Waive Bay

[MFS62]

I remember a few years ago, the WFAN-droids were talking about trading for this great power hitting catching prospect on the Red Sox who was being blocked from the majors because Boston had Varitek.
It was Kelly Shopach.
Well, he made the majors, has been here awhile, and hasn't exactly lit it up.
Prospects are just that - prospects.
But you certainly have to try if the price (Flores plus maybe a mid tier prospect) is right.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, and our prospects are just prospects too. And plenty of prospects become all-stars. And, as Bay showed, plenty of all-stars become also-rans. So please let's not discuss prospects as if they are a monolithic group.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, I don't see how Harvey for Grandal would have to be a non-starter. Nobody is a sure-thing. If Grandal is closer to being ready, and plays a hard-to-fill position, and is available, then it should be considered.

[Benjamin Grimm]

When Darryl Strawberry was called a can't miss, and then he became a star, I (for a while) had more faith than was warranted in the "can't miss" tag. I've long since gotten over that. (Anyone remember Alex Escobar?)

If you trade prospect for prospect, it can end up being a great deal, an awful one, or somewhere in between. You shouldn't be overly eager, or overly hesitant, about making such deals.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, I think we all know that prospects don't come with guarantees.

This thread is all over the place.

[Guest attgig]

Bay shouldn't go anywhere this winter. if during the season next year, he continues his suckitude, part with him mid season or if he's just ok enough, part with him at the end of the season. heck send him down to AAA a-la Traschel. dropping him now gives us no advantage in any way or form. it would be different if he was blocking a bonafide prospect, but i'd venture to say, offensive & defensive WAR wise, Bay would be better than murphy/evans/duda/anyone else mets have.

[metirish]

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, I think we all know that prospects don't come with guarantees. This thread is all over the place.

Back on point

Jason Bay is terrible.

[Ceetar]

attgig wrote: but i'd venture to say, offensive & defensive WAR wise, Bay would be better than murphy/evans/duda/anyone else mets have.

You mean, Bay would be better than the second best of that list. As the best will likely be playing RF.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, one of the bright spots about this season is that we've had four people manage to succeed, more or less, playing first base. Which means a potential dark spot next season is trying to figure out what to do with four firstbasemen.

[ashie62]

How about Ike Davis at 1B for 162 games?

[Ceetar]

Ashie62 wrote: How about Ike Davis at 1B for 162 games?

How about 173 games?

[Guest attgig]

Ceetar wrote: attgig wrote: but i'd venture to say, offensive & defensive WAR wise, Bay would be better than murphy/evans/duda/anyone else mets have. You mean, Bay would be better than the second best of that list. As the best will likely be playing RF.

I don't think any of their defensive 'stats' would offset whatever offense advantage they may get, so, no, I actually mean Bay would be better than any one of the others...even whoever plays RF.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: This is 2014, mind you; let's put it this way-- if 3 of Wheeler/Harvey/Mejia/Familia haven't been up and in the majors for a year by then, something will have gone terribly, terribly wrong. I'll be quite happy if we're getting quality from two of the four.

Oh, I'm pretty sure we'll get SOMETHING from most, if not all; I didn't say that they'd be All-Stars, or good... just major-leaguers.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Ashie62 wrote: How about Ike Davis at 1B for 162 games?

Yes, and if that happy occurrence should come to pass, we still have three others we're trying to squeeze into left, right, second, and third. We're already kind of squeezing one in at catcher.

There's a seemingly deliberate conversational obtuseness that's running rampant around these parts, folks.

[Frayed Knot]

Scouting reports on Yasmani Grandal:

From Baseball Prospectus [u:32b8oaeg]Prior to the beginning of this season[/u:32b8oaeg]
Yasmani Grandal, C -- DOB: 11/8/88 -- 6-2/215 -- Bats/Throws: S/R
Drafted/Signed: First round (15th overall), 2010, University of Miami
2010 Stats: .286/.394/.715 at Rookie (8 G)
Best/Worst Tool: Hit/speed
- Year in Review: The top college catcher in the draft signed a big-league deal worth more than $3 million.
- The Good: Grandal is the rare catcher who has the potential to hit in the middle of the order. He has a big league-ready approach and above-average power for a catcher from both sides of the plate. He's a take-charge type who understands his role as a field general, and works well with pitchers.
- The Bad: Grandal will need good secondary skills, as some scouts question his pure hitting ability. He projects as an offense-first catcher who will be no more than average defensively, as he needs to improve his footwork and has troubles with the running game.
- Perfect World Projection: Above-average everyday catcher.
- Path to the Big Leagues: Grandal will begin hit first full-season assignment at High-A Bakersfield, where he could amass some big numbers.
- ETA: 2013


[u:32b8oaeg]From John Sickels last month[/u:32b8oaeg]:
Yasmani Grandal, C, Grade B+: .296/.410/.510 with 41 walks, 57 strikeouts in 206 at-bats for High-A Bakersfield, .291/.354/.477 with seven walks, 23 strikeouts in 86 at-bats for Double-A Carolina.
Has caught 34% of runners, though passed ball rate is quite high.
Overall I'm pleased.




That sounds like a very nice prospect.
He is behind Cincy's other catching prospect Devin Mesoraco both in terms of readiness (Mesoraco was called up two weeks ago although he's only a few months older) and probably in overall ceiling as well so it makes sense that they may look to move him [Grandal].
At the same time it also makes sense that they'd ask a lot for him and they certainly aren't in the position where they HAVE TO move him and particularly not now.

[smg58]

Ceetar wrote: Ashie62 wrote: How about Ike Davis at 1B for 162 games? How about 173 games?

Be realistic. It might take 5 games to win the World Series.

But yeah, a full year of Ike would be nice.

[seawolf17]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The new team would be responsible. That's why the Brewers renegotiated with Frankie Rodriguez. Once they acquired him, the $17.5 million for 2012 became their problem, not the Mets'.

Wrong. If Bay's released, the options are gone. The new contract is the major league minimum (or whatever). If he's TRADED, then the option becomes his new team's problem.

[metirish]

Options are not guaranteed even though it's a guaranteed contract?

[smg58]

Frayed Knot wrote: That sounds like a very nice prospect. He is behind Cincy's other catching prospect Devin Mesoraco both in terms of readiness (Mesoraco was called up two weeks ago although he's only a few months older) and probably in overall ceiling as well so it makes sense that they may look to move him [Grandal]. At the same time it also makes sense that they'd ask a lot for him and they certainly aren't in the position where they HAVE TO move him and particularly not now.

There are some red flags with Grandal. 97 Ks in 374 ABs, mostly in high A and AA, does not bode well for a high batting average moving forward. He also has only hit 14 home runs, so his value is not in his power, and an .835 OPS at AA doesn't make him the next Johnny Bench. He's not next year's catcher, and he's not that close to Mesoraco (.855 OPS at AAA, only 5 months older). None of this makes him a bad prospect -- he does draw tons of walks and hits his share of doubles -- but he's not an elite one yet. Is he worth a look? Sure, but there's sure to be an auction for him if the Reds put him on the block, and he's not the kind of guy you go all in for.

[Frayed Knot]

No, he's not an elite prospect. On the other hand neither is Wilmer Flores.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Raise your hands if any of you considered this crunch-a-munch to be the next Johnny Bench.

Bench, for what it's worth, bypassed AA. He OPS'd .818 in 98 AAA ganes. (Couldn't draw walks as a teenager. Waddaya gonna do?)

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Can we please stop talking about bringing in walls as if: a) that's Jason Bay's problem that it would somehow only benefit our team

Agreed with FK above.

I don't agree with youse guys. I understand your position(s): that if the Citi Field outfield walls are too far and high for the Mets, then they're too far and high for the visitors, too, and that over time, the would be HR's that CF converts into something less -- outs, or some other non-HR hit -- evens out for both sides.

I think that there's more at stake here, and that a Met who plays at CF all season, particularly a HR-hitting Met, is likelier to mess up his swing, timing and rhythm than a visiting player who plays, at most, 10 or so CF games a season, but maybe as little as three games. There's more to this than simply comparing the hit tracker data for the Mets and their visiting opponents.

The other point I'd make, (and I might have already made it on this forum before. I'm not sure but if I did, apologies for being monotonous, here) is that wealthy teams should build dimensions that are close to neutral, rather than extreme. The Mets, in the long term, will be wealthy again, notwithstanding their current mess. In due time, the Wilpons either get back on their feet again, or sell to an entity that won't be indebted to Picard for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Wealthy teams can use their financial leverage to buy power hitters. HR's are baseball's best offensive weapon and the most efficient way to score. OF fences that are too far undermine a team's ability to hit HR's, while fences close in squander the team's power advantage by facilitating the opponent's ability to counter with HR's of their own.

This stuff about building an offense around speed and line drives is a bullshit pipe dream, and I can't believe that internally, Alderson really believes this crap. To the extent that he says otherwise publicly, I believe that Alderson's just covering up for the baseball morons that own this team. It's hard to win consistently without power and HR's. Not impossible. But harder.

[Ceetar]

Except the data suggests that Citi Field scoring is pretty neutral. Homer unfriendly, but scoring neutral.

Couple that with the thought that fly ball to HR ratios may be pretty random, even for good pitchers, and you've got a park that doesn't inhibit scoring, but minimizes the fly ball bad luck when a ball happens to hit a windstream and carry out. Bad pitchers are still going to give up runs, because they'll allow line drives into that much bigger gap, but batters that get under a ball won't automatically have a chance at a 3-run homer even if they didn't hit the pitch squarely.

Also, the perception that sluggers wouldn't want to come here, if true, is preferably in my opinion to quality pitchers not wanting to come here.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Also, the perception that sluggers wouldn't want to come here, if true, is preferably in my opinion to quality pitchers not wanting to come here.

I think you're saying that CF's deep dimensions might encourage quality free agent pitchers to play here. If so, this would be one advantage to having deep dimensions. But provided that CF attracts star pitchers. Like a Lincecum-type, for example. If the idea is to get average or slightly above average pitchers on the theory that CF will mask their flaws, well then I'd guess that Jeff Wilpon is calling the shots after all.

But on the other hand, a Lincecum might not be as valuable in Citi Field, as compared to pitching in other parks. CF's deep dimensions might somewhat diminish the star pitcher's edge by making it easier for the opposing pitcher to keep up.

[Ceetar]

Not quite. I'm not talking about getting average pitchers and hoping Citi Field masks their deficiencies. It won't. They might give up less home runs, but they'll give up the same amount (or more) of line drives and runs.

But Tim Lincecum should have less damaging fly balls than he would at Yankee Stadium. When a batter hits the ball in the air, there's less of a chance of it carrying out in Citi Field. Citi Field inhibits fly balls from being beneficial, but it's still average/good for line drives. There's always luck involved, but in general well struck balls/line drives are more likely to be hits, and fly balls are more likely to be outs. Good pitchers give up less line drives, and less of their fly balls will end up as home runs.


though I'm not convinced players consider the park too hard when they sign. Lee went to Philly and CC went to Yankee Stadium.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I'm convinced that virtually the only thing players look at when choosing a contract is the $$$.*


*And the quality of the school system, of course.

[ashie62]

Ceetar wrote: Not quite. I'm not talking about getting average pitchers and hoping Citi Field masks their deficiencies. It won't. They might give up less home runs, but they'll give up the same amount (or more) of line drives and runs. But Tim Lincecum should have less damaging fly balls than he would at Yankee Stadium. When a batter hits the ball in the air, there's less of a chance of it carrying out in Citi Field. Citi Field inhibits fly balls from being beneficial, but it's still average/good for line drives. There's always luck involved, but in general well struck balls/line drives are more likely to be hits, and fly balls are more likely to be outs. Good pitchers give up less line drives, and less of their fly balls will end up as home runs. though I'm not convinced players consider the park too hard when they sign. Lee went to Philly and CC went to Yankee Stadium.

Then why is Citi considered a pitcher's park?

[ashie62]

Rockin' Doc wrote: I'm convinced that virtually the only thing players look at when choosing a contract is the $$$.* *And the quality of the school system, of course.

And then there is that..

[batmagadanleadoff]

Except the data suggests that Citi Field scoring is pretty neutral. Homer unfriendly, but scoring neutral. Couple that with the thought that fly ball to HR ratios may be pretty random, even for good pitchers, and you've got a park that doesn't inhibit scoring, but minimizes the fly ball bad luck....

I checked out the numbers because I was skeptical about your comment. Large dimensions inhibit scoring. The correlation is almost perfect. (Coors Field, especially pre-humidor was the one exception: the stadium's big playing field was more than offset by the thin air)

But back to the numbers. Citi Field reduced run production in every single season of its existence.

2011

Runs Scored (Mets and opponents at Citi Field) 647 runs/75 games = 8.63 runs per game
Runs Scored (Mets and opponents, Mets on road) 711 runs/76 games - 9.36 runs per game.

2010

Runs Scored (Mets and opponents at Citi Field) 616 runs/81 games = 7.60 runs per game
Runs Scored (Mets and opponents, Mets on road) 692 runs/81 games - 8.54 runs per game.

2009

Runs Scored (Mets and opponents at Citi Field) 693 runs/81 games = 8.56 runs per game
Runs Scored (Mets and opponents, Mets on road) 735 runs/81 games - 9.07 runs per game.

2009-2011 --(Three season totals, to date)

Runs Scored (Mets and opponents at Citi Field) 8.25 runs per game
Runs Scored (Mets and opponents, Mets on road) 8.98 runs per game.

ESPN's parks factor page confirms that HR's and scoring in general is suppressed at Citi Field to the point that it's one of the toughest parks in baseball to generate offense. And even if CF's propensity for producing triples offsets, to a degree, HR reduction -- that's an argument to make when discussing overall team scoring. It's not a defense to the idea that individual Mets HR hitters might be screwing up their swings because of the park.

[ashie62]

Mr. Wilpon "Tear down that wall."