smg58

="Frayed Knot":3973hsgs]What I meant was that back when they were young pups Kearns was considered the better all around player/athlete while Dunn the better hitter but only a hitter. Now years later hiding his glove is becoming more of a problem than even previously imagined and I think part of the reason the offers were slow in coming.[/quote:3973hsgs] I don't think his glove has necessarily gotten worse, so much as defensive value (or the lack thereof) has become better quantified. If the defensive numbers generated in places like the Fielding Bible are credible, then the old notion that you could stick a good bat/bad glove player in an outfield corner or first base and not have to worry about his glove hurting you that much has been discredited to at least some degree with particularly bad fielders. This applies to a number of players (like Dunn and Abreu) who were free agents this year. Frayed Knot Feb 13 2009 01:47 PM Yeah that's probably part of it. Plus there were several sources this winter saying that GMs are taking an increasingly close look at OF defense in particular and factoring that in to how much they would otherwise pay for bat-only FAs - something they could have affected the likes of not only Dunn but Abreu, Manny, Burrell, too. As for Dunn himself, he may not have gotten worse with the glove as much as the early hope that he'd at least grow into a mediocre glove at some position never materialized. Both defensive metrics and eye-ball observers rate him as a virtual train-wreck wherever you plop him. Edgy DC Feb 13 2009 01:52 PM The thing about the previous generation of defensive metrics is that they seemed to undervalue outfield defense by measuring balls caught against balls fielded by the same standard as those for infielders. What they missed was that a failure to field a ball by an infielder typically resulted in a single base, while a failure to field a ball by an outfielder resulted in two or three. cooby Feb 13 2009 05:43 PM Lady Caca? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 13 2009 08:23 PM Ladies don't caca; they perspire excrement. And speaking of excretions... with all this dancing around old friends (Stache, Pedro, Figueroa), Omar's got no room in his pay rolls for ol' Pee Hands? (I hate to repeat myself, but if we're not going hard after Ohman, and our other RH bat options are Nomar and those two... yeep.) Or, from the so-crazy-it-just-might-work department... Frank Thomas? (Still got a great eye, and could spell Delgado 1-2 times a week.) Gwreck Feb 19 2009 11:05 PM We got Alex Cora to back-up instead of Nomar? Seriously? Reyes is going to play 160 games or something, and if he gets hurt, then we can sign Alex Cora. I'd take my chances with giving Nomar the 5 starts at short we give Reyes off. Edgy DC Feb 20 2009 05:36 AM ="Gwreck":3u3fvm4z]Reyes is going to play 160 games or something, and if he gets hurt, then we can sign Alex Cora.[/quote:3u3fvm4z] How do you figure? Nobody's going to sign him? Ever? Gwreck Feb 20 2009 08:25 AM Maybe not Cora himself, but there'd likely be another no-hit, good-field middle infielder available somewhere, no? Edgy DC Feb 20 2009 08:30 AM But, for a reserve, Cora is actually a modest-hit, excellent field guy, and a rarer bird than you're giving him credit for. He's perfectly capable of stealing the second base job. Nomar remains what he's been the last couple of years --- a good enough hitter to demand more PT than a reserve infielder (five games? you think he'd go for that?), but no obvious position. Gwreck Feb 20 2009 10:15 AM I don't think Nomar would start only 5 games; I think he'd also spell Delgado occasionally against a tough lefty, and also serve as Wright's backup at third. He'd also be the primary pinch-hitting bat off the bench. The 5 games reference is that the Mets don't necessarily need a player taking up a spot on the bench, when all they require is a player who has the defensive skills to be a shortstop for about 5 games a year. I see the point about him being a good enough hitter to deserve more PT than a reserve but submit that if he's unsigned, he's not getting PT anywhere. Nymr83 Feb 20 2009 12:24 PM ]situational lefties: Joe Beimel, RP (31) -type ( Dennys Reyes, RP (31) -type ( Will Ohman, RP (31) Someone brought up in the Griffey thread what they saw as a need for another lefty. I disagree. I thought one of the problems with the 2008 Mets was that Schoenweis and Feliciano were redundant- they both got lefties out but couldn't handle righties- and this forced the managers to use them in situations they weren't suited for, leading them to fail. One situational lefty is all I want to see on the team. If theres a Dennis Cook out there who can get righties out too that would be great, but I don't see him in these guys. Ohman and Reyes both get abused by righties, Beimel actually isn't too bad for his career but he was the past 2 years. attgig Feb 20 2009 01:13 PM hudson is apparently now a dodger. Nymr83 Feb 20 2009 01:19 PM it says he signed with LA on rotoworld but the terms of the deal havent been disclosed yet. smg58 Feb 20 2009 01:51 PM According to mlb.com, Hudson is getting one year and $3.4M, with up to $4.6M in incentives. If bringing in Ollie at 3 and 36 made it impossible to offer Hudson even that little, then the Mets should have settled for Garland at half the annual salary, or even Looper for less than that. Somebody else signing Ollie would have also gotten us two better draft picks than the one Hudson would have cost. Or perhaps Minaya is not yet willing to own up to the blunder he made in giving Castillo four years. Either way, I'm unhappy. metirish Feb 20 2009 01:55 PM I just can't accept or I don't buy the idea that the Mets couldn't offer Hudson a deal because they signed Perez to a reasonable deal.Maybe they just couldn't be arsed with him. I like Hudson but am not going to be thinking about him all season that's for sure. Frayed Knot Feb 20 2009 02:01 PM I don't think it's any one reason exclusively why they sidestepped Hudson -- I think it's the extra money, on top of the draft pick it would cost, on top of the fact that they'd either have to still pay Castillo and/or have two 2Bmen who both wanted to start. Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2009 02:05 PM I can't help but see Hudson as a missed opportunity, whatever the reasons. Hopefully Castillo will have three kick-ass seasons from 2009 through 2011 and make it all moot. (I can hope, can't I?) Frayed Knot Feb 20 2009 02:25 PM A good example of the adage about how it's easier to recover from the guy you fail to sign than it is to recover from the guy you sign at the wrong price. In this case the difference is made even more stark by throwing in a bad 1st year on top of a dramatic price fall in the market place overall. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 20 2009 04:42 PM ="smg58":jlankl2g] Or perhaps Minaya is not yet willing to own up to the blunder he made in giving Castillo four years. Either way, I'm unhappy.[/quote:jlankl2g] I think you've hit it exactly on the head. A hard head, at that. Tenuous job security-- like Omar's, after two disappointing near-misses-- tends to lead to a whole lot of good-money-after-bad-ing. Centerfield Feb 21 2009 05:29 AM It's because he's saving for Manny. Edgy DC Feb 21 2009 10:36 AM I'm going to insist on looking on the dark side with Hudson. He's two years removed from his last golden glove. He ended 2007 with a thumb injury that was listed as "day to day," but cost him the last three and half weeks of the season as his team finished a game and a half out. Then he started the season with recurring hammy problems, and ended it in August with a dislocated wrist, which is an injury that could give a man pause. Signing him costs that draft pick and means giving up pretty much on the duration of Castillo's contract, and perhaps the possiblity of transitioning Murphy over there this year, which the scoreboard shot suggests is maybe in the cards. Cheap, yeah, but I'm here to sing the praises of standing pat. I'm always here for that. Benjamin Grimm Feb 21 2009 03:48 PM And Hudson may be a free agent again after 2009. So we may have another shot at him. Nymr83 Feb 21 2009 04:07 PM a year older and possibly in a worse buyer's market. the Mets really dropped the ball here considering the price they paid for freakin Cora and the bargain rate at which Hudson signed. Edgy DC Feb 21 2009 06:10 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 21 2009 07:15 PM I don't think they dropped the ball at all. They made their choice decisively --- that they were looking to buy a new starter at second only if they could deal their current one. Argue against that, but let's not imply that the Mets pursued him and failed by misreading the market. Or bought somebody else high. Kong76 Feb 21 2009 06:43 PM smg58: Or perhaps Minaya is not yet willing to own up to the blunder he made in giving Castillo four years <<< I doubt that a guy running an ~ $200,000,000 business model let's that come into play. His fish will be fried on the outcome of 2009 and not owning up to prior poor signings will have nothing to with it. LWFS: Tenuous job security-- like Omar's, after two disappointing near-misses-- tends to lead to a whole lot of good-money-after-bad-ing <<< I typed five things and backspaced five times ... never mind. Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 06:08 AM Alou hinting at retirement after the WBC. Rockin' Doc Mar 03 2009 06:14 AM Alou has been semi-retired the past two seasons.

Jay's 36? That's scary. I have to think that guys like Beimel and Ohman will take any major-league offer that comes their way at this point. I can't imagine Hudson will be too stubborn if presented with even a modestly decent offer, either. If we had $36M to throw at Ollie, I can't imagine we're too broke to even look at these other guys.

I drove past it the other day. It's really sad to see it.

The acquisition of Freddy Garcia makes us the team to beat. A hundred fake dollars says so.

It's a good deal for a guy who had a better year last year than Ollie did.

Dunn gets two years and $20M -- considering what Abreu got, he can't complain. If Nick Johnson or Dmitri Young is healthy he'd presumably play left, which makes me wonder what they'll do with Willingham/Dukes/Milledge/Kearns/Pena. They'd almost have to move one of them, if not two.

And Milton Bradley got three and 30? What a strange offseason. As long as Vlad's knee is OK, Abreu shouldn't see the outfield.

Will Ohman and Joe Beimel would be upgrades at the position vacated by Schoeneweis. I don't really like the idea of Casey Fossum or Tom Martin facing Utley, Howard, and Ibanez while trying to hold a one-run lead. I don't think the Type A label would have hurt Cruz that much if he had pitched more than 51 innings last year. He strained his oblique and lost a month even though the D-Backs were only using him for 10 innings a month. An elite set-up guy should give you 70 IP, and Cruz can't.

Orlando Hudson had a 108 OPS+ relative to Abreu's 120, but the difference in defense between Hudson at second + Murphy in left relative to Abreu in the outfield + Murphy or Castillo at second would more than make up for it. Abreu's defensive metrics are as ugly as Dunn's, and between the two I'd rather have Dunn in the lineup.

Just for fun we can count the ground balls Jeter can't make plays on that Rollins would have fielded cleanly.

[url:2ctckaya]http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090205&content_id=3801488&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp[/url:2ctckaya] The poor guy just can't buy a break.

Aurilia won't kill you with the glove, not that he's particularly good at a position at this point in his career. He could spell Delgado against some lefties, but he would leave Church with no righthanded backup.

PS Isn't Julio Franco too old to be a manager?

The MFY's need insurance for Posada, so they might actually be our best chance at a taker for Castro. Not sure what they'd give in return though.

="Edgy DC":3h0ztpyp]And he didn't sign Mo Vaughn. He traded Appier for him. Mock the Appier signing, but the Mets got more from Mo than the Angels ever got from Kev, who was released with a swimming pool full of money still owed him.[/quote:3h0ztpyp] That's absolutely true. I said when they got Mo Vaughn that I'd be thrilled with 30 HR and a .270 BA, and they got 26 HR and .259 from him. He played to realistic expectations. Compared to the other moves from that offseason, that one actually went right. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 10:17 AM Hey, two post-season appearances (and back to back!) after an eleven-year drought. He made some mistakes, but it's hard to say he was a failure. Centerfield Feb 04 2009 12:02 PM 2002 is a funny year. Mo Vaughn gets a lot of that blame but he was ok that year. Fonzie and Piazza were good too. Burnitz, Alomar and Cedeno were probably the worst offenders. It was also a year where there were no players that exceeded expectations. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 12:16 PM Trachsel, maybe. Checking back, Timo did better than I recall. Astacio gave them an awesome first half, but I forgot how completely the wheels came off (even though I lost the second Parody Classic by recounting it). Check out his season's ERA progression. April/March 2.50 May 2.90 June 3.55 July 3.60 August 7.27 Sept/Oct 10.30 It was a mystery down the stretch how they seemed to be deliberately sending him out there when he was clearly injured, seemingly wanting to trigger his vesting option. Centerfield Feb 04 2009 12:29 PM Especially when they were out of the race. The only thing dumber would have been to trade your best pitching prospect for a mediocre starter to try to get back into it. seawolf17 Feb 04 2009 01:05 PM ="Centerfield":2z6sb1lz]Especially when they were out of the race. The only thing dumber would have been to trade your best pitching prospect for a mediocre starter to try to get back into it.[/quote:2z6sb1lz] At least they didn't trade anyone of importance that year for worthless roster filler like Jason Middlebrook and John Thomson. Oh, wait. Ashie62 Feb 05 2009 10:37 AM Did Phillips hire Bobby V..if so Phillips is in my Personals Mets HOF..kinda like Dave Mlicki.

I agree that Nady would help the team. But if you pass on Wigginton (who's all those things you mentioned, plus a better outfielder, can play more positions, is more or less the same hitter, is getting less money over two years than Nady is over one, and wouldn't have cost players), I don't see how you justify getting Nady instead.

I liked Wigginton as a platoon leftfielder who could allow Tatis to spell Church or Delgado against some lefties, who could also provide insurance at a number of positions in the event of an injury or ineffectiveness. I'm not sure if Baltimore is guaranteeing him anything more full-time than that. I never suggested him as a second baseman, although it's worth pointing out that the guy we currently have playing second was himself a train wreck with the glove last year. Wigginton is a below average defensive infielder, but not disastrously so -- especially if he can come close to duplicating his 128 OPS+ from last year. I think the Astros non-tendering him had a lot more to do with money than with Ty's glove, but they had to offer a more publicly palatable reason than being too cheap to try and contend. I'm not sure if Luke Scott was ever considered an elite prospect, but the 1.047 OPS he put up in his rookie half-year for Houston in 2006 generated more hype than he could live up to. He's still a decent hitter though, at least against righties. I thought Kielty was a very good pickup. I'm concerned that another righthanded bat on the bench beyond Tatis and Castro is a necessity and not a luxury, and I'd be more comfortable with Kielty as insurance given that he never saw the majors last year. Yes there's Nick Evans, but it's in his and the Mets' long-term best interest that he play full-time at first in AAA.

Flushing Meadows would have been a better place for him. I'd have offered two years and $7M, he appears to have gotten two and six. Sigh.

[url:1h4dpyio]http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022009/sports/mets/report__mets_close_to_deal_with_perez_153238.htm[/url:1h4dpyio] The Post is reporting three years and $36M.

I'm all for signing Hudson.

There are still plenty of lefties in the FA pool, including Joe Beimel and Will Ohman. Like everybody else currently unsigned, they are likely to be available for less than they're really worth. I see no good reason to go into camp with just the lefties that we have. I'd also try offering Castillo (and as much salary as it takes) and one of our AAAA lefty outfielders to the Royals for Ron Mahay. Mahay is a decent lefty reliever who's probably overpaid at $4M this year, and the Royals might be the only team that needs a second baseman badly enough to give Castillo a look.

He could be very useful if he's healthy. The Mets do need another righthanded bat, whether Tatis hits well or not.

Garland is getting $6.25M this year, with an option of $10M or a $2.5M buyout for 2010. That was a very beatable offer.

My one real concern about Church is his ability to hit lefthanders. Right now the team has nobody to spell either him or Delgado against a lefty, and if Tatis is starting the only righty on the bench will be the backup catcher. (I suppose Nick Evans has a chance of beating out all the lefty outfielders Minaya has brought in, but I'd much rather see him get full-time AB's at first base in AAA than warm the bench for the Mets.) I would consider another righthanded bat to be an imperative. Otherwise, like nymr says an OPS+ between 110 and 120 for Church would be perfectly consistent with his numbers for the Nats and his pre-concussion numbers with us last year. That, combined with ++ defense, would make him an asset. I realize the concussion still makes him a question mark, but given the much higher probability of inadequacy we currently have at second base, I'd direct my resources there.

I would think that moving Olson to Seattle lessens the chances of the Cubs landing Peavy. I also think the Cubs are more comfortable with Marshall being the primary lefty out of the pen than the fifth starter. I wish Aaron well, and hope he keeps his pitches down when the wind blows out at Wrigley. Unless he's facing the Mets.