Improving next year's lineup without making the "big trade"

[Mex17]

Admit it, wouldn't you LOVE to keep all these pitchers? Imagine a top four going into next year of Harvey/Wheeler/Niece/Gee with Hefner and Montero battling for the last spot and Syndergaard waiting in the wings. Not to mention Parnell closing with Familia/Leathersich/Edgin setting up. I think that there is a way to keep all of them while still building a good lineup for 2014. It won't be by landing a "slam dunk stud" like Stanton or CarGo, and will take a little luck and a little faith, but it's a plan.

The first part is landing Shin-Soo Choo as a free agent. I suppose that it's open to speculation about what it is going to take to get him, but I know that he is making around $7 million this year and Jody Mac speculated on WFAN that he would command a 5 year deal at $12 million per. So for the sake of discussion, let's throw out 5 years-$60 million, but you front load it it order to hedge against him declining as he approaches his mid 30s. Pay half the value of the entire thing in the first two years ($15 million for '14 and '15, when he will be 31 and 32), drop it down to $13 million in the middle year, then pay him only $8.5 million the last two years when he will be 34-35.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Guest

[Mex17]

Next, first base. Hopefully Ike rebounds, but if he spits the bit, non tender him (saving around $3-4 million) and move on. James Loney is a free agent after the year and is quietly doing very well for the Rays. The only real bad season he had was 2012, so maybe you just chalk that up to whatever (like playing for two dysfunctional teams that year). He is 29 and is making $2 million this year, but he would be due for a pretty big raise. I would be willing to speculate that something between three years for $21 million to four years for $32 million gets him.

So that covers having two lefties for the middle of the order, IMO. As for adding new rightys, we already have them in Flores and d'Arnaud. Sitck them in the Opening Day lineup and let them go. Granted, it's high risk, but it's also high reward. It also has the added benefits of making Murphy trade bait for extra pieces (and taking his arb elibigle salary off the books) as well as their rookie minimum salaries offsetting Choo and Loney.

I think that Young is a keeper for LF and the leadoff spot, and I am cool with letting Lagares and/or Nieuwenhuis cover CF while hopefully developing at the plate (so long as they are lower in the order so there is not a reliance on them).

I have not totally given up on Tejada, and Quntanilla can stick around to motivate him.

So there you go. Thoughts?

[Edgy MD]

Enough things are going in the right direction that one modestly big deal like signing Choo could make a big difference.

The Mets two big decisions seem to be negative ones --- whether to keep Ike and whether to keep Doo.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I suspect they make that decision sooner than later. I mean, I think they could.

Not a Loney fan.

[Mex17]

Ike has 71 games to show something. I hope he does.

Duda, I believe, will not be arb eligible and has options. No rush to make a call on him at all.

Give me the anti-Loney argument (outside of the bad 2012).

[Edgy MD]

The rush is neither one of time nor money, but whether there remains room in the lineup for them. Or even on the roster. The question becomes one of space.

They have five outfielders, each with a different profile from Duda, and while he has more offensive potential going forward than many or most of them, the pitching staff has been revived since he's gone a-huntin'. You don't want to make too much of it, but is absence is certainly a factor. There's a few guys in the pipeline (den Dekker, Puello), a few guys on the fringe (Baxter, Valdespin), a few guys nobody is thinking about but are nonetheless hitting (Campbell, Vaughn), and guys deep down like Nimmo. Sticking with him is a big decision.

[dinosaur jesus]

Loney's got no power at a power position, and he's a poor fielder. He's only got value if he hits well over .300, which he's doing now and which he did in 2007. But those seasons are outliers as much as the awful 2012. In a normal season he's basically replacement-level. Not a good risk even if you can get him cheap, and he won't be cheap.

[Mex17]

Edgy MD wrote: The rush is neither one of time nor money, but whether there remains room in the lineup for them. Or even on the roster. The question becomes one of space. They have five outfielders, each with a different profile from Duda, and while he has more offensive potential going forward than many or most of them, the pitching staff has been revived since he's gone a-huntin'. You don't want to make too much of it, but is absence is certainly a factor. There's a few guys in the pipeline (den Dekker, Puello), a few guys on the fringe (Baxter, Valdespin), a few guys nobody is thinking about but are nonetheless hitting (Campbell, Vaughn), and guys deep down like Nimmo. Sticking with him is a big decision.

I'm sure that Vegas will need a first baseman next year. If they control him and do not need to pay him anything crazy, stick him down there and save him for a rainy day.

[Edgy MD]

I believe Duda will be out of options.

[Mex17]

Edgy MD wrote: I believe Duda will be out of options.

My error in assuming then.

[Frayed Knot]

Loney's got no power at a power position, and he's a poor fielder.

I remember him as a good fielder (at least when he first came up, haven't seen him enough recently) but, yeah, the power is minimal* for his position.
If we're trading or demoting Ike I'd prefer to stick Duda there and take a chance on him unless a better alternative from outside is available. I don't think Loney is significantly better.

Duda's sudden problem is that an OF spot for him is completely gone right now unless Byrd is dealt and, even then, Young in RF and Duda in LF isn't as strong offensively or defensively as what we've got now. To the question that we first started to tackle here maybe two years back: Duda-v-Ike: Who do you keep?, the answer clearly has to be Lucas right now although the final answer may wind up being -- Neither!




* IsoP = .123 for the cumulative years 2008-2012. That's below league average for all players and certainly below what you'd want from 1B

[Mex17]

dinosaur jesus wrote: Loney's got no power at a power position, and he's a poor fielder. He's only got value if he hits well over .300, which he's doing now and which he did in 2007. But those seasons are outliers as much as the awful 2012. In a normal season he's basically replacement-level. Not a good risk even if you can get him cheap, and he won't be cheap.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/loneyja01.shtml

Your best argument is the defensive one. I have no idea whether or not he has a good glove, so I will assume that you are correct.

In two of the seasons where he did not reach .300 he still had 90 RBI and in all of those seasons save for one he reached at least 30 doubles (and that one was one of the 90 RBI years). Excluding 2012, his lowest average was a respectible .267 and he knocked 41 doubles and 88 RBI that year.

He is not a slugger but what I think he can be is a reliable piece in an ensamble lineup who will "move the chain" and hit line drives in the gaps. Plus, factor in the fact that acquiring him will not cost you any of the young pitching via trade, so the lack of dingers is offset by runs potentially saved through mound performance (think the same thing for Choo, and you can even add keeping Flores to that logic. . .so you get three in the lineup for the price of two).

Edited July 14, 2013 by Guest

[smg58]

Gee should not be ahead of Hefner on the depth chart at this point.

The call on Duda will be the opposite of whatever the call on Ike is. One of them will be our first baseman (at least against righties), and one of them won't be back. Duda has the better trade value right now, but cutting bait on Davis is looking like an unfortunate but perhaps necessary possibility.

I think I like Young as a centerfielder, especially if we can find a leftfielder who can hit without killing the defense. Let Kirk and either Lagares or Brown come off the bench. Brown would be needed if Choo gets signed, because Choo has never hit lefties well. A sleeper FA outfield option, depending on his health, is Corey Hart.

D'Arnaud still has time to get enough ABs this year to make catching in Queens next year a viable option. Hopefully that will happen.

The pen has a few spots to fill, but in theory we should be able to pay for some quality to go with what we already have. I'd like to see Aardsma come back, and I think Torres is legit. And pitching is the strength of our farm system, so we'll have more depth than we've had in a while.

[nymr83]

I think Duda is a defensive disaster in the outfield and he isn't a (late career) Bonds or a Ramirez whose bat makes that OK. The Mets, I think, need to decide who they would rather have at First Base going forward, as I'd call that Duda's only reasonable position. Given the choice, I'm going with Davis as I think he provides far superior defense at 1B and has about the same upside with the bat.

Mex, RBI are about as stupid an individual stat as pitcher Wins and I find it hard to believe you'd want to use them to "bolster" your argument.

In my opinion, Loney is not an appreciable upgrade on the Mets' in-house younger and cheaper options at First Base,

[Mex17]

Nymr83 wrote: Mex, RBI are about as stupid an individual stat as pitcher Wins and I find it hard to believe you'd want to use them to "bolster" your argument.

No offense intended, but are you nuts?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm trading Davis and keeping Doodoo/Satin/Flores/Mr. X etc.

I've had it with Davis's slumps, his slow recoveries from them, and no longer believe he can play without encountering them. Plus he spent a whole year injured. PLus he has Valley Fever. Plus he needs a platoon partner.

I think probably we get back less than Davis is worth if/when he's going well and hold onto the less spectacular/worse defensive player in Doodoo. But Doodoo at least can hit LHP, doesn't whiff as much, reaches base a lot, and might still find the CAHNfidence to become the monstrous slugger he sometimes looks to be.

[Frayed Knot]

Mex17 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Mex, RBI are about as stupid an individual stat as pitcher Wins and I find it hard to believe you'd want to use them to "bolster" your argument. No offense intended, but are you nuts?

The problem with RBIs is that they're very team and lineup dependent; what team you're on at what time and where you hit in that lineup are all big factors.
RBIs are, to some extent, an outcome based on one's circumstances rather than a measure of ability.

[Mex17]

Frayed Knot wrote: The problem with RBIs is that they're very team and lineup dependent; what team you're on at what time and where you hit in that lineup are all big factors. RBIs are, to some extent, an outcome based on one's circumstances rather than a measure of ability.

I think that argument works better if all your numbers are up to par with the exception of RBI (such as in the case of Stanton his first few years I believe).

Being presented with an opportunity (in the case, men on base) and what you do with that opportunity is a measure of ability, is it not? I think that it is.

[ashie62]

I would like Choo better if he didn't have a DUI on his dance card two years back..

[Frayed Knot]

Being presented with an opportunity (in the case, men on base) and what you do with that opportunity is a measure of ability, is it not? I think that it is.

Your hitting ability (that is to say your overall hitting ability) is the best measure of your hitting ability.
The problem with throwing in RBIs is that it's often a measure of how often you come up with men on base (what's the rest of your lineup, where you hit within that lineup) and/or (mostly 'And') the timeliness of your hits. Again, RBIs are more a byproduct of your hitting than a measure of it.

And if you ask; 'What's wrong with timely hitting?' ... well, nothing of course, except that it's usually random and not a repeatable skill.
For example, even when Ike was lost in a forest during the first half of 2012 he was getting a surprising number of RBIs because the HRs that he was hitting usually came with men on base. He hit much better in the 2nd half but it's not like he had the ability to decide when those hit came.
Look at these numbers:

Ike 2012 - 1st half -- 268 ABs .201/.271/.388 (BA/OBA/SLG) with 12 HRs and 49 RBIs ... FORTY NINE RBIs!!! the dude was on pace for a 100 RBI season and we couldn't stop talking about how much he stunk!!
Ike 2012 - 2nd half -- 251 ABs .255/.346/.542 with 20 HRs but just Forty-ONE RBIs
He hit better--MUCH Better--post-ASB yet drove in fewer runs despite nearly twice as many HRs in virtually an equal number of ABs, and I don't think any of us would opt for his first half over his 2nd. The difference was all in when the hits came but if 'when' were a skill he would have simply chosen to direct those hits to ABs with better circumstances.

[dinosaur jesus]

Mex17 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: The problem with RBIs is that they're very team and lineup dependent; what team you're on at what time and where you hit in that lineup are all big factors. RBIs are, to some extent, an outcome based on one's circumstances rather than a measure of ability. I think that argument works better if all your numbers are up to par with the exception of RBI (such as in the case of Stanton his first few years I believe). Being presented with an opportunity (in the case, men on base) and what you do with that opportunity is a measure of ability, is it not? I think that it is.

If you're exceptionally good at capitalizing on those opportunities, then yes, that is a measure of ability. But Loney is not exceptionally good. His career high in rbi's is 90, which he accomplished twice, in 2008 and 2009. In 2008, there were 491 runners on base when he batted. He drove in 77 of them, or 15.7%. In 2009, he drove in 77 of 480, or 17.1%. (He also hit 13 home runs each of those years, which is why the overall total is 90.) By comparison, last year Daniel Murphy drove in 59 out of 373, or 15.8%, which is also his percentage this year. In other words, James Loney, in a good year, is about as good as Daniel Murphy at driving in runners. No offense to Murphy, but that doesn't really seem what you want to be spending your free agent money on.

[Mex17]

RBIs are more a byproduct of your hitting than a measure of it.

This statement implies that there is no human element to the game whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you know that is not true.

"Here you are in the ninth, two men out and three men on. Nowhere to look but inside."

[Edgy MD]

He said one is more than the other, not that the other doesn't exist whatsoever. But given the choice, with three on and two out in the ninth, I'd rather have the skill of Babe Ruth than the courage of Daniel Inouye --- in that situation anyhow.

Gee should not be ahead of Hefner on the depth chart at this point.

Is he? Does it matter either way? The only step in the depth chart that matters for starting pitchers is the step between numbers five and six, I think.

[Frayed Knot]

RBIs are more a byproduct of your hitting than a measure of it. This statement implies that there is no human element to the game whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you know that is not true.

It's not that a human element doesn't exist, it's more that simple RBI numbers are an inaccurate way of showing it because there are just too many other factors involved.

And, again, succeeding in RBI situations over and above the norm is certainly a fine thing to do. The problem is that such prowess is rarely repeatable over time. We've already seen that with Davis last season when his lousy 1st half produced RBIs at a greater rate than his much better 2nd half - and we're not even talking about different players with different psyches here, this variation was all just from one player within one season.

Another example: when Hidecki Matsui was in his early years with the Yanx, Mike Francesa and other Yanqui fans marveled at his "clutch hitting ability" and usually cited his RBI stats as proof of such. Now 'Godzilla' was a very good hitter in those days at the prime of his career so, yeah, that makes him a great guy to have in the middle of your lineup. But unmentioned in the RBI stats was the fact that Matsui was 1st, 2nd, and 1st in all of baseball in having runners on base at the time he came to bat in those first three NYY seasons. Obviously, more runners on base equals more opportunities for RBIs giving him an advantage over equal or possibly even superior hitters based on just opportunity alone. What was NOT true was that his hitting suddenly improved, or, put more accurately, that he was not consistently better in those situations; in some years he was but in others he was not.

And that's the overall problem with believing in "clutchness" as some kind of innate trait; if it's not repeatable or consistent it's tough to say that it really exists in the first place.
The bottom line is, when I want runs driven in and I'm given the choice of a so-so hitter who is rumored to possess some sort of ability to suddenly out-perform his usual self in given (and often poorly defined) situations, or a guy who's just plain the better hitter -- give me the better hitter.

[metirish]

Great thread, some good reading in here.

[dinosaur jesus]

When I hear that some player is really clutch, that he's at his best in the big games, I always wonder what the hell he's doing the rest of the time. Is he dogging it, saving himself for the TV cameras? Screw him. I don't want that glory hound on my team.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

David Wright leads the Mets in Human Element, but trails Marlon Byrd for the team lead in RBIs.

[metirish]

Keith often harps on about "clutch", which surprises me and it shouldn't.

[batmagadanleadoff]

dinosaur jesus wrote: When I hear that some player is really clutch, that he's at his best in the big games, I always wonder what the hell he's doing the rest of the time. Is he dogging it, saving himself for the TV cameras? Screw him. I don't want that glory hound on my team.

Exactly. If a player had the ability to elevate his performance in "clutch" situations, why would he wait for the end of the game when his team is down by a run or two to turn it on? Wouldn't he wanna get a hit all the time? Isn't he supposed to realize that it's just as important to be the runner in scoring position waiting to be driven in? And so wouldn't he wanna turn on the clutchy clutchiness when nobody's on base, so some teammate could, in turn, drive him in with the clutchy clutchy hit?

[batmagadanleadoff]

metirish wrote: Keith often harps on about "clutch", which surprises me and it shouldn't.

Keith loves the hit and run, too. Groan. The problem with Keith is that he was once Keith Hernandez. Even at the major league level, more than half of the everyday players either struggle to hit, or outright suck at hitting.