I Need Your Help Finding Montreal Beer and Blue Jays!!!!

So, I need some help.

With my pending move to Montreal (and a no-cable-initially plan), I really need to find somewhere I can catch the odd Blue Jays game.  There has to be a pub of Jays fans somewhere in the city, but my web searches have come up empty.  Anyone?  Post in the comments, then join me for a game, and have a couple on me as thanks!

Also, I am wondering about beer spots.  Yes, I will be frequenting Dieu du Ciel and St. Ambroise, but would love to find pubs with wider selections/imports - a place like Toronto's The Only Cafe or barVolo or even The Rhino rather than a brewery-only selection (as good as they are!)

Finally, while the SAQ selection can't compare with the LCBO, it does have a few nice ones (Rochefort and Bernardus anyone?!), but most beer is purchased in convenience stores/deps and many have standard macro lagers plus a few Unibroue beers and nothing more.  I have found two stores with wider selections (Rahman Le Paradis de la Biere and Deppaneur AS) but both are pricey and in the same area of the city (the Plateau) and I would love to find some others as well.

Thanks for the help!

Do the Jays Need a Prince?

On the question of whether the Jays should approach Prince Fielder, crucial questions relate to how one feels about our 1B/DH situation, on the price and years, and on the timeline to competition.

I won't go into each of these in detail, but I have noticed a few comparisons between Vernon Wells and Fielder at this same point in their careers; comparisons that note almost identical WAR numbers at this age, pre-big contract.  These comparisons always end with the implication that we should not go after Fielder.

I am not necessarily disagreeing, BUT this Wells/Fielder comparison raises the question of to what degree that is fair.

One key difference between the two is that Fielder takes walks whereas Wells strikes out and pops up/grounds out on pitches out of the zone at a high clip.  Batters with solid plate discipline tend to age better than their free-swinging counterparts (as do 1B over CF).  Admittedly, Wells acquired some of that WAR by playing CF, a more demanding and difficult position than Fielder's first base, but we have a center fielder and we need a big bat.

Does that inherently make Fielder the guy?  Well, not necessarily, but we are told big guys break down younger, though solid plate approaches might stave that off and, I wonder, have the makers of that argument forgotten about the Big Hurt's of the world who aged fine despite their frames?  My pount here isn't that he will or won't break down, but rather that injuries cannot be predicted with any accuracy, and though results can't either the estimates are often more reliable.

Sure, it must be considered and Fielder MIGHT break down a few years before the norm, but if signed to an under-exorbitant 5-6 year deal it might be fine even so.

Why?  The market for free agents (see Pujols) makes it such that teams must pay extra for later contract years in order to acquire the services during the stronger years.  I don't think it's right, but neither do I think it will  either 1) 'tie our hands' or 2) matter if it does.

That is, 1) is a controllable 28 year old superstar on a 5-6 year deal that involves giving up none of our youth core constraining on the team's well-built future?  No.

2) Here's another question: if he helped (by hitting ahead of Joey Bats) to bring us to the playoffs or, even, hypothetically to the World Series Championships once, twice, a few times... is it not worth the associated cost deferred until later even if any hindrance to the corporate owner should arise?

I am not saying we should sign him unless the final price is viable to the terms of Rogers' budget (and it should be!) but many of the arguments against his signing seem premised on unsupported assumptions and the very logic of perpetuated mediocrity.  As per my post on Santos, though, this trade benefits from a prompter playoff push and, if we are going to go for it, AA needs to do something and a few stars must rise from somewhere!

Is Santos a Saviour?

I admit, I am as big an Alex Anthopolous fan as the next guy, but I haven't quite drunk the 'Sergio-Santos-will-be-our-saviour' kool-aid.  Sure, I am glad he's controllable and anxious to see how he develops as a pitcher, but let's assess the trade for a moment.

Pros:
1) Needed a 'closer' (or at least bullpen help)
2) He's ML ready unlike Molina (possibly)
3) He's controllable

Let's consider the following, though.  Yes, we needed controllable bullpen help, without giving up 'too much,' and the question is, what is 'too much.'  While I don't have the numbers in front of me for the controllable years (nor can I predict the arbitration values Molina might get later) is Santos not less controllable (in terms of cost) than a guy who has yet to tick his ML clock?  That is, it is like the Jays signed a 28-year-old to Santos' 'controllable' (and yes, FAIRLY affordable) contract as well as trading Molina for him, since Molina would have been even more controllable and cheaper for those years.  That strikes me as a dual price.  That must be added into the assessment.

Further, what is the difference between the two?  I am no scout, and I have not seen Molina pitch, but we were told throughout the season of his two excellent, major-league-quality/ready pitches by the Jays' announcers and brass with more pitches developing.  Santos, we are also told, has two ML pitches.  Thus, that difference seems negligible or perhaps weighted towards Molina since he has greater likelihood of developing more quality pitches.

On quality, we can move on to strike throwing.  Both guys miss bats, but Santos misses the zone far too often for what is typically a repeatable success rate, whereas Molina hits it so often he ranks in literally elite company for both BB/9 and K:BB ratio.

Next, Molina is currently a starter (though, yes, some scouts say he might be ML reliever material), whereas Santos will never be and starters have more value.  Yes, Molina could end up the same but might end up with greater value and has greater upside.

So basically, the argument that Santos is affordably controllable is voided by the fact that Molina is more affordable and controllable, Molina has MUCH better control and (while admittedly at AA though at a young age) similar K rates, Molina has purportedly two roughly equal pitches, has greater upside in terms of positional value and pitch effectiveness and, we are told, could be playing in the ML in 2012 (though will be a late call-up probably and a work in progress).

I see one unmitigated plus for Santos there: readiness.  If that is Anthopolous' criteria for this trade, I expect to see a push to win in 2012, else I am willing to bet we regret this trade in retrospect.

Tell me if/where I am wrong... I want to believe!