Tulo Temps

[Edgy MD]

Googling "rumors" + "Bartolo Colon," I see reported interest coming from Kansas City and, well, Kansas City.

[Frayed Knot]

KC is close to WC and/or division contention (Tigers looking beatable these days) and should be in "go for it" mode, so they'd make sense from a logic POV.
Have no idea about their higher prospects right now as they "graduated" or traded many of them in the last year or three.

The good thing about Bartolo from the acquiring team's side is that he's signed through next season and so isn't just a two month rental.
The bad thing about Bartolo from the acquiring team's side is that he's signed through next season and so isn't just a two month rental.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Jon Heyman wrote: Ultimately, the Mets don't see themselves as likely to land Tulowitzki -- "he wants to be a Yankee" one Mets person said....

Funny how this didn't thwart the Mets successful pursuit of Carlos Beltran. It's MetSpeak for "we're broke and can't afford Tulo, right?

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Jon Heyman wrote: Ultimately, the Mets don't see themselves as likely to land Tulowitzki -- "he wants to be a Yankee" one Mets person said.... Funny how this didn't thwart the Mets successful pursuit of Carlos Beltran. It's MetSpeak for "we're broke and can't afford Tulo, right?

It's generally code for "we're trying to create a bidding war, raise your offer"

I'm sure they tell the Yankees he wants to be a Dodger.

[Lefty Specialist]

Sorry kids, we're gonna do this on the cheap. Tulo will go elsewhere, and the Yanks are just too perfect a fit once St. Jeter leaves.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: KC is close to WC and/or division contention (Tigers looking beatable these days) and should be in "go for it" mode, so they'd make sense from a logic POV. Have no idea about their higher prospects right now as they "graduated" or traded many of them in the last year or three. The good thing about Bartolo from the acquiring team's side is that he's signed through next season and so isn't just a two month rental. The bad thing about Bartolo from the acquiring team's side is that he's signed through next season and so isn't just a two month rental.

Well, I was thinking not about prospects but about the likelihood of an equal-footing trade, present value for present value.

I can live with Tulowitzki and his coif and I can happily live without him, but I couldn't give a barnful of shits about what Jon Heyman says some "Mets source" says about Tulowitzki's desires.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'm not so sold on TT either. He's gonna hit 30. Shortstops tend to fade earlier (but they can be shifted easier). I see a Coors effect here (not that TT's a bad shortstop -- but I'm not convinced he's as great as they say he is).

Still, TT would be a monumental upgrade over the Mets current SS, a position that might be the team's biggest hole. And any doubt or disagreement as to what the Mets biggest hole is is further proof of how flawed the present Mets are.

As usual with the Mets in the present, it comes down to money more than it should. I find it difficult to discuss the probability of the Mets acquiring TT without this post turning into another rant on the Mets finances. It can't be ignored, even though I get the sense that many here are sick and tired of the topic. But whaddyagonnado? Pretend that if only TT weren't a Yankee fan, he'd be a Met tomorrow?

I've got no problem with the Mets, for once, getting bang for their buck ... maximizing output with minimal payroll levels. That's fine if they can pull it off. But I don't think they should have to take that approach. Mainly because it's harder to win with smaller payrolls. And also, because they're the NY franchise. Some posters here say we shouldn't count the Mets pocketbook. I say: Why not? They're counting our pocketbooks. Their ticket prices are among baseball's highest, as are their food, concession and parking fees. That alone probably obligates them, at least ethically, to maintain a high payroll commensurate with the geographic region they play in. If they can't, they shouldn't be allowed to own the team. There's plenty other Masters of the Universe interested in owning the Mets. What's in it for me if the Mets can succeed with one of baseball's lower payrolls? They're not gonna mail me a dividend. They're not gonna lower their prices either. It ain't my money they're hoarding to pay the electricity. So spend or get the hell out, I say.

[Ceetar]

If money is no object, yes, you take Tulo (provided you don't have to mortgage EVERYTHING about the farm) and if he breaks you don't bat an eye. But _most_ teams don't work that way.

The question isn't if Tulo's cost is worth the value upgrade over Tejada, but if it's the best option altogether. Perhaps there's a different SS (I would've signed Peralta) that is drastically less money and prospects and still bridges 75% of the difference in Tejada and Tulowizki. Then you upgrade elsewhere and have a pretty nice offense.

There's no one way to build a good team and just picking the (second) biggest hole in the offense and shoving the biggest peg in isn't always the best one.

[Frayed Knot]

One of the more common complaints from back in the days when the Mets DID consistently have one of the higher payrolls in MLB was: 'well sure they spend, but they don't spend it in the right places or for the right players'. And with Tulowitzki hitting many of the topics--turning 30, oft-injured, Coors-inflated, lengthy contract, paying for his twenties but getting his thirties, will require money AND players to obtain--which can and will be cited, if and when he fails to live up to expectations, as proof that even a retarded gorilla coulda/shoulda have known he was the wrong guy at the wrong time, both trading for or NOT trading for this guy lays the groundwork for complaints no matter what happens. The only question remains whether those complaints will read: 'They're too Cheap' or, 'They're so Stupid".

In short, I really don't care what they do and I don't believe Tulo is going to be dealt this week anyway (he may very well be on the winter-time block).
Of course obtaining him will strengthen the club as SS but it's virtually by definition going to weaken them elsewhere, how much depends on who and how many get sent the other way.
As far as the money, I don't pretend to know what the team's finances look like now or in the future or what the constraints are. I've never cared much how much these players make except to the degree that if affects what other moves can be made and, make no mistake, any time ANY team imports a $125 million commitment it is going to affect other moves.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

The Mets can't win in these situations.

They're getting beat up and called cheap for not acquiring a player they're only rumored to be actively chasing -- and who is hurt as we speak.


This seems to be an entire storyline created by columnists leading to the inevitable Mets mockery and Yankee love.

[Edgy MD]

Meanwhile, dawn.

[batmagadanleadoff]

One of the more common complaints from back in the days when the Mets DID consistently have one of the higher payrolls in MLB was: 'well sure they spend, but they don't spend it in the right places or for the right players'. And with Tulowitzki hitting many of the topics--turning 30, oft-injured, Coors-inflated, lengthy contract, paying for his twenties but getting his thirties, will require money AND players to obtain--which can and will be cited, if and when he fails to live up to expectations, as proof that even a retarded gorilla coulda/shoulda have known he was the wrong guy at the wrong time, both trading for or NOT trading for this guy lays the groundwork for complaints no matter what happens. The only question remains whether those complaints will read: 'They're too Cheap' or, 'They're so Stupid". In short, I really don't care what they do and I don't believe Tulo is going to be dealt this week anyway (he may very well be on the winter-time block). Of course obtaining him will strengthen the club as SS but it's virtually by definition going to weaken them elsewhere, how much depends on who and how many get sent the other way. As far as the money, I don't pretend to know what the team's finances look like now or in the future or what the constraints are. I've never cared much how much these players make except to the degree that if affects what other moves can be made and, make no mistake, any time ANY team imports a $125 million commitment it is going to affect other moves.

I agree with your whole post. I wasn't advocating for a TT acquisition. I think it's pointless anyway because my gut sez the Mets can't afford him, whether I'd want him or not. So if it's pointless, what's the point? Not that I'm hot for TT, but I think he's not in their price range. Granted, I don't know what the Mets finances are. I simply read the Times and the tabloids and Megdal and figure that Saul Katz probably really did say that he wants out .. and whatever Fred and Jeff say about their money, I assume that the opposite is true ... I mix it all together and look at the last coupl'a years of Mets payroll and figure that it's bleak and it's gonna be bleak for a few more years. But what do I know? Broke for the Mets isn't like broke for me and you.

I'm just saying that the Mets payroll level is a disgrace. And if people think the Mets can't win a discussion whenever a top tier (i.e. expensive) player is mentioned as a potential Mets target, well that's the way it should be .. the Mets shouldn't come out looking good in those discussions. They shouldn't win. Because their payroll is a disgrace. And if their finances really are as bad as I think, really as bad as the sources I read claim it is, then they shouldn't bring up these stories about how they asked the Rockies to keep them in mind as far as TT goes. Because if they're that broke, then they can't afford TT, and the idea that they asked to be kept in the TT pipeline was probably just another PR ruse to make everybody think they're flush again.

[Gwreck]

Setting money aside, there are basically see three ways to get top-tier talent:
a. draft and develop;
b. sign as free agent (which costs draft picks); or
c. trade (which costs prospects).

The Mets have had several notable failures in category 'b" and that is likely where the issue of "spending money poorly" comes from. Those failures are the most frustrating. Failures in category "c" are much more tolerable, in my opinion.

Additionally, while past results are no guarantee of future performance, I like the Mets' chances in category "c" a lot more. Examples that come to mind: the Roberto Alomar trade was a bust, but nobody the Mets traded away ever amounted to anything. The Carlos Delgado trade: nothing doing with those prospects; all it cost the Mets was money.

I like the Mets' chances to compete for playoff spots in 2015 and 2016 with one or two big supplements to the core team they've developed. I'm fully prepared to trade away a Syndergaard or similar prospect to acquire Tulowitzki's contract. So what if the Mets get only 2-3 good years from Tulowitzki and then have sunk costs at the end of the contract? That's where the financial advantage to playing in New York comes in. Ownership should be able to eat that cost, especially if the acquisition pays off in playoff appearance(s). Losing one (or even two) prospects but no draft picks sounds like a fine way of improving the team at this point.

[bmfc1]

I concur with Gwreck. The Mets are getting there but do not have a major league SS at present or on the horizon. FA or a trade are the only ways to get one for '15. Perhaps the Mets will try for another short term solution in LF next year while they wait for Nimmo or Conforto but SS is the #1 priority.

[Frayed Knot]

Gwreck wrote: Losing one (or even two) prospects but no draft picks sounds like a fine way of improving the team at this point.

In general I'd rather lose draft picks than prospects. MOST draft picks fail, even 1st rounders. Prospects on the other hand (meaning those high up on a team's depth chart) are those who virtually by definition have reached a point where they've survived the weeding out process that eats up the majority of picks and turn them into guys who either never will make the majors or will wind up as part-timers and roster filler. Odds are that most if not al of your next ten 1st rounders never reach the point where they have the promise that Syndergaard has now.
There are a ton of other factors involved of course, not all draft picks the same anymore than all prospects are, but I wouldn't be so willing to deal those who have in effect already succeeded twice: getting drafted in the first place then going on to shine through the minor league system, while holding on to some future somebody who is only now approaching step one of that process. Draft picks are also much further away, so if you're looking to contend in '15/'16 then leave the gun and take the cannoli.



As far as the more general points:

* Do I want to upgrade at SS? -- SURE.

* Should we look into Tulowitzki? -- Absolutely. But at the same time there's always trouble if/when you get yourself into a mindset where you think you HAVE TO HAVE THIS PLAYER and you have to have him NOW!!! costs be damned. Fans and media (sometimes for different reasons) tend to get hung up on snagging the prettiest girl at the dance as if she makes all others not even worthy of consideration.

* Who should we give up? -- Everything's negotiable / don't rule out anything / but always be willing to walk away. There'll be another bus along after this one, and another one after that, and if they run out of buses then there are other ways to get to work. There's a difference between not being able to afford Tulowitzki and thinking it's not a wise investment even though you could afford him.

* which of course brings us to: MONEY! -- Sure, a NYC market team SHOULD be able to have a higher payroll. But if the stories about the team losing money are true--because they have to pay down the cost of their new stadium, because they built just as the economy tanked, because they over-estimated the projections of fans x seat prices at the new stadium (see: economy), because SNY isn't the windfall they thought, because their rainy-day money flew the coop w/Madoff, because they've gone ultra-conservative in their approach since Madoff, because the Madoff prosecutor was much more aggressive than they thought in trying to re-coup lost money from them, because of past bad deals (Bonilla, Bay, Santana), and yadda, yadda, yadda--then we can say SHOULD all we want but if the money's not there then the money's not there. Now maybe things have turned the corner and the 'Pons are looking over their grounds optimistically saying "Tomorrow is Another Day" like a couple of cereal-eating Scarlett O'Haras, but I have no idea. The bottom line (no pun intended ... well maybe it was) is that I don't get myself all worked up over what the payroll level should be because I don't have the facts to back it up, or where it's going to be in the future because there's nothing I can do about it.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Frayed Knot wrote: In general I'd rather lose draft picks than prospects.

Me too.

[Edgy MD]

I don't think shortstop is the #1 priority.

[list:1dqyo9by][*:1dqyo9by]They are performing far higher relative to the league at shortstop than they are in left.[/*:m:1dqyo9by]
[*:1dqyo9by]Their shortstop is covered for next year. Their leftfielder (at least, Chris Young) is not.[/*:m:1dqyo9by]
[*:1dqyo9by]The market for leftfielders isn't as steep as it is for shortstop, because almost anybody (or any batsman) is a potential leftfielder.[/*:m:1dqyo9by]
[*:1dqyo9by]They aren't exactly demonstrably set as center, either. So general outfield depth is a priority.[/*:m:1dqyo9by][/list:u:1dqyo9by]

Brandon Nimmo and Dilson Herrera are both probably a year away from appearing. Herrera will probably arrive more fully developed, but not really a shortstop (and Cecchini and Rosario further behind). Nimmo will arrive probably with some growing (read: power development) still to be done, but ready to slot in. So neither should be expected to be instant redemption (no rookie should). But Tejada (and even Wilmer) certainly presents as a more viable bridge to the future at short than Young/Young/Nieuwenhuis/Abreu/den Dekker do in left.

An improvement in left field right now would help them a lot more than a similar-level shortstop, and be easier to find at whatever budget they have. Gimme a better leftfielder and you have a contender.

[Gwreck]

Outfielders who will be free agents at the end of 2014.

Outfielders
Norichika Aoki
Emilio Bonifacio
Melky Cabrera
Nelson Cruz
Michael Cuddyer
Rajai Davis
Chris Denorfia
Jeff Francoeur
Jonny Gomes
Franklin Gutierrez
Tony Gwynn Jr.
Scott Hairston
Torii Hunter
Raul Ibanez
Reed Johnson
Darnell McDonald
Mike Morse
Colby Rasmus
Nate Schierholtz
Grady Sizemore
Seth Smith
Alfonso Soriano
Ichiro Suzuki
Ryan Sweeney
Josh Willingham
Chris Young
Delmon Young

[Edgy MD]

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of what the trade market looks like this morning.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm also on Team Left Field. An improvement at shortstop would be very nice, but an improvement in left field is vital.

[Gwreck]

I'm all in favor of upgrading left field too. I just don't see an impact player available at that position the way there (supposedly) is at shortstop with Tulowitzki.* I am unimpressed with that list of free agents. I am unimpressed with the in-house options. I am curious if there are any viable trade options but unaware of any good ideas at this point.



*I'd also consider a free-agent signing of Hanley Ramirez in the offseason for shortstop.

[Edgy MD]

When you are at the bottom of the league in production at a position, any number of improvements represents an impact player. Marlon Byrd is an impact player. Matt Joyce? Impact player. �lex R�os? Fuckin' impact player.

[Gwreck]

Great. I'll take this opportunity to revise and/or clarify my description of "impact player" to instead be "player of sufficient upgrade to make team into legitimate playoff contender given the mostly solid team core that pre-exists"

[Edgy MD]

Well, I think they're a lot closer than you do, I guess.

But, as noted in the "Where They Struggle" thread, LF is really... where they struggle. At least at catcher and shortstop, they've improved markedly as the season has progressed.

[Edgy MD]

Based on our performance to date, in LF, we're 1.69 standard deviations from the mean, OPS-wise. At shortstop, we're 0.71 standard deviations from the mean. And as I noted, the pool of players who can play left is much larger, so an improvement is not only much easier to find, but the the outlay in pursuit of an improvement is likely to be much smaller.

I could well have (perhaps should have) worked with OPS+, rather than OPS, but I think it's safe to say the point would still be supported, if not to the same degree, more or less.

[Benjamin Grimm]

What actually happened last month between the NY Mets and Colorado Rockies with Carlos Gonzalez and Troy Tulowitzki? In the days before the trade deadline last week, as a suitable market for Bartolo Colon failed to develop, the limited speculation around the Mets surrounded more exciting and remote possibilities: Colorado Rockies stars Carlos Gonzalez and Troy Tulowitzki. So, now that we�re a week out, let�s dig. What actually happened between the two teams? Did anything get serious? And what is worth watching in the near future? We were interested to learn that the Rockies did a lot of poking around the Mets� system late last month, sending several top evaluators � including general manager Dan O�Dowd -- to watch their minor league teams. The Rox scouted Noah Syndergaard, specifically, but were also poking around about Rafael Montero, Jacob deGrom, Matt den Dekker, Ruben Tejada and Matt Reynolds, according to people who caught wind of the poking. Said to be seeking power pitching, Colorado is unlikely to be interested in Jon Niese or Dillon Gee. As for actual contact between the two teams, here is exactly what happened, in the recollection of several sources: The Mets reached out in July to express interest in Tulowitzki and Gonzalez, and the Rockies responded that, in general terms, they liked the Mets� young pitchers. And that was it, for now. This is what is often called a �preliminary discussion,� and was not dissimilar to the chat between Sandy Alderson and then-Marlins GM Larry Beinfest in March 2013 regarding Giancarlo Stanton. Stanton, you might have noticed, is still a Marlin. While talks did not progress last month, it is good to know what happened, as a foundation for the winter wave of reports and speculation involving these players. Tulowitzki is preparing for a winter that might bring a trade, with the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals appearing on the short list of possible destinations. Still, our reporting leads us to strongly believe that Gonzalez in a more likely addition to the Flushing Nine, in part because of a far more reasonable contract, and fewer years of control. �That is real,� said one Mets person of the interest in Gonzalez. Could the Mets accommodate a more significant leap in payroll and acquire Tulowitzki, owed $126 million through 2019? People around Alderson believe that he would have a chance, if he made a strong case to ownership � but that he is more inclined to present the CarGo option (four years, $60 million), especially if he can dump most of Colon�s $11 million salary on another team. And remember, it is more likely that the Mets retain all of their coveted pitchers, and seek lineup improvements less splashy than those mentioned here. But the Rockies are a team to watch, if Alderson chooses a more aggressive approach. Read more at http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/baseballinsider/happened-month-ny-mets-colorado-rockies-carlos-gonzalez-troy-tulowitzki-blog-entry-1.1894926?cid=radiumOne#ilyAB2S4VIwI6Ujz.99

[nymr83]

The Rox scouted Noah Syndergaard, specifically, but were also poking around about Rafael Montero, Jacob deGrom, Matt den Dekker, Ruben Tejada and Matt Reynolds, according to people who caught wind of the poking.

Tejada for Tulo! done!

[Vic Sage]

i have no interest in CarGo. He's hurt as much as (if not more than) Tulowitzki, and he's basically a Coors hitter, with significant home/road splits. In Citi, even healthy, he'd probably hit .260/20hr/75runs at most, for which they'd have to pay him $20m/yr. And there are more OFers who can hit than SSs.