Mail bag

Happy Thanksgiving weekend to all our American friends and please enjoy your second-string turkeys since we in Canada always have made sure we have first shot at the best birds by having our Thanksgiving the second Monday of October.

Before answering this week's questions, just an observation on a disturbing trend that has been evolving and growing in major-league baseball's award-voting over the last few years. It seems more and more that unanimous and near-unanimous votes are becoming the required norm for public acceptance of the official BBWAA Awards and the Hall-of-Fame – even in those years where such consensus seems unlikely. With the high-tech Internet age and all the sources of statistical info, breakdowns and minutiae that are spit out, it seems voters are now mostly trying to guess who is going to win. They are trying not to be wrong instead of going with what they really feel. By the time voters cast their ballots on the final day of the regular season, the online arguments have been made by others and those arguments mostly involve stats, not actually voter opinions based on being at ballparks, in clubhouses and around players. The only evidence of this is the observation that the results in the past seemed to involve more differences of opinion.

As the playoffs unfolded in October, every mention of Josh Hamilton and Joey Votto started with “likely MVP.” When people vote for a prime minister or a president, if someone does not pick the winner, nobody makes fun of their vote and nobody points fingers and says that they were wrong. They simply picked the person they thought would do the best job and they were out-voted. So why do we in baseball feel obliged to criticize someone that sincerely voted for CC Sabathia or David Price over Felix Hernandez in the Cy Young or someone that voted Jose Bautista over Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols for MVP? The Award voting and Hall-of-Fame voting has always been great off-season fodder for open debate, but the computer-generated statistical arguments are taking the open discussion away and making it black and white, right or wrong. Part of the joy of being a sports fan is in difference of opinion and respectful argument. On to the mailbag.

Q: Hey Richard,

By not placing both (outfielder) Adam Loewen and (infielder) Brad Emaus on the 40-man roster, (making them eligible for the Rule 5 draft) is Anthopoulos basically indicating to both players that they do not fit in with the organization's future plans? I find the move perplexing especially in Emaus' case since he is one of the more developed third base prospects in the Jay's system and leaving him unprotected could potentially make an already weak position from an organizational standpoint even weaker.

Matthew Lee, Toronto

A: Sometimes too much is made of the fans' horror at organizations making certain players eligible for the Rule 5 draft. The draft takes place at the Winter Meetings and was actually instituted to protect players from very deep farm systems. The idea is to stop teams from hoarding young talent and keeping major-league ready players down on the farm forever. Without getting into the details, basically from the moment a player is signed, he must be added to a 40-man roster after three or four years. If not, then he becomes eligible for the Rule 5 draft, meaning another team can select him in December, the kicker being that he must then remain on that new club's 25-man roster all of the next season or be offered back to the original team. Loewen and Emaus are both eligible for the Rule 5 draft. Can either man stick with a big-league team for all of 2011?

In the case of Loewen, the 26-year-old Vancouver native was selected fourth overall in the 2002 draft, making him the highest Canadian selected since Canucks were first included in 1985. After suffering three stress fractures of the left elbow (2007-08-09) he gave up pitching and was released by the O's. As an amateur he had also been a hitter and is trying to revive that career as an outfielder. The Jays under Canadian GM Alex Anthopoulos, as they did with Canadian pitcher Shawn Hill, signed Loewen to a 2010 minor-league deal in a no-lose agreement to help him revive his career. Loewen had a great year at AA-New Hampshire and re-upped for 2011, however I admire the Jays for what they are doing with him. Basically, the Jays cannot guarantee him a major-league spot in '11, but if another team is ready to claim him and keep him in the majors then the Jays will shake his hand and wish him good luck and he will fulfill his dream of being back in the majors. Mission accomplished. In the case of Hill, the Jays gave the Mississauga righthander a chance in 2010 to show them and other teams that he can still pitch after surgery. He made it all the way back in September and then since the Jays were so deep in pitching, they released him giving Hill a chance to sign somewhere closer to the majors.

As for the 24-year-old Emaus, he had a solid minor-league season in 2010 but the Jays are counting on the fact that every organization has a “Brad Emaus” of their own. He is not a future starter in the majors as it stands right now. Think Joe Inglett or Jarrett Hoffpauir. He's a good player, but everyone has one. Is another team ready to keep him on the ML roster all year instead of their own version?

Q: Hey Richard keep up the great work love Jays talk in the winter! You mentioned in your last mail bag that the Jays should be considering Canadian lefty Jeff Francis (whom I've acquired many times in my PS3 franchise modes), and you have also talked about a Shaun Marcum for Zack Greinke trade could make sense for both clubs. Personally I'd rather have Jeff Francis but I don't know who I'd rather give up, what would be your ideal long term rotation?

Matt Sookram, North Bay

A: Francis had left shoulder issues that have affected him since 2008. He made 20 appearances in 2010 for the Rockies with a 5.00 ERA and was released after the season. The North Delta, B.C. Native was selected ninth overall in the 2002 June draft, five picks behind Loewen. It was the first time two Canadians were chosen in the same first round. Dustin McGowan had similar shoulder woes as Francis and it has taken him a similarly long time to come back, but there is no down side to signing Francis and allowing him the opportunity to re-establish his career, even if not in 2011. One must believe that Francis, who majored in physics at UBC, will do alright for himself no matter what happens to his baseball comeback. He is, after all, a rocket scientist.

I have had several mailbag letters over the summer re a Greinke trade and the latest was a suggestion that Kansas City native Marcum might be a good start on putting together a package that might interest the Royals. Greinke is a Cy Young winner and Marcum is a year removed from Tommy John surgery, so just the fact of the Jays' righthander being from Kansas City is not likely enough to secure a deal. The Jays should not overpay for him in terms of talent. There would be serious competition from other contending teams and it could be a bidding war. Don't think of overpaying.

My long-term Jays' rotation, say by 2013, would include Ricky Romero, Brandon Morrow, Kyle Drabek, Shaun Marcum and Deck McGuire. Q: Hi Richard,

Q: I really enjoy your baseball columns. I am interested in hearing your opinion as to what the Jays long term plans may be for Adam Lind.

Thanks.

Ian MacDonald, Stouffville

A: This is just a personal opinion, but I think that Lind's breakout season as a 26-year-old DH in 2009 was spurred by the excitement of playing every day for the first time in a full season. In 2010 the young slugger slumped badly and as a DH may have had too much time to ponder his woes. Again, this is just me talking, because Lind would never say anything, but it's tough for a 27-year-old that has never played a full season at a defensive position to keep the adrenaline going when he leaves the dugout just five times per game to hit -- and that's it, that's all. Especially when things aren't going well. Frank Thomas played through his 20s as a first baseman. David Ortiz was a first baseman. Vlad Guerrero was a superb right fielder. Paul Molitor played multiple positions as an all-star before finishing as a DH. Hideki Matsui a left fielder. Johnny Damon had a long career as an outfielder. I have always said and still believe that Lind needs to play a position and the only one available for the Jays right now is first base. He should be working out at that position on his own every day. Lind is signed to a great contract for the Jays through 2013 with three more option years through 2016 with small buyouts each year. It's also a contract that would be easy to trade with value for the acquiring team. If the Jays do not find a position for Lind, I could see him being traded before the contract is over.

Q: Richard,

Enjoy reading your mailbag each week. In regards to the rumours of the Blue Jays acquring Justin Upton, can you see any reason why the Jays are willing to give up so much for him? Upton is a superstar, but Towers has said he wants to clearly win any trade that happens. To give up Lind/Snider and Drabek/Stewart seems like way to much doesn't it? Thanks.

Andrew S., Alberta

A: Upton has a manageable $49.5 million deal for the next five years, which makes him very appealing for any team to acquire, a young controllable player wth his nice upside. However, since the next two seasons for the D'backs outfielder are just $11 million combined, there is no hurry for Arizona to trade him right now. They are dangling him and waiting to be overwhelmed. They probably believe that financially they cannot keep him through the end of the contract. If they are not overwhelmed now, they can keep him and go through the process again every trade deadline and every winter for the next couple of seasons. As such, it would likely take more than Lind/Snider and Drabek/Stewart to acquire him. In that case I as a GM would not be interested. They have already said they want to win the trade. Someone will bite, if not this off-season, then next.

Q: Hello Richard,

Love the blog. You asked John Farrell all the right questions except this important one: does he spit, chew gum, eat sunflower seeds, or none of the above?

Roland Jodoin, Calgary

A: Sitting across the desk from him in his new office for the interview a couple of weeks ago, there was no sign of a spittoon, no day-old gum stuck up under the desk, no sea gulls hovering in the room looking for discarded seed shells and no yellowed, nicotine Farrell finger tips from cigarettes. I doubt if he has any vices which makes me nervous. By the way, I am disturbed that so many mailbag readers seem so very hung up on spitting.

Q: Hi Richard,

There's been a lot of talk in the last couple weeks about the Jays trying to acquire Zack Greinke. This would obviously give the Jays a front-line starter to lead them when they expect to contend next year and beyond. My question is, with Greinke's well-documented history of anxiety issues, is he the guy you want pitching in Yankee Stadium in the last game of the 2012 season with a post-season berth on the line? Is he apt to collapse under the pressure? Can he be the big game pitcher that his salary dictates he should be?

Colin Campbell, Edmonton

A: I don't think that question is very fair. The anxiety issues are under control. NL MVP Joey Votto had deepression and anxiety issues of his own that he overcame to be NL MVP. Greinke for his part is a Cy winner. Is he the guy you want pitching at Yankee Stadium in the last game of the '12 season with a post-season berth on the line? Well if they Jays have reached that point with him on the staff, then yes. I think his anxiety issues come more from dealing with idiot questions that sometimes we in the media ask more than facing A-Rod and Teix with the season on the line. The mound may be a comfort zone.

Q: Hi Richard,

I love your mailbag and read it every Wednesday. My question for you is about the AL Cy Young Race. To me, Felix Hernandez was the clear favourite. He led the league in ERA and innings pitched, was second in strikeouts and WHIP, and third in complete games and shutouts. Of course, the one thing that would have hurt his chances was his 13-12 record, due mainly to the Mariners scoring only 14 runs in his 12 losses. In the past, you have put great importance on wins and losses as a tool to evaluate a pitcher. So, in your opinion, was King Felix, with his barely-.500 winning percentage, deserving of the Cy Young award?

Mike MacDiarmid, Newmarket

A: Lefty Steve Carlton went 27-10 for a Phillies team that went 59-97 in 1972. Now that's a Cy Young performance for a last-place team. I am not saying that in terms of ranking current pitchers against one another that wins and losses is the most importat stat, but too many people dismiss it completely and go right to WHIP and others. I also believe in innings pitched and I like walks to strikeouts ratio. The fact that Felix won the award means he was indeed deserving of the award. However, if I had a ballot I would have gone with David Price, Felix and then either CC Sabathia or Jon Lester. Consider that because of the low-scoring games that Hernandez was involved in start after start, he clearly had to keep focus, pitching his butt off, batter-to-batter, inning-to-inning, game-to-game, which for a pitcher of his abilities would invariably lead to the best WHIP and ERA that could be mustered because there were no huge leads where you can afford to just challenge hitters and maybe give up a solo homer and not care. Felix is a great pitcher, but for me a 13-12 record for the Cy Young winner just doesn't cut it.

Q: Mr. Griffin,

Love your Jays coverage. Oakland picked up Encarnacion off waivers and a few days later the two teams made a trade. Is there any 'unwritten' code in baseball that would have a team who got a player off waivers agree to a trade they may not have otherwise made? Or is the timing just coincidence? Thank you.

Joe Glionna, Montreal

A: I would have to say yes. The code stems from the trade waiver rules in August when if someone claims a player off waivers the two GMs put their heads together and try and work something out within 72 hours. Many times in a situation like the Encarnacion claim by the A's, the claiming club will need to clear up a roster spot and it allows the two GMs to talk about a roster player for prospects before the claim is even announced. That ensuing deal is not directly linked to the claim, but could be considered as related. If you are a smart GM you also want to keep a good relationship going with all GMs, even if you just claimed someone they were trying to pass through waivers in order to send them to the minors.

Q: A baseball question, not a Blue Jays one, but here goes. Does Baseball have a sportmanship award like Hockey? If not, it should and I can think of who and why it should be named after him. Remember the pitcher for Detroit (I can't remember his name) who could have pitched a perfect game but the wrong call was made at first declaring the hitter safe? I think their should be an award and named after him. I think anyone else would have had a fit over the wrong call. Imagine if there was additional incentive for not arguing or abusing the umps, charging the mound if hit by a pitch. A reward for players that kept their cool and composure for much of the year.

Dave McLeod, Scarborough

A: The Armando Galarraga Award would be nice, but maybe it could at least wait until he has retired. The Tigers' Venezuelan righthander wouldn't want to be considered the Lady Byng of baseball while still playing. As for the impact it might have, I really don't think that any player that has just been drilled by a fastball between the numbers just after a teammate's home run is going to think “If I charge the mound I may not win the Galarraga Award.” A better idea might be the Jim Joyce Award (the ump who blew the call). It could be voted on by MLB umpires at the end of the year using the same criteria. Otherwise there is the Roberto Clemente Award handed out for community service by an individual player in honour of the Hall-of-Fame Pirate who died in a plane crash off the coast of Puerto Rico on a mercy flight to earthquake ravaged Nicaragua on New Year's Eve 1972.

Q: Hey Richard...

Look forward to the mailbag every week. For both hockey (Damien Cox) and baseball. Great way to interact with fans. My question: Is it time for a Mantle award? There is an award for best pitcher (Cy) and an MVP award which goes to the player who basically helps his team to the playoffs. Am I correct that the MVP can be a pitcher? Doesn't it make sense to have an award for the best hitting/fielding season? Thanks!!

Jeff Iles, Haliburton

A: Damien has a mailbag? As for the hitting/fielding awards, right now the only official MLB awards are MVP, Cy Young, Manager of the Year and Rookie-of-the-Year (Jackie Robinson Award). The BBWAA has a committee studying the feasibility of an additional reward for relief pitchers, a suggestion by Jayson Stark of ESPN.com. In terms of hitting/fielding, Rawlings sponsors the Gold Glove for fielding excellence at each position, ditto for Louisville Slugger sponsoring the Silver Slugger Awards. They are voted on by managers and coaches. The Hank Aaron Award is presented to each league's top offensive player as voted by fans, computers and Hall-of-Famers. This year's winners were Joey Votto of the Reds and Jose Bautista of the Jays.

Mail bag

The Jays on Wednesday made their first acquisition of the off-season, trading for speedy outfielder Rajai Davis from the A's giving up righthanded relievers Vancouver native Trystan Magnuson and Dan Farquhar, both from AA-New Hampshire. GM Alex Anthopoulos has stepped up and quickly made his major league team better and more balanced by dipping into his biggest trading strength – an impressive inventory of young minor league pitching prospects. Anthopoulos, on a conference call late Wednesday afternoon, refused to commit to Davis, despite his 50 stolen bases, as an everyday player and a top-of-the-order guy. Why? Because, in addition to an on-base mark that needs work, he's not done dealing and making the team better and he doesn't know in what area future additions will come.

Anthopoulos is like a street juggler with a pocketful of extra balls. The other day, the ball with Dan Uggla's name dropped and bounced away so he reached into his pocket without breaking rhythm, with an array of balls still in the air, and replaced it with another. He believes he can keep that act going all winter. Using an analogy from a different sport, Anthopoulos runs the West Coast offence of trade strategies. Instead of looking for the bomb on every down, he dinks and dunks his way down the field.

His first GM Meetings last November, Anthopoulos spent the week getting to know the other 29 GMs, a wide-eyed grateful novice. This time around, as a sophomore GM, with the huge Roy Halladay deal in his rearview mirror, he's spending the GM Meetings annoying the 29 other GMs with trade ideas, three ways and the like. Anthopoulos understood that he has handed new manager John Farrell a toolbox full of hammers. They're all quality hammers, no doubt, but you can't build a house with just hammers. By acquiring Davis, he has added, say, a screwdriver without giving up any of his other tools. Davis, at 30-years-old and with a shaky on-base average, is clearly not the immediate answer to becoming a contender, but he fits nicely in the Jays' toolbox and it ain't over.

As far as young Canadian reliever Trystan Magnuson and his family tree is concerned, there has been some inconsistent information that was really botched by ESPN at the Futures Game this summer at the All-Star Game in Anaheim. In fact, former Black Hawks defenceman, the late Keith Magnuson is Trystan's great uncle and is his father David's uncle. Dr. David Magnuson, Trystan's dad, is a professor of neurological surgery in spinal cord injury research at the University of Louisville.

On to the mail bag.

Q-Hi Richard,

What are some closing options for the Jays should they look outside the organization? I see Trevor Hoffman is available, and perhaps he'd be a good one/two-year bridge to an in-house candidate, and could also mentor some of the younger Jays. Thoughts?

Daniel D., Toronto

A-First of all, let's address the internal situation. Looking at on-hand closer candidates, merely gives you the Jays' fallback options and sets the height of the bar that must be cleared if you are going outside for your ninth inning closer. It's not really a hand-wringing priority for a team that you are only realistically building as a contender for 2012 and beyond. Basically you have 162 more games to identify the closer of the future. No rush. Internally, start with the talented righthander Zach Stewart, who was acquired in the Scott Rolen deal and pitched at AA-New Hampshire then add lefty David Purcey and righty Shawn Camp. If there's a dark horse for a setup/closer role, it's Jason Frasor. Why Frasor, you may ask. After all, he's a Type A free agent. Therein lies the issue. In order to receive compensation in the form of a first-round pick and a sandwich pick for Jason, the Jays must offer Frasor arbitration. The question for other teams then becomes why would a major league team sign Frasor to a multi-year deal and give up their own first-round pick in June 2011, plus another pick between the first and second round (even though that wouldn't come from that club's inventory)? Is he worth it? The requirement to compensate the Jays for just a proven setup man is a serious concern. In fact at that point, with a light market previewed for the Type A Frasor, his own best decision might be to accept the Jays' arbitration offer for one year and try again after 2011. The Jays can't really be expecting that a team will give up their first-round pick for Frasor, meaning they may surprise everyone and open up the market for the likeable righthander by not even offering him arbitration. As for outside closers, the biggest mistake is always signing a free-agent closer off his first big year (see B.J. Ryan) or when he's about done (see Eric Gagne). The key is to get one just before his first big year. That's what pro scouts are for. Outside candidates for Jays' closer will include Scott Downs, Kevin Gregg and Chad Qualls. Guys that should not be considered by the Jays in their current stage of development are Trevor Hoffman, Kerry Wood, Rafael Soriano and JJ Putz. As far as mentoring some of the younger Jays in the pen, you have bullpen coach Pat Hentgen in the group now along with Bruce Walton and John Farrell, who are both pitching coaches.

Q-Hi Richard,

Any chance the Jays go after Jeff Francis this off season with an incentive laden deal coming off of his injury? Forget being Canadian, he can pitch, and having another lefty in the rotation isn't the worst thing in the world. As well, with talk out of Milwaukee that they may not be able to ink Prince Fielder to a long term deal in the near future, do you think the Jays will/should test those waters when the time comes? Thanks.

Andrew G., Toronto

A-The Jays should consider inking B.C. Native Jeff Francis and giving him his opportunity to re-establish his career at home in Canada, just like they did with outfielder Adam Loewen and with the recently released Shawn Hill. The Canadian righthander, Hill, with his late-season recall, has at least been able to show 29 other teams that he is healthy again and for that he can thank GM Alex Anthopoulos and the Jays. The fact that he is not with the team any more merely reflects the reality of the Jays' long inventory of potential starters that was too much of a roadblock for Hill moving forward. As for Prince Fielder, he comes with baggage in the form of agent Scott Boras. I love Fielder as a personality and as an old-school slugger, plus a career .919 OPS, but with one year to go before free agency, there is a lot of posturing going on as far as his negotiations with Milwaukee for a longterm deal. As a franchise, the Brewers need to re-sign him as a cornerstone for their fans. They likely will before any trade avenues are explored as he has a year to free agency.

Q-Richard,

Your blog is so helpful and clear - it's my favourite. The buzz about who the Blue Jays keep, who they let go, and what position they play is abuzz. However, one of the players is above all the conjecture - and that is John McDonald. I think he must have a bigger fan base than any other "utility player" in baseball. This is attributable to his stellar character as well as his excellent skills in almost any team position. He is the heart of the Blue Jays and a very unusual superstar.

Jay Scholton, Sorrento, B.C.

A-Every organization should have a player on its roster like John McDonald. A huge date on the 2011 calendar coming up for Johnny Mac is May 24. That is the day he will officially have compiled 10 years of major league service and will max out on his MLB pension plan, setting his family up for life. It hasn't been easy for a man that has never gone to spring training as a starting player. It was a tough season in 2010 with the passing of his father. The most compelling moment was when he returned to the Rogers Centre after his dad's funeral in Rhode Island and emotionally fulfilled a Father's Day obligation to speak to fans that he had planned with his dad. Then, entering late in the game that afternoon, John slammed a line drive homer to left and looked skyward as he crossed the plate. It's a promise he had made at the bedside of his dying father that he thought would take a lot longer to accomplish. As a bench presence, he's the best. As a man, he's better.

Q-Hi...I been following your stuff back to the Expos days and find you to be very informative and reliable. I like the idea of Aaron Hill at third base,but I think Vlad Guerrero might be a better fit at DH. Possibly cheaper than Manny, less baggage and of course an ex-Expo!! What are your thoughts on Guerrero? Adam Lind at first is a no-brainer.

Paul Robinson, Kingston

A-I still prefer the idea of a short term deal with Manny instead of Vlad. The Texas Rangers DH tailed off in the second half of the season and looked old in the World Series, going 2-for-22 after his four-hit game against the Yankees in the ALCS. Both men are better clubhouse presences than you might imagine with Manny's attention to detail as a hitter being second-to-none. Because of Vlad's raw numbers from 2010, his contract would likely be more expensive. Manny is trying to re-establish himself in order to score one last big contract. Even in two crappy, partial seasons, 2009-10, his on-base was over .400 each year which easily betters the Jays' 2010 leader Jose Bautista (.378).

Q-Hi Richard,

Love the mail bag. With recent Jays hirings, can you highlight the main tasks of each coach? And how does the pitching coach and bull pen coach work together, or do they just report to the manager?

Mia Matthews, Waterloo

A-The Jays have a lot of baseball grey matter on the bench to assist first-year manager John Farrell. Don Wakamatsu, the bench coach, will organize spring training and as a former major league manager himself, will be beside Farrell during games, reminding him of upcoming decisions and acting as a sounding board for Farrell before he makes a move. He is also responsible for working with the catchers. First-base coach Torey Lovullo is the one coach with a previous friendship with Farrell. He will be important between games as a confideant, travelling and discussing and rehashing games. Brian Butterfield at third base brings a bridge, a consistency, a history that will be important in making the manager comfortable with his roster from Day 1 of spring training. Butter is the infield instructor and has done a great job in that capacity. This is his fourth Jays' manager which is unheard of for a coach. Bruce Walton and Pat Hentgen will work closely together, establishing season-long roles and comfort levels at spring training where there are always two different venues going on for pitchers, especially once the spring games start. Hentgen will learn in a hurry and with his history as a Cy Young winner and with his annual visits to spring training as guest instructor, will be easily incorporated. Dwayne Murphy is back as hitting coach in the say-so of the Jays' hitters. Gaston was a co-hitting coach. Murphy will have more of a personal touch with Farrell. He has already won a World Series as a hitting coach even without Cito's advice in '01 with the Diamondbacks. He works with outfielders as well. As for Luis Rivera, the Jays wanted to be able to address the needs of all their players and with a growing Latin influence inside the clubhouse and with Adeiny Hechavarria on the way at some point, Rivera will be able to act as a first-language liaison as well as being a solid baseball man with major league experience with the Indians. He replaces Omar Malave in that role.

Q-Hi Richard,

I hear that the Jays are interested in Zach Greinke and I hear rumours that the Jays may consider moving Shawn Marcum. Since Shawn is from the KC area, it might be a natural trade. Do you think the Royals would take him straight up? What about including Adam Lind as well for Alex Gordon? That might even it out since Gordon has fallen off in recent years and might be perceived by the KC brass as a steal for Lind.

Bruce Hutchison, Winnipeg

A-As one of my mail bag contributors pointed out earlier this week, his letter late in the season asking if the Jays would be interested in Greinke and Gordon may have been where this rumour started. The fact is Greinke, a Cy winner, is two years younger than Marcum and is locked up through 2012 for $27 million. Marcum is also locked up through 2012, for a lot less money. The Royals are looking to spend less money, while the Jays are looking for young, talented and controllable. A potential deal certainly fits for both sides, but as for Gordon, why? The guy has underachieved his whole career and that seems to be why you are giving up on Lind. A Greinke deal could be expanded but not to include Gordon and Lind. The question of taking Marcum straight up for Greinke comes down to the perception of Greinke as a Cy Young Award winner and of Marcum being just a season, albeit a fine one, off elbow surgery. Would replacing Marcum with Greinke make the Jays that much better over the next two seasons?

Q-Hi Richard,

Love your column and appreciate the chance to offer my two cents. I'm a little surprised at all the hype surrounding Travis Snyder. To me he's a 20 HR hitter who strikes out every second time at bat. In the field he turns routine flyballs into firedrills and drops half the balls he has to run for. I can't think of a Jays fielder in recent years who has been worse on defence. I think Fred Lewis did far more for the team all-round in 2010, and I hope he gets the chance to play fulltime in '11. Thanks again.

Rob Brooks, Callander, Ont.

A-I think you're being a little tough on Snider. He is a better left fielder than Lind. He is better than Lewis, better than Shannon Stewart, Joe Carter, Manny, Vlad, Greg Luzinski and many others that have had long and productive outfield careers. As for his hitting, he is still only 22 and returned from injury in better shape than he has ever been. He needs more plate discipline and a better plan. But to dismiss him at this stage is not right. If he had gone to college, 2009 would have been his draft year and, in just his second spring training as a pro, you'd be calling him a young stud and the right fielder of the future.

Q-Hey Richard,

With the departure of Edwin Encarnacion to the Athletics, do you think the Jays will push hard for Pablo Sandoval in a "buy low" trade scenario? If not, what other third basemen could the Jays possibly pursue on the trade market?

Matthew Lee, Toronto

A-The Giants would not put Sandoval on the field defensively in October when it came to crunch time in the World Series because of the adverse effect his fielding would have on their young pitchers. At third base, he is no better than Encarnacion and if it wasn't for the cute nickname, Kung-Fu Panda, he would not be regarded as highly outside the game. I'm not sure they are ready to “sell low” when it comes to the 23-year-old Venezuelan. The Jays are not done dealing for upgrades with Rajai Davis on board, but they are already better with Davis in right and Jose Bautista at third than they would be with Sandoval at third and J-Bau in right, with Davis as a fourth outfielder.

Q-Hi Richard,

Great interview with Farrell - I'm looking forward to how things shake out, especially with pitching and hitting coaches! Meanwhile, we have a new coach, and an almost-new GM, so there's an opportunity to change the culture of the organization. My question is: Why don't clubs emphasize fundamentals more (bunting, hit-and-run, hitting the cutoff man, etc.)? The Twins organization is famous for doing this right from Day One in the minors, so I would think it would be a cheap, and important building block in any organization - but it doesn't seem to be. Why not? And do you think that AA and Farrell are likely to push for this throughout the Jays organization?

Thanks, as always, for the insights.

Richard Worzel, Toronto

A-I have been to Twins spring training camps all the way back to Tom Kelly and you're right. This is a Twins culture even in major league camp where they constantly repeat the fundamentals of fielding, throwing from the outfield and base-running. Every time I write a column about being more like the Twins, the Jays go out and thrash Minnesota and out-execute them and readers e-mail and mock me mercilessly. I think I'm safe right now. It seems like the new guy, Farrell is keen on more bunting and hit-and-runs and stolen bases to create runs in tight games, but time will tell. You have to have the players that are able to execute all those little things and have done them in practice. Otherwise you're giving away outs and giving away strikes and futilely putting your home run hitters in bad counts to fail at what they do best. When GM J.P. Ricciardi arrived in 2002, he wanted to put together a team of patient hitters, but he didn't have many so it collapsed. J.P. loved guys that could take walks and hit the ball a mile. In his eight years as GM he was looking for big-man skills and body type with a seemingly similar admiration for big meaty thighs as Colonel Sanders.

Griffin: one-on-one with Blue Jays manager John Farrell

Jays' manager John Farrell came to town in the days immediately following the Bills' annual losing visit to the Rogers Centre. He took time out from his meetings with GM Alex Anthooulos to speak to The Star about his relationships with his new coaches, what shaped him as a manager, his timeout to finish his education and his views of Toronto from his playing and coaching days. Following is the complete conversation:

RICHARD GRIFFIN: It looks like you've assembled a really solid coaching staff of good baseball minds. Let's start with hitting. It sounded to me at the press conference that the home run method of scoring was not all that you wanted. You talk about manufacturing runs and, you know, Cito sat there and was pulling his hair out about that. Is there a way that the same guy that worked with Cito can work with you and work with the hitters and change that offensive culture in the clubhouse?

JOHN FARRELL: Yes there is. And I'm confident in saying that based on the conversations that Dwayne and I have had. Cito, I fully respect his approach to the game. Knowing the strength of this lineup was power, I think there's the ability to place another emphasis on scoring runs as well, particularly to not make a team so one-dimensional when low run games are being played or you're going up against opposing pitchers that either have above average stuff combined with above average command to be a little bit more diverse to capitalize on opportunities. That might be using the bunt a little bit more late in games, hitting and running, starting runners. I'd like to give our runners the ability to have the green light. Now that doesn't mean we're going to run with reckless abandon. That's picking our spots and being a little bit more unpredictable with an approach that was very obvious.

 RG: Say it's the eighth inning, you're at home, leadoff guy gets on, you're down 2-1, a pitchers' battle, do you bunt?

 JF: That's an option.

 RG: Second hitter, middle of the order coming up?

 JF: That's an option...depending on what guys have done leading up to that. If they've had good at-bats against the pitcher. What I want to do, what we want to create here is that we've got the ability to use different weapons. I know preparing against teams that are not afraid to use a first and third bunt at times late in games when it's a very difficult thing to defend against, it creates more for the opposition to have to contend with, things that they have to defend against as opposed to being strictly – and I want to be careful that what was done here previous was wrong. That's not what I'm saying here. But I think there are areas to become more efficient or more proficient, particularly in low-run games and one run games to be able to play for a run and put more pressure on the defence.

 RG: We were in Phoenix this summer and one national writer came by to interview Dwayne Murphy and he turned to us on the field in front of the dugout and said, “Seems to me that Dwayne Murphy is trying to create a team of Dwayne Murphys.” If a guy played and believes in that style can you as a staff make that adjustment, can he make that adjustment to incorporate all that stuff that you want?

 JF: When the emphasis is placed and the value is placed on other elements of an offence, yes you can. How we arrive at that, once we establish our goals and become more of a broader approach towards offence, we'll set out steps to accomplish that in spring training. It would be unfair for me to ask any player, it would be unfair for my coaching staff to ask any player to do something inside of a game if we haven't worked at it, if we haven't discussed the importance of it and what our vision is as an offence going forward. If the power is still a strength we are going to rely on that. We're not going to take a strength and diminish it and take away from it. But I think we can become more of a rounded approach, particularly in low run games that we'll eventually play in the post-season.

 RG: At the World Series when Bautista got his Hank Aaron Award, he was very enthusiastic about Murph coming back. Did you speak to him as well as other players?

 JF: Yes, yes. The one resounding piece of feedback that I got from different players was their relationship with Dwayne. Coming into this, this is not a rebuild situation coming in here. There were a lot of good things being done, a lot of good things taking place. It would be shortsighted on my part to come in and say there needs to be a complete change. There's too good of players here, there's too good of a group of coaches here that tapped into those abilities and built those relationships. That's what was valued and looked upon in those areas as “Let's continue to build with this.” So I didn't want to disrupt that.

 RG: There is a feeling among fans and I'm not sure if you've heard the feedback, but Alex is very conservative and doesn't want to step up and say, “Hey, we're way ahead of the curve that we planned.” So basically, in the philosophy of this organization, it seems to be Year 2 of a rebuilding plan. I think you said something to that effect that you don't see it that way. Fans believe that this is not rebuilding, that this is a team that can compete. Are you of that mind?

 JF: I always believe that you're going to have the ability to compete and win every night you take the field. Whether or not that means there's a post-season berth to be had in 2011, we'll find that out as we go through next year. I never want to think that we're going in not planning to play into October. How realistic that is, I mean, let's face it there was 85 wins accrued last year and there was some areas and some individuals that didn't have their normal years. That doesn't mean that everyone's going to take another step forward. But I think when you look at the core group of players here, both on the mound and in the everyday lineup, this is an exciting group to go forward with and to build around and to compete with.

 RG: Two years ago there was a pitching coach, Brad Arnsberg, who believed in power pitchers, spent a lot of time with Doc. It seemed from the outside that the solution was if you could throw 90, just throw harder. Bruce (Walton) comes in from the bullpen and his philosophy is if you can throw 90 throw softer. It seems to me that Walton's philosophy is easier for most pitchers to understand and to incorporate. You can't throw 10 m.p.h. harder but you can throw 10 m.p.h. slower. It seems that the pitchers on the staff responded and now are Bruce Walton fans. Which camp are you in and are you a change speeds and back off type guy and can you work with Bruce. You don't just jump in and have the same view of pitching...but you're in charge.

 JF: I understand what you're maybe alluding to the fact that is he going to be allowed space to work. And unequivocally yes. There's multiple reasons for that. The development of pitchers as seen across the field is tangible and real. I firmly believe that pitching is a matter of disrupting hitters' timing and that comes with the change of speeds. The other component is that having been in a position before where inheriting a lot of staff you have the respect of those people and you give them the respect for the work that they've done, you give them room to work within that area. There will no doubt be conversation as there would be with Dwayne or Butter or any other coach on this staff. But having come from a pitching background I look forward to the conversations that we have about individual pitchers or pitching in general. To arrive at a point where we stress or work off the individual strengths of the pitcher and make him as successful as possible. There are multiple ways to go about it. There's not one exact way to form a pitching staff. If we had every guy that was high strikeout guys and high groundball guys well that would be the epitome, or the peak of putting together pitchers that are successful in this division, in this league. We're going to work off the strengths of the individual, maximize their abilities.

 RG: In Boston it turns out, and you knew it when you got him, that you had a big-game guy in Josh Beckett. Two starring World Series and it's hard to go wrong on that. Do you have to identify somebody on this staff before this team can win, somebody like Beckett. Or do they have to step up and show that they are that guy, because Beckett during the season is one thing but in the playoffs, the post-season of '03, '07, he was stunning. You mentioned Romero, you mentioned Morrow at the press conference. There might be other guys in a couple of years. But does one guy have to step up.

 JF: Well, using the Beckett comparison, he's had more opportunity in October to create that label for himself. We have to get to that point in October and provide that opportunity as a group. Once that opportunity is seized by the individuals, they'll begin to make their mark in the post-season. To sit here today and say that this person or that person has to do that – let's get there first and let that person relish the opportunity and make their mark on the post-season.

 RG: Do you recall when you first thought you wanted to be a manager. I assume it was in that '01 to '06 period with the Indians, because the story is that you were considered for the Indians job before Eric Wedge got it, or around the same time. At that point when you first decided you wanted to be a manager, that was an ambition, do you think that now you have less ego, because you've accepted a coaching staff in which Torey Lovullo that's pretty much it as one of your guys. But back then, did you have more ego and now you've understood the game more.

 JF: I'd like to think I am the same person today as the person that played this game back in the '80s and through the '90s. My experiences have clearly given me a clearer vision of the construction of a team, putting together a staff, recognizing the abilities of the individual, whether a coach or a player and working towards a common theme. The thread to all that is being very clear in your expectatons, being very clear in our goal and how we're going to get there. If the view of retaining coaches and accepting who they are is one of being different, then I don't know it any other way. Because I like to look at people and their abilities. They've earned the right to be there. I feel secure enough in my own skin to be able to collaborate with others to meet that goal. Being the farm director in Cleveland really brought that into light because the total number of people that you inherited, not knowing them or having a history with them in the past, but earning their respect by being consistent and being honest with them forged a lot of good relationships going forward.

 RG: That group, and I'll put parentheses around the timeframe that you were there, '01 to '06 and maybe a little earlier, the Indians seem to have produced an awful lot of managers and GMs and people who have gone on in important roles to other organizations. Can you just run through some of those guys. There's Neal (Huntington) with the Pirates...

 JF: Neal became the GM in Pittsburgh. Kyle Stark is his farm director now. I'm just looking at where people have migrated to. Ross Atkins who was my assistant coming in, is now farm director and v-p in Cleveland. Mike Hazen was my assistant and went to Boston before I went there in the front office with Boston and now the farm director there. That was just in the office. Tim Bogar is now the third base coach in Boston. Luis Rivera was a minor-league manager at that point, elevated to the major-league staff in Cleveland. Tim Tolman is now the bench coach in Cleveland and gone on to be the third base coach in Washington before returning to Cleveland. Lee Kuntz was our minor-league coordinator and is now the head guy in Washington. We worked under a mandate that, in the role that I was in, it was my responsibility to seek ways to better their current situation. The development of people was a main thrust of (then-Indians GM) Mark Shapiro. And what it did was it broke down a lot of the natural barriers that could build in an organization. You worked towards providing feedback to individuals to help guide them to become better at their jobs and ultimately progress in their own careers. Much like players move from level to level, we were under the instruction that the people that were your responsibility, that you were in charge of, to do the same (as players).

 RG: Is that six years (with the Indians) more important to where you sit right now than the four years as a pitching coach in Boston?

 JF: Both have their true meaning. But in terms of dealing with a larger group of people and understanding the other side of the game, putting a team together, identifying staff members, being thrust into a position to have difficult conversations with guys that might have been reluctant otherwise, that was a tremendous learning tool for me. It was a position where you had to learn the needs of the individual and every person was different from the other. So whether it's someone coming from a different culture, a different economic background, you had to have compassion as far as what their challenges were to help those players overcome those challenges and realize his goal of being a big-league player or realizing we're going to develop this person to the hghest we can.

 RG: So in a way it separates you from 29 other pitching coaches because – and we talked about it at the press conference – there's that built in feeling that pitching coaches don't go on to be managers. But that six years with the Indians separates you frm just being a pitching coach.

 JF: I would hope so.

 RG: You just brought it up and I was going to ask this later. There was a feeling that this clubhouse, and it was much needed, was becoming more diverse and there was a growing Latin feel and international flavour and the feeling was that there would be a Latin coach on your staff. A Spanish-speaking coach, first language. Can you still continue building in that direction without that person.

 JF: Well before that “without” is an absolute, we're working towards a staff assistant, another position that would be created here, to not just serve as a liaison to the diversity in that clubhouse, but to have a person that is talented, that can contribute, but also meets some of the needs. Luis Rivera is a candidate for that position, to be quite frank with you. So, there is an inherent responsibility with this game . We are diverse in a number of ways. We want to be able to reflect that and meet the needs of those individuals. (THE RIVERA APPOINTMENT WAS ANNOUNCED THE NEXT DAY)

 RG: Would that be an automatic if your bench coach (Don Wakamatsu) gets a managing job. I mean would that be just a natural progression and otherwise it's an additional.

 JF: What would be a natural progression?

 RG: To add that coach and maybe move Lovullo to the bench and have Rivera at first.

 JF: That's one scenario, but we'll probably cross that bridge if that bridge opens up.

 RG: But it's an understanding that you have that that clubhouse was going in that direction, or is going in that direction.

 JF: That's an understanding. Yes.

 RG: You had a lot to do with the Cleveland development in the Caribbean and scouting in that area. What does that diversity bring to an organization that otherwise they wouldn't have in terms of making it better? Caribbean scouting and increased diversity.

 JF: One thing is we will look for the best players available, no matter where they come from. Not be restricted because of some bias that might be perceived. But, no, the players come from all walks, whether it's the Pacific Rim or whether it's Latin America, whether that's right here in North America. We're not going to back away from where those players come from and whatever the challenges are that they might present and equip ourselves as best we can to meet the challenges of a given player.

 RG: When you get a player like Yunel Escobar coming from Atlanta and he has a reputation of being difficult and he comes here and the reputation changes to one of being easy to manage do you understand that as far as what you've dealt with young Latins. You talked about how you need to understand the culture, you need to understand the difficulty of showing up and not speaking the language. Do you understand how that perception can change of the same player.

 JF: I think first of all, I don't know from his days in Atlanta. I can't speak to some of the challenges that he might have faced over there. I can say this, that all players have needs. Whether that's culturally or physically or mentally, there's going to be needs that emerge in this group and I think it's in our best interest and in the best interest of the players. I think the biggest thing is that we keep the player first and foremost in our approach, in our decision-making and in our recommendations and by doing that nine times out of 10 and possibly more, we'll make the right decision.

 RG: When you were growing up – and I drove by Monmouth Beach on my way to Asbury Park during the World Series. I had a car and went and wrote a column on the boardwalk at Asbury Park. I drove by the sign that said Monmouth Beach – Don't get off Here.

 JF: (laughs) You've been in God's country, that's all I know.

 RG: Were you a Springsteen guy?

 JF: Absolutely. Still am.

 RG: It was an epiphany for me to go down and write the column in a bar facing the beach. It was great.

 JF: You didn't sit in front of the Stone Pony, did you?

 RG: Yeah I did. I took a picture and had it as my screensaver for a while until my daughter's' picture showed up and I couldn't keep the Stone Pony. But it was good. I parked right there. It was fabulous . I just needed to know if you were Bon Jovi or Springsteen.

 JF: No, no, no. Springsteen.

 RG: Perfect. That's all good. When you finished as a player and went back to Oklahoma St. did you think that was it for major league and pro baseball or were you using it as a stepping stone? Or did you just need to stay in the game somehow?

 JF: I knew that even in the last couple of years of playing I could remember vividly having conversations with Bud Black out in the outfield. This was probaby in '89 or '90. I always knew that I wanted to stay in the game, but at the same time when my playing days were done and having three young sons, I couldn't set an example for them by saying you need to get a college education when I didn't have one of my own. So for four straight months I flew every weekend from Westlake (Ohio) to Oklahoma City to finish my degree. At that time I still didn't know what I wanted to get into. I knew I wanted to stay in the game, but I didn't know what path to go in. So it bought me some time. It accomplished a goal and by doing that the opportunity to go back to Oklahoma St. and coach emerged. I had no idea it was going to. Coming out of playing, it may have been one of the best situations I could have put myself in. Because I'd learn to coach, I'd learn to organize, I'd learn to deal wth parents, deal with agents, even at the college level. So I was wearing a bunch of different hats. To me it was almost a training ground to move into the player development role because, again, you had to juggle so many different aspects of the game that it was a very good stepping stone.

 RG: I've been in baseball for 38 years and I know I've learned a lot from watching my sons play baseball growing up. Stuff that I knew but just didn't care about. Watching your boys play, did you learn anything that sort of was a revelation?

 JF: I knew I couldn't sit in the stands and watch them. I had to get the hell up and go and stand in the outfield behind the fence and stay out there and watch them just to not be a distraction. It gave me room to pace and deal with my own anxieties watching them. In watching them, it taught me some patience. The instinct might be to force the issue because whether they're not accomplishing something in the timeframe where you think they should, but it tells you to take a step back and be a little bit more understanding than what your instincts might be telling you.

 RG: How old were you when you got married.

 JF: Twenty-two.

 RG: So the John Farrell before getting married and the John Farrell after getting married and having children, how different was the 22 and younger John Farrell? Were you sort of edgy and wilder or were you always serious and focussed?

 JF: Always driven. Always not thinking that anything was insurmountable. Not being afraid of letting this game take me wherever it was going to take me having come from a town where you decided not to turn off at and then to Stillwater, Oklahoma was culture shock. But it was the game that was taking me there. That was the vehicle and that's been the vehicle that my family has been fortunate to ride in that has been very rewarding, very challenging. I've seen a lot of different sides of the game and thankfully my wife and my kids have been there every step of the way.

 RG: The Red Sox clubhouse went though a period of years where it was, like, nuts. You bring midgets in, you bring this, you bring that. You're obviously not going to copy that clubhouse but you can learn from that. It was unique because there were characters there like a very small, closed environment and Tito (Francona) let's guys be themselves. I mean, you don't imitate but what do you learn from that?

 JF: You learn that the clubhouse can be an extension of your personality and I think that the team will evolve in a certain way, to a certain extent. I think it's important for the players to know that they can come in here and be themselves, that they are not going to feel like someone is looking over their shloulder.My presence in that clubhouse will be daily. I think it's important to be seen, to be a part of it to be involved, whether that's in a serious way, whether that's in a joking way. I think it's important that players see all sides of you. That you're genuine. Not that you always have to be loud or be restrictive because of what you say, but they have to know that you're real. They have to know that you have their best interests at heart and at times that's going to require conversations that they might not like, but what's in the best interests of us as a team.

 RG: We haven't seen the sense of humour side which I assume there is a large part of...

 JF: So I'm boring and Stoic?

 RG: Pretty much. At spring training will they see that side? Will that come out?

 JF: Sure it will. I'm going to have to gain a comfort level with myself in that clubhouse. My first goal for that atmosphere, I have to earn their respect. I know that intuitively. I know that instinctually. There are going to be times when that lighter side, that personality will come out. You can ask any coach that either I've been coaching with or former teammate, yeah there's a side that likes to have fun. I define fun in the game of baseball as executing and winning. That's the most fun for me.

 RG: Will that comfort level be helped by the fact of Butter and Murph and Bruce returning. Is that part of helping you.

 JF: By the coaches that have returned for the reasons that we stated earlier, the less obstacles and the less challenges you encounter to establish the identity that this team will ultimately become. I think it gives us the ability to start further down the line than people with a totally clean slate.

 RG: You mentioned that there's going to be a January mini-camp.

 JF: I think it provides a natural opportunity to not only interact with the players that will be involved in that camp, but to bring the coaching staff together for the first time to begin to plan out spring training, for each to understand one another's department, to understand what the needs are going to be to accomplish everthing that we need at spring training. What that also provides is that anything that comes out of those meetings that we will have during that time, there's another four or five weeks to make any adjustments, so once that daily schedule is set we know that we can communicate from one page, one voice that this team understands what our goals and expectatons are and how we go about accomplishing it.

 RG: For the spring training daily schedule, is Torey going to do that, or Butter. Have you decided yet.

 JFR: Right now it's likely to be Don. Knowing that Butter has done it here before, those duties will be more clearly defined here in the next couple of dasy, but then again, setting the agenda in January gives us the opportunity to finalize any approach going forward. That would be the responsibility of the bench coach.

 RG: In your time in baseball as a player and a pitching coach, which managers have you taken the most from in terms of...or is it all you in terms of observe and modify.

 JF: I'm influenced by the experiences that I have encountered myself as a player and coach. As a player, Doc Edwards was a father figure to me. He made me feel comfortable. He was someone that believed in me. If you looked at my record in Triple-A, you might say you know what, he's a guy that doesn't deserve a major-league opportunity, but he was one that provided it and I made the most of it. To see how Tito dealt with a lot of unique situations in Boston and how he believed in players and wouldn't get off players because they went through periods of adversity or struggles, the confidence that he had was shown to those players and they would run through a wall for him.

 RG: Why does Manny (Ramirez) like you so much or is he just desperate for a job?

 JF: You know, I don't know. Maybe that's a question better suited for Manny.

 RG: If I had been down the street on Sunday, I might have been able to ask him. He was there in '07, obviously. Did you play with him in Cleveland, also.

 JF: The only crossover we had in uniform was '95. I came up in September after spending the year at Triple-A. He was the Minor-League-Player-of-the-Year in '91, I believe, so as a 19-year-old, I believe that would have been his age at the time, when he came up and was given an award in September, that was my first interaction with him. We've been in the same uniform. We've been in the same clubhouse , the same dugout for a couple of years in Boston. A tremendous righthanded hitter.

 RG: When you were a player in the American League and came to Toronto, what would you do after games, where would you go, where'd you hang out?

 JF: I was always a guy that typically would go back to the hotel. We stayed downtown on the waterfront here, either in the Westin or the Sheraton, so it was a walk back from the ballpark. I kind of remember, I was actually on the team before the SkyDome was built, in Exhibition Stadium. It always seemed like a trip away from the hotel was to go up to Yorkville and have lunch before going to the ballpark. So that semed to be like a city within a city, not knowing it fully as a 24-year-old or 25-year old before I got to the big leagues. This has always been a very intriguing place to come to as a visiting player. Clean city, obviously very diverse and what's taken place here the last four years coming in as a coach is almost mind-boggling.

 RG: Are you going to find a place walking distance and then just back and forth.

 JF: I will. Because even coming in as a visiting coach, we stayed at the Park Hyatt and I would walk to the ballpark every day. I think to get a feel of the city is important. Living downtown is something I did in Boston as well. Convenience is one, but I think it's important to get the pulse and beat of where you work.

 RG: The reputation you had in Boston as a pitching coach was, and it came out as you were getting this job, was that you were much sought after by teams and that your future was as a manager somewhere. Why Alex? Why Paul? Why Toronto? Why here? When it seems like you could have picked your own spot?

 JF: That might be where we differ. I don't know if I could have picked...I never had that impression, personally. I never woke every day plotting my next move. That never occupied any of my time. There were opportunities in the past to interview that were declined because, one, I didn't think I was ready; two, there was a provision in my contract of a mutual agreement with the Red Sox and myself that wasn't the right time. Here and now? Getting to know Alex and getting to know the vision that he has. Understanding what is on the field here currently and the resources that are behind this movement. The fact that it's the American League East when some people might think it's a daunting challenge, I think that it's even a greater attraction. There were a number of factors that came into play that made it feel this is the right place, this is the right time. It's a great city. I mentioned it at the press conference, when this opened up in the early '90s, this was the place to be. Yes, the players have changed, the results have changed over the past ferw years. But it's also an insight as to what could be here and that is another appealing factor in all this.

 RG: If you had taken a job in '03 when your name first came up as a manager...

 JF: '03?

 RG: In Cleveland.

 JF: You know something that I don't.

 RG: That's what I read. I read Peter Gammons. We read all those Boston guys. That's where we find out our Jays stuff. But you said you didn't think you were ready. If you had taken that would that have been a mistake. If you had taken a job back then as opposed to now, would that have been a mistake in your mind as you sit here?

 JF: I don't know how that would have turned out. I like to think I'm a fairly quick study. I don't know that you're ever fully ready for the next set of challenges. I feel like I'm more prepared now than I was even three years ago. But there's going to be some things come up this year that either I don't anticipate or situations that might emerge that I haven't found myself in before. But I feel a little bit more prepared going through the cycle in the dugout four years in Boston with Tito and Theo preparing for that puts me in a position to say with more conviction and confidence that this is the right place.

 RG: The April schedule. Coming out of the blocks there's a couple of home games then there's like a long, tough road schedule, then by the end of April if you're maybe 5-6-7 games under .500 how are you going to react when you're critiqued in the media?

 JF: I will react as I would coming into the ballaprk every day. One of the elemnts that I mentioned to you before of being honest, of being credible of being consistent. So as those players walk in they know what to expect as well. I know that being in this seat critique is going to take place. That's part of it. That doesn't cause me to shy away or push away. It's still about preparing day-in and day-out to win tonight and make adjustments when needed.

 

Mail bag

On Bills not-so-super Sunday, apparently Manny Ramirez was in town entertaining fans at that swanky new sportsbar near the ACC that starts filling up in the third period of Leafs games and the fourth quarter of Raps games, by fans that really, really need a drink. Why was he here? Clearly Man-Ram is not a Bills fan or even a Chicago Bears fan, so the only thing possible is he must have been in town to talk to the Jays about a job in 2011. He said he would like to play for John Farrell. Even the manager scratches his head and wonders why. They both played for the Indians in '95, but Manny was a starting outfielder and Farrell was a September callup at the tail end of his career. Then Manny went to the Red Sox after the 2000 season and Farrell rejoined the Indians front office in 2001. No overlap there. Farrell took over as pitching coach of the Red Sox in 2007 and Manny was dealt to the Dodgers midway through 2008. Perhaps Manny is grasping at straws at this stage of his career. But the point is not that. The point is that if I was the Jays (and they thank God every day that I am not), then I would sign Manny to a short term deal as DH (one year plus an option), move Adam Lind to first base, sign Orlando Hudson to play second, move Aaron Hill to third base, leave Yunel Escobar at short with Johnny Mac backing him up, play Travis Snider in left field every day with Jose Bautista in right and Vernon in centre. Ramirez is a student of hitting and nobody works harder at his craft. Of course, left field is another story. On to the mailbag.

Q-Hey Richard. I'm a huge fan of the Mailbag and love reading your insightful comments on anything baseball. Here's my question: AA keeps insisting that this team won't contend next year and therefore it makes no sense to pursue big-tier free agents.While I understand it won't be easy to win 90+ Games next year, will it really hurt to sign someone on the caliber of Carl Crawford to lead off for the club even if they do it just to provide some buzz and excitement in Toronto? My argument is that there probably won't be a player on his level to lead off on the free agent market next year so would it really hurt the jays to roll the dice?

Joey Perl, Israel

A-I was with you until the "buzz and excitement" argument. Somehow with baseball in Toronto, buzz and excitement doesn't directly translate to asses in seats and that's the bottom line. AA has attempted in all things GM to be the anti-Ricciardi and that means not winter-hyping or even buying into the clearly existing fan hype. The fact is, yes, the Jays may be a lot closer to contending than the management team lets on, but they would rather prove it on the field first for a half-season and then add players later just to make sure they weren't hyping a mirage. However, there's the flip side of the Jays' shroud of secrecy when it comes to the sophomore GM's trade talks and negotiations. Anthopoulos may indeed be currently talking to agents for some of the big position players on the open market and may indeed come out as a surprise winner just like he did with the Cuban shortstop. But as far as the specific case of Crawford is concerned, I believe that his value only increased with the mix-'n-match, old-school offence shown in the Giants' victory in the World Series and that the Jays entering the CC fray would only serve to bump his asking price up to one of the free-spending big boys. Hmm, that might not be all bad, but just by the Jays bidding for a guy like Crawford, fan expectations would ratchet up and that's not what the front office wants. They want the play on the field to force their hand.

Q-Richard,

Going back to the World Series for a moment, it seems that the MVP is always a person who makes a definitive play in the final. For example, this year it was Edgar Renteria, who hit the game-winning homer. Granted Edgar's story had a nice underdog quality to it, but I personally thought Cody Ross had more dazzling, turning point moments. Or you could even make an argument for Tim Lincecum. My question: Who decided who gets the MVP Award, and is it usually a case of "what have you done for me lately?" Thanks,

Nick Krewen, Toronto

A-You have a point in that "what have you done for me lately" thing. The ballots for World Series MVP are handed out in about the fifth inning of a potential clinching game. The voting panel consists of the rightsholders TV booth, the radio booth, the AP and several veteran BBWAA members. As soon as the clinch looks certain and that final out is made, the ballots are in and counted. Clearly what happens in Win No. 4 will hold more sway in the minds of voters than anything in the earlier games. Personally, I would have had to vote for Lincecum because the reason the Rangers were favoured was because experts gave two wins to the invincible Cliff Lee, meaning the Giants would have to win four of the other five games to capture the series. Lincecum turned that around by starting two of the games the Giants won over Lee. Renteria basically had two key swings of the bat and that was it. But one of them won Game 5. As for Cody Ross, it's not like NHL hockey with the Conn Smythe Trophy which is for the three-month (or maybe it only seems that way) run of the playoffs. If it was for the entire month of October, Ross would have been a great choice. But the World Series? Lincecum me. Renteria voters.

Q-What a great column! I'm surprised at how little love Adam Lind seems to be getting... Is he not the obvious choice at 1B? I thought his overall stats jumped every time he played the field but were mediocre when DH'ing. Any thoughts?

Mike Likey, Ottawa

A-I'm a little disappointed in Adam Lind. If that was me, I would have gone to the Jays in September and said, "Look, I know I'm getting married this off-season, but how about if after my honeymoon I go to Dunedin and if Instructional League is still going on I want to play first base every day in a game. If it's over I want to have a coach hit me ground balls at first base until his hands are bleeding. I want to be given the opportunity to win the job at first base. I know in my first start at first base in August after working with Butter for a month, I lobbed a lazy overhand feed that made David Purcey leap up in the air and come down on the side of the bag and go on the DL costing him 20 days of his season and I'm sorry. But let me try and improve. This DH thing when you're not hitting can eat at you because you have so much time to think about your hitting. I want to be a player, not a DH." That's what I would have said, but it's not me and it didn't happen. As for Adam's splits in 2010, he hit .245 as a DH and under .200 as a starter in the field. He hit .275 vs. righthanded pitching and .117 vs. lefties. Ouch. The good news is Lind did hit .267 with an 807 OPS after the All-Star break. His career numbers as a leftfielder or DH are virtually identical. But he should want to play a position.

Q-Richard:

Great feature. I am positively giddy at the announcement of Pat Hentgen joining the coaching staff as bullpen coach. What took so long? Your thoughts? Kudos...

Dave Ewing, Brampton

A-What took so long for Hentgen is getting over the "comfort level" of retirement and reaching the "I miss the game" stage. Recall that Hentgen's sweet final deal that he signed in '95 with the Jays involved an annuity that paid him $500,000 every year after he retired in lieu of taking the money up front as a player. That will surely add to your comfort level, no doubt. But he is a career baseball man and as such there was always going to arrive the moment when he had to get back into the everyday aspect. It's not like you don't love your family, it's just that baseball is in the fabric of your being.

I recall vividly a similar crisis situation of what to do post-career with a similarly personalitied player that I liked and admired. It was 1990 in Chicago on an Expos' off-day sitting in a downtown, off-track betting parlour, tres relaxed and watching the ponies with Tim Wallach, Hal McRae, Don Zimmer and others. I paid attention to the convo. I have always been fascinated and amused when career baseball men get together, but especially when it's cross-generational. Anyway, Wallach, secure with a nice comfortable deal from the Expos at the time, was talking about his retirement and how when he quits playing he's done. He's going to watch his boys grow up, play a lot of golf and go to the track near his L.A. area home. He smiled confidently, quite certain that was his future. McRae, who within a year would leave the Expos for a managing gig with the Royals, immediately sat up in his chair and scoffed at Wallach. "Eli, you're gonna go home and play golf for a few years then at some point you're going to be on the phone begging some team to give you a job coaching or managing in the minors." Wallach played out the final four years of his career (1993-96) for the Dodgers and Angels, living in his own house. He retired as a gentleman of leisure, and after a few years, as McRae predicted, of playing golf and watching his sons grow up, he all of a sudden turned up as a coach in the minors. I laughed. McRae was right. I believe the same thing may have happened with Hentgen, although Pat never said never. The thing about the Jays' first Cy Young winner is that he always nurtured the coaching connection by showing up at spring training and putting on the uniform as a guest instructor for a week. These Jays pitchers already know him and the fans already love him. Good move by the Jays on many fronts. They need all the goodwill they can muster and he brings it as well as knowledge.

Q-Today we learned that Sparky Anderson had passed away. Did you cross paths with him in your career? His down to earth way of talking about the game was always a treat. My earliest baseball memory is of him, as a Toronto Maple Leaf, diving to his left to field a ground ball. He broke his collar bone on the play and the sound was audible in the stadium. It might have been his last game as a player. He was also a huge fan favourite, especially with little kids. A small, gritty guy who would sign autographs with unfailing politeness and good humour. We loved the guy.

Timothy Daniels, Toronto

A-After Sparky's passing, I purposely stayed away from any tribute columns or blogs because others within our sports community were more qualified to weigh in than I was. Working in the NL with the Expos from '73 to '95 with no interleague play to cross over, I met Sparky and spoke with him just at spring training when the teams met, in social winter meetings settings and during the '84 World Series which I worked at as part of MLB's PR workforce. Wonderful man, wonderful raconteur, loyal to his players and his organizations, he was a great ambassador for baseball to the end. If you're interested in reading a heartfelt tribute piece, find John Lowe's feature in the Detroit Free Press.

Q-Hi,

I now live in Winnipeg but was born and raised in T.O. As a lad my mom and dad would often take me to watch Maple Leafs baseball at the old stadium by the waterfront.

One of my favourite moments was going onto the field for fan day when kids like me got our pictures taken with the ball players. I remember Sparky Anderson was a player and coach of that team ...but I only went looking when I heard he was in hospice...

It turns out his managing career actually began when the legendary owner of the Leafs, Jack Kent Cooke, encouraged him to take that path ...at least according to Wikipedia...

He played the next four seasons with the Triple-A Toronto Maple Leafs in the International League, where Leafs owner Jack Kent Cooke spotted Anderson's leadership qualities and encouraged him to pursue a career in managing. Finally, in 1964, at the age of 30, Anderson accepted Cooke's offer to manage the Leafs. He would later handle minor league clubs at the Class A and Double-A levels, including a season (1968) in the Reds' minor league system.

I thought you might like to tie his Toronto years with his storied career.

Regards,
Murray Unger,
Winnipeg

A-Sparky was always a big fan of coming to Toronto as a manager with the Tigers. Would that others in baseball would take the time to get to know the city.

Q-Do you think David Purcey can become a closer next year? I can see him, Casey Janssen, and potentially Jeremy Accardo being the anchors of the bullpen? However does Accardo never want to play for the Jays ever again given their poor treatment of him? Also would the Jays consider putting Kyle Drabek in the pen like the Yanks did with Phil Hughes?

Jason Sinnarajah, Tokyo, Japan

A-I can see a completely revamped 2011 bullpen with David Purcey being an important part of it, but I don't see him being the closer any time next year. As for Jeremy Accardo, I don't see him ever wearing a Jays' uniform again. Of course recall I said the same thing about Edwin Encernacion when he was designated for assignment and waived and sent to Vegas early in the year, but Edwin's anointed successor, Jarrett Hoffpauir was a Jays' miscalculation and their only option was to bring EE back to the majors. But this time, in Accardo's case, my prediction is based on sources back at the time in September that said he was so pissed off at Anthopoulos and the Jays that he had his agent tell the club not to bother promoting him for the final month if he was just going to sit in the bullpen and not pitch. When AA took over as GM he called Accardo, who had felt similarly abused in 2009, and told Jeremy that he would be given a fair opportunity to make the team at spring training. AA is not in the dugout so this time he lent encouragement and added the human touch, but was not the ultimate decider. Accardo felt let down by AA at the eventual outcome of his season back in Vegas. Look at it this way. The rift must be serious if Accardo can't catch a break despite the fact that his wife Carly's uncle is Phil Lind, one of the Rogers' grand poobahs that owns the Jays.

It's clear that AA is going to work with John Farrell at re-populating the Jays' pen this off-season with known veterans but if I was the king of this jungle and had to make a decision now going into spring training in February, this would be the makeup of my pen:

Closer – Zach Stewart; 8th inning – David Purcey and Shawn Camp; Long Men – Janssen, Jesse Carlson and Marc Rzepczynski; Swingman – Josh Roenicke. The Jays' win total might not match the surprising 2010 total, but they will be heading in the proper direction and you would find out a lot about these guys moving forward, knowing what you have to add in 2012. As for Drabek, he's my fifth starter.

Q-So I understand the idea of parting with the majority of veterans (John Buck, Lyle Overbay), I also understand parting with someone like Gregg (who just always made one feel uncertain), but there is one veteran I don't understand why the Jays are not going to pursue - Scott Downs. He isn't exceptionally old but he is so steady and reliable and as I heard so often last year, young pitching benefits so much from a stable bullpen why are the Jays not going to pursue him?

Mikale Zeymann, Vancouver

A-I agree with you about Downs being steady and reliable and valuable to a young bullpen, but there are legitimate philosophical reasons why the Jays may choose not to pursue the lefty setup man. Consider that to keep the 35-year-old would cost about $6 million per year for two or three years. To let him go, the Jays have $6 million to spend elsewhere plus two draft picks among the first 60 overall if he signs elsewhere like maybe the Yankees or Red Sox. The Jays will offer him arbitration to make sure they get the picks. If the Jays were intent on winning in 2011, they would pursue him. But the Jays' building expertise dating back to former GM J.P. Ricciardi has been in finding discarded pitchers that can end up doing the job. That, after all, is how Downs ended up where he is. Farrell is good in this area as well and the Jays need to find out things about their own younger relievers.

Q-RE New playoff format. I have a different spin on the 12 team playoff format. I'd like to see the divisions re-aligned back to the East/West format. In each league, the 1st and 2nd place divisional leaders would get playoff berths, along with two wild cards. The wild cards would faceoff against the second place teams, while the first place teams would get a bye. The wildcard series (call it the AL/NLWS), would be a three-gamer, all played in the second place teams park. Two off days then proceed with the current playoff format. (AL/NLDS, AL/NLCS, WS). This would help preserve the regular season's integrity (by heavily favoring the 1st and 2nd place teams) and further promote importance of divisional games. From a selfish/Jay's standpoint; we'd still get to face the Yankees and Red Sox - just not as much with divisional realignment. Plus the Jays could re-develop rivalries with their closest geographic opponents in Cleveland and Detroit. It's not so much about the Jays having to play the Yankees and Red Sox less; it's about other teams having to play them more.

What do you think?

Matt Ferraro, Guelph

A-Sounds pretty close to my proposal, but yours is with two division winners, two seconds and two wild-cards, instead of three division winners and three wild-cards. I could live with that. What is important to me is that there should be a clear and distinct advantage for division winners over wildcards in setting up rotations and resting year-end injuries and both your proposal and mine acknowledge that. As for the regular season, there is so much crap thrown out about extra travel and TV starting times. In this day and age, people are used to watching their sports at different times of the day or night and the longest flights are not that long. And dump interleague play except for maybe one really traditional series each.

Hey, Rich.

I take strong exception to your statement that "It didn't take long for the world to forget the Browns ever existed." Here we are 57 years after the Browns left St. Louis that over 300 fans are members of the St. Louis Browns Fan Club. In fact we had 156 at our luncheon this past July which included 6 former players of the Browns. They are not forgotten. We even had Tommy Lasorda and Bob Costas show up. Lasorda was traded by the Dodger to the Browns in early '53 but was sent back to the Dodgers since the Browns didn't have the cash to complete the deal. Lasorda was almost a Brownie and we have the photos to prove it. http://thestlbrowns.blogspot.com/2010/06/tommy-lasorda-to-speak-at-stl-browns.html Bob Costas and his people analyzed baseball from top to bottom last year looking for the most interesting story in major league baseball and came up with it involving the St. Louis Browns. Again here we are, 57 years later talking about a historical event in baseball when Eddie Gaedel stepped up to the plate. He turned out to be the best damn midget in the history of major league baseball. Fans love the Browns. Sure they were a losing team, but the Browns players were not losers. They played every game to the hilt and had some of the most interesting and colorful players in the game. Who else where almost Brownies? We've documented Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Lou Gehrig and even entertainer, Roy Clark.

Best regards
Bill Rogers, Editor
St. Louis Browns Historical Society
St. Louis

A-I only say that people have forgotten that the Browns ever became the Orioles in 1954 because back in 1973 when I started in baseball with the Expos, GM Jim Fanning's assistant general manager was a former Brown, the late Danny Menendez. Danny was a scout and executive in St. Louis and even 37 years ago in the mid-'70s, was already lamenting that people had forgotten the St. Louis Browns. But I must say that in light of your new information, clearly the Browns move to Baltimore was not a case of mismanagement. If they recognized and were smart enough in 1953 to send Tommy Lasorda back to the Dodgers after just several days, they were clearly smart enough to run a franchise. If Tommy had stayed with the Browns back in '53, poor Charlie Gitto and his fabulous restaurant in downtown St. Louis could not possibly still be in business. Charlie would have been bankrupted by all the free meals he would have had to give to Tommy.

Mail bag

The Mets announced the other day that they have hired former Jays' GM J.P. Ricciardi as a Special Assistant to the General Manager Sandy Alderson.

From the moment he was hired by the Jays, J.P. always insisted that he didn't have to be a general manager, that he was perfectly happy to go back to the mainly scouting role he had with the Oakland A's before he was hired in Toronto. He said that family was very important, with two young sons, and that he could walk away from the GM's role and still be happy.

Ricciardi is returning to his roots. He was originally hired by Alderson in Oakland and then served under Billy Beane in a player personnel role while living at home in Worcester, Mass. He has done what he said he could do, returning to pretty much the same role he had with the A's. It is a better role for him than being on the firing line.

The biggest mistake he made in Toronto was in underestimating the baseball knowledge of the fans, in believing that his was a missionary position wherein he would be teaching the game of baseball to the great white north. He found that out the hard way, trying to snow the fans about his team's chances and making lame excuses for his team's failures including an obsession with the Red Sox and Yankees operating budgets compared to his.

He is in a good place for himself and his family right now and we wish him the best. On to the mailbag.

 

Q: Hi Richard, I've heard some rumblings about baseball expanding the playoffs, possibly as early as next year. Assuming that this were to happen, would this change the status of the Jays contending as soon as '11? Even if this did not happen, shouldn't the mindset of the Jays be to contend as soon as '11? The Yankees are getting older, Boston seems to be a hurt team (and aging as well), and Tampa seems to be on the verge of losing some key players. If the Jays were to make some wise moves and shore up some issues, then what would stop them from contending in '11 as opposed to '12? The main issue I see with this team is the bullpen, and how quickly it can be rebuilt. This team seems to have a great rotation (although no true stud starter yet), and the offense seems to be well balanced compared to years past (although increasing the on-base % dramatically would help). I do recall a team such as Tampa coming out of nowhere only a few years back, once their players developed, and the Jays, with a deeper farm system than ever before, could make some wise trades to shore up their soft spots (not to mention some great talent available via free agency). Ultimately, what is the real difference between contending in '12 vs. '11 if the nucleus is the same?

Zaki Ameen, Mississauga

A: To contend in MLB even for a second wild-card position, a team needs to believe it can win at least 90 games. The addition of a second wild-card spot would surely encourage many teams and their fan bases as September arrived, but the reality is that unless you're going to be in the 90s for wins, especially if you compete in the AL East, then by October 1 it would be back to reality and the same old “Wait until next year” rallying cry. Researching recent history, even with the proposal that I had made in a column earlier in October, of a playoff field similar in size and format to the NFL, with three wild cards and three division winners -- 12 teams in the mix – the Jays would have missed the post-season for 11 straight seasons dating back to 1999 and before that '98.

The obvious truth is that the Jays and GM Alex Anthopoulos would love to contend in 2011. But he has always said that his team will tell him when it is a contender, not him telling his team. That means he will not make major moves until he sees it happening which means the July 2011 trade deadline once he detects the first sign of contending and then every off-season thereafter. The best thing about the Jays the past two winters, including this one, has been that they are not throwing out false hopes like beads at a Mardi Gras parade and selling hype to fans in order to sell tickets because rash promises of contending in the winter that are broken in the summer do more damage with fans and their ability to trust the team's headed in the right direction, than does a case like 2010 with low expectations followed by a surprisingly high win total.

Overachievement is a wonderful thing.

The Jays' bullpen issue is a real one, but John Farrell's expertise with the Indians in his front office role before becoming a pitching coach was in finding overlooked players, six-year minor league free agents and others coming off down seasons and ready to rebound. A bullpen can be reinvigourated probably easier than any other area of a major-league team. The Jays have had success in that area – see Scott Downs, Jason Frasor, Shawn Camp, Jesse Carlson, Brian Tallet, et al.

The AL East is coming back to earth. Sports is all cyclical. The Rays are going to lose some of their star power and their identity. The Yankees are reeling with their failure to launch against the Rangers and the Red Sox don't know what they are because they have good players and a good and expensive rotation, but they don't know who's going to be healthy or back or in the bullpen. Besidees, the Red Sox are always challenged in multiple ways because not only must they compete against the AL, they must compete against the Yankees.

Ultimately, the Jays have decided to stay the course on completing the rebuilding process and allow things to play themselves out. The fact is that if A.A. decided to change course and accelerate 2012 into 2011 because of the surprising 85 win total in 2010, he would merely be J.P. Ricciardi Lite.

 

Q: Anthopolous has stated that he is focused on the trade market rather than free agency. If our new manager is looking for high AVG/OBP guys - what sort of outfield help of that nature is available? Do you foresee a Dodgers firesale? Do you consider Marcum to be a good trade chip (you can get a lot for good young pitching, and he is the least "controllable" of all the Jays young pitchers)

James Scott, Toronto

A-It distresses me that the new manager's first statement at his press conference was that he did not like the way his players swung the bats from the ass with the longball and prefers a team that has a better feel for situational hitting and on-base percentage. It sounds like a case of a guy trying to make chicken salad out of...a seafood restaurant. You have to maximize what you actually have and unless the Jays are going to change personnel, they cannot force this team to be an on-base team over a slugging percentage lineup. I recall when Ricciardi took over, his mandate handed down the line to minor league teams was that each of their players needed to draw at least one base-on-balls for every 10 at-bats, no matter what else they brought to the table. I am sure that because of that guideline, they lost some good players hearts and souls. If Jose Bautista gets his way, he will be the right fielder, Travis Snider will be in left and Wells will be in centre. That means any changes will be at first, second and third base. There is flexibility because Hill could always be moved tio third if they think they find an answer at second or he could stay at second if they trade for a third baseman. As for the Dodgers maybe rebuilding and making guys like Matt Kemp available for prospects, I don't see it happening. They compete in a market with the Angels and neither franchise can afford to be seen as rebuilding. As for Marcum, yes I see him as the most tradeable starter in the rotation. Farrell hinted as much when he answered a question of his opening rotation by naming Ricky Romero and Brandon Morrow as his top two starters.

 

Q: Richard, Last year there was extreme angst among seam heads that Vernon Wells' defense was indefensible. This year, not so much. A turnaround offensively seems to have quieted that crowd. Wells still seems to make most of the plays you expect a cf to make. His arm still seems adequate. All of which leads to a few questions -- do you get any sense as to how long it will be before the Jays brain trust plans to move him out of the middle, possibly to right? Are the new 'improved' defensive stats as reliable as offensive ones? How much will a club rely on them as opposed to personal observation?

Eric E., Roslin

A: Of all the modern stats, I believe the ones that involve the quantification of defensive range and ability are the ones most patently ignored by major-league clubs. They have professional scouts that see hundreds of games and those reports when ranking players defensive abilities are more important than “range factor” and the like. Amazing that when Roy Halladay was the ace of the Jays rotation, Vernon Wells had lost his range. Hey, how about the fact that for 230 innings, all Doc did was serve up groundballs? Wells range improved when Doc went to Philly. Go figure. For a long time MLB defence was largely ignored by seam heads who were baffled on how to judge whether a guy was a good defender compared to history. Then they placed 30 geeks in 30 press boxes to determine that when a ball went in the air off the bat whether it should have been caught or not and whose responsibility it actually was. Sun? Lights? Wind? Funky hops? No problem, no factor. In answer to your question of any defensive stats being as reliable as offensive ones. No!! In answer to when I think the Jays will move Wells out of CF. At the latest, in the two or three years when Anthony Gose is ready to play major-league centre field. At the earliest when A.A. finds someone in an appealing trade that is a better centre fielder and is young and controllable. Until then, Vernon is not a horrible option.

 

Q: Hey Richard, Love the blog. Just wondering what you think of the Jays chances next year if the playoffs do expand. Would that change the GM's philosophy a little because it would make it slightly easier to make the playoffs and the Jays would have been in contention this year? Secondly why do so many people think the Jays would be better off in the National League. Yes they usually end up with a better record, than some of the NL East teams, but they don't have a great record against NL teams head to head-thoughts?

Matt Sookram, North Bay

A: Like I said above, it would have been since 1999 that the Jays made the playoffs under any expanded wild-card format. The other caveat when accelerating the Jays ability to contend next year with an extra playoff spot is that in the last decade there has been no non-contending major-league team that plays as hard in September as do the Jays. The franchise philosophy has always been “win as many games as we can”. Under manager Cito Gaston the explanation was “the integrity of the game” under GM Ricciardi it was to “protect my legacy.” But the fact is that if there is a second wild-card carrot on the end of a second wild-card stick, then even more AL teams will be in contention in September and they will all have their pedal to the metal as the Jays have done for years. The Jays will no longer be able to take advantage of teams playing their prospects down the stretch to see which of the kids are alright. Additional wild-card spot or not, the Jays will always be in tough when it comes to reaching the AL playoffs. And any team that points at the wild-card as their goal before the season starts is not a true contender. It's like horseplayers betting Place. Woo-hoo. Try to win the division, settle for a wild-card.

As for the Jays saying they'd be better off in the NL, I don't think I have heard too much of that. The Jays as an organization have always favoured having the designated hitter and would hate to see their pitchers hit. I think the NL references you're talking about are all those whiny front-office types that over the years have pointed to the NL Central or the NL West and said, “If we were in that division we would have been in the playoffs x times in the last x years.” That doesn't mean they want to be there.

 

Q: Hi Richard: I also would love to see Carl Crawford in a Jays uniform but I don't see it happening. My question though concerns Colby Rasmus. I heard he and Tony La Russa had a dust up of some sort last year. He would seem to be the type of player the Jays are looking for. Young, lots of upside and locked up for a few years. What do you think it would take to get Rasmus. I've heard they like Aaron Hill. Could that be the basis of a trade?

Stan Grossman, Toronto

A: If the Jays could work a deal for Rasmus it would be great. The guy is a real player, but the asking price, even if he and his Cards' manager are in conflict, would be very high. It would not just be Hill, but would have to involve young pitching as well. The Jays have a terrific inventory of young starting pitching and Rasmus is controllable for four more years before free agency. Manager LaRussa has had run-ins with players before, most notably Scott Rolen, so since LaRussa re-upped as manager, there is a solid chance Rasmus will be moved. What is the basis of the conflict stays within the clubhouse but since there is a history, one would have to point a finger at LaRussa. There are many teams interested and the cost in trade might be more than A.A. is willing to give up. But Rasmus is a five-tool outfielder.

 

Q: Lyle Overbay and Zach Stewart. Do you see either with the Jays in 2011? Jays were prone to southpaws in 2010 and given Overbay can't hit left handed pitching, would you rather see a Derrek Lee at 1b in 2011? We have Snider, Lind and Lewis as left handed bats, if we keep Overbay be four bats all from power positions that are weak hitting LHP. On Stewart he has a great arm for a closer, given our depth with young starters ahead of him in majors and behind him in low minors, do you think he could be ideal closer?

George Nickerson, Wood's Harbour, Nova Scotia

A: I would be surprised to see Overbay return to the Jays in 2011 because that would not be a case of the Jays moving forawrd as much as it would be a case of the Jays treading water. Bring back all the same position players and where is the forward movement? Would you be left relying on the improvement of the youngsters? The truth is the only real youngsters in the lineup would be J.P. Arencibia, Yunel Escobar and Travis Snider. And even then, Arencibia is not guaranteed anything. It would be a mistake to re-sign Overbay or Buck.

As for Stewart, he is sureley a big part of the future of the Jays' bullpen. The reason he started at AA-New Hampshire last year was to get him the innings, the reps, the ability to work on his pitches in preparation for the next step. The reason he wasn't in Vegas was because the Jays didn't care about the statistics, they cared about seeing each of his sinking fastball, his slider and, to a lesser extent, his changeup develop. If he is a bullpen candidate in 2011 and a closer candidate as time goes on, then it will be his 94 mph sinker and his swing-and-miss slider that get him there. There again this is another reason to point at 2012 over 2011 because in 2011 Stewart will be honing his skills. The Jays have a lot of talented young starters, but Stewart has off-and-on with the Reds and Jays and in college been groomed as a closer. That should be his ideal role.

 

Q: Hi Richard, There was a report that Kerry Wood has been let loose by the Yankees. Would there be any interest from The Jays? Perhaps in the same role as set-up man or trying him out at closer?

Rod Salloum, Vancouver

A: Kerry Wood would cost a lot of money for three years. If not for his success with the Yankees in a setup role in the second half of the 2010 season, he would have been lucky to get one guaranteed year from anyone. Now he is going to be overpaid for what he brings to the table. The Jays don't need a setup pitcher of his type for the price it would cost them this year in 2011. By 2012, they should have better homegrown options. By 2013 they would regret signing him. Not worth it.

 

Q: Dear Richard, I’ve been tired of reading the same material about the Jays interest in bringing back John Buck and putting J.P. Arencibia in limbo. What’s really going on? My guess is that A.A is trying to work a trade with Arencibila to fill other offensive holes. What doesn’t make sense is that the Jays are supposed to be developing their young stars. The only ready-to-go position player (youth) is him and no one else on the radar for 2011. Can you share your insights on this matter once and for all? Much thanks Richard.

Kam Hooshmand, Richmond Hill

A: The Giants winning the World Series with rookie catcher Buster Posey behind the plate proves that going with Arencibia behind the plate doesn't necessarily doom the 2011 Jays to rebuilding. However I do think that Posey had his head screwed on straighter than Arencibia. Just in speaking to pitchers, the other catchers and coaches last September it seemed that in the case of Arencibia, his ego is bigger than his id. Arencibia has to realize that what he doesn't know about catching is far more important to the Jays than what he does know. Yes he was the MVP of the Pacific Coast League but so was Randy Ruiz and by the end of April the slugging first baseman was headed for Japan. Arencibia shoud be given the right to earn the role of everyday catcher for the Jays, but it's as much up to him as it is to Anthopoulos and Farrell. The manager will have a chance to form his own opinion on his young catcher in the spring. He may like what he sees. As far as Arencibia being a trade possibility, other teams would likely view him the same way as do the Jays, so the return would be equally as iffy.

 

Q: There's been a lot of talk about Bengie Molina being guaranteed a World Series ring after being traded to the Rangers part way through the season as he has played for both teams this year. Who determines which players/coaches receives a World Series ring? Does everybody who has put on the uniform in a season get one? What about call-ups and players left off of the post season roster?

Cliff Strabac, North York

A: The players vote on World Series shares – full, half or partial – and then the team's pool of money is divided up accordingly. Callups late would get quarter shares or less. Players there all year but left off the WS roster like Barry Zito would get a full share because the vote is conducted in September. Travelling secretaries, trainers, equipment guys would get shares. The Giants would likely have voted Molina at least a half-share. As for the World Series rings that is purely an ownership decision, including the ring design and how many diamonds and how much they spend on each bauble. Normally the players and coaches get the expensive rings with gold and diamonds and front office and support staff get the ones with glass diamonds and brass.

 

Q: Richard, You mention something to the effect that the Jays are not ready to win a championship. The question therefore is how does one know when they are ready? It is not as if other teams are ready to lose, if you get my drift. We were not expected to have won 85 games this year but we did, Help me out here!

Lindy Coswell, Toronto

A: The 85 wins was real in 2010. But the Jays reached that total with the help of some veterans that are not going to be a part of it when they make the playoffs. The 85 wins would encourage the Jays to re-sign Overbay and Buck and several members of the bullpen and go out and sign a free agent No. 2 starter. But that's not the plan and A.A. swears he will stick to the plan. The way that Anthopoulos has explained it, the team's performance will let him know when they are ready. There are a lot of smart baseball people on board with the Jays so leaving spring training next April they will have a pretty good idea to get ready and start looking for in-season help. If in July they are within striking distance of the division and if the front office believes it's not just a mirage, they will make the moves to add parts to take a run at it. Money is not a problem. Just check your Rogers monthly bill.

 

Q: Enjoy your articles and your suggestion about extended playoffs How about this: Keep 162 games, start April 1st and finish Sep 28 using Sunday doubleheaders to get them in. Two wild cards from each league play 1 game "play-in" on Sept 30. DS starts Oct 1 and is the same format as today but is 7 games, no off days except travel days for all series and 2 days between series. This would make it more important to win the division and allow more teams in the playoffs and finish by Oct 30.

Richard Armstrong, Little Rock

A: Even though I like my revamped playoff format idea better, what you are saying here with two wild cards and a one-game play-in is pretty much going to be the short-term answer for Bud Selig. It's not the right idea but it will become the fact. The only thing that won't happen is the arbitrary April 1 to September 30 and the condensed games with off-days as you describe.