The Porn Dude
Toronto Escorts

Blue Jays 2020

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,945
8,119
113
Toronto
As a comparable that (older) Blue Jays fans could reference, Roark is often compared to Jim Clancy (there's a name from the past!).
Consistent, average, healthy. Nothing special, but quite competent.
I'd take a rotation of Jim Clancy's.
 

gcostanza

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2010
7,818
527
113
I'd take a rotation of Jim Clancy's.
The losingest pitcher of the 1980's.
But, Diamond Jim showed up for work every day, well, every 5th day.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,945
8,119
113
Toronto
The losingest pitcher of the 1980's.
But, Diamond Jim showed up for work every day, well, every 5th day.
He also got his fair share of wins and played on some crappy teams. If I did my math right, for his career as a Jay, starting in '77 (expansion team) he was 128-140 but from '82-'89 he was 93-84. Pretty good.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,277
3,639
113
You think they will out bid the others?
Of course not. We are the Blue Jays.

Also (and some of you probably dont wanna hear this) many star players dont wanna come to Toronto, they'd rather stay in the US, and preferably play for one of the bigger teams (like Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox....etc)
 

gcostanza

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2010
7,818
527
113
He also got his fair share of wins and played on some crappy teams. If I did my math right, for his career as a Jay, starting in '77 (expansion team) he was 128-140 but from '82-'89 he was 93-84. Pretty good.
Oh, I have no issues with Jim Clancy, he was solid.
As I've said a few times before, a pitcher's W/L record means little.
Jim helped keep his club in the game, ate innings, helped keep the 'pen fresh.
Had a career W.A.R. of 20.5, with a 15 year MLB career.
Solid.
This is basically what the Blue Jays are getting in Tanner Roark.
Who has (in a so far, 6 year MLB career) a 19.5 W.A.R.
This is a good signing by Toronto.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,945
8,119
113
Toronto
Oh, I have no issues with Jim Clancy, he was solid.
As I've said a few times before, a pitcher's W/L record means little.
I was thinking that as I was typing, but back then W/L was the most important stat for a pitcher.

Just hoping they will still upgrade.
 

blueray

Just Trying To Help
Apr 15, 2008
5,475
3,028
113
Southwest Ontario
I was thinking that as I was typing, but back then W/L was the most important stat for a pitcher.
It was all win and losses 25-30 years ago. Jack Morris went 21-6 for the Jays and his ERA was a MLB pedestrian 4.04 And he was 0-2 in the World Series with an 8.44 ERA. Yet, for some reason people think he was one of the best BJ pitchers we ever had....because of the 21 wins.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,945
8,119
113
Toronto
Oh, I have no issues with Jim Clancy, he was solid.
As I've said a few times before, a pitcher's W/L record means little.
Jim helped keep his club in the game, ate innings, helped keep the 'pen fresh.
Had a career W.A.R. of 20.5, with a 15 year MLB career.
Solid.
This is basically what the Blue Jays are getting in Tanner Roark.
Who has (in a so far, 6 year MLB career) a 19.5 W.A.R.
This is a good signing by Toronto.
Question. If he's solid, reliable, and relatively cheap, why sign him for only 2 years? At his age, I imagine he wouldn't have minded more years of security and if enough of their other options pan out real well and they have a surplus, he'd be very tradable at that price. Even on a strong pitching staff he could be maybe a #4. Like I said before, at 2 years, it has a stop gap appearance. Make a miserable rotation a bit more respectable for the sake of not being embarrassing as last year as opposed to part of a longer term strategy.
 

black booty lover

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2007
9,811
1,716
113
Question. If he's solid, reliable, and relatively cheap, why sign him for only 2 years? At his age, I imagine he wouldn't have minded more years of security and if enough of their other options pan out real well and they have a surplus, he'd be very tradable at that price. Even on a strong pitching staff he could be maybe a #4. Like I said before, at 2 years, it has a stop gap appearance. Make a miserable rotation a bit more respectable for the sake of not being embarrassing as last year as opposed to part of a longer term strategy.
Probably don't want to get locked into contracts, especially with pitchers. Two years is the right deal here.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,945
8,119
113
Toronto
Probably don't want to get locked into contracts, especially with pitchers. Two years is the right deal here.
So you feel that going sideways/treading water with a 67 win team is the best approach, since this has nothing to do with any long range plans or building a contender? If that is the case, why even bother spending $12M/yr? Am I missing something? I don't see what this does to advance the long term goals.
 

blueray

Just Trying To Help
Apr 15, 2008
5,475
3,028
113
Southwest Ontario
So you feel that going sideways/treading water with a 67 win team is the best approach, since this has nothing to do with any long range plans or building a contender? If that is the case, why even bother spending $12M/yr? Am I missing something? I don't see what this does to advance the long term goals.
Gotta agree. Don't understand the deal....everything they do is a stop gap.
 

gcostanza

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2010
7,818
527
113
Question. If he's solid, reliable, and relatively cheap, why sign him for only 2 years? At his age, I imagine he wouldn't have minded more years of security
I'm sure he would.
Why should Toronto expose themselves to a 3rd (or 4th year).
Pitchers (most players) tend to fall off production cliffs at some point in their mid~30's.
The Blue Jays offered him a good deal for 2 seasons, should he continue to perform, he'll get another contract.
 

black booty lover

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2007
9,811
1,716
113
So you feel that going sideways/treading water with a 67 win team is the best approach, since this has nothing to do with any long range plans or building a contender? If that is the case, why even bother spending $12M/yr? Am I missing something? I don't see what this does to advance the long term goals.

Read Costanza's response above.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,945
8,119
113
Toronto
I'm sure he would.
Why should Toronto expose themselves to a 3rd (or 4th year).
Pitchers (most players) tend to fall off production cliffs at some point in their mid~30's.
The Blue Jays offered him a good deal for 2 seasons, should he continue to perform, he'll get another contract.
I hear what you're saying and it makes sense, but at the same time, IMO, it shows a lack of confidence in their choice to be someone who they feel strongly has a good chance to contribute to their longer range plans instead of simply hoping he'll be good enough for them to consider offering him another contract. That's what they've done since they took over. Pick up low to mid level talent and hope that enough of them will be good enough to improve the team but their record keeps getting worse. Aside from waiting for the kids to improve/mature it doesn't appear that they have done much in terms of making moves that get them closer to being contenders. Just about everything is stop gap.

At this point (by the opening of training camp) it would be nice to see more than a pinpoint of light at the far end of the tunnel and it doesn't seem to be getting bigger at any significance pace. I think at one point, they were hoping to have a serious team by '21, '22 at the latest. '21 is not so far away.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts