Add new comment

And that they weren't wrong to do it, as he's proven over half a decade that he can't stay healthy for even 180 innings.  Toronto thought they could get Morrow to be a starter, and he's been one... but not a particularly meaningful one (although the K totals and some specific games, usually against us, are very impressive).
But Jack walked in to see a #5 draft pick whining about bullpenning, angry about being jerked around, and generally having a terri-bad attitude to go with his mid-90s arm (that threw a very hittable fastball).  His bread and butter was his breaker, actually, but he was very inaccurate with it.
So should he invest in that, or get essentially the same guy (with a worse platoon split) who had the right attitude to be a back-end pitcher and had a terrific splitter that was unused and therefore provided upside?
He got the attitude guy, as Doc says, a reliever-for-reliever swap to Jack's thinking.  Headcase, diabetic Morrow was not the kind of pitcher Jack was gonna rely on for either the pen or the rotation.  Could he have gotten more for Morrow?  Maybe.  But he didn't get swindled, even if his return was a headstrong pitcher who refused to pitch completely to his strengths and had worse results than his stuff should have gained him.
Jack needed a bridge, and he got a bridge. I don't think that's anything to cry over, not when Morrow is still whacking away blindfolded at the starter pinata that stubbornly won't cough up any candy.
And to your point Doc, I'm glad we can deep-sea dive for conversations of a movable nature on this site. It's one of the reasons I write here. :) The conversation is the key, and the discussion a reward in itself.
Thanks for that.
~G