Who's gonna be the General Manager?

[Frayed Knot]

deGrom is the biggie though since he's so close to possible FA-gency and a big deal and BVW was his agent up to and including yesterday. Having an assistant GM handle those discussions makes sense
and is likely the kind of thing they ran by Manfred and Tony Clark as they finalized the hire.

Maybe Syndergaard falls under that as well depending on what the immediate plans are for him, but there's nothing to decide with Vargas (well they could cut him but there's no money to discuss) and
Nimmo is still a year away from arbitration much less any potential big deals so even if/when that does come up with him then he's likely several years into a new agent and any conflict is much further
in the rearview by that point.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, they could negotiate with Vargas for a 2020 contract. That doesn't look especially likely at this point, but who knows how things will develop?

[Edgy MD]

I assume that the recusing would have a long shelf life, quite possibly for the rest of said players' careers. That roster includes the above plus Céspedes, Frazier, and Tebow, as well as future-Mets Rusney Castillo, Ryan Zimmerman, and Robinson Canó.

I don't know if the agreement would keep him out of negotiations with clients from his agency's roster that he didn't represent directly, but I imagine that would be likely as well.

If that means Ricco reporting directly to Wilpon, well, that's been done before, so it's workable. If Jeff negotiates directly in such cases, that's a little more unsettling.

[Centerfield]

From the looks of it, it doesn't appear that the press conference was an unmitigated disaster. So maybe there's hope that this regime won't be either.

I remind you that when this thread started in August, we were looking at Gary LaRoque, and quotes like this:

There is thought among team officials that perhaps the Mets became too analytics driven in recent seasons under Sandy Alderson’s watch, and a veteran leader with a pure baseball background would help shift the organization toward the center.

As bmfc said at the time: Dear God.

Brodie doesn't seem like he'll move away from analytics. And considering we were resigned to Doug Melvin a week ago, I feel like it certainly could have been worse.

Maybe those guys are right that BVW will be successful in getting the Wilpons to open up their wallets. And maybe Broham is slick enough to steer Jeff away from bad ideas, and plant seeds that makes Jeff think he came up with all the good ideas by himself. Maybe Bro takes Wilpon out for drinks with the boys, gets a few strippers, makes him feel like one of the cool kids, then when he's lit, convinces him that his proposal to extend Vargas for 6 years is a bad idea. The guy went to Stanford, worked his way to the top of his field, and is by all accounts, smart. We'll see, I guess.

"Hey Jeff, meet Mystique and Aura. They think it's a good idea to engage with Bryce Harper. Girls, can you take Jeff to the champagne room and tell him all about your plan?"

[Mex17]

Ceetar wrote: Of course they passed up a guy named Chaim.

You know that the Wilpons are Jewish, right?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think you're missing his point.

[Frayed Knot]

And in the end, as Sherman points out, none of today's hot questions -- background, prior resumes, potential conflicts of interests, etc. -- are going to matter.
What's going to matter is results.

[ashie62]

For some reason BVG reminds me of Steve Phillips, sort of a sneaky sob.

I was all in for Chaim Bloom to blow it up. He was tremendous at Tampa Bay.

Maybe the risk in Chaim is the trend of empty seats might be sustainable

[MFS62]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Here's Brodie with Kesti and Brandi ... Of course those are their names. The only real surprise is that neither opted for the double-i spelling.

I guess Flopsi, Mopsi and Cottontail couldn't make it.

Well, it sounds like he has read at least some of the rules under which he will operate, which makes him more qualified for this position than Trump is for his.

Later

[metirish]

Did anyone hear/see the Francesa interview? , if you are interested look for @BackAftaThis ...we know Francesa is a smug fuck but damn what a jerk

[HahnSolo]

metirish wrote: Did anyone hear/see the Francesa interview? , if you are interested look for @BackAftaThis ...we know Francesa is a smug fuck but damn what a jerk https://twitter.com/BackAftaThis

Heard it when it happened. Douche has to bigtime everybody. Starting right from the beginning..."they saved you for last Mike"..."yeah, they usually do."

[Centerfield]

Francesa is stupid and an ass. He made up half of a New York institution during his prime, but that time is gone. I imagine some of that bitterness comes from knowing that.

That being said, he is right this one time. It's no excuse for being a dickhead, but he is actually right. Saying that our everyday lineup is "good" is a ridiculous answer.

The Mets were 23rd in runs scored this year. Atlanta had a top 10 offense, and so did Washington. Philadelphia, even as they faded, still ended up scoring more runs than the Mets.

Brodie asked Francesa, who in the NL East is going to beat them. The simple answer is Atlanta. They beat the Mets by 13 games. They were 10th in runs scored, the Mets were 23rd. Their bullpen was 17th in ERA. The Mets were 28th. And starting pitching, which is supposed to be our strength, Atlanta was ranked 4th. We were 6th. They do everything better than us.

[Centerfield]

And let's be honest. Chris Russo carried that show. Mike's role was to be his spoil, which he did well. But if Francesa is paired with anyone else, that show goes nowhere.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Centerfield wrote: Brodie asked Francesa, who in the NL East is going to beat them.

Did he really say that? That may imply that Brodie is more brash than he is smart. I hope that's not really the case.

[Centerfield]

BVW: I know you usually ask the questions here, but I got one for you. Who in the National League East is going to beat us, and why?

Paraphrased.

Mike responds by citing the Braves. He says he'd take the Braves lineup over the Mets, then says to Brodie, "Wouldn't you?"

Brodie then dodges the question. Something like "The Braves have a good young team, but they haven't won any World Series."

It's an exchange where they both look bad. It was a pretty stupid position for Brodie to take. And for all the talk about how smart this man it, it wasn't a great first impression.

All of this will mean nothing if they go out and actually improve this club. But if the argument he submitted is indicative of his actual thinking, the we're fucked.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Guest

[HahnSolo]

If Francesa could name five Braves I'd be stunned. He'd say Freeman, the kid at short, the kid outfielders, da pitcher who always beats the Mets...

[Benjamin Grimm]

BVW: I know you usually ask the questions here, but I got one for you. Who in the National League East is going to beat us, and why?

hu·bris
/ˈ(h)yo͞obrəs/
noun
excessive pride or self-confidence.
synonyms: arrogance, conceit, haughtiness, hauteur, pride, self-importance, egotism, pomposity, superciliousness, superiority;
(in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

[Centerfield]

I hope Brodie was not selected for this job because he was the most delusional about how good the Mets presently are.

[smg58]

Centerfield wrote: Brodie asked Francesa, who in the NL East is going to beat them. The simple answer is Atlanta. They beat the Mets by 13 games. They were 10th in runs scored, the Mets were 23rd. Their bullpen was 17th in ERA. The Mets were 28th. And starting pitching, which is supposed to be our strength, Atlanta was ranked 4th. We were 6th. They do everything better than us.

Our lineup finished the year a little better than it started, and the rotation finished the year a lot better than it started. We were sixth despite a nightmarish stretch from Vargas, Harvey pitching himself off the team, Syndergaard missing significant time, and Wheeler and Matz starting the year badly. I'd take an upgrade on Vargas, but I also think its more of a luxury than a necessity. The lineup needs an impact right-handed bat; maybe Alonso emerges and maybe Cespedes ends the year close to top form, but you can't depend on either and neither player is starting the season with us. The pen needs lots of help, and if more teams are determined to yank their starters after five innings, the market for relievers is going to be inflated. That presents a very big challenge. Finding guys who are worth the cost in a sellers' market will not be easy. But that's where we'll see if Brodie cuts it.

[Centerfield]

I hear what you are saying, but it's dangerous to start arguing we are better than our numbers because of this factor or that. You are what your numbers say you are.

I get that we finished the second half better, but there's nothing saying Vargas and Matz won't pitch like they did in the first half again. In fact, they might pitch like the first half for all of 2019. We should expect some regression from deGrom for no other reason than it's not reasonable to ask someone to be that good twice. Every year we talk about how we would have been better if Noah hadn't missed significant time. And while I do think Wheeler's improvement is for real, I don't think he's as good as he pitched in that second half. Remember, a lot of those starts came against SF and Miami.

I mean, if I had to bet, I would say that I think our rotation will be better than the Braves in 2019, but I don't think we can say they are better until they are actually better.

And I'd like to see Jason Vargas not ever make another start for the Mets.

[nymr83]

Centerfield wrote: I hear what you are saying, but it's dangerous to start arguing we are better than our numbers because of this factor or that. You are what your numbers say you are.

yup. for everything that might got better there is something that might get worse. you should try to improve the team based off where the numbers say you are and then be happy when things break your way.

in other words, don't be a a .500 team "on paper" hoping to get lucky. be a 90 win team that gets lucky and goes all the way.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: yup. for everything that might got better there is something that might get worse.

I don't think this is definitively true. I mean, it might be true. But it's not a 50/50 proposition. Younger players tend to get better. Older players tend to get worse. Players coming off years below their career baselines tend to bounce back. Players coming off years above their career baselines tend to fall back. Some injuries undermine a year. Others undermine a career.

It's nuanced stuff. Each case is different, but obviously standing pat on a .500 team filled with 24-year-olds is more justifiable than standing pat on a .500 team filled with 36-year-olds.

[Centerfield]

Well sure. I don't know if he meant it as a literal one for one, but generally yes.

The danger in saying "we're better than the numbers" is that the speaker will consider all the reasons we should be better, but fail to consider all the reasons we might be worse.

[Guest 41Forever]

Just listened to the Francessa interview. What a jerk. "You know, you're not inheriting the Yankees here?"

I thought Brody handled himself well. "Do you have a good everyday line-up?" He gave the best answer -- "Yes, and we're going to build on that foundation."

For Francessa to keep circling back to that point, eye-rolling and all, was ridiculous. And I liked Brody respectfully pushed back.

Who is your clean up hitter on Opening Day? Of course the answer is "We'll see." Because it's Day 1 and he hasn't done anything yet.

So he just dealt with the worst media guy in New York and held his own.

[Guest d'Kong76]

MFD: "You know, you're not inheriting the Yankees here?"
BVW: "Right?! Thank golly for that. What a soulless bunch of cretins their fan base is."
MFD: "You know I'm a life-long Yankee fan, right?"
BVW: "I do."

[Centerfield]

I thought Brody handled himself well. "Do you have a good everyday line-up?" He gave the best answer -- "Yes, and we're going to build on that foundation."

I disagree with you here. I don't think this is a good answer, and certainly not the best answer. The best answer cannot be an answer that is demonstrably false.

What is a good lineup? I think generally the top ten are "good". The middle ten are "average", and the bottom ten are "bad". The Mets were 23rd in runs scored last season. They were bad. Even if you take a more binary approach and say the top 15 are good, and the bottom 15 are bad, the Mets are still bad. You can't be in the bottom third of your pool and be considered good.

When you say something is good, when it is clearly not, it undermines your credibility. This makes you come across either as a liar or foolish.

Better answers acknowledge a weakness but stress the work being done to address that weakness. And they're easy. Even if you don't want to commit to big upgrades.

"Do we have a good lineup today? I don't think we have a game today Mike. Ask me that question in March. If the answer is no, then I haven't done my job."

"Good lineup? Potentially good. I know the results are not there, but we have some pieces that we think are ready to arrive in 2019. We saw a little of that in the second half last year. We have others that we know can bounce back, and we are working to add pieces to bring that ceiling even higher. So yes, I'm very excited about the potential of this lineup." (I feel like this would have been Sandy's answer)

"No, but I think a lot of teams don't have a good lineup in November. We know we need to score more runs in 2019. Some of that will happen organically as some of our young hitters come into their own. We have others that will revert back to form. 2018 Jay Bruce wasn't a good hitter. 2019 Jay Bruce could be an all-star. So no, we're not good today, but I think we'll be good in 2019, and I think many of the key pieces of that lineup are already within the organization."

Or, if you're actually committed to spending money and improving:

"No, not today. But that's why they hired me Mike. If we were already good, they could have hired you."

[Benjamin Grimm]

Centerfield wrote: "No, not today. But that's why they hired me Mike. If we were already good, they could have hired you."

[Centerfield]

I mean, look at this lineup.

1. Nimmo - CF
2. McNeil - 2B
3. Conforto LF
4. Bruce - RF
5. Frazier - 3B
6. Smith - 1B
7. Rosario - SS
8. Plawecki - C

In this lineup, the top 3 are arguably good. Conforto is legimately good. Good track record, All-Star caliber player. Nimmo was great, but only has 1 year under his belt. And McNeil could be great but only has 225 career ABs.

After that you have 5 guys who failed to reach .700 in OPS. Five guys, including your cleanup hitter, with an OPS in the .600's. On what planet is that a good lineup?

Edited October 31, 2018 by Guest

[smg58]

Centerfield wrote: The danger in saying "we're better than the numbers" is that the speaker will consider all the reasons we should be better, but fail to consider all the reasons we might be worse.

Basically every player on your team is a gamble. You pay your money and you take your chances. And the more limited your money is, the more you have to make sure it's directed in the right place, and figure out what gambles are reasonable ones and what ones are not. I would consider it a reasonable gamble that, even with an anticipated regression in DeGrom's numbers, the Mets' rotation will be better overall next year than it was in 2018. That's not where I would prioritize my efforts.

The lineup has to be improved somewhere with a high-impact right-handed bat, though (i.e., while there's reason to hope that Cespedes and Alonso will help in that regard at some point next year, it would not be a reasonable gamble to bank on it). But where, and with whom? Machado, sure, but he will sign for a price that 29 GMs out of 30 will think is too high, and you'd be gambling that you're the smart one. But if not him, then who? Donaldson is a gamble that might pay off enormously, and might not pay off at all. AJ Pollock? You're gambling that he can stay healthy for a full season and go back to who he was in 2015. Realmuto? Is he high-impact enough to gamble on the Marlins' asking price? And of course, the worst gamble would be "none of the above."

The pen, meanwhile, has three spots out of seven firmly in place -- and that's assuming that it's reasonable to gamble that Swarzak will stay healthy and look more like 2017 version than the 2018 version, and that Gsellman will have better numbers if his innings count is kept around 70. But everybody wants relievers, especially when fewer and fewer teams want to keep their starters in the game the third time through the lineup. And every relief pitcher is a gamble even in a normal market.

The bottom line? Standing pat is not an option. Spending is a necessity if you're serious about contending, but so is spending well. And a little luck won't hurt. The challenge for Brodie is daunting, but not impossible if he's the right guy.

[Benjamin Grimm]

My hope is that he'll use his charm (which his bosses seem susceptible to) to get the Wilpons to open their wallets and spend. BVW has said that he wants to be in on every free agent. Time will tell how sincere that sentiment is. Omar got the Wilpons to spend (Martinez, Beltran, Delgado) and hopefully Brodie can do that too.

And note, I'm not being optimistic here, I'm being hopeful.