We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

No, not that kind. But I'm beginning to think Bourn will wind up on the Mets.

[Vic Sage]

there are worse things that could happen

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Certainly. And it's pretty much what comes around, goes around scenario with these compensation picks. The Mets could remedy this pick loss sometime by letting one of their own walk. They can also be more aggressive with their international $$ if warranted. I mean, the whole thing is stupid and anticompetitive, but they agreed to it.

[smg58]

smg58 wrote: Kyle Blanks. Calling him an injury risk would be understating things, but 20 homers in 420 ABs while playing home games in Petco screams upside, and it's not clear the Pads have room for him even if he's healthy. He's actually been a plus defensive outfielder, proving that converted first basemen aren't doomed to be hopeless. I bet he'd cut down on the Ks if he could just get regular at-bats, too. I'd offer Valdespin (the Padres were rumored to be looking for a lefthanded reserve infielder, plus Minaya likes him). He'd basically be a cheap lottery ticket, but that might be the direction the Mets need to go at this point.

Blanks just got demoted with a .796 OPS. From the Mets' perspective, that's comical.

[Edgy MD]

He any good wit' the glove?

(I had Virtual Blanks on my fake Mets teak last year in Out of the Park. He didn't stick, but I should know the answer to this.)

[smg58]

Fangraphs and Bill James have him as about average so far this year. He's been playing mostly right this year, too.

[Vic Sage]

Vic Sage wrote: i love that idea. i had an eye on Blanks when he first was on his way up to SD, and had high hopes for him. He reminds me of Kevin Mitchell.

still think so.

[smg58]

Blanks was spared the trip to AAA on account of Yonder Alonso's injury. Still, if he's their 26th guy (he was set to go down because Maybin was activated), I can't imagine he couldn't be had for a reasonable price.

[Ceetar]

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat≶=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2013&month=3&season1=&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=6400,5384

Feel like Nieuwenhuis is getting short shrift. In a lot of ways he's been nearly as good as Lagares over the past month or so, and you worry about Lagares' BAbip (well, I do) in the sense that he doesn't walk, although he's been walking some, comparatively, recently. Juan's clearly the better defender, by eye at least, but Kirk's been doing a pretty good job too. Kirk shouldn't be sitting against righties.

I know everyone hates Duda for some reason, particularly defensively, but if you've got the Juanenhuis platoon in center it covers some of that (Ankiel and Valdespin are not good defenders/rangy and I'm not sure Cowgill was either). Duda gets on base, hits the ball, etc. It really makes a case to trade Byrd and even maybe Young (if you believe this is more fluke than not) just to make room.

Mike Baxter hitting in the minors too, and Andrew Brown hasn't been bad.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: Feel like Nieuwenhuis is getting short shrift.

He's not exactly earning a longer shrift.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Feel like Nieuwenhuis is getting short shrift. He's not exactly earning a longer shrift.

He's not not either. Clearly Lagares is going to bolt ahead tonight, but Kirk hasn't really been bad the last month. same AB, walks almost twice as much as Lagares and strikes out less. And those things are more sustainable than the really high BABIP Lagares has. (neither's K rate is very good) Fangraphs has him at .1 WAR higher even over that stretch.

[Edgy MD]

The Mets have five outfielders, and four of them have had hot months. And the fifth --- Andrew Marshall Brown --- hasn't embarrassed himself. The idea that it's hard to find PT for everybody is a good problem to have.

Ceets is right though. Nieuwie's gone .250 / .345 / .458 // .804 in 35 July trips, and launched the homer that started this hot streak. (#MetsCelebrateWins) That's good for a healthy shrift where I come from.

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: The Mets have five outfielders, and four of them have had hot months. And the fifth --- Andrew Marshall Brown --- hasn't embarrassed himself. The idea that it's hard to find PT for everybody is a good problem to have. Ceets is right though. Nieuwie's gone .250 / .345 / .458 // .804 in 35 July trips, and launched the homer that started this hot streak. (#MetsCelebrateWins) That's good for a healthy shrift where I come from.

When you're trying to win games this year thats a good problem to have. when you're hoping to find out which young players belong on the roster in the future it can be a hindrance.

[Zvon]

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The Mets have five outfielders, and four of them have had hot months. And the fifth --- Andrew Marshall Brown --- hasn't embarrassed himself. The idea that it's hard to find PT for everybody is a good problem to have. Ceets is right though. Nieuwie's gone .250 / .345 / .458 // .804 in 35 July trips, and launched the homer that started this hot streak. (#MetsCelebrateWins) That's good for a healthy shrift where I come from. When you're trying to win games this year thats a good problem to have. when you're hoping to find out which young players belong on the roster in the future it can be a hindrance.

And it will be while the Mets try to show they have a team that can win and draw fans while they also try to evaluate the kids. Like tonight, Satin playing. Its a righty and Ike had a good first game, yet Satin gets the start. If you were playing with just a W in mind wouldn't Ike be in there? But you do want to see what Josh can do against a righty. I imagine Collins will be mixing things up with an interesting balancing act. And the balance will be between drawing fans now and setting the team up for next season. As a lame duck skipper I don't envy his position.

[Edgy MD]

I absolutely don't think winning this year and developing a team for the future are mutually exclusive. I also don't think there is ever any problem with getting four guys sufficient PT from three positions. Anyhow, Byrd might be gone in a few days.

Seems like an emotional choice to declare Legares exclusive starter and now Nieuwenhuis has been farmed out when he was not only contributing, but had been the spark that got them started. We could have used him in game two.

The idea that the team winning is a bad thing because they'll run the best lineup out there instead of the one that'll help them see what they have for next year, well, to adopt that wholeheartedly would seem dizzyingly unproductive.

[ashie62]

Can't say I understood much of that...

[Edgy MD]

Try harder.

[smg58]

Edgy MD wrote: Seems like an emotional choice to declare Legares exclusive starter and now Nieuwenhuis has been farmed out when he was not only contributing, but had been the spark that got them started. We could have used him in game two.

He hadn't had a hit since the 13th and Lagares had gotten relatively hot, so I'm OK with that aspect of it. I'm not sure that sacrificing a hitting spot for a sixth starter gives us anything, other than fewer starts by Harvey (which may or may not be a good thing).

[Edgy MD]

At least you understood.

It's certainly costing us offense and defense, and has put Lagares in a position to flop.

I went to game three at the Nationals Park and we had a four-man bench ---- Turner, Brown, Satin, and Gorgeous. That wasn't going to get it done.

[bmfc1]

Edgy--not arguing, just asking... you wrote that the Mets have put Lagares "in a position to flop." Is that a bad thing? As the thread title states, the Mets need OFers so is it a bad thing to see if Lagares can fill that need? They've also put him in a position to shine--maybe he will win one of the jobs for '14.

[Edgy MD]

I think a four-man outfield that overexposes guys who are still developing is a bad thing, both for the team in the short-term and developing players in the long-term.

I don't think having a fifth outfielder means the team is no longer seeing if Lagares can fill a need. Lagares had been getting plenty of time as it was.

There's always enough work for a fifth outfielder (and really, Nieuwenhuis was the fourth) without marginalizing any of the main actors, and a short bench, without a lefty, and particularly short on power is a bad thing.

[bmfc1]

Thanks for the reply. I'd rather see what Lagares can do full-time than protect him but I see your position.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy MD wrote: I think a four-man outfield that overexposes guys who are still developing is a bad thing, both for the team in the short-term and developing players in the long-term. I don't think having a fifth outfielder means the team is no longer seeing if Lagares can fill a need. Lagares had been getting plenty of time as it was. There's always enough work for a fifth outfielder (and really, Nieuwenhuis was the fourth) without marginalizing any of the main actors, and a short bench, without a lefty, and particularly short on power is a bad thing.

This. I'd rather have Nieuenheis available than Atchison, for example.

[bmfc1]

I agree with that point Vic.... having a 5th OFer doesn't mean that you can't play Lagares full-time, of course. I'd much rather see a longer bench than bullpen.

[nymr83]

Right now I'd want to start Lagares/Young/Byrd on most days, but you can work Niewenhuis in there a little and save Brown for "we need a homer" PH duties as the 5th guy. Unless the Mets want to callup den Dekker or another guy from the minors to see what he can do. There is really no good reason for Kirk not to be on this team right now.

[bmfc1]

Jason Bay is available... the Mariners DFA'd him today.

[smg58]

Edgy MD wrote: At least you understood. It's certainly costing us offense and defense, and has put Lagares in a position to flop. I went to game three at the Nationals Park and we had a four-man bench ---- Turner, Brown, Satin, and Gorgeous. That wasn't going to get it done.

In hindsight, the guy it most put in a position to flop was Carlos Torres. But I do think the four-man, lefty-free bench is untenable.

[ashie62]

We keep tooo many and use tooo many relievers...

[Ceetar]

smg58 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: At least you understood. It's certainly costing us offense and defense, and has put Lagares in a position to flop. I went to game three at the Nationals Park and we had a four-man bench ---- Turner, Brown, Satin, and Gorgeous. That wasn't going to get it done. In hindsight, the guy it most put in a position to flop was Carlos Torres. But I do think the four-man, lefty-free bench is untenable.

Turner hits righties better than lefties, but I'm not positive Collins knows that. Satin doesn't really have splits either.

[nymr83]

Ashie62 wrote: We keep tooo many and use tooo many relievers...

thats another thing. just STOP using 3 relievers to get through an inning.