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

[Ceetar]

Mets – Willets Point wrote: I haven't read this whole thread, but have the Mets made an offer to Dick yet?

yeah, he'll be the bench coach.

[Frayed Knot]

Just out of curiosity I went looking at what kind of off-season moves the 2014 Royals made after their 89-win / WS-losing season

* 7 of their starting 9 position players returned.
They swapped out Nori Aoki for Alex Rios in RF -- a move which essentially wound up as a net negative [710 OPS to 640]
and at DH Billy Butler was swapped for Kendrys Morales -- a net positive at it turned out [702 OPS to 847] although that was hardly a given as Morales was coming off a lousy and partial 2014: 632 OPS in 200+ AB

* On the pitching side:
James Shields left as a FA and was replaced by Edinson Volquez which resulted in pretty much the status quo [14 wins, 3.21 ERA/1.18 WHiP vs 13, 3.55/1.31]
They signed Chris Young as a 5th starter/swingman: a guy who had made a total of 60 starts total over the six seasons from 2008-2013 but gave them 18 starts + 16 relief apps with a 3.04 / 0.96
Signed Ryan Madson to replace Aaron Crow in the bullpen -- another move which worked out great [2.13 / 0.93] even though Madson hadn't thrown an official pitch since 2011

* Then at the trading deadline they added Zobrist & Cueto


The 2015 squad wound up scoring 73 more runs in 2015 than in '14 (6th best in AL) while allowing 17 more (3rd best) and winning seven more games.
In both seasons they played to five games better than their pythagorean projections.

[Guest 86-Dreamer]

Ceetar wrote: Mets – Willets Point wrote: I haven't read this whole thread, but have the Mets made an offer to Dick yet? yeah, he'll be the bench coach.

Touche.

we got Dicked both on the bench and in CF

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Just out of curiosity I went looking at what kind of off-season moves the 2014 Royals made after their 89-win / WS-losing season * 7 of their starting 9 position players returned. They swapped out Nori Aoki for Alex Rios in RF -- a move which essentially wound up as a net negative [710 OPS to 640] and at DH Billy Butler was swapped for Kendrys Morales -- a net positive at it turned out [702 OPS to 847] although that was hardly a given as Morales was coming off a lousy and partial 2014: 632 OPS in 200+ AB * On the pitching side: James Shields left as a FA and was replaced by Edinson Volquez which resulted in pretty much the status quo [14 wins, 3.21 ERA/1.18 WHiP vs 13, 3.55/1.31] They signed Chris Young as a 5th starter/swingman: a guy who had made a total of 60 starts total over the six seasons from 2008-2013 but gave them 18 starts + 16 relief apps with a 3.04 / 0.96 Signed Ryan Madson to replace Aaron Crow in the bullpen -- another move which worked out great [2.13 / 0.93] even though Madson hadn't thrown an official pitch since 2011 * Then at the trading deadline they added Zobrist & Cueto The 2015 squad wound up scoring 73 more runs in 2015 than in '14 (6th best in AL) while allowing 17 more (3rd best) and winning seven more games. In both seasons they played to five games better than their pythagorean projections.

Even if this is all true --and I'm not saying it isn't, Kansas City shouldn't be the baseline or gauge by which to measure the Mets. That's because Kansas City is in Kansas City. Now if I was paying Kansas City rent or Kansas City mortgage, then maybe ....

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Ceetar wrote: I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need.

Well, Heyward is an established Gold Glove, defensive ace in the outfield that has good speed on the base paths. He would have been the Mets best hitter (not named Cespedes) last season. His signing could have bolstered the Mets offense while solidifying the outfield defense. I can understand how a person may believe he is not worth the longterm, financial commitment that the Cubs extended to him in his recent free agent deal, but I can not fathom how someone fails to see how he would have significantly strengthened the Mets line up both offensively and defensively.

[Edgy MD]

Rockin' Doc wrote: He would have been the Mets best hitter (not named Cespedes) last season.

I'm Curtis Granderson. Damn glad to meet you.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need.

Is there a difference in value between a player that creates x runs of offense for his team over the course of a season and a player who prevents the opposition from scoring x runs over the course of a season? If the Mets were shutting out the opposition game in and game out, then I could definitely see your point. But I doubt that the Mets run prevention (pitching and defense combined) is at a level that would render Heyward's defense as superfluous.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Edgy MD wrote: Rockin' Doc wrote: He would have been the Mets best hitter (not named Cespedes) last season. I'm Curtis Granderson. Damn glad to meet you.

Fair point. Granderson had a great season last year. I sincerely hope he can do the same next season.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Even if this is all true --and I'm not saying it isn't, Kansas City shouldn't be the baseline or gauge by which to measure the Mets...

Not suggesting that it is. The only point I sort of had (and, as I said, it was really just curiosity more than anything) was to show that teams can and do improve without big, gaudy, headline-stealing moves.

Is there a difference in value between a player that creates x runs of offense for his team over the course of a season and a player who prevents the opposition from scoring x runs over the course of a season? If the Mets were shutting out the opposition game in and game out, then I could definitely see your point. But I doubt that the Mets run prevention (pitching and defense combined) is at a level that would render Heyward's defense as superfluous.

Except in this case where the innings Heyward would be taking would be almost strictly Lagares's which would be more or less status quo as far as defense goes -- maybe even down somewhat as Heyward as racked up most of his rep as a RF. That in turn means that Heyward's 'value added', if you will, would be almost entirely on the offensive side where he's a nice, though hardly great, player.
None of which is to knock Heyward* but it's why I said when he was first being talked about here that if we were to bring him in in would be instead of Lagares not to platoon with him as some were suggesting. Top level FAs don't come into situations where they platoon and ownership (least of all this one) don't pay top dollar for part-time players.




* Fuckin' auto-correct keeps changing this to Hayward

[Centerfield]

Kansas City:

I don't think Kansas City lost as much as we did this year. As you cite, they lost two guys right around .700 in OPS. We lost our cleanup hitter and have not replaced that production.

Plus, Kansas City right now has stretched their payroll as far as it can go. With their small market, they are traditionally near the bottom of the league. Recognizing their window, they pushed (albeit barely) into the top half last year. One slot ahead of the Mets.

Sucks to play in a small market. But I don't think you can blame the owners. (At least not now anyway).

Heyward:

I don't remember anyone realistically suggesting that Heyward would come here to platoon with Lagares. If so, that is a silly idea.

If Heyward were signed, he would play every day. Against RH pitchers, Heyward would play center and Granderson would play RF. Against lefties, Lagares would play CF, and Heyward would play RF. Lagares needs a platoon partner. So does Granderson. That is why Heyward fit so perfectly.

The innings Heyward would have taken, would have been about 2/3 Lagares, 1/3 Granderson. So yes, there would be a defensive upgrade.

And even if you are just looking at offense alone, Heyward represents a 150 point improvement in OPS over Lagares.

Yeah, I'll take that.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm not sure the top free agent on the market signs up for a situation where he's asked to play a different position every day, at least when weighing it against a counter offer to play just one. That was also an issue said to have impacted the Zobrist dealings.

I think the only way for the Mets to have been a serious player for Heyward or Cespedes was to have also committed to trading one of their own outfielders, but none of the Heyward-blowers have advanced that theory.

Also, CF, need you be reminded (again) that Conforto+dArnaud+ Wright on full seasons, not to mention a likely power upgrade at SS would indeed go a long way toward "replacing" the production of 1 player. Can you count on all that happening? Maybe not, but Shirley you must see there's been a conscious effort to spread the production around.

[Vic Sage]

Also, CF, need you be reminded (again) that Conforto+dArnaud+ Wright on full seasons, not to mention a likely power upgrade at SS would indeed go a long way toward "replacing" the production of 1 player. Can you count on all that happening? Maybe not, but Shirley you must see there's been a conscious effort to spread the production around.

Why do you think Wright and d'Arnaud will play full seasons? d'Arnaud has done it only once, at AA, and, probably because of that, they're looking to get him ABs at other positions (likely 1B, which would take ABs away from Duda). And Wright has played a full season in only 1 of his last 5 seasons. He's 33, with a serious and chronic back issue, and there is NO reason to think that, even with a full season, he'll be as productive as he needs to be to carry this offense. Conforto? He's 22 and, while he looked like the real deal last year, it was not a huge sample. He's given no indication that he can hit LHPs yet. I think he will, eventually, but counting on him as a full-time offensive force this early in his career may be premature. More power at SS? How? Flores hit as many HRs as Cabrera did, and he's likely to improve while Cabrera is in decline. I wouldn't trade Flores straight up for Cabrera... would you? So how is this an upgrade? And Walker/Murphy is a wash. Granderson? At 35, he's as likely to reproduce his 2014 season as he is the 2015 one.

So, unless Lagares is prepared to give us Cespedes-like numbers, this is an offense that is more likely (or at least AS likely) to replicate the league-worst offense it put on the field until August, rather than the league-leading one they fielded thereafter. I would take the under, if i were a betting man. And replacing Nieuhenheis or Campbell with deAza is hardly the upgrade (if it is) that will make up the difference.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Why do you think Wright and d'Arnaud will play full seasons?

Geez. I said "maybe not."

[Centerfield]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm not sure the top free agent on the market signs up for a situation where he's asked to play a different position every day, at least when weighing it against a counter offer to play just one. That was also an issue said to have impacted the Zobrist dealings.

But never once mentioned during the Heyward negotiations. Moreover, it's not a different position every day. It's either RF or CF. The same two positions that are in play for the Cubs, depending on what they do the rest of the way.

Heyward has said that the biggest factor behind his choice was the Cubs base of young players, and how he felt they were in a better position going forward than the Mets. You know, the Mets have a pretty good core too. Maybe he would have been enticed by four aces. We will never know. Because unlike the Cards and Nats, the Mets never even tried.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think the only way for the Mets to have been a serious player for Heyward or Cespedes was to have also committed to trading one of their own outfielders, but none of the Heyward-blowers have advanced that theory.

Because not a single source has ever suggested that this was a factor. But if it were, I'd be down with trading Granderson.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Also, CF, need you be reminded (again) that Conforto+dArnaud+ Wright on full seasons, not to mention a likely power upgrade at SS would indeed go a long way toward "replacing" the production of 1 player. Can you count on all that happening? Maybe not, but Shirley you must see there's been a conscious effort to spread the production around.

First off, what Vic said above. Secondly, Conforto, d'Arnaud and Wright were all healthy and contributing after August 1, along with Cespedes. My goal was to improve upon, or at least replicate, that production next year. And so contributions by a those three work to the break-even point. They are not improvements. I've said many times, the Mets should have been looking to improve upon the Second Half Mets.

If your goal is, like the Mets, to disregard the Second Half Mets, and only aim to be better than the First Half Mets, then sure. Those three will help.

But in doing so, you are conceding that you are ok with taking a step back from the team that left the field in October.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Centerfield wrote: Moreover, it's not a different position every It's either RF or CF. The same two positions that are in play for the Cubs, depending on what they do the rest of the way.

Either but not both, at least not primarily. That's why I'd argue to have made a serious play for him we'd have also had to move an outfielder, probably Granderson. I wouldn;t have had an issue with that necessarily, just pointing out that scenario to me seems more likely than getting a $200M player to play two positions.

Also, CF, need you be reminded (again) that Conforto+dArnaud+ Wright on full seasons, not to mention a likely power upgrade at SS would indeed go a long way toward "replacing" the production of 1 player. Can you count on all that happening? Maybe not, but Shirley you must see there's been a conscious effort to spread the production around.

First off, what Vic said above.

Vic didn't appear to understand me.

Secondly, Conforto, d'Arnaud and Wright were all healthy and contributing after August 1, along with Cespedes. My goal was to improve upon, or at least replicate, that production next year. And so contributions by a those three work to the break-even point. They are not improvements. I've said many times, the Mets should have been looking to improve upon the Second Half Mets.

What I was responding to were your own words:

We lost our cleanup hitter and have not replaced that production.

Go back and change it now if you like.

[Centerfield]

No need to change it.

This was our lineup:

1. Granderson
2. Wright
3. Murphy
4. Cespedes
5. Duda
6. d'Arnaud
7. Conforto
8. Flores
9. Pitcher

It was a terrific lineup. Since then, we lost Murphy and replaced him with Walker. I consider that more or less a wash. Cespedes is gone too. But nothing has been done to offset this. We lost our cleanup hitter and have not replaced that production.

Conforto, d'Arnaud and Wright, no matter how much they play, cannot offset that loss, as they are already in the lineup.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm cross-posting here with Bucket and am repeating some stuff, but a couple of things here rather than just erasing it all:

- the Cubs signed Heyward with the intention of playing him everyday in CF (they let Dexter Fowler walk) and top shelf FAs who have their choice of where to go tend generally to pick spots where their role is well-defined.

- Nor were the Mets going to say to Granderson: 'Hey you were our best (full time) offensive player last year and so we're going to reward you by cutting out 1/3 of your playing time'. It's why I said, back when this topic first started, that if they were going to go after Heyward (or Upton) it was going to be as a replacement for one of their OFs not as an addition to the incumbents, and when you've got two OFs already in the midst of long-term deals plus one promising rookie that track is not always so easy. It's nice that you (CF) recognize that you're willing to deal Granderson but, as JCL says, that was definitely NOT the vibe during most of the Heyward discussions.

- of course no one knows what we'll get out of Wright + d'Arnaud + Conforto but I think it would be safe to bet the 'Over' on the 565 combined ABs from 2015. Conservatively they'll double that; ideally come close to tripling it; and it would take several simultaneous disasters not to at least surpass it

- yes they need to replace what they got from Cespedes but it's not like he was the full-season cleanup hitter - he was here for 1/3 of the season and was 10th on the team in ABs

- as Billy/Brad Bean/Pitt said about losing Giambi: 'we can't replace him directly so we need to replace him in the aggregate'
As always you are free to disagree with that strategy and/or exchange the word "can't" with "choose not to because we're parasitic vultures whose purpose is to rip you off while lining our pockets", but it's the road they're opting to take and I think folks need to at least accept that it is A strategy and that not every loss needs to be answered by a player who most closely resembles the guy being replaced.

[Ceetar]

and it's not just a matter of replacing the lineup at the end of 2015, because who knows how that'd do over the long term. You just want to score as many runs as possible.

But don't forget the pitching. Obviously that's the crux of the team. But there's reason to hope for improvement there as well and prevent more runs. Obviously all pitchers are babied, but there's not reason not to expect Harvey, deGrom, and Thor to throw 30 more innings each, on the conservative side. That's 100 innings from them and 100 less for Dillon Gee, Carlos Torres, Robles, etc.

[Centerfield]

I'm cross-posting here with Bucket and am repeating some stuff, but a couple of things here rather than just erasing it all: - the Cubs signed Heyward with the intention of playing him everyday in CF (they let Dexter Fowler walk) and top shelf FAs who have their choice of where to go tend generally to pick spots where their role is well-defined. - Nor were the Mets going to say to Granderson: 'Hey you were our best (full time) offensive player last year and so we're going to reward you by cutting out 1/3 of your playing time'. It's why I said, back when this topic first started, that if they were going to go after Heyward (or Upton) it was going to be as a replacement for one of their OFs not as an addition to the incumbents, and when you've got two OFs already in the midst of long-term deals plus one promising rookie that track is not always so easy. It's nice that you (CF) recognize that you're willing to deal Granderson but, as JCL says, that was definitely NOT the vibe during most of the Heyward discussions. - of course no one knows what we'll get out of Wright + d'Arnaud + Conforto but I think it would be safe to bet the 'Over' on the 565 combined ABs from 2015. Conservatively they'll double that; ideally come close to tripling it; and it would take several simultaneous disasters not to at least surpass it - yes they need to replace what they got from Cespedes but it's not like he was the full-season cleanup hitter - he was here for 1/3 of the season and was 10th on the team in ABs - as Billy/Brad Bean/Pitt said about losing Giambi: 'we can't replace him directly so we need to replace him in the aggregate' As always you are free to disagree with that strategy and/or exchange the word "can't" with "choose not to because we're parasitic vultures whose purpose is to rip you off while lining our pockets", but it's the road they're opting to take and I think folks need to at least accept that it is A strategy and that not every loss needs to be answered by a player who most closely resembles the guy being replaced.

I get what you are saying. I think our discussion needs some clarification.

In 2015, from Opening Day to the trade deadline, the Mets were last in offense. From the trade deadline on, they were first. Overall, they ended up 20th in the league in OPS.

More production from Conforto, Wright and d'Arnaud, and all of the other additions this winter, will help move the Mets up from 20th overall. Probably to somewhere in the middle of the pack. I get this, and I do see how the "spread it around" moves, coupled with expected increases in production from these three will help accomplish that.

But that's not what I wanted.

If the second half team came back intact, they might not have stayed in first in offense over the course of a season. Would they have have been top 5? I think so.

And so this Winter, I wanted the Mets to either improve upon this, or at least replicate it. Put out a top 5 offense. Maybe even the best offense.

With a payroll commensurate with the market, this is a piece of cake. If they are stuck within current constraints, it's harder, but I felt, it was still possible.

That's why I'm disappointed.

[Edgy MD]

It's probably best to not measure a team's offense against all of MLB, but only against the 15 teams in their league, as the DH advantage that the American League teams has leaves you, if not exactly comparing apples to oranges, perhaps comparing tangerines to clementines.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: It's probably best to not measure a team's offense against all of MLB, but only against the 15 teams in their league, as the DH advantage that the American League teams has leaves you, if not exactly comparing apples to oranges, perhaps comparing tangerines to clementines.

Ok. Then it's still first and last, but then 9th out of 15 overall.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: It's probably best to not measure a team's offense against all of MLB, but only against the 15 teams in their league, as the DH advantage that the American League teams has leaves you, if not exactly comparing apples to oranges, perhaps comparing tangerines to clementines. Ok. Then it's still first and last, but then 9th out of 15 overall.

wait, what are you measuring?

The Met scored the 7th most runs in the NL and 4th in wRC+. They were first in both in the second half, which includes some non-Cespedes time and some bad-Cespedes time.

[Centerfield]

I'm measuring OPS.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/league/nl/sort/OPS/order/true

First in the NL Pre all star. Last post all-star. 9th overall.

The all-star break as a delineation is admittedly not perfect, but you get the idea.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: I'm measuring OPS. http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/league/nl/sort/OPS/order/true First in the NL Pre all star. Last post all-star. 9th overall. The all-star break as a delineation is admittedly not perfect, but you get the idea.

straight OPS? you gotta park adjust at least.. It's harder to score in Citi Field. Mets were 4th in OPS+.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Was just re-reading parts of this so I thought I'd give it a bumper-roo...

[TransMonk]

I'm sure Zobrist will live as a hero to Cubs fans for eternity, but as far as the Mets are concerned, I'm not sure he would have given us much more than what we got out of the 2B position in 2016.

I'm still glad we didn't go long term on Zobrist. He will decline and and it may bite the Cubs in the ass...but hey, they got a ring, so what do I know.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I know, but there's some fun stuff in this thread... and now it's officially off-season.

[Vic Sage]

time for the angst to warm us and the mead to flow.
Death to the wilponian infidel!

[Centerfield]

If there is any silver lining to the Cubs winning it all, maybe we can put to bed the idea that money doesn't help you win.