Kipnis or Frazier?

[Mex17]

My thoughts have changed on this one based off of the Winter Meetings. All offseason, I have been thinking that the Mets need to handle this winter with an eye on a year from now, when they should go hard after Machado and/or Donaldson. That meant that I was not very interested in Frazier and was on board with them going for a second baseman such as Kipnis now. However, now that Machado has stated that he prefers to play shortstop going forward, and considering that there is going to be a lot of second base choices next winter (Dozier, Murphy, LeMahieu, Harrison) I am thinking that they should leave that open and lock up Frazier instead (Cabrera then plays second during his final season with the Mets).

What say you?

[smg58]

Kipnis (when healthy) is the better player, and I don't really think it's close. In fact, there are multiple second baseman I would take over Frazier.

The free agent pool next year is a consideration (and don't forget Nolan Arenado will be a free agent in 2019), but ultimately you want the player who's the best fit right now.

[Guest 41Forever]

I'm not really all that confident that the Mets will go after any of those big-name free agents next year.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not really confident they are such big names.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

And I don't think if we whiff on Kipnis we'll get Frazier

[HahnSolo]

I think Kipnis is better, and more likely.

Rumors in the Indians blogosphere saying that their pursuit of a Machado deal this winter would be greatly helped by moving Kipnis off the books.

[Ceetar]

Kipnis is better. Granted, so is Walker.

Machado's desire to play SS doesn't really factor in once he has a contract. I suspect strongly that there's some preening there, he'd certainly open up more options, and more money, with SS on the table. Are the Orioles going to play him there some?

I'm not sure where/who I want the Mets to target in the super class next year, I guess I'll worry about that next year.

I don't love Frazier, but I'd take him I guess as a 1B/3B type guy.

I know I'm not allowed to talk about David Wright playing as anything but a flight of fancy, but I sorta envision like 45 games from him this year.

[Edgy MD]

I envision more than that.

[Benjamin Grimm]

David Wright's availability and his capability are both enormous wild cards for the 2018 season. I have NO idea what to expect, but a season total of zero games would be disappointing, but not particularly surprising.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I envision more than that.

I mean, I envision 120 including 11 or so postseason games but I think the 'can play 45' fits solidly in a higher probability bracket that makes it at least worth thinking about when imaging who plays where.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'll be shocked (and pleasantly surprised) if David can throw a baseball across
a baseball diamond with anything resembling MLBesque giddy-up in 2018.

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: David Wright's availability and his capability are both enormous wild cards for the 2018 season. I have NO idea what to expect, but a season total of zero games would be disappointing, but not particularly surprising.

I suspect the Wilpons are rooting for zero games.

[Benjamin Grimm]

They very well might be.

[Ceetar]

They like David. And him playing a bunch of games makes the team much better and reflects well on them.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm sure that Fred and Jeff wouldn't like the possibility of paying David $20 million to be a reserve player who hits .180. And that could very well happen. The safer bet for them, financially, is to have them keep collecting that insurance money.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm sure that Fred and Jeff wouldn't like the possibility of paying David $20 million to be a reserve player who hits .180. And that could very well happen. The safer bet for them, financially, is to have them keep collecting that insurance money.

I don't have much expectation/evidence that an 'on the field' Wright will hit .180. Maybe he won't be MVP Wright, but I think like worst case is he's rusty and out of practice and like, hits .240/.320/.466 with the juiced ball.

[dgwphotography]

I don't think we'll see David Wright playing on the active roster ever again.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm sure that Fred and Jeff wouldn't like the possibility of paying David $20 million to be a reserve player who hits .180. And that could very well happen. The safer bet for them, financially, is to have them keep collecting that insurance money. I don't have much expectation/evidence that an 'on the field' Wright will hit .180. Maybe he won't be MVP Wright, but I think like worst case is he's rusty and out of practice and like, hits .240/.320/.466 with the juiced ball.

There is very little chance that David Wright will be "worth" the salary they are paying him. Even the most optimistic of us can recognize that. Payroll is of central importance to the Wilpons. I can't imagine they don't want that insurance money.

If you think about it, it's mind-boggling that the Mets went "over budget" last year. Considering they were still not top 10, AND they collected on Wright all year long.

[Ceetar]

I think the Wilpons want to not lose money on the Mets, whatever that means. Once that's accomplished, I think they want the team to do well, compete, and hopefully make the playoffs.

They can't bank/budget on Wright's salary being insuranced and acquire players to cover that, so it's either not spend the money and reap $20 million or so in extra profit or get Wright back for some on the field value. Wright won't necessarily be 'worth' his salary, but $15-$20 in insurance profit is a drop in the bucket to the Wilpons and I can't imagine that's what their preference is.

I think the analogy here is like if the Mets are 4 back in early September rooting for them to not make the playoffs because we don't think they have what it takes to win it all and we don't want to spend money on NLDS tickets if they're just going to lose in that round.

[dgwphotography]

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm sure that Fred and Jeff wouldn't like the possibility of paying David $20 million to be a reserve player who hits .180. And that could very well happen. The safer bet for them, financially, is to have them keep collecting that insurance money. I don't have much expectation/evidence that an 'on the field' Wright will hit .180. Maybe he won't be MVP Wright, but I think like worst case is he's rusty and out of practice and like, hits .240/.320/.466 with the juiced ball. There is very little chance that David Wright will be "worth" the salary they are paying him. Even the most optimistic of us can recognize that. Payroll is of central importance to the Wilpons. I can't imagine they don't want that insurance money. If you think about it, it's mind-boggling that the Mets went "over budget" last year. Considering they were still not top 10, AND they collected on Wright all year long.

This. Does anyone know what the Mets' Fan cost Index was for 2017? I remember a few years ago, their payroll was ranked 23rd (IIRC), yet they were 7th in FCI.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Ceetar wrote: I think the Wilpons want to not lose money on the Mets, whatever that means. Once that's accomplished, I think they want the team to do well, compete, and hopefully make the playoffs. They can't bank/budget on Wright's salary being insuranced and acquire players to cover that, so it's either not spend the money and reap $20 million or so in extra profit or get Wright back for some on the field value. Wright won't necessarily be 'worth' his salary, but $15-$20 in insurance profit is a drop in the bucket to the Wilpons and I can't imagine that's what their preference is. I think the analogy here is like if the Mets are 4 back in early September rooting for them to not make the playoffs because we don't think they have what it takes to win it all and we don't want to spend money on NLDS tickets if they're just going to lose in that round.

I don't think in any way that $15-$20 mils is a drop in the bucket for those dudes.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

All threads lead to Fred's wallet.

[Edgy MD]

Better there than to that Jeter-lovin', .213-hitting Todd Frazier.

Gimme Kippy.

[Ceetar]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I don't think in any way that $15-$20 mils is a drop in the bucket for those dudes.

They're rolling in it. Don't like some debt and the idea that they don't want to run the Mets at a loss distract you from the idea that they're filthy rich.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

dgwphotography wrote: I don't think we'll see David Wright playing on the active roster ever again.

My thoughts exactly. I don't doubt Wright's sincere desire to play again, but I don't think he will ever be physically able to do so again.

[Edgy MD]

Matt Ehalt has a source. And his source says the Mets had Paul Sewald for Jason Kipnis on the table, and then ownership nixed it.

[tweet:mo0yc3jr]

[/tweet:mo0yc3jr]

It's certainly not definitive, but it does add intrigue. In the end, Frazier came cheaper.

[Centerfield]

So that makes me want to hurl.

[bmfc1]

Why couldn't they have had both? They would have had to move Cabrera but if so, it would have made the team better which I'm pretty sure is what ownership and Sandy should be striving for.

[Edgy MD]

bmfc1 wrote: Why couldn't they have had both? They would have had to move Cabrera but if so, it would have made the team better which I'm pretty sure is what ownership and Sandy should be striving for.

Arguably, I guess. The projection systems aren't too being too good to either.

Whatever the reason the Mets took a pass, taking on Kipnis' contract in this environment is looking more and more extravagant. If you want to trade Cabrera, assuming a deal is out there waiting to be had, it might be a better play to bring back Neil Walker or somebody out of this buyer's buyer's free agent market.

But then, why would anybody trade for Cabera, or Kipnis, when Walker is out there waiting to be had for a song?

There's more going on than I can get a handle on.

[seawolf17]

Let's not get too worked up over a "source," kids.

I'm sure, if this *did* go down like this, the Wilpons had a perfectly logical reason. "See, we already *have* a uniform for Sewald, and we'd have to order *new* ones for Kipnis, so let's just keep our guy and save the uniform budget."