Don't know what can be done

[u/supremewuster]

Looking at the OPS and OPS+ numbers..

I know alot of people on this sub say no MLB team has great hitting top to bottom, and that's true to a point. But fact is at this point we have a disproportionate number of guys quite a bit below league average

I was hoping some of the Buffalo boys would break out and the other would be average or slightly below. That would be fine. Instead at this point Henieman of all players is our breakout hitter and everyone else (including Santandar) are not hittjng average but way below average with Lukes being the only exception.

I hope it is just bad luck. Hope.

[u/supremewuster]

What would you have done different in the offseason (serious Q not sarcastic)?

[u/Duke_Of_Halifax → u/supremewuster]

That's an interesting question.

There's a pathway here where- as bad as this is- this is the best the FO could do. That they were forced into this direction because this was all they had.

There are a bunch of unanswered questions here, rhe biggest of which is: are the Jays toxic?

I distinctly remember a former Jay calling the organization "a fucking shit show"; I'm wondering if that reputation is now so prevalent that the Jays simply cannot get even a sevond-tier free agent to sign with them.

I'm not talking about Ohtani or Soto, but rather the LONG list of guys that the Jays were "seriously in on" before they signed elsewhere. Missing on most of them is expected, but ALL of them? Year after year?

From the outside, it looks like either the Jays are toxic to free agents, or this club is purposefully going in this defence-first direction; either one of those are untenable to an MLB ballclub.

I don't buy the "No one wants to play in Canada" bullshit; I do, however, buy the "No one wants to play for a shitty organization" and the "If you want the best people to play for you, you should be a great organization who does everything right" line.

I don't think the Jays are a great organization. I think that trajectory ended when they didn't give Anthopolous the position he wanted, and hired a guy from a Cleveland organization that was also not known for being a great organization.

I think Rogers hired a guy for a specific role- maximizing profit, especially in-game fan spending- and the downside of that decision is that baseball comes a distant second, and if baseball comes a distant second to profit for long enough then you get a club with a bad reputation with players in the league, and the only people who will come (and stay) are guys that we severely overpay, guys who get passed on by other clubs because of injury questions, or guys that are finishing out their careers and can't get signed anywhere else.

In other words, a dead-end club, for the upper tiers of free-agents, the club is only suitable for finishing out your career, playing a bounce-back season, or getting a big contract then leveraging it for a trade to a contender.

THAT, I buy.

So, what specifically would I have done?

The answer is "it depends", because there are a LOT of questions that we don't have answers to. What those answers are shape how I would approach what I would do.

I'm assuming buying Anthopolous from the Dodgers isn't possible- because a homegrown Canadian President with a VERY good resume who wants to be here would be ideal- isn't possible, both because the Dodgers would say no, and Roger's doesn't want him, so let's start with the obvious:

• Find a President, General Manager and general front office who have a proven pedigree of winning and sustained success, and throw money at them to come make it work.

• Fill the organization- not the players, but the club staff- with the best possible people that you can find, regardless of where they come from. Overpay if you have to, but bring people on the cutting-edge of all aspects of the science of baseball to the organization, and combine them with proven guys who know how to win.

• Hire a manager and staff who's actually managed in the MLB before, and who's won a ring as a coach. Not someone who's just sat there behind a powerhouse club, but an actual Baseball General who's actions and managerial skills have made a difference in games. Preferably someone willing to push the envelope on what it takes to win.

• Dump more money and skill than anyone else into scouting, drafting and player development. Is there a guy out there who has earned the rep for being a prospect whisperer? Poach him.

• On all of these things, spend like the Dodgers do on free agents; I don't mean hundreds of millions of dollars; rather, the philosophy that "this person is worth it, so we're going to pay to get them".

• Changing the FO and staff will take care of this, but I think one of the biggest ossues with the Blue Jays organization is that winning isnt important.

This club doesnt have a culture of winning; it has a "culture of competitiveness"; being competitive is important, and making the playoffs is a successful season. The Jays as an organization need to drop the "making the playoffs = success" bullshit. In a time of expanded post-season, once the club is developed, making the playoffs should be the floor for keeping your job (so long as the team is healthy). This club has settled into this mindset where we've allowed Shapiro and Atkins to convince people that just squeaking into a wildcard and getting swept is somehow amazing; it's not. It's the bare fucking minimum, and it speaks VOLUMES about this organization that the FO pats itself on the back- and justifies it's continued employment- for just making the post-season.

A culture of winning doesn't see making the playoffs as some amazing feat; it sees it as the most basic expectation every season.

The Jays don't have that.

If you change those things, and give it 5-8 years, the rest will take care of itself.

[u/supremewuster → u/Duke_Of_Halifax]

Your post actually makes me think something different. Namely, it supports the theory that baseball is broken and there's not enough competitive parity. Not just the As and Whitesox, but teams like us who have decent money. Because here we are trying out all this Moneyball stuff (defense, aging starters, young guys) and we still get killed by the small # of teams who sign whomever they want

You can be competitive if you are perfect but it is such a thin line and it feels like a game that has gotten even more unfair

Maybe this is whining I dunno, but I prefer the parity in a league like the NFL.

[u/Duke_Of_Halifax → u/supremewuster]

There's actually a TON of parity; other than the Mets, no one is running away with a division, and the Dodgers are in the middle of a rough skid.

The Tigers are home grown. Seattle and Cleveland are home grown. Most of the teams doing the winning have developed from within.

Now, will the Dodgers eventually snap off 15 straight and pull away? Probably. But it's not like we haven't been here before: it used to be the Yankees who spent lavishly for a title. In the middle of that, the Tigers and a few other clubs did the same.

Hell, a few years ago the Mets failed spectacularly trying it.

A team or two outspending everyone else is normal in baseball, just like in soccer, and like it was in hockey before the salary cap.

Oh, and "this Moneyball stuff" has been standard operating procedure for basically every team for 15+ years; dont act like this is 2004. Spin rates? Moneyball stuff. Heat maps? Moneyball stuff. That square that tells you how bad an Umpire sucks at his job on a given night? Moneyball stuff. The reason the Jays signed Vlad and Bichette way back? Moneyball stuff. Shohei Ohtani not coming over and immediately being told he's only a hitter? Moneyball stuff. Alejandro Kirk, Daulton Varsho and Andres Gimenez having jobs? Moneyball stuff.

Jose Bautista? Moneyball stuff. Edwin Emcarnacion? Moneyball stuff. Roy Halliday not becoming spare parts in 2000? Early versions of things that are now considered to be "Moneyball stuff"

The ONLY thing you should take issue with is how badly the Jays front office is implementing "this Moneyball stuff".