Shortstop 2015

[A Boy Named Seo]

themetfairy wrote: How could anyone boo this face?

"What, me worry?"

[Frayed Knot]

I heard exactly One WFAN call today - it was a guy complaining about the Mets not making this [three-way Ian Desmond] deal.
And his complaint was not merely that they didn't do it but that not pulling the trigger on it is more proof that we're being lied to.

[Edgy MD]

I don't get that "lying" business at all.

The Mets are apparently now lying even when nobody from the Mets is saying anything.

[Frayed Knot]

Well, according to the caller anyway, the Mets [u:riswe01s]promised[/u:riswe01s] that this is their year and that they'd go all out to make it happen.
Ergo: Passing on this deal proves that they're not.

[Edgy MD]

I'm so entitled, I demand the Mets consummate deals I wouldn't even like ten minutes after they happened.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

WHY DIDN'T THESE INTRANSIGIENT BASTIDS DO THIS DEAL I NEVER KNEW EXISTED???/?//?

[smg58]

Well doesn't the fact that nobody on the Mets is saying anything imply that they're not telling the truth? Huh?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

WHY DON'T YOU TELL US THE TRUTH, LIARS !1! TELL ME THE TRUTH SO I CAN YELL AT YOU ABOUT THE TRUTH INSTEAD

[ashie62]

Flores wil do a lot better than this new template.

How do you change you password in the user area. Thank you.

[Edgy MD]

I'd send you a private message, but who knows where to find private messages in this layout?

In the top left of the current header, click User Control Panel. From there, select the Profile tab. At the bottom of the left sidebar, select Edit Account Settings.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: I'd send you a private message, but who knows where to find private messages in this layout?

Click on a user's name and 'Send Private Message' is one of the choices you'll have.

[Edgy MD]

Mostly joking.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nobody else here is gonna post this one, so here goes:

Desmond non-deal shows cost of Mets' refusal to spend
By Howard Megdal 7:42 a.m. | Jan. 13, 2015

In case you haven't heard, the New York Mets still don't have a starting shortstop. Yes, somebody will stand at the position when their 2015 season opens on April 6 in Washington, and right now, it looks like that somebody will be Wilmer Flores, a talented young hitter who no one, including essentially everyone in the Mets front office, thinks can play the position adequately defensively. Behind Flores is Ruben Tejada, someone who the Mets have publicly disparaged for the better part of the past two seasons. So you can understand the team's desire to get better at the position, a black hole, really, since Jose Reyes happened to hit free agency at the same time Mets ownership was lining up a bridge loan just to stay solvent through the winter of 2011. And when Ken Rosenthal reported this weekend that the Mets had a chance to get Ian Desmond, shortstop for the Washington Nationals, in a three-way trade that would have cost the Mets pitching prospect Noah Syndergaard and one other top prospect from a list of three, it's hard to fathom exactly why the Mets were the team saying no. But as you've probably guessed, yes, it's the money. Let's first understand just how great a fit Ian Desmond would be on the Mets. A team with a clear need at shortstop would add the winner of the Silver Slugger award in the National League three years running. Desmond's OPS+ of 113 over the past three years at the position trails only Troy Tulowitzki and Hanley Ramirez, who isn't really a shortstop anymore. (Jose Reyes is fourth over that time.) But while Tulowitzki has played in 264 games over those three years, Ramirez 371 and Reyes 396, Desmond's been in 442. He's also younger than the other three, and his defense is much better than that of Ramirez or Reyes. The argument against Tulowitzki, who the Mets could have added this winter for several prospects and a willingness to take on his six years and $114 million remaining on his contract, came down to the long-term commitment and concerns about durability. Desmond has neither issue. He's signed for one more year, at $11 million, and he's almost always in the lineup. Not only that, the Mets could always negotiate a window to negotiate with Desmond, if they chose, giving them 72 hours to either lock him up on a contract on their terms, or let him walk away. They did this successfully with Johan Santana back in 2008, and ultimately failed to acquire Barry Larkin after not agreeing to terms with him back in 2000. And here's where it gets tricky. The Mets, for their part, haven't gotten into the idea of Desmond in greater detail for a simple reason: ownership probably isn't going to pay what it would take to keep him. Desmond turned down a six-year, $90 million last winter, and with good reason. Salaries are exploding, and he is a rare commodity indeed: a power-hitting shortstop on the right side of 30 who seldom misses any time and fields his position quite well. For the Mets to keep him, they'd have to pay him around the six years, $114 million Tulowitzki has left on his deal. And ultimately, that was the bigger problem with Tulowitzki, even though there are justifiable concerns held by some in the Mets front office about Tulowitzki's durability and current health. The money made it a non-starter--then it simply became about finding a public justification for not paying him. Desmond, while not quite Tulowitzki's equal when he's on the field, addresses all of the team's concerns. But this is a Mets team, right now, that can't even afford to take on Desmond's below-market $11 million contract for 2015 without dumping another salary, even with a payroll in the bottom third of major league baseball. The post-Madoff tradition of the Mets' owners paying more to finance their debts than to put together their baseball team looks safe to continue in 2015. Realistically, Desmond for just a year probably isn't worth giving up two of the team's top three prospects, though it is tempting. Without a change in financial wherewithal, the Mets are going to see their pre-arbitration players begin to hit arbitration. If enough of them develop to turn this Mets roster into a winning core, without an ability to increase payroll, they're going to have to start trading players off once again, a kind of permanent rebuild. So bringing in Desmond, while the gang's all here in 2015, wouldn't be the worst bet if the future holds the same level of financial limitation thanks to ownership's crippling debt load. But the more infuriating aspect of this for Mets fans is pretty simple. They've been told for years now that the Mets are about to start spending again, as if the decision not to is some kind of front office wisdom and not enforced upon ownership by its many creditors. Now, despite those restrictions, the Mets are a few players away from contention, since Sandy Alderson's built a farm system of note to pair with the bounty he's received from dealing some of the team's vaguely high-priced stars, like Carlos Beltran and R.A. Dickey. But Troy Tulowitzki, a shortstop who would make the Mets favorites in the National League East if healthy? Signed for too long. Ian Desmond, who would do the same? Not signed for long enough. Jhonny Peralta, a front office favorite? Signed for too much last winter, according to Alderson, four years, $53 million with the St. Louis Cardinals. One year and a 5.8 Wins Above Replacement season later, no one is saying Peralta got overpaid anymore. (Flores, in a half-season last year, posted a WAR of 0.2.) Even the dearly departed Jose Reyes would make the Mets contenders in 2015. These are the deals the 1980s-era Mets made, the deals that turned a young group of talented prospects into a National League juggernaut from 1984-1990. These are the deals, in general, that teams at the Mets' stage of development always make. These are deals that nearly every team in baseball is making these days, in a sport flush with television money, money that for 29 other teams goes to baseball operations, not to financing hundreds of millions in debt against the team, the television network, the stadium. And the young, pre-arbitration shortstops who actually fit the Mets' budget? The really good ones, frankly, no one is trading. Contenders need players like that. Rebuilding teams need players like that. They simply aren't traded very often, especially in this offense-starved era. So instead the Mets will hope that Wilmer Flores lives up to his offensive projections in 2015, and doesn't miss too many balls with what is a consensus sub-shortstop range. They'll hope that the pressure of being the stated public reason for not bringing in all star after all star doesn't make Noah Syndergaard's transition to the big leagues more difficult. The 2015 Mets have talent, almost enough to win, but not quite. Teams like that sometimes win anyway. Not usually, though. And the Mets had a chance to put the odds in their favor, only to have the limitations of a financially compromised owner throw the chance away. We're about to see how much that ends up costing the team.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/01/8560005/desmond-non-deal-shows-cost-mets-refusal-spend

[Ceetar]

heh, didn't even have to read beyond the title this time.

[Edgy MD]

I'm just not sure why somebody needed to post it. Are you saying that it says what your feelings are toward the non-Desmond deal?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Are you saying that it says what your feelings are toward the non-Desmond deal?

No, I didn't say that. But the piece does line up with my sentiments on the Mets ability to get a high priced player. It's a well balanced article, probably the best piece out there, to date, on that potential Mets-Desmond deal. Because let's be honest, you can't talk credibly about the Mets having to dole out that kind of money to get that kind of a player without referencing the financial mess that shall not be named here.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm just not sure why somebody needed to post "this one."

Because no one would've posted that article if I didn't. There's a solid contingent on this board that acts like headless chickens at the mere sight of a Megdal piece.

[Edgy MD]

Please get the chip off your shoulder and stop with the name-calling. Please, please, to St. Lucie and back, please. I will give you such a big hug. In public. Maybe even a manly European smack on the cheek, too.

Speaking for mice elf, I didn't post it because it didn't say anything I believe to be supportable. There's a world full of literature I don't post here. That certainly doesn't make me or anybody else headless chickens.

[Ceetar]

Because they're all the same piece. Read one, read them all. Yes, some people attribute every move or non-move to the Mets maybe not having money.

Is maybe the Mets would've gone after Desmond if they could've afforded to eat the losses with no consequences really that interesting a take?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I've met the guy. He seems perfectly reasonable and charming, his daughter's like an anime character-- unbelievably adorable-- and he doesn't scan like Baseball Ahab or nothin'.

But reading a Megdal piece about anything these days is like, well... it's like asking an overly-enthusiastic organic chemist about energy production, or snack cake nutrition, or seven-card no-limit Omaha. He'll tell you, "When you boil it down, it's really ALL about carbon," and he'll be right, mostly. But, y'know...

[Frayed Knot]

Just for starters:

HM: "In case you haven't heard, the New York Mets still don't have a starting shortstop."

Yes they do. It may not be the one you want but it's the same one who started the majority of the final 50 games of last season ... just in case you hadn't heard.




HM: "And when Ken Rosenthal reported this weekend that the Mets had a chance to get Ian Desmond, shortstop for the Washington Nationals, in a three-way trade that would have cost the Mets pitching prospect Noah Syndergaard and one other top prospect from a list of three, it's hard to fathom exactly why the Mets were the team saying no. But as you've probably guessed, yes, it's the money."

It's not hard to fathom at all. Argue that it's something they should have done all you want (although I'd argue otherwise) but ...
- if you're going to use the Rosenthal article to kick off this piece, at least mention the part where he cites the unwillingness to part with the prospects as the specific reason the Mets backed away (salary was never mentioned).
- and if you're going to cite Desmond's salary as the third rail that they will not touch, at least have the decency to acknowledge that they have made three separate acquisitions in the last 14 months where the incoming salary matches or exceeds Desmond's per/year salary (Cuddyer, Colon, Granderson) and all of those for multiple years rather than just one. Geez, they went $7.5 on Chris Young fer crissakes.
But the readers probably already guessed that.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Guest

[Centerfield]

I never got the feeling that the Desmond upcoming negotiations were the holdback. It is future Cy Young Award Winner Noah Syndegaard.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I can totally understand not wanting to deal Syndergaard for only one guaranteed year of Desmond. Where Megdal says that the Mets could have simply requested a negotiating window, he neglects to mention that those windows are the exception, and most deals (for whatever reason) don't include them. You can't assume that the Mets had that option. And you can't assume that it was money that prevented this deal from happening; it's just one of several potential reasons.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I can totally understand not wanting to deal Syndergaard for only one guaranteed year of Desmond. Where Megdal says that the Mets could have simply requested a negotiating window, he neglects to mention that those windows are the exception, and most deals (for whatever reason) don't include them. You can't assume that the Mets had that option. And you can't assume that it was money that prevented this deal from happening; it's just one of several potential reasons.

Not just that, but that the Nationals got a deal they wanted while Sandy was negotiating, however tepidly. The other 29 teams are doing things too.

[Guest d'Kong76]

He writes the same article a lot, guess that's why he's not at a great
metropolitan newspaper fighting truth, justice, and the American way!

Howard follows the forum on Twitter, I think he should start posting and
not have someone push his stuff on us like a bunch of headless chickens.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Hmmmm....

batMEGaDAnLeadoff

[G-Fafif]

This one's fun, too, by Jonathan Bernhardt for The Guardian. (He used to write for Sports on Earth, where I honestly don't remember anything with this much zazz to it.)

To understand the financial depravity of the New York Mets, you first have to understand why Wilmer Flores is currently a shortstop. There will certainly be people who will try to sell you on the idea that Flores, 23, is a shortstop on merit � or at least, potential merit. They even have the depth chart on their side: the Mets have named Flores the starter at short going into camp for the 2015 season. But they are, at best, overgenerously optimistic � and regardless of what their depth chart says, the Mets have spent the last 10 months acting like they disagree. Three years ago, it was essentially public knowledge that Flores would be moving off the position. Indeed, the Mets recognized this organizationally; in 2012 and 2013, he played second base, third base, even a little first base � pretty much everywhere in the infield except short. Everything that was true in 2012 about Flores remains true today except that he is older, and as a general rule players don�t get better defensively as they age; they get worse. There are certainly exceptions, but Flores did nothing to show that he was one of them. Then, before the 2014 season, the Mets decided he was a shortstop again. The experiment didn�t begin particularly well; Flores, who was competing for playing time last year with luminaries such as Ruben Tejada and Dilson Herrera, did not win a job on the roster out of camp. The idea was barely entertained by the Mets coaching staff, not because of Flores�s prospect status or age (Tejada himself was a part-time player at age 20, and only a part-time player because he couldn�t stay healthy), but because Flores couldn�t play short well enough to even split time with Tejada or play a utility role around the infield. He cameoed the roster for the second game of the season in order to spell Daniel Murphy at second base during his paternity leave, then vanished down to the minors again to work on his defense. He reappeared on the roster on 9 May after the Mets designated infielder Omar Quintanilla for assignment with the stated goal of his promotion being to add more offense to MLB roster. Flores started the next two games at short and immediately came down with some sort of illness � and that was enough for manager Terry Collins to give Ruben Tejada his job back for the next week. Flores wouldn�t appear in a game again until 17 May, when he�d be given his first substantial trial by fire against major league pitching as a starting shortstop. It didn�t go particularly well. By early June, he�d lost the everyday job, now getting a start at short every four days or so and pinch-hitting in between. By the end of June, he�d been sent back to Triple A Las Vegas to get everyday playing time and work on his defense. Except here�s the weird thing about that demotion: he got back to Vegas, and suddenly he was playing second base and third base again. Some first base, too. In 26 games between 26 June and 23 July, Flores only spent time at short in six. Then, Ruben Tejada took a baseball to the head and suddenly, Flores was promoted again. To play shortstop. Tejada was cleared to play very shortly afterwards -- he wouldn�t even spend time on the abbreviated seven-day disabled list for concussion or head-related injuries � but Flores would once again get the lion�s share of the work at short for the next few weeks. Then, predictably enough, in late August Daniel Murphy got hurt and Flores immediately started seeing time at second base instead. By the end of the season, the Mets had moved him off of shortstop entirely � his last seven starts of the season were all at second. This organizational juggling routine wouldn�t be a big deal if Flores was hitting; in fact, Flores being the everyday shortstop wouldn�t be a big deal if he was hitting, bad defense and all. That�s supposed to be the one thing Flores does well, after all: hit. Does he hit in the minors? Sure � while playing in Las Vegas, one of the most notoriously hitter-friendly parks in the notoriously hitter-friendly Pacific Coast League. But in 375 MLB plate appearances, Flores is only batting .240/.275/.356 (.631 OPS). That�s at the low end of excusable for a top-three defensive shortstop league-wide. It�s unacceptable for a guy who got sent down in the middle of the season to play other positions. This level of detail is necessary when examining Flores� 2014 because it�s important to know the context in which the Mets have named him starter over and over again this winter, and why it seems so bewildering when judging Flores by what he�s shown on the field. But there�s one last piece of information that makes everything else slide into place: Wilmer Flores will only be paid around $500,000 next year. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is in absolute terms; but for a shortstop at the major league level? That�s not just cheap. That�s the closest a team is permitted to free. Meanwhile, Colorado�s Troy Tulowitzki, who was constantly attached to the Mets in trade rumors last month? $20m. Chicago�s Starlin Castro, who was also a possible trade target before his recent legal troubles shut that talk down? Just over $6.8m. Stephen Drew, who signed with the Yankees to play second base but is still a competent shortstop? $5m. And Ruben Tejada, the guy who has publicly lost his job and is likely available for trade at this very moment? $1.2m last year, and in line for a raise to around $3m this offseason. Wilmer Flores is not a credible shortstop. He�s not even demonstrably a league-average bat. He is, however, the absolute smallest investment possible. Now we consider the rest of the Mets� moves this offseason. We�ll be brief, because there�s only two that concern the major league roster: the signing of outfielder Michael Cuddyer on 11 November to a two-year, $21m contract, and the signing of outfielder John Mayberry Jr, to a one-year, $1.75m contract a month later. That�s it. That�s all the Mets have done. It�s an old trick for them: making a couple of big-splash signings up front and disappearing for the rest of the offseason. You may remember it from last year, when they did the exact same thing with outfielders Chris Young and Curtis Granderson. At least in Granderson they signed a relatively upper-tier, name free agent. Cuddyer is three years older, only played 49 games last year and got his deal based on an age 34 season hitting in Colorado. It was an impressive season and a feel-good story for a well-liked veteran player, to be sure; it also happened two years ago in what remains the most ridiculous offensive environment in baseball. Meanwhile, payroll in Queens looks set to either stagnate or outright decline for the fourth straight season. Arbitration commitments still haven�t been decided, but the Mets� payroll sits at just under $68m for next year. Of the major players set for arbitration bumps � Murphy, Lucas Duda, Dillon Gee, Bobby Parnell, Jenrry Mejia � the Mets have openly discussed dealing Gee, who made $3.6m last year. If they do that, it�s hard to see those arbitration awards (or the one-year deals the Mets agree to in order to avoid arbitration) clearing $14 or $15m. Figuring in another three to four million dollars for league-minimum players and other expenses, and that leaves the Mets right around last year�s $85m budget. That would be grudgingly acceptable, were the Mets playing baseball in Tampa, Florida instead of the largest media market in the planet, and had Major League Baseball�s massive new $12.4bn national television deal not just gone into effect. It might also be acceptable if the team was rebuilding, but it�s not: New York finished 2014 tied for second place in a division that has mostly stepped backwards or tread water this offseason. Given the young stars the team has hit on in the last few years like Matt Harvey, Jake deGrom and Juan Lagares, combined with franchise player and likely future Hall of Famer David Wright and mostly-solid group of roleplayers, the Mets should be spending the money necessary to shore up their bullpen, acquire a real everyday shortstop, and become a true Wild Card contender and an outside threat for the NL East divisional crown. They won�t, however. We already know why they won�t. The Mets ownership is an embarrassment to their league, their fans, their employees and themselves; this is as close to established fact as sunrise tomorrow. And given that the Mets and their media apparatus are the only means by which the Wilpons can continue to live the lifestyle to which they�ve become accustomed, it�s unlikely they�re going anywhere anytime soon. It�s sad. These Mets could�ve been something in 2015 with a reasonable budget. They could still be something, if incoming league commissioner Rob Manfred has a stronger commitment to the health of the sport than he does to the personal feelings of the Wilpon family. With Manfred�s predecessor Bud Selig remaining with the league as �Commissioner Emeritus� and �advising� Manfred on how to act, however, that seems highly unlikely. There are a lot of things that could happen, were there other ways to remove hideously bad corporate citizens like the Wilpons from sports ownership besides something viciously embarrassing going viral. Instead, Wilmer Flores will be the New York Mets� starting shortstop, until like all of the other embarrassments, this too becomes too much to bear.

[Edgy MD]

That's written like it's coming from an English guy.

He lost me at the subtitle: "Wilmer Flores, a player who barely made a dent in Triple A, will be the Mets� starting shortstop. It says everything about the team�s ambition."

It's easy enough to check that one out, and... no.

[Ceetar]

yeah. The guy answers his own question and doesn't realize it.

Flores was supposed to hit and if he hits it's okay if he plays SS badly. Well, perhaps that time at other positions was to get him AB to figure out if he would hit and such, to see if you could play him at SS?

Perhaps the 'many times' they've anointed him the starting SS this WINTER is merely posturing and positioning?

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I can totally understand not wanting to deal Syndergaard for only one guaranteed year of Desmond. Where Megdal says that the Mets could have simply requested a negotiating window, he neglects to mention that those windows are the exception, and most deals (for whatever reason) don't include them. You can't assume that the Mets had that option. And you can't assume that it was money that prevented this deal from happening; it's just one of several potential reasons.

Those situations are rare because the clubs can't simply make them happen unilaterally. Both the other team AND the player have to agree to it in advance and then an agreement needs to be reached. And seeing as how Desmond has already turned down a lengthy and lucrative extension from his current team (the only one he's ever played for and one that's in the midst of the best run in its history) it certainly seems that he's intent on trying FA-gency.
The Santana case was unusual in that Johan was a rare pre-FA player who had a contract giving him full no-trade protection which in turn gave him full veto power over any trade unless he got the contract he wanted in advance.

[G-Fafif]

Ken Rosenthal would like the Mets to find a way to obtain Ian Desmond without giving up Noah Syndergaard.

Mets should go all-in for Nats' Desmond & other moves that need to happen soon Ken Rosenthal FOX Sports JAN 14, 2015 10:50p ET Some quick thoughts on Wednesday's flurry of news. *The Mets should trade for Nationals shortstop Ian Desmond. The Nats acquired shortstop Yunel Escobar from the Athletics on Wednesday, presumably with the intention of playing him at second base. I'm not so sure. Escobar has not played second since 2007, his rookie season. True, Asdrubal Cabrera went from short to second after the Nats acquired him last July. But think about it: The Nats are now fully protected at short if they want to move Desmond. Escobar is signed through 2016 with a club option for '17. Top shortstop prospect Trea Turner, the reported "player to be named" in the Nats' three-team deal with the Rays and Padres, should be ready at some point during that time. Enter the Mets, who according to sources, recently balked at acquiring Desmond and Ben Zobrist in separate trades because they did not want to give up top prospects for a player who was under control for only one more season. Well, what if the Mets offered second baseman Daniel Murphy, a player whom the Nats tried to acquire last July? And what if they sweetened their proposal with one prospect and took a second, lesser player back, considering that Desmond is more valuable than Murphy? The Nats could go with Murphy at second and Escobar at short, or Murphy at third and Anthony Rendon at second (Rendon is a plus defender at both spots, while Murphy is considered better at third, the position that David Wright plays for the Mets). The Mets, ahem, then would be obligated to go all-out to sign Desmond, which is what every other high-revenue team in their position would do. Yes, the Nats have failed to secure Desmond long-term, but that's probably because they've failed to offer him market value. Desmond, who is coming off three straight Silver Sluggers, likely would command $150 million as a free agent next offseason. The restrictions on the Mets' finances are obvious to anyone who follows the sport, but it's absurd that their 2015 payroll likely will be lower than those of some low-revenue clubs. Many of their fans are frustrated, and rightly so. The team seemingly is on the verge of contention, but its only major offseason acquisition was free-agent outfielder Michael Cuddyer, and shortstop remains something of a black hole. The Mets would not suffer much financially in '15 if they exchanged Murphy's projected $8.3 million salary in arbitration for Desmond's $11 million guarantee. They also are trying to trade right-hander Dillon Gee, who is projected to earn $5.1 million � and such a trade could even put them ahead financially short-term. Beyond '15? That's the issue, but it shouldn't be for a New York team. And if it is, incoming commissioner Rob Manfred should get involved, no matter how close Mets owner Fred Wilpon is with commissioner Bud Selig. Enough is enough.