposal—which ESPN’s Jesse Rogers outlines here—is that all starting pitchers would be mandated to pitch six innings, unless they allow four earned runs, reach 100 pitches, or get hurt (“with a required injured list stint to avoid manipulation”).

The idea is that forcing starters into having longer outings might compel pitchers to spend less time throwing at maximum effort, which in theory would lead to more hittable pitches, balls in play, and shift the balance back toward command over stuff. It’s suggested that conditioning pitchers to go longer and pitch less at max effort could lower the number of injuries as well.

That last bit I don’t believe for a second and, honestly, it’s where the whole thing falls apart for me. Or, more accurately, where it reveals that it’s ultimately an idea pushing for traditionalist aesthetics and little else—all at the expense of some of what’s great about the modern game, and probably mostly out of spite for “analytics” and the way they’ve changed the way the game is played as they’ve helped deepen our understanding of it.

For one thing, pitching while fatigued is a major risk factor for elbow and shoulder injuries. Forcing pitchers to press on beyond the point of fatigue, then, seems unlikely to curb injuries, even if training regimens are altered to make sure pitchers are better prepared for it. That’s putting it mildly, in my view.

For another, if pitchers know they’re going to get a trip to the IL for exiting a game early because of injury, a whole hell of a lot of them are simply going to pitch through pains that they shouldn’t, thereby make their issues worse.

I didn’t make this connection right away myself, and so I see the appeal of the idea on the surface, but for those reasons alone I think it ought to be a non-starter. Still, let's continue taking it seriously here by looking at an example pulled straight from the 2024 Toronto Blue jays.

Yusei Kikuchi has made 27 starts this season: 22 for the Blue Jays and five for the Astros. Of those, he's reached six innings in nine, made 100 pitches in one other, and was pulled before the sixth having given up four or more earned runs in eight. This rule, then, would have only impacted nine of his starts, and in six only barely, as he threw between 95 and 99 pitches in those.

The other three impacted Kikuchi starts were his first of the season, in which he only got to 90 pitches against the Rays in Tampa, a 92-pitch performance for the Astros on August 13th when he was lifted after 5 2/3 innings after having allowed just one run, and a May 15th start in Baltimore when he was removed with one out in the fifth after 88 pitches with a 2-1 lead and a runner on first as Ryan Mountcastle—who has a career slash line of .450/.542/1.100 against him—came up for the third time.

Now, Kikuchi isn't the worst offender when it comes to exiting games early, but he's still generally the target here, as he currently ranks 89th of 152 guys by innings-per-start (min. 50 IP) at just a hair under 5 1/3. Yet, save for that one game against the O’s, he would have been able to abide this rule completely just by pitching a few more innings in the spring, and facing one or maybe two extra batters in seven other starts.

In other words, I just don't think these changes would have the desired impact on the way the vast majority of pitchers train or approach each start. I also don’t think Jays fans will be jumping for joy at the notion that the rule only would have meaningfully come into play for Kikuchi by forcing him to face Mountcastle a third time in a tight ballgame.

And what about converted relievers with innings limits like Yariel Rodríguez, Garrett Crochet, and Trevor Hicks? Or young players having their innings managed? Or guys coming off of major injuries? Where would this rule leave them?

Honestly, I think the idea is cute, but not terribly well thought-through and kind of a solution in search of a problem. And that's without even getting into how it would be yet another element of the game taken out of the manager's hand—which I'd always thought was something traditionalist types are for. It's a pass for me.

So, the Jays are giving the kids an audition until the end of the season, and they got some close-to-MLB talent at the deadline, but even if some work out, they will still need more reliable bats. They have kind of proved they can't just rely on positive regression past Vladdy. How many do you think they need to get in? One, two, more? — giant_badger

Thanks so much for the question and the support, man. I know what you mean but I don’t know that they’ve proved that they can’t rely on positive regression beyond Vlad. For one, I’m not sure anything is ever proved in this game. Nor can anything truly be relied on, really. And for two, yes, they ultimately said they were banking on positive regression, but really had little else they could say about the last offseason.

I thought Arden Zwelling had some interesting comments on this subject on last week’s episode of Sportsnet’s At The Letters podcast:

I had somebody say to me yesterday, “You know, there's only like 12 people on this earth who actually know the full encapsulation of what happened to us this offseason. How many things were actually in play, and how many things weren’t, and how many trades were on the table, and how far we got with certain free agents, and how realistic it was that Shohei Ohtani would come here.”

Like, this is one of those 12 people, who said that. And, look, the reality is, like, we don't know everything about the Blue Jays’ offseason. I can sit here and say they didn't do enough to address their offence. I think that much is clear. But I also, coming into the season, said, “Yeah, like, I think there's a way the Blue Jays could get into a Wild Card spot.” So I'm also not going to sit here and say “I knew this was doomed, I told you all this was doomed, of course this is what happened.” Because that's not what I was saying coming in. I was saying, “If things go right this could definitely be a playoff team.”

A lot of things went wrong instead, and clearly the Blue Jays should have done more to add power to their offence in the offseason. But I also can’t tell you everything that they tried to do in the offseason. I know what their intention was. I don't know all of their actions. Like, we know some of it, from having conversations and asking around, but we don't know all of it. You know? I can tell you that the Blue Jays didn't like Cody Bellinger as much some other teams, and that they weren’t going to give him the same value that the Chicago Cubs did. I can tell you that the Blue Jays liked Matt Chapman at the value that the San Francisco Giants gave him, and that they offered him that same deal—although, from talking to Matt himself, that offer came in somewhat late in the process and Matt was already pretty convinced—or pretty committed—to going back to where he was most comfortable, on the west coast.

So, like, I could tell you those things. I know those things. But there's plenty about this offseason that I don't know. So I'm always kind of hesitant with just, like, how convicted I am in saying, “Ah, the Blue Jays had this terrible offseason.” Like, I think there's a ton of circumstances that play into these things, and a lot of nuance there.

Anyway, I know that’s not super related to your question, but it sound like there may have been a lot more that they intended to do last winter and simply couldn’t because of the way the market played out. That still makes the offseason a failure, but maybe it will give some fans confidence that they really will be determined to fix it in the months ahead.

As for what they’ll need this winter, I don’t think there’s a number to be put on it. Production can come in many shapes. If they go get Soto and add little else? Fine. If it’s, say, Alex Bregman and Teoscar Hernández? Sure. Three more mid-tier guys? I like it less, but there’s a path to get where they need to go that way.

I think they have to figure out what's wrong with Bo before moving forward. Besides the bullpen woes his lack of offense is what sunk the team. — Wendy B.

Thanks so much for the question and the support, Wendy! I probably wouldn’t go quite that far, to be honest. Bo’s lost season has definitely hurt the team a lot, but I think there’s plenty of blame to go around for why the Jays are where they are. That said, you’re right that it certainly would help to see him make it back for a few weeks and looking like himself again—either to solidify his trade market, or at least ease fans’ minds heading into next year.

And as for going forward, here’s where I’ve landed on this: if Bo played for, say, the Marlins, and the Jays acquired him in his walk year hoping for a bounce back, that would be a pretty exciting addition to this group, no?

I know I’m straying a little too close to eye-roll-worthy “this injured guy coming back will be like a big trade deadline acquisition!” territory here, but to me there’s no sense sweating the opportunities to get more back for him that have been lost. Absent actually extending him at massive dollars, which may have been a bullet dodged, there really was no other logical way to play this out. He’s been an outstanding player in the past, he’s here for a year, I think you just have to treat him like any other one of those.

I mean, I’m not opposed to signing him to a long-term extension, but more and more it feels like it’s Vlad—if anyone—who is going to get that, and I don’t think Bo is going to be looking to sign coming off of this disastrous season anyway.

I know that’s really not what your question was about, but it’s a fascinating situation.

I'm finding it a mite hard to believe that Spencer Horwitz is the left handed power bat we've always needed, but assuming that this is so, where do we play him? I was thinking second base before Will Wagner showed up. Can either of these two play third? And Clement has a thing to say about that too. Decisions, decisions. Got any insight, Andrew? — Laura C.

Thanks so much for the great question and the support, Laura! I went over Horwitz a bit above, and Wagner could, theoretically, also be in the mix for a job—though probably only Clement could be a third baseman among that group (VLAD ON THE OTHER HAND…). But I don’t honestly know that all of the Jays’ new players will fit on a roster with the guys who are already here anyway, and I don’t think the Jays are necessarily planning for that.

In other words, I don’t think they’re done trading. And, actually, I think the Jays now have a lot of guys who remind me of the kinds of players who went to Oakland in the Chapman and Donaldson deals. So maybe Brent Rooker is that power threat you and everybody else has been longing for, albeit from the right side.

Scoff if you must, but the Sacramento-bound A’s don't have a single player under contract for next season, and only have two players on this year’s roster making more than $2.6 million. They certainly will be able to afford Rooker next year, as he'll only be heading into his first year of arbitration eligibility this winter, but he won't be part of the team when they plan to get to Vegas in 2028, and he'll turn 30 in November. His big home run totals—he's matched his 2023 output of 30 already, putting him among the top 10 in MLB—mean he could get expensive fairly quickly through the arb process, too. None of this makes him seem like the kind of player the A's and their garbage owner would want to keep around, even though they declined to move him at the deadline last month.

Obviously plenty of other teams will be sniffing around, too. And it's not like we should expect a fleecing every time the Jays and A's hook up in trade—though Steve Karsay also says hi—but the pieces for the Jays to offer in a quantity-over-quality deal are certainly in place more so than they were a few weeks ago, and maybe all those cheap years of control are something that continues to have stronger-than-usual appeal to that particular front office.

I would give Vlad all the Rogers money, but realistically, how high would you go if you were running the team (and let’s be honest, it would be baller if you ran the team). Thanks for all your writing, podcasting, and analysis—it is some of the best out there. — Michael S.

Thanks so much for the the support, the kind words, and the vote of confidence, Michael. I’m not sure I’m the right man for that particular job—PR consultant would be more in my wheelhouse (🤙😀)—but I’d be happy to be considered should an opening arise *COUGH*.

As for your question, I think Jeff Passan had it right that Rafael Devers’ contract is the natural starting point with Vlad.

Devers was 26 when he signed his 10-year, $313.5 million deal in January 2023, which is the exact same situation Vlad will find himself in this winter at the exact same age.

By that stage of Devers’ career he had produced 18.0 fWAR, had a 123 wRC+, and had hit 139 home runs; Vlad has put up 16.3 fWAR so far in his career, producing a 137 wRC+ and 157 home runs. Devers' additional value came from his defence at third base but, as Passan points out, the expectation was that he'd eventually have to move off of the position. This is not only bearing out—of the 32 players with at least 400 innings at third this season, Statcast ranks Devers third-last with a -5 FRV (Fielding Run Value, which combines metrics for a fielder's range, via Outs Above Average, and arm)—but was surely priced into the offer.

It's incredibly comparable for those reasons, but also, I think, because of the pressure in place to get a deal done. Boston had lost free agent Xander Bogaerts to a mega-contract with the Padres earlier that winter. And with the sting of dealing away Mookie Betts and watching the Dodgers sign him long-term still being felt, it seemed especially important in that moment that the Red Sox get a Devers deal done. Just as it obviously feels that way with the Jays and Vlad right now.

So where does that leave us financially? Devers had already agreed to his salary for 2023 via the arbitration process, meaning the extension didn’t kick in until this year. That effectively made it a $331 million commitment over 11 years. Vlad makes $19.9 million this year and should be going up to at least $25 million in his final pass through arb, which would be $7.5 million above Devers’ $17.5 million last pre-extension salary, so we’ve got to consider that higher baseline too.

So… I think you start there, account for a bit of inflation, and that’s basically the number you’re comfortable with. Like $350 million over 11 years, maybe? Obviously you don’t begin your negotiations there, but that feels like a reasonable place to land. And then you accept that it might take even more than that. You obviously don’t want to get into bidding against yourself, making offers that no other team would even get close to, but, for me, I’m not going to let him walk over the cost of a single middle reliever in terms of AAV. If it has to be $370 million, or $380 million? $390 million? I suck it up and do that—though obviously I’m more emotional about the need to get this deal done than any executive should ever be.

But yeah, build in some deferrals, which the Devers contract has, lower the AAV for luxury tax purposes, and just get it done.

Hey Stoeten, just wondered if you had a take on the Sportsnet radio coverage so far this season? Thanks! — Laurence I.

Great question, Laurence. Thanks for it and for the support. I’d be lying if I said I’ve listened to a ton of radio coverage this year, or if I said my first thought about it isn’t “I’m glad Ben Wagner landed on his feet and gets to cover a fun, young Orioles team,” or that my second isn’t “It’s still truly embarrassing that every other team except one sends their radio crew on the road and Rogers won’t—a sad comment on Sportsnet’s commitment to cost-cutting radio to death, its indifference to something essential to the fabric of the sport played by the multi-billion-dollar team their parent company owns, and the cowardice of the executives that let it happen.”

But I’ve enjoyed what I’ve heard from Ben Shulman and Chris Leroux (*DOUBLE CHECK THAT THESE ARE THE CORRECT NAMES AND DON’T FORGET TO ERASE THIS NOTE BEFORE YOU HIT PUBLISH!*) and Ben on the TV side has fit seamlessly into a top notch collection of talent. You might think the generation gap between him and Buck would cause problems but I’ve enjoyed them as a tandem.

But, seriously, it was not that long ago that radio was my primary way of consuming games—especially road games. I swear there was a year where I went to like 60 games on my Toronto Star Pass and simply listened to the rest of the ones I didn’t either watch at a bar, at a friend’s house, or miss altogether. In fact, I know that’s true because I remember the terrible apartment I lived in at the time. And, honestly, it was great. The game and the radio are made for each other. Admitting I don’t listen much kind of undermines my point, I suppose. And I know it’s not 2005 anymore. I know Warren Sakiw isn’t walking through that door. But it would be easier to accept that the world has moved on from radio broadcasts if weren’t just us and the fucking useless Angels leading the charge.

---

Twitter ⚾ Facebook⚾ Bluesky ⚾ Podcast ⚾ YouTube

⚾ Want to support without going through Substack? You could always send cash to stoeten@gmail.com on Paypal or via Interac e-Transfer. I assure you I won’t say no. ⚾