Heartbreaker Doesn't Have to be The End

Next 20 games will define this Blue Jays season

What was hopefully the final episode of "The Maybe Jon Rauch Can Close for Us Show" doesn't have to be the climax of Toronto's season.

There is no doubting Thursday afternoon's loss to Tampa was deflating for both players and fans. Coughing up two separate extra-inning leads is a tough way to lose a series, and when you factor in the momentum they had going and that a Jays win would've moved them into a virtual tie in the standings with Tampa, it hurts even more.

Toronto lost an opportunity to announce, "Hey, for the next few years, it's gonna be us scaring the Red Sox and Yankees, not you". Instead, John Farrell inexcusably sat nailed to the bench while Rauch threw the Rays batting practice. (Note: Anthopoulos has done just about everything right, but putting four guys who think they could or should be closing in the same bullpen was a disaster.)

The Jays (particularly Farrell and especially Rauch) may have come up short in the Tampa series, but there is still reason to believe this team can bounce back, continue to position itself as a real threat beginning next year, and perhaps even put a tiny bit of heat on the Yankees for this year's Wild Card.

With a suddenly very appealing everyday core of Bautista, Lind, Escobar, Rasmus, Arencibia, and Lawrie, an elite top of the rotation duo (Romero + Morrow), and a collection of adequate 4/5 starters, the Blue Jays immediate future is as bright as its been since 1994.

With that group of players and a revamped bullpen, another quality starter, and a live body replacing Aaron Hill's corpse at second base, the Jays will open the 2012 season as a legitimate, albeit underdog, playoff contender.

But let's not forget about this year.

Beginning on Friday, the next 19 games stack up like this for Toronto: in BAL (3); vs OAK (3); vs LAA (3); in SEA (3); in OAK (4); vs KC (3).

I'm not saying they're going to feast on that schedule...but if they ever had it in them to really go streaking, well, this seems like a pretty likely stretch of games to do it, right?

The Curious Case of Anthony Stewart

Why would Winnipeg cut loose a young, cheap asset?

Kevin Cheveldayoff and Craig Heisinger have been modest, safe and predictable with their hockey decisions for the Winnipeg Jets.

Signing Andrew Ladd was a no-brainer. Staying away from over-priced unrestricted free-agents is clearly part of the plan. As is building from within, developing their draft picks, and maybe favouring a prairie birth certificate. This organization is insistent on laying a foundation and then building from the bottom up.

Thanks to a multi-year season ticket package, the euphoria surrounding this franchise will not wear off for at least three years, which is great news for the hockey operations department. The pressure, at least initially, is off. No matter what the team does on the ice, every seat in the MTS Centre will be sold, so there was no need to go all Glen Sather on July 1 and spend recklessly. Cheveldayoff and Heisinger know they can afford to be patient, to be stable.

That's what makes it so difficult to understand why the Jets would let Anthony Stewart walk away.

The 26 year-old Stewart is a former first-round pick, a Canadian World Junior champion who spent parts of four straight seasons in Florida's line-up but never established himself as a full-time NHLer. After Florida gave up on him two years ago, Atlanta signed him and kept him in the AHL the entire 2009-10 season. Last year Stewart graduated back to the NHL and played 80 games for the Thrashers contributing 14-goals, 39-points, and at times, gave a decent resemblance of a bona fide power forward.

After making only slightly above the league minimum last year ($632k), Stewart wasn't due for a huge raise. A raise yes, but nothing astronomical. His play last year suggested his upside was worth modestly investing in, especially with ample cap space and a roster that is thin on forwards.

But shortly after the draft Winnipeg announced they would not tender a qualifying offer to the restricted free agent, instead choosing to allow Stewart to leave for nothing via unrestricted free agency. It was strange and it didn't seem to fit the model that was being built. Here was a young, affordable player with the potential to easily outperform his next contract, and they take a pass.

Did the Jets believe Stewart over-achieved last year, that he isn't capable of being an NHL player? Was his attitude so poor that they didn't want him around other players? Did he not want to come to Winnipeg? Lot of questions, but so far very few answers.

Earlier this week Stewart signed in Carolina for a very reasonable $1.8 million over two years.

Jets fans are wondering why he was forced to move on.

NHL Signing Day

With a $64 million cap and a 23 man roster, the average annual salary for a NHL player in 2011-12 will be just shy of $3 million

When the NHL salary cap came into effect after the lock-out, I began to ruthlessly decry every long-term (6 or more years) and/or big dollar ($6 million plus annually) contract that was signed.

I ridiculed the Rangers for signing Chris Drury, the Flyers for Daniel Briere, the Red Wings for Henrik Zetterberg and Johan Franzen, the Canucks for Roberto Luongo...the list went on and on (just like the actual contracts).

I always believed it was in a team's best interest to avoid those types of contracts at all costs. I understood the thinking behind tacking on years and paying the majority of the total contract at the front of the deal to reduce the cap hit, but I couldn't see the logic in committing more than five years to any player not named Crosby or Ovechkin. Injury, consistency, and complacency were all too much of a concern in my mind. Plus, I am apparently the only person who remembers the mess that was the NBA from 1996 - 2000. (So yes, my credibility took a hit with the 'It Won't Be Jets' and 'Manitoba Time' columns, but I did forsee the current NHL salary crisis a full three years ago.)

I also thought that tieing up as much as 20-25% of your cap space on 2-3 players would not allow a team to surround those top players with the quality depth needed to compete for a Stanley Cup.

I was adamant that teams who offered these types of contracts would regret them in the long run. I was positive that having more than a couple of players with annual salaries north of $5 million would cripple a team. I firmly believed you had to be very careful not to overpay anyone on your roster, and laughed at many contracts for borderline or slightly above average players who were signed to 3, 4 and $5 million contracts (Jeff Finger, Mike Commodore, Tuomo Ruutu, to name but a few).

I was deeply invested in the stockpiling draft picks/developing players/avoid over-paying for free agents philosophy. I believed you needed the roster flexibility that comes with putting together a team in this fashion, and if you didn't, well, at some point it would come back and bite you.

What I didn't see coming was a salary cap that would increase at a pace of almost 10% a year, from $39 million in 2006, all the way to $64 million in 2011. I didn't see the average, yes AVERAGE salary becoming almost $3 million in 2011.

Now when a player like Brooks Laich signs for $4.5 million a year, the sticker shock isn't nearly what it used to be. If the average salary is almost $3 million a year, then a slightly above average player is going to command at least slightly above $3 million a year. Simple logic.

The point is, worrying about fitting large salaries into your cap or slightly over-paying for an average player is suddenly a waste of time for fans and teams alike. Not only does a cap that keeps going up entice rich teams to be stupid, it also means those same teams have unlimited get-out-of-jail-free cards that can be used to give away bad contracts to teams needing to somehow get to the salary cap floor (which is a staggering $48 million for 2011-12).

All of which adds up to a humongous payday for Brad Richards.

I hope he signs with the Leafs.