What hole in the lineup concerns your ass the most?

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same.

[dgwphotography]

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]

="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 John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

="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.

[HahnSolo]

="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 John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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]

]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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Proof in pudding.

Actions will speak.

[smg58]

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]

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.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="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]

="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 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]

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.