Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: Vince Coleman in response to post-Darryl Strawberry

Trading for Kingman after losing the Dave Winfield sweepstakes.

[Centerfield]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah, I was making reference to the Gomez-Flores-Cespedes thingy.

Exactly. The middling, economic move fell through. So instead, the Mets went for the big guy and rode that all the way to the World Series.

Do it again. In fact, go get the same guy. And if not him, Upton. And if not him, Heyward.

[Centerfield]

And by the way, if after the Flores trade fell through, Sandy came to the stand and talked about Gerardo Parra and Asdrubal Cabrera, everyone here would have properly rioted.

Not Ben Grimm. He might have harumphed and then went to sleep.

[Edgy MD]

I never thought of the trade as having fallen through, so much as the Mets having other things going, continuing to work them as they negotiated on Gomez, and pivoting as they soured on Go-Go.

[Centerfield]

Pivot, regroup, call it what you will. Their initial move did not pan out. Option 2 was a 450 foot bomb into the second deck.

Last winter, the Mets pursued Cuddyer. The easy move. The safe move. He signed. It turned into dick.

In July, the Mets tried another small-balls move. Gomez is a nice player, under team control. But he doesn't hit for power. Doesn't give you the thunder in the lineup. It didn't work out. They traded for Cespedes instead. And suddenly we absolutely mashed our way to a division title.

Now, this winter, the Mets again tried to lay up. Play it "safe" with Zobrist. It didn't happen.

What will they do now? Pussy out and try to justify Gerardo Parra? Or go big again. We'll see.

[Edgy MD]

I don't think the other option didn't pan out. I think they went in a different direction by their own volition.

I don't buy this balls/pussy stuff at all.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I think each winter meetings we seem to go into woe-is-me mode when other teams head from the hotels with shiny new toys and we're looking at the same toy box. Since we're a month out of playing in a World Series, I have to give our guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they're doing. Let other teams overspend of some of these guys.

[Gwreck]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think each winter meetings we seem to go into woe-is-me mode when other teams head from the hotels with shiny new toys and we're looking at the same toy box. Since we're a month out of playing in a World Series, I have to give our guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they're doing.

I am willing to give the Mets' baseball staff the benefit of the doubt, and if they don't come home from the winter meetings with a new player, all is not lost.

But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Yeah, the balls/puss paradigm, I'm not into.

I just worry that the need is still there, and that being at the back of the line doesn't lead to bargains.

I think I'd still like Span.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I think I support going after Span too but I think the infield is where we gotta upgrade still. There has to be a trade out there still that could work for us. We've still got some stuff to deal (Plawecki, Niese, Harvey, Montero, Flores, Tejada, Herrera etc)

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there.

It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable.

I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable.

[Edgy MD]

Well, I am a man of reason, I promise.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable.

So we knew in 2015 that d'Arnaud and Wright would miss all that time? Cause hell, a full season from them is worth well more than what Cespedes (And even the scraps Kelly and Juan added)

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable.

We've been over this before but if the Mets sucked so much cock on opening day how else to explain how well they played for the period where they weren't missing Wright and d'Arnaud. All teams with designs for the World Series made acquisitions to help get them there; the Mets need turned out to be more acute not because they were weak going into the year but because they were weakened with injuries to several key guys. Their bench needed an overhaul but that too wasn't a perceived weakness going into the year either

[Benjamin Grimm]

In our preseason prediction threads, there are some people here who always pick the Mets to win 100 games and the pennant. But other than them, I think the consensus here was that they were mediocre, with an outside chance at the playoffs. I know that's how I felt.

[Edgy MD]

Feelings aside, the spring training record and record before three of their best hitters — among many others — went out simultaneously (for very extended periods in two of the cases) make a strong case that they were a strong team.

That they were able to acquire good players at the deadline speaks also to what had been built previously. It's a process.

Nobody has to agree with this, but it's certainly not unreasonable. They were a very good team, that survived an inordinate number of blows. Pennant!

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable. So we knew in 2015 that d'Arnaud and Wright would miss all that time? Cause hell, a full season from them is worth well more than what Cespedes (And even the scraps Kelly and Juan added)

Please. Stop with this. Every team has injuries. We didn't know in spring of 2015 that Wright and d'Arnaud would get hurt (though given their track record, it should not have been at all surprising). But we did know that someone would get hurt. Because someone always does. Washington didn't have Span all season. They went half a year without Rendon. They never sniffed a last place offense. Every team has injuries. Only the Mets were the worst offense in baseball.

And that is what happens when your best case scenario is a "just below average". When you hit bumps, you end up at the bottom of the barrell.

Last winter, there was a large contingent here that felt the Mets hadn't done enough. Cuddyer played himself onto the bench, and Mayberry was cut. How much more evidence do you guys need before admitting that we were right?

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: In our preseason prediction threads, there are some people here who always pick the Mets to win 100 games and the pennant. But other than them, I think the consensus here was that they were mediocre, with an outside chance at the playoffs. I know that's how I felt.

Yes, but most of that was because many thought the Nationals would win 95.

[Edgy MD]

No, really, they got hit harder than most.

Every team has injuries. Every team does not have injuries to the same degree. They got hit harder than most, and they endured a tough middle, and they adapted. And they won.

And that is what happens when your best case scenario is a "just below average".

I don't get this. The best-case scenario is and was demonstrably at least a National League pennant. Yay!

[smg58]

I'm working under the assumption that the Mets would have offered Zobrist four years if it was really Zobrist or dick. And since there are perfectly valid baseball reasons not to go four years on Zobrist, I'm not upset. There's a pretty sizable market at second base, including the incumbent. I'm not panicking.

I agree with Ceetar's point that it wasn't just the Cespedes deal that helped down the stretch. Conforto getting his sea legs was a huge upgrade over what we'd had in the outfield to that point as well, as were a healthy Wright and d'Arnaud, and those things all remain in place.

[Centerfield]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable. We've been over this before but if the Mets sucked so much cock on opening day how else to explain how well they played for the period where they weren't missing Wright and d'Arnaud. All teams with designs for the World Series made acquisitions to help get them there; the Mets need turned out to be more acute not because they were weak going into the year but because they were weakened with injuries to several key guys. Their bench needed an overhaul but that too wasn't a perceived weakness going into the year either

David Wright played 8 games before going down with injury. Travis played 13. Are you suggesting that this sample size is significant? Lucas Duda had an OPS of 1.103 during that time. It's silly to draw any conclusions from that small subset of games.

Everyone has injuries. Wright's and d'Arnaud's were certainly not a shock given their track record. If you have an offense that turns into the worst offense in baseball after losing two players, that offense was not good enough to begin with. I just mentioned in my other post that Washington lost two key players for big chunks of the season. They were still fine offensively. That is the problem with aiming for mediocrity. When you have setbacks, like you always do, you end up in danger of fielding the worst offense in baseball.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that the two acquisitions the Mets made, Cuddyer and Mayberry, were terrible.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Don't be purposefully dense, I'm suggesting the "sample size" of half a season (dArnaud) and 3/4ths (Wright) were significant.

[MFS62]

I posted this in the Sandy Alderson thread, but its down at the bottom of the page. So, here are my thoughts:

Sandy has never ceased to surprise us by doing what everyone thought he couldn't do. While he might not produce two mic droppers, I'm sure he has (cliché alert) planned the work, and he will now work the plan. And I believe the Mets will start the new season with a true platoon centerfielder (maybe a regular with right handed power who can play the corners, too), infield insurance at second and third (Murphy?) and help for the bullpen. And I don't have the foggiest idea who those players will be. But given his track record, in Sandy I trust. I wasn't that thrilled with the prospect of paying Zobrist that much for that many years and I don't think Haywood is the player they really need. Yes he can play centerfield. So can I. But you wouldn't want to see me do it, much less pay me to do it. If they take a run at Upton, I'd be all over that.

I still believe,

Later

[nymr83]

MFS62 wrote: I posted this in the Sandy Alderson thread, but its down at the bottom of the page. So, here are my thoughts: Sandy has never ceased to surprise us by doing what everyone thought he couldn't do. While he might not produce two mic droppers, I'm sure he has (cliché alert) planned the work, and he will now work the plan. And I believe the Mets will start the new season with a true platoon centerfielder (maybe a regular with right handed power who can play the corners, too), infield insurance at second and third (Murphy?) and help for the bullpen. And I don't have the foggiest idea who those players will be. But given his track record, in Sandy I trust. I wasn't that thrilled with the prospect of paying Zobrist that much for that many years and I don't think Haywood is the player they really need. Yes he can play centerfield. So can I. But you wouldn't want to see me do it, much less pay me to do it. If they take a run at Upton, I'd be all over that. I still believe, Later

I think they should let you do it for a game in spring training like Garth Brooks, it'll be awesome.

[MFS62]

Nymr83 wrote: I think they should let you do it for a game in spring training like Garth Brooks, it'll be awesome.

Thanks. I'll send you a membership card in my fan club. I think I still have some.

Later

[Centerfield]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Don't be purposefully dense, I'm suggesting the "sample size" of half a season (dArnaud) and 3/4ths (Wright) were significant.

I'm not being purposefully dense. The Mets played 13 games with d'Arnaud and Wright healthy before the reinforcements arrived.

Neither returned until after the July 31 deadline. By that time, the Mets had traded for Cespedes and called up Conforto. Both of those were moves I had been urging them to do.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: No, really, they got hit harder than most. Every team has injuries. Every team does not have injuries to the same degree. They got hit harder than most, and they endured a tough middle, and they adapted. And they won. And that is what happens when your best case scenario is a "just below average". I don't get this. The best-case scenario is and was demonstrably at least a National League pennant. Yay!

I think I get how to read that chart, and I see that Washington was affected less than the Mets. I just can't gauge what that difference is, or how much of an effect that difference would have on production.

I do see that St. Louis and Toronto were hit badly, but seemed to do fine.

Realistically, the best case scenario for the offense going into 2015, if they remained injury free, was middle of the pack to just below average. When you aim low, injuries can push you to last in the league. That is why I said they needed to do more.

When they did more (got Cespedes, called up Conforto), that's when they took off. It's not a difficult concept.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: When they did more (got Cespedes, called up Conforto), that's when they took off. It's not a difficult concept.

No, it's not. It's also highly selective. There's certainly no point in being patronizing.

They also "took off" right out of the gate. And "took off" when injured players returned. Being able to call up Conforto, and being in a position to add good players as the developing situation suggested where they would be best added, is all part of who they were going into the season.

[TransMonk]

Centerfield wrote: What will they do now? Pussy out and try to justify Gerardo Parra? Or go big again. We'll see.

Personally, I'd rather have Parra for the next 3-4 years (with more flexibility to make other moves) than be tied up with Zobrist heading into his twilight.