Target: NOT Furcal

According to Jordan Bastian, and other sources the Jays have been pushed out of the Furcal market. Please, do yourself a favor (and me too) and don't start ruminating about Orlando Cabrera or some other veteran bum. There is NO free agent option better than what we have here. I could hope that maybe we'd kick the tires on some youngsters via trade, but that's for another day.

~Will

Update-
Rosenthal reports that the Braves are making a late hard push for Furcal and he's listening. It would, IMO, behoove the Jays to make an inquiry about Yunel Escobar. Not sure what the asking price would be but if I were the Jays GM I'd want to know.

Target: Furcal

Jordan Bastian sums up the Jays accomplishments, meger though they were, at the Winter Meetings and the take-away is this: The Furcal story isn't dead.

Bastian quotes JP:

Ricciardi said he has ownership's approval . . . for adding Furcal, who is reportedly seeking a four-year contract. Toronto would need to free up some payroll in order to sign the shortstop, though Ricciardi was told this week that he can sign Furcal first, if the opportunity arises.

"That was probably more of a change during the week," Ricciardi said. "Probably more so that in order to do what we want to do, we have to get the player. There's only a certain time period that you have to deal with the player. So we'll see."

"I think we're in there [on Furcal]," Ricciardi said. "But we've been through free agency before. You never know until you get the player. Right now, we'll just keep going like we're in there."

So, ostensibly, the Jays are in on Furcal and can sign him without first moving payroll. If they succeed, then they would presumably do the math and see how much they had to shed in order to come in under payroll - we as fans can only guess at this because we don't know from official sources what the payroll target is, only that it's low enough that Furcal doesn't fit under it.

If you assumed $85, and assumed Furcal would make $10 million in 2009, then there's $6-7 million minimum that would need to be cleared. As I've noted before, you can save a couple of million by moving Tallet and Frasor, but it seems that you are looking at Overbay or Ryan going if the Jays sign furcal. And JP's protestations aside, Ryan is the guy most expendable.

Other points of interest in the piece -

* JP states flatly that doc will not be traded in any sort of rebuilding effort, and goes on to say that he will talk to ownership and to halladay in spring training regarding the future and the potential for an extension. If Doc were as pessimistic as manyy fans seem to be, he'd say "get me out of here" but thankfully, there's no indication he is so misguided.

*JP expects there to be some lingering unsigned pitching help in late January which can be had for a lesser investment. Magic 8 ball says "signs point to yes" on that one. Jon Lieber, Orlando Hernandez, Bart Colon, and Freddy Garcia are among the names I wouldn't be surprised to see still unemployed a month from now.

*There's no news on Michael Barrett but last reports had the Jays fairly confident they could sign him. It's a good signing. If Barrett finds the form he had a couple of years ago he could take the starting job and perhaps make it less necessary to rusy Arencibia, and if he flops we lose nothing significant (except Thigpen's one big shot).

*Jays lost a couple of guys who will never make the majors in the Rule 5, and drafted a couple of guys who'll never make the majors. Nothing to see here except for the totally obsessive (like folks who write blogs for instance).

Meanwhile, I'm trying to decide if it's worth 17 draft places to me to see AJ break down in NY and give Hank Stienbrenner an anyerism or not. The Tao notes quite correctly that Yankees spending sprees do not always end well - for the Yankees.

~Will

A real honest-to-gosh RUMOR!

Yeah, ok, so it's Yahoo Sports' Tim Brown, (yes, "Tim" Damnit!)still, gosh darn it, it's a JAYS RUMOR! I quote thusly:

Another suitor has entered the picture, however. The Toronto Blue Jays believe they might be able to swoop in and sign Furcal with money they had earmarked to re-sign pitcher A.J. Burnett, a source said Monday at the winter meetings.

Rafiel Furcal? Yeah, sure, why not?

I mean, yeah, I could break out the analyst hat and worry about his back injury of late, I could note that while he wears the label "true lead-off hitter" his OBP in 2007 was way off his career average (let's call that a fluke for now) but given the lack of other options at SS, I won't.

But there's an entirely different reason why I have a soft spot for this rumor, even if it turns out to be false - if the Jays did throw 10 or 11 million dollars a year at Furcal, it would in one stroke put the kibosh on both the collective moaning about the Jays lack of off-season activity and the collective hand-wringing about not having any money to spend.

Both sad songs I am exceedingly tired of hearing re-played. That alone is enough to make me happy about a Furcal signing.

I don't want to get your hopes up because rumors are quashed as fast as they arise at the Winter Meetings but, just as an intellectual exercise, what would such a deal look like? Well, Furcal is said to want a four year commitment, and the A's were said to have a deal on the table at, or close to, $40 million. It's unclear if the fourth year was guaranteed though. So using that as a benchmark, equaling or beating that might involve a big signing bonus on the front end (5, 6 million?) and a somewhat lower annual amount (9 per?) or possibly some other creative device like deferred money or a fifth year option that had a nice buyout (essentially like putting a bonus on the end) or the fourth year being an option year but with a prohibitive buyout price.

Still, whatever the case - RUMORS!! WHEEE! Someone's talking about US!

I'm sure there will inevitably be an update.

~Will

Update: Jordan Bastian quote JP:

"Anybody we add, we're going to have to subtract," Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi told reporters on Monday at the Winter Meetings. "I don't think we're able to take on a lot of payroll. So if we want to do some things, we're going to have to eliminate some payroll."

Bastian, contradicting Brown, indicates that JP was speaking of his post-AJ payroll. Maybe there's something he heard beyond that quote which indicates that - JB is generally quite reliable - but those words don't make that clear and JP is notorious for deceptive quotes.

Still, taking Bastian's interpretation, the most obvious way to lose payroll remains B.J. Ryan, albeit if teams know we MUST trade him it weakens our position in what is already a buyer's market for closers. Another possible option is Overbay, but since we'd have to sign a bat in his absence that makes little sense.

One thing that's not often considered though, if the Jays traded Brian Tallet, and non-tendered both Frasor and Bautista, that would amount to a net savings of over $5 million with little discernable impact on the team (basically none save for the value Bautista would have as a platoon hitter vs LHP)

Also, if you are interested, Bastian has an article noticing the Jays are in on Carl Pavano. I'm not so torqued on that one.

Update, the second: DJF links us to a Jeremy Sandler story which agrees with Bastian that JP was specific that AJ's money is only for AJ and not free payroll. He also quotes him as not foreseeing a BJ Ryan deal. But before you go putting too much stock in what JP said, consider this response to a question about listening to offers on Rios:

"I think we'd be open to talk abut anybody, but if you trade a guy like Rios, how do you replace him, too?" he said. "We're not actively shopping Rios. Last year it made sense because we knew Burnett may leave and Lincecum would have stepped right in. But I don't know if there's that type of deal out there that would make sense."

Now, think that through for a second. One year ago, when AJ was still here for another year and the Jays had no viable option for a new RF in the system, it made sense to trade Rios for a SP. But now, with AJ gone and Travis Snider rap-rap-rapping at the major league door (he's a right fielder, didja hear?) NOW it somehow would make LESS sense to trade Rios for a SP.

THIS is the guy you're going to believe about the payroll?

Last Update for the night/early morning:

Here's another JP quote from Bastian, expanding a bit on what's been said earlier:

"We're trying to do something right now," Ricciardi said. "But, obviously, anybody we add we're going to have to subtract. I don't think we're able to take on a lot of payroll. So if we want to do some things, we're going to have to eliminate some payroll.

"Obviously, that means a trade, and that's what we're trying to do right now to make the club better."

So, if he's to be believed, JP is or was working on a trade, not a signing. Let me conclude the days festivities based on that to take a slightly different tack.

As interesting as it can be to anticipate a big free agent signing, if we are really a team with payroll issues after all, then the player acquisition move you get really excited about is a quiet little trade that sends, for instance, Davis Romero off for Jaquin Arias or some such - i.e. a deal which addresses the same need with a young under control, inexpensive player instead of a big shiny free agent.

Don't get me wrong, I could get jazzed about Furcal, even with the lingering worry I'd have about his health - but I could also get pretty stoked about Arias, even if the rest of the baseball world was busy chasing down the latest buzz on AJ.

Three more days of the Silly Season remain, stay tuned.

The Wheel Is Indeed Turning

There's always a future risk to your credibility when you make bold statements with an online pseudonym, but hearing that The Oracle agrees with your point of view helps wash away most of the self doubt. (I'm talking about my incredulity at the Jose Bautista-Robinzon Diaz trade.) Still, after some reflection I think I might be second guessing my own second guessing on the deal, if such a thing is even possible.

Looking at the acquisition in isolation, it really doesn't make enough sense to warrant the dollar cost to this mid-market team. Bautista will be kind of expensive for a utilityman if he's retained next year after going through through arbitration. He's making $1.8 million this year and the deepest pay cut allowable (20%) puts him at a floor of $1.44 million, with a ceiling probably just north of $2 million. He's been pretty steady over the past three years and I'd be mildly surprised if you got him for less than he's making this year.

The money is one thing, but Bautista's really not that much of better of a hitter than Scutaro. More pop, yes, and this is a club that lacks for homeruns, but over the past three years Bautista has OPS+'d 94, 96, 89 compared to 96, 89, 87 from Scutaro. Bautista has hit lefties well (though not Kevin Mench-well) over his career (123 OPS+), but I wouldn't exactly call him a lefty-masher. He also has less defensively flexibility than any of the current bench players being unable to play short. As I said the other day, I just don't see the point of keeping Bautista around for a 3-man battle royale for UTIL playing time with Scoot and Inglett capable of doing a bit more with the glove and pretty much the same with the bat.

And here's the thing: maybe it's not a 3-man battle royale for UTIL playing time JP's envisioning after all.

I'm wondering if the Bautista trade signals that JP has Inglett pencilled in for starting duties at second next year (with Hill to short), leaving Scoot, Bautista and J-Mac as his 3 main non-catcher bench guys. Now, that makes sense, in fact, it just might be a classic JP bargain bin coup.

The free agent SS market is what it is, a bunch of early to mid-30s vets with good-ish track records and gaudy price tags. None you'd enthusiastically welcome aboard in 2009, well, none I would. I'd want to avoid going more than 2 years on a guy like Orlando Cabrera, Edgar Renteria seems to have angered Jobu and should be avoided entirely, while Rafael Furcal would cost the moon and the stars. And for what, really?

Furcal's career line is .287/.352/.412 and he's seen as a catalyst out of the leadoff spot. He plays good defense and has speed, posting 25 stolen bases in 2007. For that, you'll have to go at least 3 years at $13 million per to even enter the bidding for his services.

And what of Joe Inglett, a 30-year old sophomore who's controllable for as long we want him? He's got a remarkably similar career line of .296/.348/.415, albeit in far fewer ABs, though he'd been putting up that sort of line through his long minor league career. If Inglett can play adequate D at second, and Aaron Hill can improve on his play at short (with more tutelage from defensive whiz Brian Butterfield), that's a big savings passing on a few dozen stolen bases...

Inglett's not the same player as Furcal and I'm not attempting to pretend that he compares in all facets of the game. But if it saves more than $10 million making him a regular over chasing a free agent who's no guarantee to hit any better, I think I'm comfortable with a bigger picture that includes Bautista in a bench role. Especially if there's a hard budget and limited cash to bring in the starter (like Derek Lowe) and DH (like Jason Giambi) so desperately needed if the 2009 Jays are really planning on being competitive.

-- Johnny Was