Let's call up Dom Smith

[smg58]

Ceetar wrote: Scott Kingery of the Phillies made the team out of Spring Training.. ...but he signed a long term contract to do so.

And it turns out he sucks.

[smg58]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Sure, Alonso may be just a dim memory by 2025, but if having someone else hold the position for April of 2019 gives you that extra year of control, why not do it?

It might cost you meaningful games.

[Frayed Knot]

Maybe I'm not understanding the conversation between you two, but I look at your list and I feel like most of them were delayed a year. I mean, I guess you could argue over what "delay" means. I think the point is that the timing of the call up insures that the club gets 6+ seasons of control rather than just 6 (making the club out of spring training) or less than 6 (calling up the player in April). Every player on your list had 6+ years of control.

The way I'm thinking about "delay" is when a player is ready to be called up but the team bumps him until the following mid-April in order to (theoretically) gain an extra year of club control.
So neither Smith nor Rosario would have been on 2017's team by this way of thinking unless ones believes they were ready in April 2017 (which neither clearly was). And if the others noted
above were only being delayed for control purposes then there was no point in waiting until June, or July, or August, etc., because that additional two, three, four months gains you nothing.

The classic manipulation/delay case in recent years was with the Cubs and Kris Bryant. The baseball season, for accounting purposes, is 182 days long (I guess now it's 186 with the revised calendar) but
anyone logging at least 170 on the ML roster gets credit for the entire season. So the Cubs took Bryant -- a #2 overall draft pick from a major college program and a top five prospect across the board -- and
"decided" he needed more seasoning in the minors ... two weeks more seasoning to be exact, and they pretty much telegraphed the fact that that's exactly what they were going to do ahead of time.
Scott Boras objected but he was powerless to prevent it.
And, btw, this whole mid-April thing only matters if the player stays in the majors for good once being brought up, something that's tough to know ahead of time in each case. So Smith and Rosario, for
instance, already have different ML service times under their belts despite being called up almost simultaneously.


To summarize my overall point(s):
* I disagree with the notion that Dom is already past his sell-by date to the point where his worth has decreased to 'bag of balls' level. We fans tend to lose patience with rookies and are only too quick to
on to the next pretty young thing forgetting why we liked the first girl in the first place
* that Dom doesn't much matter because Alonso has surpassed him anyway and is the clear best choice for 1B in 2019, over Smith or a host of other candidates -- this might turn out to be the case,
but it's hardly carved in stone and is a long shot bet at best IMO
* that the reason Alonso hasn't been called up so far is because mgmt is desperate to manipulate control over him thru 2025 -- I don't even think that's A factor right now and it certainly isn't THE factor
* but it must be the reason because the cheap-ass Mets do this all the time -- No they don't

[Benjamin Grimm]

smg58 wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Sure, Alonso may be just a dim memory by 2025, but if having someone else hold the position for April of 2019 gives you that extra year of control, why not do it? It might cost you meaningful games.

I doubt that the difference between Peter Alonso and Wilmer Flores over a course of about 15 games is likely to make much of a difference. And those 15 games could net you 162 games in 2025. And I know that there's no way of knowing if we'll care about this at all in 2025, but I think the delay is a worthwhile gambit.

[smg58]

Centerfield wrote: Bruce will never be able to rehabilitate his trade value enough that someone will take him off our hands.

Bruce has a .277/.358/.532 line since his return. He was playing hurt in the first part of the season, and he's not playing hurt now. Somebody will find that desirable. Perhaps even the Mets. There's no reason to take pennies on the dollar for him. And we know that because he's been playing regularly.

Smith's outfield defense is not reassuring yet, and he still hasn't hit consistently on this level, but the ability is there. You do want to play him enough to figure out where he stands going into the offseason as well. There's no reason to take pennies on the dollar for him, either.

Jackson is only facing lefties at this point, which is fine.

[smg58]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Sure, Alonso may be just a dim memory by 2025, but if having someone else hold the position for April of 2019 gives you that extra year of control, why not do it? It might cost you meaningful games. I doubt that the difference between Peter Alonso and Wilmer Flores over a course of about 15 games is likely to make much of a difference. And those 15 games could net you 162 games in 2025. And I know that there's no way of knowing if we'll care about this at all in 2025, but I think the delay is a worthwhile gambit.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But it's possible that we get to the end of next spring and it's really obvious that Alonso is your best option at first right now.

[Ceetar]

smg58 wrote: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But it's possible that we get to the end of next spring and it's really obvious that Alonso is your best option at first right now.

There is zero chance meaningless spring training games can make that obvious. It's just garbage time. It doesn't mean anything. Flores is slighly above average, so even if Alonso was magically going to be a 6 win player (unlikely) missing most of April, less than 1/6th the season, won't even cost you one win.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: * I disagree with the notion that Dom is already past his sell-by date to the point where his worth has decreased to 'bag of balls' level. We fans tend to lose patience with rookies and are only too quick to on to the next pretty young thing forgetting why we liked the first girl in the first place

Yeah. Not even close. That's why the Mets should be playing him. And if they don't play him, no reason to trade him when his trade value is shot.

Frayed Knot wrote: * that Dom doesn't much matter because Alonso has surpassed him anyway and is the clear best choice for 1B in 2019, over Smith or a host of other candidates -- this might turn out to be the case, but it's hardly carved in stone and is a long shot bet at best IMO

Yup. Alonso might come up and be terrible. I don't think so, the peripherals on Alonso are pretty good from what I've read. But you never know until he's in the bigs. (and even then it will likely take some time)

Frayed Knot wrote: * that the reason Alonso hasn't been called up so far is because mgmt is desperate to manipulate control over him thru 2025 -- I don't even think that's A factor right now and it certainly isn't THE factor

I certainly think it is A factor. I think having to protect him in the Rule 5 is a big one. Maybe the main one.

Frayed Knot wrote: * but it must be the reason because the cheap-ass Mets do this all the time -- No they don't

I don't think getting an extra year of control suggests "cheap". I think it's smart strategy. It goes against the player's benefit, but as BG says, it's a good bet to give away one month in 2019 for an entire year in 2025.

[Edgy MD]

What would ceetar do if the word "garbage" was suddenly unavailable?

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: What would ceetar do if the word "garbage" was suddenly unavailable?

confuse you with synonyms.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: * that the reason Alonso hasn't been called up so far is because mgmt is desperate to manipulate control over him thru 2025 -- I don't even think that's A factor right now and it certainly isn't THE factor I certainly think it is A factor. I think having to protect him in the Rule 5 is a big one. Maybe the main one.

I think you're confusing rules here. Rule 5 doesn't have anything to do with this except that NOT bringing up Alonso now might help to prevent someone else from being exposed to Rule 5 this winter.
Alonso isn't on the 40-man roster and doesn't have to be put on this winter (minor league service time, etc.). I actually DO think that's a factor in NOT bringing him up now.
The NON factor IMO (or at least the much smaller one) is the idea that having Alonso under control seven years from now will even be a big deal at that point.

[Centerfield]

Yes. That’s my understanding. If they leave him down they don’t have to protect him, freeing up that spot for someone else. If they bring him up, he’s on the 40. And someone else is left exposed.

I think this, along with the free agency of 2025 are both factors.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: What would ceetar do if the word "garbage" was suddenly unavailable? confuse you with synonyms.

[Frayed Knot]

I think this, along with the free agency of 2025 are both factors.

As I've said, I think the first part is a piece of the puzzle while the second is, if anything, way down towards the bottom on the list of considerations.

In general I think that whole planning a guy's call-up date so as to squeeze an extra year out of him stuff comes into play a whole lot less than often than is discussed. It's something teams do with the Bryce Harpers and Kris Bryants of the world: guys you believe are destined to be stars, that you know are ready, and you know will be installed as everyday players right off the bat. So then, yeah, it makes sense to plan the timing of their call-up so as to best suit your needs. Bryant had an Apr 17th debut, Harper was Apr 28, and we'll see how the Blue Jays handle little Vladdy next spring.

But the Peter Alonsos of the world aren't in the same area code as those guys much less the same neighborhood, and there are so many other variables at work that's it's unlikely to matter in the long run.
The Mets are going to have at least some of the same 1B issues next Spring that they have now -- what about Dom?; what about Wilmer?; what about our aging and under contract corner OFs (Bruce & Cespedes) or even our aging and under contract 3B for that matter? I'm not sure it's even money that Alonso will be a part-time starter next year much less be the guy tabbed as the obvious incumbent for years to come.

[Guest 41Forever]

Good points. I was buying into the hype without taking a closer look.

[seawolf17]

Frayed Knot wrote: But the Peter Alonsos of the world aren't in the same area code as those guys much less the same neighborhood, and there are so many other variables at work that's it's unlikely to matter in the long run.

I agree. He'll be 24 this winter. We're worried about what's going to happen when he's 30?

[Centerfield]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, an extra year of control has tremendous value. Even if the player is not the level of Kris Bryant.

Another year of Daniel Murphy would have meant he broke out with the Mets, instead of the Nationals. The extra year we got from Wheeler means we don't have to make a decision about him until after next year. An extra year of Familia would have brought back much more in a trade than simply renting him out for 2 months. If d'Arnaud and Flores had broke camp with the club in 2013 instead of debuting mid-year, they would both be gone this year.

You don't have to be a star for the extra year to have value. You just have to be a productive major league player. Basically, as long as your career doesn't crater (like Ike Davis), the club will want to keep you around.

The Mets have already said they won't bring up Alonso this year. 40 man, getting him enough AB's, whatever. That is done. Now the decision will be whether he breaks camp with the team, or whether they wait a month (assuming he plays well in the spring). I can't say whether the decision to delay his free agency will be a consideration, but it absolutely, positively should.

Do we want Peter Alonso under control for 6 years, or do we want him for 7 years minus April? Easy choice in my book.

[Frayed Knot]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, an extra year of control has tremendous value. Even if the player is not the level of Kris Bryant.

Sure there's value in getting an extra year of control, but it can't be the deciding factor in the call-up timing of every Tom, Dick, and Harry prospect that comes down the pike.
You bring up guys when they're needed, hopefully also at a time which coincides with them being ready, but not at a time which hopefully / maybe works out seven years from now.
Carry the deadline-FA notion to its logical conclusion and no one would ever get called up after May because there'd always be the lure of delaying until the end of the following April.
Was Muffy's mid-season call-up, for instance, a half-season too early which prevented us from that 'extra' season out of him, or was his final season in Queens the extra one we got out of not calling him up months earlier?
And is it great that we have one more year out of Wheeler or short-sighted that we don't have two? And the same could be said -- moving the timeline either way -- for Familia, d'Arnaud, Flores, or just about anyone.


So I'll put it this way:
IF whoever is running this ship this winter decides that Alonso's time is now and that he's ready to be the everyday starting 1B going forward,
and IF he takes all the other proactive actions (dumps Smith, Wilmer, Bruce, whoever) to make sure the path is clear by spring 2019,
then, by all means, count off 12 days from Opening Day (or maybe it's 16 now) before making the call. And if he's a good, serviceable player a half-dozen years from now without ever seeing the minors
again then those two weeks of having Jay Horowitz playing 1st base in the interim will have absolutely been worth it.

My point is that there are just not a lot of players who pre-fit that kind of action and that teams will miss a lot more than they gain by allowing their call-up decisions to be influenced by FA deadlines.
And, remember, this discussion essentially started over the idea that Fred wanting to squeeze an extra year (and therefore save future money) out of Alonso was the only reason he wasn't called up two
months ago when he so obviously deserved it. Talk about your ownership meddling!!.

[Centerfield]

Dom Smith. .892 OPS post all-star break.

Small sample size? Misleading production during meaningless September games? Breakout star?

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Dom Smith. .892 OPS post all-star break. Small sample size? Misleading production during meaningless September games? Breakout star?

first one.

I don't think it's misleading, it's nice to see him driving the ball a bit at least.

but he's still not walking, so..

[Edgy MD]

He's done good enough to stay in the picture, certainly.

The minor problem is that the team's desire to get another look at him, combined with their desire to also get Bruce some time at first, has totally marginalized Flores the last third of the season. Due to no particularly fault of his own, Wilmer has picked a lot of splinters, after being perhaps the team's best hitter for six weeks or so in the middle of the season.

In my mind, he would still (if only just) be the leader on the first base depth chart if the Mets weren't playing out the string, though he slumped in the weeks before his benching. I would guess he's going to be traded this offseason. Smith then gains the top slot unless/until they acquire a new outfielder, which would push Bruce firstwise.

Bruce could see a trade as well.

[Vic Sage]

over the last 2 weeks, i'd like to see Bruce and Smith play every day (one at 1b, the other in RF). If they hit, they'll be reestablishing their value for possible trade; if they don't... well, there value couldn't get much lower anyway.