What hole in the lineup concerns your ass the most?

[Guest Edgy DC]

OK, we're set at short, third, and center --- set as we can hope to be. But, at other postions, the questions run so deep for such a simple man.

Where are your lineup concerns the greatest?

[metirish]

Great question , I want to pick them all but can't so i went with first base. It seems to me that would be a harder position to fill in-season if Delgado falls apart.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I don't think this is a pollable, 'pick one' kinda question.

It's a combo of one corner OF spot and 2B, depending on how they solve it. 3-way tie for my ass.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm disappointed. Your ass gets one answer. Move your ass.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I picked right field, but I could easily have gone with second base or left field.

My biggest concern is that the Mets might not address any of these positions.

I think Delgado will be okay next year, but there won't be another Texiera on the market for 2010, so by going with Delgado they pass up a chance to solve first base for most of the next decade.

I would have had a similar beef if they had gone with Trevor Hoffman as the closer. Fortunately that didn't happen.

I doubt this will happen, but I'd like to see the Mets sign Orlando Hudson to a multi-year contract. They can give him a signing bonus and back-end the dollars so that the could minimize the combined amount that Castillo and Hudson will be getting. It might take some creative financing, and it may not be possible, but they really need to so something.

Going into 2009 with Schneider, Tatis, Murphy, Church, Delgado, and Castillo all slated for starting roles seems to me to be a setup for disaster.

[Centerfield]

I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer.

If he sucks, we're in trouble.

[HahnSolo]

To me it came down to second and catcher. I still have worries about all the others, though.

I went with second, because, as you say, there are not many great catchers out there, so I could probably live with Schneid/Castro if they stay healthy. Castillo, even if he is healthy is a problem. I think New York is in his head and he'll never be the same.

[HahnSolo]

="Benjamin Grimm":oo42szel] I doubt this will happen, but I'd like to see the Mets sign Orlando Hudson to a multi-year contract. They can give him a signing bonus and back-end the dollars so that the could minimize the combined amount that Castillo and Hudson will be getting. It might take some creative financing, and it may not be possible, but they really need to so something.[/quote:oo42szel] Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 02:57 PM

I think I'm most concerned about LF. Despite all the good feelings Murphy cooked up in a relatively short time, the question as to whether he has enough bat to carry him in a corner position is very much up in the air. And that the alternative is Tatis doesn't smooth it over. 1B - Carlos II has been here for 3 years and good, or at least good enough, for about 2-1/2 of them. We'll survive there even if we don't thrive. 2B - He can't be worse (can he?) and, if his normal healthy self, he's at least useful. Overpaid and over-stayed, but useful. RF - Maybe we don't get his April again, but his season couldn't have gone worse after that. Even 400 healthy ABs can't help but be an improvement. C - Even Schneider's below-averageness is kinda close to average considering his position. There's better out there, just not a lot of it.

soupcan Dec 17 2008 02:57 PM

My ass is most worried about first base. After that, the uncomfortable seats on MetrNorth. But mostly first base.

metsmarathon Dec 17 2008 02:57 PM

first is where i see the greatest disparity between what we need, and what i fear we might get.

Gwreck Dec 17 2008 02:59 PM

="Centerfield":19xs1h3v]I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer. If he sucks, we're in trouble.[/quote:19xs1h3v] Yes, if Delgado sucks, we have a problem. We also have a problem if Wright, or Reyes or Beltran suck. I think concern should be greater for those positions where the players we have are more likely to suck. I am going with left field. I don't have much confidence in a Tatis/Murphy combo. I want to see an everyday left fielder, one that gives us the option of using Tatis to spell Church against a lefty, and use Murphy at second base (at least part of the time). Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 03:06 PM Nothing is ever solved for ten years. At least, not until those ten years are behind you. Too much luck can undo even the bet of plans. The correct answer is left. Because, by bringing in a new leftfielder, Murphy and Tatis become insurance at left, right, third, second, and first. Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 03:08 PM any of those positions could suck for us (though Church will hit just fine if he's healthy) but i went with Catcher because its the only position that i'm sure will suck for us. G-Fafif Dec 17 2008 04:02 PM Oh, my worried ass. I'll say catcher 'cause when I read we might trade Schneider, I was surprised at how thrilled I was...and how much I hoped Castro would be gone, too. Fman99 Dec 17 2008 04:04 PM Ugh, half our lineup projects to be below average. And that's if Delgado can repeat his '08 numbers in '09. Second, catcher, left, right. Me no likee. So I'll pick RF as that's the spot least likely to get upgraded before March. Rockin' Doc Dec 17 2008 04:20 PM Second base and left field concern me the most. I'd feel better about hings if the Mets would get Hudson to play second and hit behind Reyes. There does not appear to be a great deal of help availbale for the outfield via free agency. Pat Burrell (or possibly Juan Rivera) seem to be the only upgrades available without going to a trade. Given those scenarios, I would lean toward signing Hudson and then prepare to swallow a fair amount of the money that the Mets stupidly agreed to pay Castillo and move on to the future. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 04:43 PM ="Gwreck":axj5ytme] ="Centerfield":axj5ytme]I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer. If he sucks, we're in trouble.[/quote:axj5ytme] Yes, if Delgado sucks, we have a problem. We also have a problem if Wright, or Reyes or Beltran suck. I think concern should be greater for those positions where the players we have are more likely to suck. I am going with left field. I don't have much confidence in a Tatis/Murphy combo. I want to see an everyday left fielder, one that gives us the option of using Tatis to spell Church against a lefty, and use Murphy at second base (at least part of the time).[/quote:axj5ytme] None of those three are as likely to suck as Delgado, who after his season and half of suck, has sucked half his time here. Signing a middle of the order run-producing leftfielder would assuage a lot of these worries too, as that would mean Delgado would move down in the order. But while there are a lot of good options in leftfield, there are no real great ones. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 04:44 PM By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one. OlerudOwned Dec 17 2008 04:46 PM Left field. It's a spot where you can sacrifice defense for a big bat, and we don't have too much of either there. Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:26 PM ="Centerfield":3ebynzom]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3ebynzom] Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for" Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 05:42 PM After exactly 100 HRs, nearly 200 XBHs and better than .350 OBA/.500 Slugging over 3 seasons, I'd argue that Delgado has NOT "sucked half his time here". That's probably about average among 1Bmen and, considering that the best half-season might be the most recent, I'm not fearing the crash-n-burn as much as some others seem to be. LF & 2B are much more likely to be seriously below average IMO (offense & defense). Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:55 PM I worry that the Mets will "pencil in" Delgado for something similar to this past year's 2nd half and instead get what they got from him in 2007 (his worst year in the majors.) MFS62 Dec 17 2008 06:14 PM The team can platoon, or has semi-capable backups in left, at first and catcher. But second base troubles me the most. Even when Castillo has been healthy, he has been on a decline. His one asset was speed, on the bases and in the field. But as he gets older and loses his speed, what will he have left to contribute? And Omar seems to be placing all of his ova in that one basket. Later Gwreck Dec 17 2008 07:29 PM ="Centerfield":3li9ifou]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3li9ifou] I'm not necessarily "comfortable" either, but we didn't lose in '08 because of the offense. The runs were scored. We lost because of the 'pen. Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 08:41 PM I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none? smg58 Dec 18 2008 07:34 AM Second base. It's by far the easiest position to upgrade. Castillo killed us with the glove and the bat last year. Ranking the other spots: Catcher. We're overpaying for what we're getting, but the defense is fine and there are not very many obvious upgrades out there. First base. Delgado concerns me a little bit. Then again, with Citifield being nine feet shorter down the rightfield line, the good Delgado could hit 40 if he shows up this year. Left field. Murphy has earned the right to play. His defense in left was actually plus, according to the Fielding Bible. Having a high OBP in the second spot in the lineup is a good thing. Right field. Church was very good when healthy, and he plays outstanding defense. A platoon partner might be in order, but I don't see anybody available who would still be an upgrade against righthanded pitching when defense is factored in. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 12:23 PM ="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh] ="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j] ="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

[Frayed Knot]

I think I'm most concerned about LF.
Despite all the good feelings Murphy cooked up in a relatively short time, the question as to whether he has enough bat to carry him in a corner position is very much up in the air. And that the alternative is Tatis doesn't smooth it over.

1B - Carlos II has been here for 3 years and good, or at least good enough, for about 2-1/2 of them. We'll survive there even if we don't thrive.

2B - He can't be worse (can he?) and, if his normal healthy self, he's at least useful. Overpaid and over-stayed, but useful.

RF - Maybe we don't get his April again, but his season couldn't have gone worse after that. Even 400 healthy ABs can't help but be an improvement.

C - Even Schneider's below-averageness is kinda close to average considering his position. There's better out there, just not a lot of it.

[soupcan]

My ass is most worried about first base.

After that, the uncomfortable seats on MetrNorth.

But mostly first base.

[metsmarathon]

first is where i see the greatest disparity between what we need, and what i fear we might get.

[Gwreck]

="Centerfield":19xs1h3v]I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer. If he sucks, we're in trouble.[/quote:19xs1h3v] Yes, if Delgado sucks, we have a problem. We also have a problem if Wright, or Reyes or Beltran suck. I think concern should be greater for those positions where the players we have are more likely to suck. I am going with left field. I don't have much confidence in a Tatis/Murphy combo. I want to see an everyday left fielder, one that gives us the option of using Tatis to spell Church against a lefty, and use Murphy at second base (at least part of the time).

Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 03:06 PM

Nothing is ever solved for ten years. At least, not until those ten years are behind you. Too much luck can undo even the bet of plans. The correct answer is left. Because, by bringing in a new leftfielder, Murphy and Tatis become insurance at left, right, third, second, and first.

Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 03:08 PM

any of those positions could suck for us (though Church will hit just fine if he's healthy) but i went with Catcher because its the only position that i'm sure will suck for us.

G-Fafif Dec 17 2008 04:02 PM

Oh, my worried ass. I'll say catcher 'cause when I read we might trade Schneider, I was surprised at how thrilled I was...and how much I hoped Castro would be gone, too.

Fman99 Dec 17 2008 04:04 PM

Ugh, half our lineup projects to be below average. And that's if Delgado can repeat his '08 numbers in '09. Second, catcher, left, right. Me no likee. So I'll pick RF as that's the spot least likely to get upgraded before March.

Rockin' Doc Dec 17 2008 04:20 PM

Second base and left field concern me the most. I'd feel better about hings if the Mets would get Hudson to play second and hit behind Reyes. There does not appear to be a great deal of help availbale for the outfield via free agency. Pat Burrell (or possibly Juan Rivera) seem to be the only upgrades available without going to a trade. Given those scenarios, I would lean toward signing Hudson and then prepare to swallow a fair amount of the money that the Mets stupidly agreed to pay Castillo and move on to the future.

Centerfield Dec 17 2008 04:43 PM

="Gwreck":axj5ytme] ="Centerfield":axj5ytme]I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer. If he sucks, we're in trouble.[/quote:axj5ytme] Yes, if Delgado sucks, we have a problem. We also have a problem if Wright, or Reyes or Beltran suck. I think concern should be greater for those positions where the players we have are more likely to suck. I am going with left field. I don't have much confidence in a Tatis/Murphy combo. I want to see an everyday left fielder, one that gives us the option of using Tatis to spell Church against a lefty, and use Murphy at second base (at least part of the time).[/quote:axj5ytme] None of those three are as likely to suck as Delgado, who after his season and half of suck, has sucked half his time here. Signing a middle of the order run-producing leftfielder would assuage a lot of these worries too, as that would mean Delgado would move down in the order. But while there are a lot of good options in leftfield, there are no real great ones. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 04:44 PM By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one. OlerudOwned Dec 17 2008 04:46 PM Left field. It's a spot where you can sacrifice defense for a big bat, and we don't have too much of either there. Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:26 PM ="Centerfield":3ebynzom]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3ebynzom] Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for" Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 05:42 PM After exactly 100 HRs, nearly 200 XBHs and better than .350 OBA/.500 Slugging over 3 seasons, I'd argue that Delgado has NOT "sucked half his time here". That's probably about average among 1Bmen and, considering that the best half-season might be the most recent, I'm not fearing the crash-n-burn as much as some others seem to be. LF & 2B are much more likely to be seriously below average IMO (offense & defense). Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:55 PM I worry that the Mets will "pencil in" Delgado for something similar to this past year's 2nd half and instead get what they got from him in 2007 (his worst year in the majors.) MFS62 Dec 17 2008 06:14 PM The team can platoon, or has semi-capable backups in left, at first and catcher. But second base troubles me the most. Even when Castillo has been healthy, he has been on a decline. His one asset was speed, on the bases and in the field. But as he gets older and loses his speed, what will he have left to contribute? And Omar seems to be placing all of his ova in that one basket. Later Gwreck Dec 17 2008 07:29 PM ="Centerfield":3li9ifou]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3li9ifou] I'm not necessarily "comfortable" either, but we didn't lose in '08 because of the offense. The runs were scored. We lost because of the 'pen. Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 08:41 PM I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none? smg58 Dec 18 2008 07:34 AM Second base. It's by far the easiest position to upgrade. Castillo killed us with the glove and the bat last year. Ranking the other spots: Catcher. We're overpaying for what we're getting, but the defense is fine and there are not very many obvious upgrades out there. First base. Delgado concerns me a little bit. Then again, with Citifield being nine feet shorter down the rightfield line, the good Delgado could hit 40 if he shows up this year. Left field. Murphy has earned the right to play. His defense in left was actually plus, according to the Fielding Bible. Having a high OBP in the second spot in the lineup is a good thing. Right field. Church was very good when healthy, and he plays outstanding defense. A platoon partner might be in order, but I don't see anybody available who would still be an upgrade against righthanded pitching when defense is factored in. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 12:23 PM ="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh] ="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j] ="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Nothing is ever solved for ten years. At least, not until those ten years are behind you. Too much luck can undo even the bet of plans.

The correct answer is left. Because, by bringing in a new leftfielder, Murphy and Tatis become insurance at left, right, third, second, and first.

[nymr83]

any of those positions could suck for us (though Church will hit just fine if he's healthy) but i went with Catcher because its the only position that i'm sure will suck for us.

[G-Fafif]

Oh, my worried ass.

I'll say catcher 'cause when I read we might trade Schneider, I was surprised at how thrilled I was...and how much I hoped Castro would be gone, too.

[Fman99]

Ugh, half our lineup projects to be below average. And that's if Delgado can repeat his '08 numbers in '09.

Second, catcher, left, right. Me no likee. So I'll pick RF as that's the spot least likely to get upgraded before March.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Second base and left field concern me the most. I'd feel better about hings if the Mets would get Hudson to play second and hit behind Reyes. There does not appear to be a great deal of help availbale for the outfield via free agency. Pat Burrell (or possibly Juan Rivera) seem to be the only upgrades available without going to a trade.

Given those scenarios, I would lean toward signing Hudson and then prepare to swallow a fair amount of the money that the Mets stupidly agreed to pay Castillo and move on to the future.

[Centerfield]

="Gwreck":axj5ytme] ="Centerfield":axj5ytme]I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer. If he sucks, we're in trouble.[/quote:axj5ytme] Yes, if Delgado sucks, we have a problem. We also have a problem if Wright, or Reyes or Beltran suck. I think concern should be greater for those positions where the players we have are more likely to suck. I am going with left field. I don't have much confidence in a Tatis/Murphy combo. I want to see an everyday left fielder, one that gives us the option of using Tatis to spell Church against a lefty, and use Murphy at second base (at least part of the time).[/quote:axj5ytme] None of those three are as likely to suck as Delgado, who after his season and half of suck, has sucked half his time here. Signing a middle of the order run-producing leftfielder would assuage a lot of these worries too, as that would mean Delgado would move down in the order. But while there are a lot of good options in leftfield, there are no real great ones. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 04:44 PM By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one. OlerudOwned Dec 17 2008 04:46 PM Left field. It's a spot where you can sacrifice defense for a big bat, and we don't have too much of either there. Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:26 PM ="Centerfield":3ebynzom]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3ebynzom] Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for" Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 05:42 PM After exactly 100 HRs, nearly 200 XBHs and better than .350 OBA/.500 Slugging over 3 seasons, I'd argue that Delgado has NOT "sucked half his time here". That's probably about average among 1Bmen and, considering that the best half-season might be the most recent, I'm not fearing the crash-n-burn as much as some others seem to be. LF & 2B are much more likely to be seriously below average IMO (offense & defense). Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:55 PM I worry that the Mets will "pencil in" Delgado for something similar to this past year's 2nd half and instead get what they got from him in 2007 (his worst year in the majors.) MFS62 Dec 17 2008 06:14 PM The team can platoon, or has semi-capable backups in left, at first and catcher. But second base troubles me the most. Even when Castillo has been healthy, he has been on a decline. His one asset was speed, on the bases and in the field. But as he gets older and loses his speed, what will he have left to contribute? And Omar seems to be placing all of his ova in that one basket. Later Gwreck Dec 17 2008 07:29 PM ="Centerfield":3li9ifou]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3li9ifou] I'm not necessarily "comfortable" either, but we didn't lose in '08 because of the offense. The runs were scored. We lost because of the 'pen. Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 08:41 PM I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none? smg58 Dec 18 2008 07:34 AM Second base. It's by far the easiest position to upgrade. Castillo killed us with the glove and the bat last year. Ranking the other spots: Catcher. We're overpaying for what we're getting, but the defense is fine and there are not very many obvious upgrades out there. First base. Delgado concerns me a little bit. Then again, with Citifield being nine feet shorter down the rightfield line, the good Delgado could hit 40 if he shows up this year. Left field. Murphy has earned the right to play. His defense in left was actually plus, according to the Fielding Bible. Having a high OBP in the second spot in the lineup is a good thing. Right field. Church was very good when healthy, and he plays outstanding defense. A platoon partner might be in order, but I don't see anybody available who would still be an upgrade against righthanded pitching when defense is factored in. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 12:23 PM ="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh] ="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j] ="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

[Centerfield]

By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Left field. It's a spot where you can sacrifice defense for a big bat, and we don't have too much of either there.

[nymr83]

="Centerfield":3ebynzom]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3ebynzom] Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 05:42 PM

After exactly 100 HRs, nearly 200 XBHs and better than .350 OBA/.500 Slugging over 3 seasons, I'd argue that Delgado has NOT "sucked half his time here". That's probably about average among 1Bmen and, considering that the best half-season might be the most recent, I'm not fearing the crash-n-burn as much as some others seem to be. LF & 2B are much more likely to be seriously below average IMO (offense & defense).

Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:55 PM

I worry that the Mets will "pencil in" Delgado for something similar to this past year's 2nd half and instead get what they got from him in 2007 (his worst year in the majors.)

MFS62 Dec 17 2008 06:14 PM

The team can platoon, or has semi-capable backups in left, at first and catcher. But second base troubles me the most. Even when Castillo has been healthy, he has been on a decline. His one asset was speed, on the bases and in the field. But as he gets older and loses his speed, what will he have left to contribute? And Omar seems to be placing all of his ova in that one basket. Later

Gwreck Dec 17 2008 07:29 PM

="Centerfield":3li9ifou]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3li9ifou] I'm not necessarily "comfortable" either, but we didn't lose in '08 because of the offense. The runs were scored. We lost because of the 'pen. Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 08:41 PM I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none? smg58 Dec 18 2008 07:34 AM Second base. It's by far the easiest position to upgrade. Castillo killed us with the glove and the bat last year. Ranking the other spots: Catcher. We're overpaying for what we're getting, but the defense is fine and there are not very many obvious upgrades out there. First base. Delgado concerns me a little bit. Then again, with Citifield being nine feet shorter down the rightfield line, the good Delgado could hit 40 if he shows up this year. Left field. Murphy has earned the right to play. His defense in left was actually plus, according to the Fielding Bible. Having a high OBP in the second spot in the lineup is a good thing. Right field. Church was very good when healthy, and he plays outstanding defense. A platoon partner might be in order, but I don't see anybody available who would still be an upgrade against righthanded pitching when defense is factored in. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 12:23 PM ="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh] ="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j] ="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

[Frayed Knot]

After exactly 100 HRs, nearly 200 XBHs and better than .350 OBA/.500 Slugging over 3 seasons, I'd argue that Delgado has NOT "sucked half his time here".
That's probably about average among 1Bmen and, considering that the best half-season might be the most recent, I'm not fearing the crash-n-burn as much as some others seem to be.

LF & 2B are much more likely to be seriously below average IMO (offense & defense).

[nymr83]

I worry that the Mets will "pencil in" Delgado for something similar to this past year's 2nd half and instead get what they got from him in 2007 (his worst year in the majors.)

[MFS62]

The team can platoon, or has semi-capable backups in left, at first and catcher.
But second base troubles me the most. Even when Castillo has been healthy, he has been on a decline. His one asset was speed, on the bases and in the field. But as he gets older and loses his speed, what will he have left to contribute? And Omar seems to be placing all of his ova in that one basket.

Later

[Gwreck]

="Centerfield":3li9ifou]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3li9ifou] I'm not necessarily "comfortable" either, but we didn't lose in '08 because of the offense. The runs were scored. We lost because of the 'pen.

Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 08:41 PM

I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?

smg58 Dec 18 2008 07:34 AM

Second base. It's by far the easiest position to upgrade. Castillo killed us with the glove and the bat last year. Ranking the other spots: Catcher. We're overpaying for what we're getting, but the defense is fine and there are not very many obvious upgrades out there. First base. Delgado concerns me a little bit. Then again, with Citifield being nine feet shorter down the rightfield line, the good Delgado could hit 40 if he shows up this year. Left field. Murphy has earned the right to play. His defense in left was actually plus, according to the Fielding Bible. Having a high OBP in the second spot in the lineup is a good thing. Right field. Church was very good when healthy, and he plays outstanding defense. A platoon partner might be in order, but I don't see anybody available who would still be an upgrade against righthanded pitching when defense is factored in.

Centerfield Dec 18 2008 12:23 PM

="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh] ="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j] ="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second.

I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense.

This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?

[smg58]

Second base. It's by far the easiest position to upgrade. Castillo killed us with the glove and the bat last year.

Ranking the other spots:

Catcher. We're overpaying for what we're getting, but the defense is fine and there are not very many obvious upgrades out there.

First base. Delgado concerns me a little bit. Then again, with Citifield being nine feet shorter down the rightfield line, the good Delgado could hit 40 if he shows up this year.

Left field. Murphy has earned the right to play. His defense in left was actually plus, according to the Fielding Bible. Having a high OBP in the second spot in the lineup is a good thing.

Right field. Church was very good when healthy, and he plays outstanding defense. A platoon partner might be in order, but I don't see anybody available who would still be an upgrade against righthanded pitching when defense is factored in.

[Centerfield]

="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh] ="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j] ="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said.

Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet?

Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored?

Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen.

The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him.

[Centerfield]

You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix."

That undermines no one.

There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation.

The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all.