Mets at the Deadline

[Vic Sage]

i care not one iota about the rest of this season and would hope they'd trade anybody over 30 on a 1-year contract for the slightest of prospects, on the off-chance that they could find somebody to help them down the road when it will matter.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Vic Sage wrote: i care not one iota about the rest of this season and would hope they'd trade anybody over 30 on a 1-year contract for the slightest of prospects, on the off-chance that they could find somebody to help them down the road when it will matter.

I'm not quite where Vic is, but close. You have to figure with all their needs and all that brainpower, the org would and should be able to identify at least a few bodies with the potential to help that would be worth whatever you give up in not having Byrdak or Hairston around for a few months.

[TransMonk]

I'm where Vic is.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think they want Hairston for next year, and figure that their chances of keeping him are better if he stays with the team for the remainder of 2012. If that's true, then I'm okay with not dealing him.

Byrdak seems to be a bit of a different story. If they can even get a middling AA prospect for him, they might as well.

[metirish]

I'm there too......this is supposed to be a strength of this FO , finding nuggets of gold among the trash. Or is that just a myth?

[Ceetar]

There's probably very little value in trading guys just to trade them. Filler that has a slim chance of making the show? They've filled the lower minors with their own guys via drafting and what not. And anyone higher might need roster spots and that's a no go.

Obviously if someone offers them something that's actually good they should take it, but otherwise it's probably pointless.

[Edgy MD]

As a member of the 2AM crowd, I care about the rest of the season. Winning is fun.

[Ceetar]

I agree still 2 months and winning is fun and all that, but I think there's also value in finishing about .500, even if that's what the ceiling is right now.

Just media relations wise, across baseball, positive stories. All that stuff. an 82-80 win team is on the rise, a 79-83 win team is wallowing in mediocricy.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

40 MINUTES TO GO

Pack those bags!

[Edgy MD]

Let's make like old days and break out our old Manny Ramirez wigs and have a demonstration. SIGN MANEEE NOWWW!!!

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

How many games was the team out in late August in 1973?

Never give up! I do care about this season. We can't concede anything to the Nationals! The Nationals?

[Edgy MD]

Trade-horny Twitterers beating the crap out of Sandy out there.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Scott Hairston + Mets TL4E

[Edgy MD]

BREAKING: Raul Reyes demoted from Buffalo to Binghamton!

[Gwreck]

Edgy DC wrote: Trade-horny Twitterers beating the crap out of Sandy out there.

They're not all wrong.

If there's no reason to believe trades will get you to the playoffs this year, why are we keeping upcoming free agents with trade value?

Is there any actual evidence to suggest that a player is "more likely to re-sign" with the Mets versus getting something back and then still having a chance to sign that same player on the open market just like everyone else?

Can we just file that idea away already, together with the measurement of how "clutch" a player is?

[seawolf17]

"Scott... tell you what. We'll give you two years, $8 million in December. For now, go to California and play your ass off while we pick up a piece or two that'll help make our team better next year. Cool?"

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: If there's no reason to believe trades will get you to the playoffs this year, why are we keeping upcoming free agents with trade value?

I can think of at least a half dozen reasons.

Gwreck wrote: Is there any actual evidence to suggest that a player is "more likely to re-sign" with the Mets versus getting something back and then still having a chance to sign that same player on the open market just like everyone else?

I'm certain.

Gwreck wrote: Can we just file that idea away already, together with the measurement of how "clutch" a player is?

But it's empirically true --- simply because for the remainder of the season, the post-season, and the beginning of the off-season, the team a guy is traded to has exclusive rights.

[Ceetar]

Plus, he doesn't have to move, or move his family.

[smg58]

It's tough to really argue if you don't know what's being offered for whom. If we can't do better than a marginal prospect for somebody like Hairston, I'd hold on to whatever faint hope exists for this season. I would agree, though, that holding on to a replaceable righthanded platoon player because you think it will help your chances of re-signing him is silly.

[Edgy MD]

Sandy explaining his choices:

"Maybe you're not a Mets fan, Adam."

Always making friends with the GMs is Mr. Rubin.

[Gwreck]

Edgy DC wrote: I can think of at least a half dozen reasons.

I think that's generous. 1. Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window. I'm not so clear on 2-6.

[Edgy MD]

ON my way home.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I can think of at least a half dozen reasons. I think that's generous. 1. Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window. I'm not so clear on 2-6.

2. Player's family may already live in said city, particularly if it's been two years. NYC is a pretty fucking cool place. Especially when compared to say Kansas City.

3. People, even baseball players, generally dislike change. They like money more, but it's not like anyone's going to offer Hairston millions upon millions more than the Mets.

4. Perceived playing time. Players like to play. Hairston has got a lot of playing time this year and the Mets have a lot of lefty bats in Kirk, den Dekker, Duda, etc.

[Vic Sage]

Gwreck wrote: If there's no reason to believe trades will get you to the playoffs this year, why are we keeping upcoming free agents with trade value? Edgy wrote: I can think of at least a half dozen reasons.

Ceetar, your 2-4 reasons are only factors related to the increased signability of a FA if you keep him rather than trade, but that's all just 1 reason. Lets assume, arguendo (as they say in my biz), that it's true; keeping a FA rather than trading him makes it more likely we can re-sign him. So what?

Hairston is a platoon OFer; he'll be 33 at the start of next season with a career OPS+ right at 100. He's a nice extra piece but not a starter, and not somebody you either build around or worry overmuch about losing. But if a playoff-bound team needs a RHed bat off the bench right now (or has had an injury and needs another OFer), then he is worth more to them than he is to us because we're not going anywhere this year. I REPEAT. WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE THIS YEAR (Those of you who are not suffering from delusions can continue). Ergo, you extract the extra value. That extra value is likely to take the form of a low-level minor leaguer who is projectible but a while away. It's not guaranteed value, but then again neither is Hairston's production guaranteed to the Mets next year (or to anyone else for that matter). And this same analysis is true for Byrdak, Cedeno, Torres, Rauch, Francisco and Ramirez.

The only reason the Mets are keeping these guys around is either (1) they literally have NO offers for them (which is entirely possible), or (2) the team believes these guys will make the marginal difference between the Mets losing 80 games or losing 90. and That's only about how many more dollars the Wilpons can squeeze out of the fanbase. Personally, i'd rather see us bite the bullet and take the 90 losses while turning a few of our older short-term assets into younger long-term prospects than cling to the likes of Scott Hairston so we can make a desperate bid for a .500 season.

[metirish]

I got to agree with Vic here, Alderson made some comment about there "being value in staying competitive the rest of the way", to whom?, value to whom I wonder?


Alderson in a Q&A


What is the value in making the most out of these last two months?


�I think there�s a lot of value in, for example, making a run, even if it�s unrealistic. I think there�s a lot of value in finishing well over .500. I think there�s a lot of value in finishing over .500. I think that those things create a perception. What happened or didn�t happen on the deadline may be largely forgotten if a team is able to create a positive impression the second half of the season.

�I thought we would talk on this call about the fact that we didn�t add anything. And now we�re talking about why we didn�t subtract. Which is interesting to me. But as I said, we�re about changing impressions, changing perceptions. And you do that with wins and losses, primarily. And I understand our fans are disappointed with what�s happened the last three weeks or so. But it�s not the end of the season.

�There are a lot of impressions to be made over the remaining two months. And I happen to think that those impressions can be more valuable than a Low-A prospect below the top 30 from some organization in the American League.�



http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2012/07/mets_general_manager_sandy_ald_10.html

[Ceetar]

so Alderson agrees with me. (And Edgy)

Every dollar 'milked' out of the fanbase is not going into Wilpons pockets. It's another dollar they save, surely, on the red ledger for this season. But every dollar less they lose in 2012 is another less dollar they think they need to budget to save in 2013. Every dollar via season tickets or whatnot put towards 2013 is also going to push up the theoretical payroll another dollar, which means value.

The attendance is not going to be markedly increased by keeping Scott Hairston, but whether it's Scott or someone else, the Mets are going to need a righty pinch-hitting outfielder next year. The percentages favor Hairston being better in that role, and the marginal increase in money from being 'competitive' the rest of this year is probably enough to pay for Hairston. Even if that's only incidental from people coming to see Harvey or Dickey while the team is winning. And Dickey's chase for 20 wins will at least be interesting, and that doesn't happen without the offense. And it's not just Dickey. Maybe Wright's MVP race (which he will pick up strongly after this day off) has a legit chance if the Mets finish above .500. Probably not unless the Pirates miss, but you never know.

It's similar to why Spring Training means nothing. because it doesn't count. Teams playing out the schedule are much the same. (remember hte Figueroa and Batista CGs at the end of the seasons) but teams playing competitive, if not playoff bound, baseball gives you more evaluation points towards these guys that Alderson has to make a decision on soon.

Additionally, this team is much like last year. fun, 'spunky' but ultimately flawed. The Mets finished under .500 last year despite all that and you heard roughly NONE of those positive things during the offseason when everyone picked them to finish last. another sub-.500 will be more of the same, which means less renewals (And ad money and all the incidentals) and less interest. Less people thinking "Hey, the Mets are fun, let's get a 6-pack." The economy may be picking up a little, and if it does people will be getting jobs. particularly people out of college. new revenue for Mets fans and maybe the Mets looking interesting is all it takes for them to drop a couple bucks on a 15 game 'weekend' pack.

There is almost no value in a getting a low-tier prospect. The chances of that guy doing more

[Gwreck]

Ceetar wrote: The attendance is not going to be markedly increased by keeping Scott Hairston, but whether it's Scott or someone else, the Mets are going to need a righty pinch-hitting outfielder next year. The percentages favor Hairston being better in that role, and the marginal increase in money from being 'competitive' the rest of this year is probably enough to pay for Hairston.

Exactly what "percentages" favor Hairston being "better" in the role of "right-handed bat off the bench?"

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: The attendance is not going to be markedly increased by keeping Scott Hairston, but whether it's Scott or someone else, the Mets are going to need a righty pinch-hitting outfielder next year. The percentages favor Hairston being better in that role, and the marginal increase in money from being 'competitive' the rest of this year is probably enough to pay for Hairston. Exactly what "percentages" favor Hairston being "better" in the role of "right-handed bat off the bench?"

Pick a right handed bat off the bench that's going to be reasonable to acquire for an equal price? What's the chances he's better than Hairston? My money's on Hairston being the quickest/most effective use of the Mets time and money to acquire and produce.

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I can think of at least a half dozen reasons. I think that's generous. 1. Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window. I'm not so clear on 2-6.

1) He's the cleanup hitter. He's the hottest hitter. There is a value in winning games today, for tomorrow may never come. Even should it come, it may not come for me, and it may not come for you. Even as we post, there are fans out there for whom tonight is the last Mets game they'll ever see. There are others for whom tonight is the first game they'll ever see. Whether they see it live in San Francisco, or stay up late and tune in by cable television, radio, internet, for them and for all fans, but particularly for them, may it be a win.

2) And each of those first-time fans may be a last-time fan if the team stinks tonight without Hairy.

3) There is a value to the other members of the team in not selling strong teammates out from under them. It tells them their struggles are not in vain. It keeps them together and motivated. It reminds them that their GM and front office gives a shit, and it's good that they give a shit. If the value of that sort of morale boost is merely marginal this year, it has a long-term benefit beyond this year. Think , for instance, of what it could mean to David Wright --- who has slogged through all sorts of shit with this team and kep' a cheery face and been a model citizen with, at times, less positive reinforcing organizational feedback than he likely deserves. If re-signing him is the number-one organizational priority this off-season, why invest yourself these last two months in making things even harder for the guy to win? Why make his career even more Sysiphian?

4) "Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window." This shouldn't be poo-pooed. A player has a much greater history of returning to the team of his last contract than to the team who traded him mid-season the year before.

5) Diminishing the team has an effect on the profitability of the team, which hurts the financial returns, which diminishes future investment.

6) The front office, doubtless, has done more than their share of professional calculations regarding how many wins keeping Hairston is worth and how many any potential packages (unbeknownst to us) were worth. They considered these using the best art and science of player evaluation and valuation that they keep privy to themselves, and were unimpressed with the birds in the bush vs. the bird in their hand. We all may disagree --- possibly correctly --- when applying our math, but it's wrong to think they haven't put a whole lot of thought into it with a whole lot more facts and data available to them.

7) Wins are wonderful things. The idea that a win isn't worth anything unless it is the margin between a playoff appearance and its lack is a joyless thing that takes the excellent wonder of baseball and guts the shit out of it. It's a sad thing to stand for.

8) You invest in losing for later wins often enough, you just become a loser. Do this rarely and strategically.

9) Keeping Hairston shows faith in the plan. Showing faith in the plan keeps everybody on project. On focus. Trades re-write the plan, throwing chaotic elements into the machine, throwing shadows of uncertainty on the clarity of the work day.

10) Speaking of the plan, maybe that fucking blueprint gets all bolluxed up if you trade Hairball and have to promote Duda or Den Dekker when you really think it's healthier for them to be in the minors.

11) Trades diminish team identity, watering down the brand. Maybe when you're the Yankees, it's cool that putting your logo on a mailbox will make the fans go and hump the mailbox. That's not the team I want to root for. I like continuity, and it can be maintained while progressing with team improvements.

12) Maybe they just like Scott Hairston. He demonstrates great work habits for the younger players, buys them clothes, treats women well, but warns his teammates when negative women are hanging around. He puts long hours in ironing the rough spots off his game but takes a child-like joy in celebrating the things he does well. Maybe, if anybody is more enthusiastic about showing up to community events, then it's his wife. And he brings his father around, and Jerry tells his son's Met teammates about the history of the game, and growing up the son of a disappointed negro leaguer finally getting all of seven plate appearances in the bigs, and how proud his father was when Jerry finally got the chance he had been denied, and it makes everybody really appreciate the chance they have, and try harder to be worthy of it every day. And if they trade Scott, well, fuck it, maybe they fear it'll just tell the players all that stuff's for shit, and they're all going to look out for number one, because no matter ho much they sacrifice for the city and the organization, if the team is 8 1/2 out on July 31, no matter how well they're playing and how much they're bringing to the organization, they'll get sold down the river just like Scott did.

13) And a lucky number 13, maybe, just maybe, Scott Hairston knows where the bodies are buried.

[metirish]

I do admire your reasoning Edgy but in regards to # 9-1- and 11 I have a hard time believing that Hairston is part of a plan or part of a brand in any meaningful way, he was signed as a bench player and that is what he is, a nice player on a team hitting the playoffs....I should add want the team to win and watch and root for them nightly, I am not upset that they didn't do anything today.