nymr83

1 year 10 mil for JD Martinez, now that is a deal I wish the Mets had signed.

Edgy MD wrote: But Boras ain't mentioned no Mets, despite just being at the Nimmo press conference. He can't feed the name of every team to his reporter buddies about every client. if he needs the Mets as leverage, their name will pop up later

If the plan is to get Alvarez ABs as the righty handed DH, you need to carry a third catcher. I'm fairly sure the rule that you lose your DH if you move him to another position is still in effect, so you can't carry 2 catchers and use him at DH. Right now, 3 catchers would be my plan as I think Alvarez is the best RH DH option in the organization. He probably doesnt catch very often though in that alignment, because that would leave the Mets with 2 offensive black holes on their bench that day (Plus Vogelbach who is terrible against lefties)

Frayed Knot wrote: Hey Man!: Marlins, Cubs, Astros linked to Conforto. Doesn't say shit about the Mets. Mets were linked to Correa - the morning after other outlets had him already signed by San Fran. Any and all rumors in sport writing should be taken as entertainment/speculation only. Anonymous sources are as likely to be the ball boy as they are a GM. An agent also has every reason to tell any writer who will listen about the many many suitors his client has.

I dont see the opt out thing either, unless its a team playing "luxury tax games" - more likely he gets a 1 year deal to showcase himself again for next winter where both he and the team are getting what they want?

The certainty of a new CBA/labor peace for the meat of these contracts probably helps.

I really wish they'd sign JD Martinez, even in a down year last year he still crushed lefties and that is what the Mets need most. Also wouldn't be disappointed if the Mets were done other than maybe another reliever - they've spent a lot of money already and Alvarez/Vientos are there - see what you get of them at the beginning of the year. You can always spend Steve's money in June.

=metirish post_id=114836 time=1671059481 user_id=72] Noah to the Dodgers , Passan first

Edgy MD wrote: Those two choices represent two pretty strong positions. There's room for him. Not a lot, but it's there, especially if Daniel gets Vogeled to another team. He certainly fits a lot more cleanly on a roster without Vogelbach. But I don't see the Mets moving on from Vogelbach just to make room for Conforto.

Both options imply excitement about his potential return. Eh. I don't see a fit on this roster though i like him as a player If you assume 13 spots are for the offense: C: McCann / Nido 1B: Alonso 2B: McNeil 3B: Escobar SS: Lindor RF: Marte CF: Nimmo LF: Canha DH: Vogelbauch (vs R) you only have 3 spots - McNeil is probably the 5th outfielder so you really want a centerfield capable 4th outfielder. the other 2 spots need to include a SS-capable infielder (Guillorme?) and the righty-handed DH, i'd think. at this point, i'm likely to have Vientos or Alvarez be that righty DH and call the roster set. of course, if JD Martinez wants a 1 year deal i'd change my mind. Conforto fills none of those spots - he struggles with lefties and making him the leftfielder with Canha the righty DH is a worse lineup vs lefties than just playing Alvarez i think and i'm not sure you can carry both him AND alvarez unless you are willing to have no backup CF option other than moving Marte over?

Edgy MD wrote: Dansby Swanson is a fantastic name if you imagine hearing it yelled in a Bostonian accent. As for the length of these deals, I get the notion that, to the mindset of teams, length is just a way to defer salary. If I want a guy at $100 million over four years, but that's not getting it done, I can up the salary offer or I can go to, like, $140 million over seven. Most of that additional money is still for those first four years, but I get to hold on to it and let it make money for me in municipal bonds or pharmaceutical futures or whatever. If he still has something left in the last three years of that contract, good for us. Looking to invest? Wilpon knows a guy...

=bmfc1 post_id=114772 time=1671023597 user_id=73] I thought that he sheds his beard in the off-season.

hard to quantify, I know, but there's usually five pitchers designated, sometimes late in spring training but typically earlier, as your regular rotation and during the year, sometimes even from day one, there are setbacks, injuries, demotions, trades, that promote at least one starter into the top five in "number of games started." Yesterday I thought we were all set and today there's talk of trading Carrasco. Last year it took until what, July? to get our top five starters all working at the same time. But you'd have to include deGrom among our 2022 starters. Anyway, that's all beyond obvious--I'm just trying to figure if we can even discuss this subject without defining what constitutes a starting rotation for a particular year or if we need to keep chasing each other around the mulberry bish. No, you can't really discuss whether this Mets team, or any other Mets team, has had 5 non-home grown starters in the rotation without defining the rotation.

https://twitter.com/jeffpassan/status/1602887992313626625 Passan, or someone else, broke this on ESPN around midnight last night. Yet the athletic article was still posted this morning. oops! But hey, this is part of the joy of being a fan of Steve Cohen's Mets! we're in on everyone!

Bill James has been researching the value of stolen bases at least since you were in elementary school, if not earlier. Tom Tango and then like a zillion others. The break even point is in the neighborhood of a 75% success rate and the math you'd need to calculate this yourself is fairly simple and straightforward. You just need to assemble the data so that you can then calculate break even. Or just trust James and Tango and like every other reputable sabrmetrician. They're not defending their break even figures the way others claim there's an invisible magician in the sky who runs the world. This is just math and logic.. There's no mystery here, not by any stretch of the imagination. Break even might change radically in 2023 as the bases will be larger and pickoff attempts will be severely limited. Its gonna be easier to steal a base next season. Why would larger bases change the break even rate? they would likely change the success rate for many players, thus changing the number who should attempt to steal more often as they are more likely to hit that break even rate, but why would the break even rate change? The rules changes will likely change both figures -- the break-even point and the success rate. The two figures are independent of each other. All things being equal, base stealing will be easier in 2023. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the success rate will go up. because "all things being equal" is the operative phrase and all things might not be equal. The rules changes might also encourage lesser skilled base stealers to make more SB attempts, which could offset the improved rates that one would expect to be generated by the better base stealers. We'll see. Maybe we are talking about different things here? When I say "success rate" i mean the percentage of stolen base attempts that are successful. So if a player attempt 5 steals, steals 4 bases, and is aught once, his success rate is 80%. I agree that this number should go up under the new rules. When I say "break even rate" I mean the rate at which a player must be successful for his stolen base attempts to be a net positive impact rather than a net negative impact on his team';s run scoring probability. Why would this change in the rules change that number?

Edgy MD wrote: I would disagree with that. I think we've all read some variation on that, and allowed it to become an established truth, while we neglect to cite where we got it, and mostly don't remember where we got it, or what the break-even point actually is alleged to be. Bill James has been researching the value of stolen bases at least since you were in elementary school, if not earlier. Tom Tango and then like a zillion others. The break even point is in the neighborhood of a 75% success rate and the math you'd need to calculate this yourself is fairly simple and straightforward. You just need to assemble the data so that you can then calculate break even. Or just trust James and Tango and like every other reputable sabrmetrician. They're not defending their break even figures the way others claim there's an invisible magician in the sky who runs the world. This is just math and logic.. There's no mystery here, not by any stretch of the imagination. Break even might change radically in 2023 as the bases will be larger and pickoff attempts will be severely limited. Its gonna be easier to steal a base next season. Why would larger bases change the break even rate? they would likely change the success rate for many players, thus changing the number who should attempt to steal more often as they are more likely to hit that break even rate, but why would the break even rate change?

The amazing xmen 90s cartoon is on there now too.

=Centerfield post_id=114512 time=1670734111 user_id=65] Wow. Not that much AAV. Worried about his walks and lack of strikeouts. But if he's anywhere near as good as advertised this is a great pickup.

not bad!

I will always think of Turk Wendell as a Met. You'd have to remind me in 10 years that Walker ever played here.

I'm glad he is back and glad it is not my money!

=MFS62 post_id=114265 time=1670458467 user_id=60] OF Masataka Yoshida signs a 5 year deal with the Red Sox. Rats! There goes my sleeper pick in the FA contest. Oh well, we didn't lose Mangum. Later

Those guys cost prospects and I doubt the cost on either of them is a 'AA longshot' The Mets have decided they'll be filling holes with cash, not giving up the top of their farm system.

=Ceetar post_id=114210 time=1670436558 user_id=102] he's fine I think? We can hope for average, last year was mostly a mirage I think, pitch changes and stuff. 4 starters at 34+ is ..a choice. You've got Megill and Peterson as depth I guess, but there seems to be some overall roster constructions issues to address here, particularly, some more good pitchers, probably some that you use as relievers. You'd like one really top-flight (or two, platoon wise) guys that you can throw at emerging messes as these starters hit the middle innings and wear down or exit early.

=smg58 post_id=114300 time=1670508801 user_id=62] Good thing the Cubs got everything they could for him in that big deadline deal.