We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

[metirish]

Not sure about that Ceetar , Hairston seems every bit as "real" an outfielder as the ones we will be trotting out there.I think that price is reasonable, very surprised he's not been snapped up already......

Edited January 16, 2013 by Guest

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, not quite sure what kind of "real" outfielder you're waiting on.
And if by chance some better-than-Hairston w/RH bat happens to fall into Sandy's lap in the near future (I'm always in favor of that happening) then nothing says that Nieuwenhuis and/or Duda can't sit or bide their time in Las Vegas. There's nothing to indicate that, if Hairston signed here, he would play every bit as much as he played last season.

[Edgy MD]

Bill James calculates Hairy Projections .250 / .307 / .444 // .751.

Bill James calculates Brown Projections: .264 / .330 / .475 // .805.

Obviously, there's no guarantee it shakes out that way, and obviously it's better to have both than one or the other, and obviously you may have aesthetic reasons for preferring brown projections vs. hairy ones, or hairy ones vs. brown ones, but there's a certain liberating grace to accepting that veterans with modest but not overwhelming track records aren't the only ones who can fill your bench, just the more expensive one. (And let's be honest --- what are you paying more for, except ass coverage?) It sure as heck demonstrates a faith in the guys you pay to do your scouting and statistical evaluations.

It's certainly not the only way to go, but it's the way that gave us Mike Baxter instead of Willie Harris in 2012.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Brown?

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, Brown.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Yes, Brown. Forgot about Brown.

(Although... in my defense: "Andrew Brown.")

[Vic Sage]

• Bill James calculates Hairy Projections .250 / .307 / .444 // .751.
  
  Bill James calculates Brown Projections: .264 / .330 / .475 // .805.

Obviously, there's no guarantee it shakes out that way, and obviously it's better to have both than one or the other, and obviously you may have aesthetic reasons for preferring brown projections vs. hairy ones, or hairy ones vs. brown ones, but there's a certain liberating grace to accepting that veterans with modest but not overwhelming track records aren't the only ones who can fill your bench, just the more expensive one. (And let's be honest --- what are you paying more for, except ass coverage?) It sure as heck demonstrates a faith in the guys you pay to do your scouting and statistical evaluations.

It's certainly not the only way to go, but it's the way that gave us Mike Baxter instead of Willie Harris in 2012.

projections are very nice, particularly Bill James projections, but one is based on a guy's actual major league production, and the other is based on minor league production with no major league track record. I know Bill espouses a view on a reliable projectability of minor league numbers to major league production, but there is a greater uncertainty there than in projecting a major league hitter's production, barring aging and injury (which are not factors with Hairston). Now is that additional certainty worth $4m a year, for the next 2 years, over Brown's minimum compensation? It would absolutely be worth it, if the Mets payroll was in the range of the other major media market teams ($150/$200m), but its not, so budget constraints probably force Sandy to look at riskier less expensive options.

[Edgy MD]

Why is there greater uncertainty? I'm not so sure there is. If those lines have any meaning, they should represent a mean of all possible outcomes.

I just think (and I think Sandy kinda thinks) the distinction is largely a matter of luck between the talented but less consistent veterans who get big league contracts ever year for a decade and the talented but less consistent veterans who get AAA contracts every year and wait for injuries. The former frequently just happened to get on a good groove when they got a callup, and the latter has yet to have their hot streaks coincide with their occasional big league cups of coffee.

Any certainty you buy with Hairston, I think, is having the additional assets of Brown and Hoffman waiting behind him if he should falter. I agree that has a value, but I'm not sure what it's value is.

[Ceetar]

I think the bottom line is that Hairston is extremely valuable as a reserve outfielder, but wants to be paid more like a starter or at least a key piece. The Mets don't view Hairston as more than a stop-gap and backup plan, and haven't yet shown the desire to pay over what they feel a player is worth to them.

[ashie62]

The Mets are getting a bargain at 8 million for 2 years for Hairston. That should be chump change to management for an OF with a resume of Major League Success.....

[G-Fafif]

Relax. Daniel Murphy has it on good authority that Collin Cowgill comes to play.

"I�ve heard nothing but good things about Collin Cowgill. I actually got a text message right after he [got traded] from Andy Green, who used to be in our organization. He said that we�re going to love this guy -- that he comes to play hard every day. He said he�ll really fit in well in the clubhouse."

Good thing Cowgill's not bringing too many personal effects, otherwise he might fit no better than snugly in the clubhouse.

Andy Green, meanwhile, is still looking out for his 2009 teammates' best interests.

[Edgy MD]

I take it with confidence that nobody will have to cut his tee-shirt to shreds.

[Ceetar]

I have Andy Green's autograph (well, I guess my wife does..so I have half right?) on a baseball somewhere. He wore 10 in 2009 Spring Training.

[G-Fafif]

You're gonna like this guy. He's all right. He's a good fella. He's one of us. You understand?

[Vic Sage]

Why is there greater uncertainty? I'm not so sure there is.

Why? because Hairston has accumulated around 2400 plate appearances at the major league level, with an OPS+ of 100. Whereas Brown has about 150 appearances... with an OPS+ of 72, not that it means anything with such a small sample size. Which is my point. Brown is ALL projection; Hairston has actual production which can be measured and more reliably projected. So yes, i'd say there's greater certainty that Hairston can be a useful major leaguer next year, since he has already BEEN a useful major leaguer for extended periods during the last 9 years. With Brown, all you can do is discount his small sampling of major league ABs, look at his minor league numbers and hope. But until he does it, he hasn't done it, and any projection that says he CAN do it is just that... projection. Hairston has done it, for more than 1 season over his career, and in the absence of an injury history or indications of premature aging, his production is more likely to REcur than Brown's is to OCccur.

I don't know why this is a controversial view; it seems to me self-evident. The only question is how much is that greater degree of certainty worth? If $4m is meaningless to a team, then its worth spending on it. If it will impact a team's ability to fill out the rest of the roster, then its probably not worth doing. Since we're being operated with a budget 50% to 100% less than the big market teams currently are spending, clearly money is an issue and Hairston won't be worth signing.

[ashie62]

I am very surprised Hairston is still on the market.Decent resume, reliable, reasonably priced...Huh..don't get it.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: Which is my point. Brown is ALL projection; Hairston has actual production which can be measured and more reliably projected.

This is where I need more info. Is it verified that the James system is more reliable for players staying at the same level than for players jumping up a level? I don't know.

You're proceeding with hope either way. The question is open to what relative degree.

[ashie62]

I'd be a lousy GM as I really believe the 4 or 8 million for Hairston is MLB chump change.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Joel Sherman, New York Post wrote: On another front, an industry source confirmed the Mets have rejected Scott Hairston�s asking price of two years and $8 million. It is believed the Mets countered with a one-year offer worth $2 million, leaving the two sides at a stalemate in negotiations. The 32-year-old Hairston earned $1.1 million in 2012, during which he batted .263 with 20 homers and 57 RBIs. The source pointed to Endy Chavez, Ramon Castro, Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez � four recent free agents for which the Mets overspent in terms of years and dollars � as the reason the team will be judicious pursuing Hairston. Even if Hairston doesn�t return, the source said he would be surprised if the Mets don�t upgrade an outfield that includes Lucas Duda, Kirk Nieuwenhuis, Mike Baxter, Collin Cowgill and Andrew Brown. The Mets recently inquired about Arizona�s Justin Upton, but talks never gained momentum, after the Diamondbacks asked for top pitching prospect Zack Wheeler.

Endy Chavez? Ramon Castro? Were the Mets badly burned by either of them?

I'm suspecting that the real reason the Mets turned down the two years, $8 million is because they feel that nobody else is offering anywhere near that much, and that they can get him for less. And if he does go elsewhere, it's not a major loss. I do hope he comes back, but I'll manage to move on with my life if he doesn't.

[Ceetar]

I like how he goes from Hairston to Upton like it's not a McDonald's to Peter Luger's comparison.

[Vic Sage]

again, this wouldn't be an issue if either (a) we were being run like a big market team, or ( we were one 4th OFer/RHed PHer away from serious contention. But neither is true, so while i'd like them sign Hairston, or a comparably experienced RHed power bat that can play all 3 OF slots (oh, wait, there isn't one out there), its really not a big deal one way or the other for 2013. We are not desperate for a platoon/4th OFer... we're desperate for a FIRST OFer. And Scotty isn't one.

[Ceetar]

I'm not sure what 'spending like a big market team' means. Because we're in New York Sandy should not worry about throwing away an extra $4 million here and there? For one, that's part of the problem that got us into this mess. Giving Cora the full $2 million to be a backup, or Castillo the extra $6 in the form of an extra year. That stuff can add up. And two, if you're going to overpay, I'd rather give a guy like Dickey, or Wright, or Upton that extra $4 that maybe they don't deserve than a guy you hope isn't even a starter.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Aren't you the guy who said that money wasn't finite?

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Aren't you the guy who said that money wasn't finite?

It's not, as an investment. investing in 4th outfielders with poor OBP is a good way to run out of even infinite money.

[batmagadanleadoff]

[Edgy MD]

I run out of infinite money at least twice a week. I don't know how it keeps happening.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I run out of infinite money at least twice a week. I don't know how it keeps happening.

Call Visa, they'll help.

[seawolf17]

I know a guy who can help too. Haven't heard from him in a while, so he must be on vacation somewhere, but he's trustworthy. He'll get back to you soon. Bernard Madoff. Just look him up.

[Vic Sage]

I'm not sure what 'spending like a big market team' means.

Why not sure? It's fairly easy to figure out. The top 6 payrolls in baseball are all in the $150m-$200m range. The Mets are not going to be one of them, opting to spend in the $80-$90m range, along with a bunch of mid-market teams.

Because we're in New York Sandy should not worry about throwing away an extra $4 million here and there? For one, that's part of the problem that got us into this mess. Giving Cora the full $2 million to be a backup, or Castillo the extra $6 in the form of an extra year. That stuff can add up.

yes, because we're in NY, we should be operating with a budget competitive with other similar market teams. $4m here or there SHOULDN'T matter, if you've only committed $85m of a $150m budget. But of COURSE it matters if you're only planning to spend $90m total, and you still have a lot of slots to fill.

And no, it wasn't the Cora contract that "got us into this mess". It was the Bay contract, and the Perez contract, and F-Rod's contract and, frankly, the Santana contract... it was long overpriced commitments on big key guys that didn't produce that hamstrung the organization, not $2m to Cora. And it was suspect talent evaluation that allowed them to look at Castillo and say "i want this guy as a starter on my team", never mind the contract price. But when a big market team makes mistakes like these, they eat it and move on. When the Mets do it, they are hamstrung.

And two, if you're going to overpay, I'd rather give a guy like Dickey, or Wright, or Upton that extra $4 that maybe they don't deserve than a guy you hope isn't even a starter.

Value is a matter of context. First of all, Hairston had around 400 plate appearances over 135 games last year and so saying "he isn't even a starter" or carping about his OBP misses the point; he was a major component of whatever offense we had, and with a young all-LHed OF, he is precisely the kind of experienced RH-ed bat somebody looking at this lineup objectively would say is needed. But how much to pay for that? Well, "starter's money" is considerably more than $4m/yr, so Hairston's not even asking for starter's money. And if the Mets were close to contention, and had more room in their projected payroll, then Scott's marginal utility to them would be greater and they would, could and should pay the man, because they could afford him and he would put them closer to the their goal. Of course, you still have to factor in issues of competition for his services and scarcity of his skills in the market, but you don't really have to get to that level of analysis because neither the "payroll" nor "contention" criteria are met by the 2013 Mets, so yes, I would agree that Sandy should pass at that price.

[Ceetar]

Because the value of win 89-91 that Hairston could provide an expected 89 win team is worth a hell of a lot more to a team than the value of win 75-77 (or whereever you'd like to put the Mets) It doesn't really have to do with budget, or cheapness, or past situation. It's the current situation of the Mets and even if the Mets were 'big market' spenders, it doesn't make sense to spend it on Hairston, which is consistent with Alderson's MO so far.