Centerfield

It's such a strange negotiation. With the opt out, or I'd imagine, multiple opt-outs, it's tough to know how much the back end of that contract even matters. Let's say you give him 15 years. In all likelihood, that will moot when he opts out in 3,4,5 years, and if for some reason he's injured at his first opt out, he might use his second one later on. I would guess that in addition to the dollars and years, there needs to be time to work out the specifics. How much is the signing bonus, etc. I would guess a team willing to front load the contract (meaning the years before the opt out) would have a significant advantage. That can be where the Mets have an advantage. Front load the contract, tack on years to the back end bringing down the luxury tax, knowing that Soto will opt out in 3-5 years anyway.

Edgy MD wrote: Look at the Athletics throwing money around. So I was trying to figure out the rationale behind this move. The A's are clearly not in a "win now" mode, nor do I realistically think they will be at any point during Severino's contract. I'm guessing they felt that with Severino might help them get hot and maybe contend for a WC. And if they struggle, will probably have some trade value.

Somehow Severino will only be 31 years old next season. So this deal takes him through 33. It's more than what was projected, but I would have had no issue with the Mets giving him this deal.

Jeff Passan was on ESPN last night. He says no signing is imminent. All five teams still alive, meetings will be held this weekend. He expects there will be a resolution before the start of the Winter Meetings. DAMN YOU DAVID PINGALORE

Also his entire premise that baseball is in trouble. Or that they're losing the younger audience. Baseball revenue is higher than ever. And while they may be losing a percentage of market share to other sports, that's inevitable as there are tons of other sports. There are still more people watching baseball than ever before, and ticket revenue is still high. Any claims that ticket sales are down have to be measured against the clubs' election to decrease seating and raise prices.

Michael Kay, who complained that there should be a Golden AB type of rule because the Yankees had two good hitters, of course supported Manfred when the news broke, and has now backtracked. The rule is so absolutely beyond stupid. *Would the hitter being replaced lose his AB? Or would he then get to bat after the golden batter? If you did that, how the fuck would you fix your scorecard? *What if you pulled a batter off the bench to be the Golden AB. Is he now burned? Or can you still PH with him later on? *If your Golden Batter reaches, can you pinch run for him? Is he a golden runner? Is your golden runner burned? Or can he re-enter the game? *If your Golden Batter is on base, who pinch runs for him when he comes to bat? Can you pick anyone to run for him? Or is it the last batted out? Is that runner now burned? *Can you use your Golden AB to break up a perfect game/no hitter in the 9th? Or does that violate the unwritten rules? *Can you use a player who has been subbed out as your Golden Batter? *What if your Golden Batter gets hurt mid AB? Can you sub for him? What would stop a team from sending a HR hitter to take the first two swings, feign an injury, then replace him with a great 2 strike hitter? *Can you negotiate in your contract that you get to be the Golden Batter? (and that way ensuring more ABs) *Do hitting records get an asterisk if a player gets 150 extra ABs in a season? *You announce your intent to use your Golden AB. The other team makes a pitching change. Can you pinch hit for your Golden Batter? *WHAT IF YOUR GOLDEN HITTER IS THE GHOST RUNNER ON SECOND

I didn't realize there was still a push to retire 8 for Carter. I'll admit, I didn't realize how crappy his tenure was while growing up. But if you look up his production it's not even close. Edgardo Alfonso should be up there before Carter. Same with Pete. HoJo. David Cone. But I guess if you use Mays or Gil as a standard, then Carter should have been retired years ago.

https://x.com/DavidPingalore/status/1861297302016610461 This guys tweeted last night that an announcement is "imminent" and that the deal was done. I wish I knew how to embed tweets. Anyway, safe to say that there's been no announcement and now his credibility is in question.

My thoughts. Rules I Like: *Interleague Play. Though I would limit it more than it is now. *Instant Replay. Though I would tweak this to get rid of the reversal if you momentarily break contact with the bag for a period of time imperceptible to the naked eye. I think it can be done. *Limit on pickoff attempts *Pitch Clock. I thought I'd hate this, but I have to admit this has worked well. Though I think you can give teams a warning and accomplish much of the same without having it affect the game. I also don't mind games being a bit longer. *Limit on mound visits. Rules I Don't Like: *Introduction of Third Wild Card *Designated Hitter in the NL *Ghost Runner. I might hate this rule less if it were instituted in the 11th inning or later. Rule I Despise And I Can't Even Believe Is Being Considered and Makes Me Want to Murder the Commissioner *Golden At-bat Neutral on the rest.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: That REBORN got this far is a tragedy. Pun isn't even funny, type size varies. Photo is good but it's a mess. I don't even think the photo is that great. It's one of the fun parts of the season that really deserved a better cover.

I disagree we are the keepers of New York National League history. None of that history belongs to us simply because we play in the same city those teams left. Those franchises still exist. Their history belongs to them. I kind of always agreed with this. In fact, once the Dodgers and Giants left for California, they were both against the NL expanding to NY and the creation of the Mets franchise. When I read the post a few above this one about being the keepers of NL history, it came off as bullshit and word-salad to justify the retirement of Mays' and Jackie's #'s. It came off as reverse-engineered logic to justify the ends. (Of course, Jackie's # was retired globally and wasn't simply and solely a Mets decision). But where does it come from that the Mets are the keepers of NY NL history? It came out of somebody's ass -- that's where. You can say anything to justify anything. The President needs to run the country without being second-guessed. So let's let him commit crimes if that's what it takes to run the country. Whatever. If you wanna retire May's # to honor Payson's old promise, that's fine. Own up to it. But for the Mets to retire his # because the Giants used to play in NY? WTF? Didn't the Giants already retire Mays's number? Here's something to think about: Would the Mets have retired #24 for Willie Mays had Mays never played for the Mets? Had Mays remained a Giant for his entire playing career? And would it have been appropriate for the Mets to retire Mays's #24 even if he'd never played for the Mets? Because whether or not Mays played for the Mets, he still played in NY for a NL team. So what exactly does it mean to be "the keepers of NL history"? The answer is no. Mays' number never would have been retired and it never would have even been proposed. Which illustrates how ridiculous it is that his 400 ABs warrant a retirement. Similarly, Jackie Robinson's number never would have been retired by the Mets had it not been mandated throughout baseball. That was ridiculous as well, but no one was really going to speak out against it, and it certainly can't be undone now that the cat is out of the bag. My criteria are not as strict as some others, but number retirement should only be for players who put up elite performance with the Mets, meaning either HOF worthy, or just a shade below, and are clearly identifiable with the team. I don't think manager numbers should be retired at all, but if you consider them, it should be for managers who had long tenures, achieved success, and again, are clearly identifiable with the Mets. So by my critera: Stengel. No Hodges. No Seaver. Yes. Robinson. No Piazza. Yes. Koosman. No Keith. No. Borderline, but no. Mays. No. Gooden. Borderline, but probably no. Strawberry. Borderline. Probably no. Wright. Borderline but yes. deGrom. Yes. Beltran. Borderline, but yes.

Personally, I love the idea of adding the Golden At-Bat to make it more like basketball. When basketball had to introduce a mid-season tournament to generate interest in its games.

With my heart, I think he's going back to the Yankees. Not for any reason than my defeatist Mets attitude. Maybe I don't want to get my hopes up. Logic tells me players follow the money. And I think Cohen will have the highest offer. So I picked Mets.

I disagree we are the keepers of New York National League history. None of that history belongs to us simply because we play in the same city those teams left. Those franchises still exist. Their history belongs to them. I get that they moved to California, and now it feels like there's a disconnect between their current cities and their history in NY. But that's why moving franchises sucks. This franchise was born in 1962. Everything that happened before that has nothing to do with us. Let's say the Yankees picked up and moved to Las Vegas next year. Do we now have an obligation to build Monument Park? Put up a statue of Babe Ruth? We are the only NY team left. Are not we not keepers of that history? What if Aaron Judge decided to play with the Mets his last two years before retiring. Do we retire his number? Look, I get that it's not apples to apples because the Mets and Yankees co-existed, but it should illustrate how preposterous it is that one team somehow inherits another team's legacy. The Mets are the Mets. If they want to build a "History of NY Baseball Museum" somewhere in CitiField then sure, why not. But dedicating a rotunda to a guy who played for another team, no matter how iconic, is dumb. And so is retiring the number of a great baseball player who played for another team. I get that Joan Payson may or may not have made promises. I don't know how much of that is true, and how much is legend. But even assuming it's true, her promise was that Mays would be the last Met to wear 24. That promise was broken in 1990. But let's assume for the moment that Mrs. Payson actually promised Willie that his number would be retired. I get that it was a sweet gesture. But once you do that, you dilute the honor and take away it's meaning. "We honor only the best players in our rich history, and also if the owner really really likes you." In the end, I don't think it matters. The Mets screwed up their number retirements from the get go. 37. Casey Stengel. Managed the Mets for 4 years to a .300 win percentage. But hey, he was a great manager before us and said funny things. How is this worthy of getting your number retired. 14. Gil Hodges. Played 167 games for the Mets. Managed for 4 years. .420 winning percentage. Let's be honest. His number is on that wall because he died. By this logic, if Davey had died in 1988, his number could be retired too. I mean, I guess if you look at it that way, Mays really should have had his number retired. Three guys who did very little with the Mets.

I don’t see any reason this couldn’t happen.

I still can't believe we retired #24. I mean, I wasn't here for it, so I admit I don't get the emotional relevance. But give him a nice plaque or some shit. The guy played 135 games for the Mets. With his number on the wall, you can make a case for any Met that gives you the touchyfeelies.

Edgy MD wrote: BEST FIVES 1) David Wri5ht 2) Davey Johnson 3) Jon Olerud 4) Steve Henderson 5) Chris Cannizzaro 6) Jeromy Burnitz 7) Ed Charles 8) Tusyoshi Shinjo 9) Charlie O'Brien 10) Chris Jones What number in Mets history has the most success? Onfield performance, no managers, no ceremonial crap. So 24, though retired, would be one of the worst performing numbers. 5 is pretty good. 4 Rusty Dykstra Ventura Alvarez 13 Mazzili Fonzie Wagner 20 Agee HoJo Pete 31 Franco Piazza

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I love this contest but wonder if introducing ranked-choice voting and randomizing the preliminary groupings would be better I've suggested ranked choice voting before. I think it's difficult for BG to arrange that way. I think two covers advancing from each round would draw out the contest too long. Maybe if there was a way to collect a few Wild Card entries from strong second place showings.

Per Will Sammon, Alex Ramirez is back with the Mets on a minor league deal. The move freed up room on the 40 man roster.

Some more thoughts on this. His contract of 2 years, $34M is significantly higher than his MLB Trade Rumors prediction of 2 years, $22M. Of course, that is just a prediction on a random fan website, but their predictions have been pretty good. They were right on the money with Kikuchi, and much closer with Boyd (2 years, $25M versus his actual of 2 Years, $29M). I understand that more signings can indicate that the market is hotter than it currently looks, but as of now, Montas is the outlier. I tried to justify the signing in my head by saying he's likely the Quintana replacement. The problem is, he's not close to being as productive as Quintana was for the Mets (3.70 ERA, 1.268 WHIP). And with Quintana available, I wonder why Quintana wouldn't have been a better bet to replace his own innings. Going into his age 36 season, you'd have to think he'd be available on a short term deal as well. So as of right now, it looks like we signed a guy who hasn't been good in years, doesn't really have a high upside, recently had season-ending shoulder surgery, and we overpaid to get him while plenty of good options were still available. Which I guess must mean that there must be something specifically about Montas that David Stearns likes. I can't guess at what that might be. But he did have a better WHIP with Milwaukee than he did since he left Oakland (1.256). And his ERA for Milwaukee was maybe inflated by one bad start he had against Arizona. So maybe there's something there. Stearns has earned the benefit of the doubt with the work he did with Severino and Manaea. Let's just hope Montas isn't a more expensive Houser.

All kidding aside, hard to make sense of this. Manaea and Severino had upside. They were gambles but their body of work showed some hope. Hard to see the upside here. And he's not cheap so this isn't a “nothing to lose” move. And it's not even a one year deal. I know Stearns has earned some benefit of the doubt. And I'll wait to see who else he brings in. But right now I'm getting Adrian Houser flashbacks.

I remember playing the Brewers at the end of the season and in the playoffs and thinking man I would love to have some of these pitchers. Montas was not one of them. I hope he's the Quintana replacement.

Edgy MD wrote: The Mets were dumping a bad contract of their own in acquiring him, flipping him for Mel Rojas. The Bonilla contract was clearly more of a load on the Dodgers than the Rojas one was on the Mets, but presumably, the Mets were betting that the Bonilla deal still had potential upside that could not be claimed for the Rojas contract. Unfortunately, sometimes when you swap bad contracts, you're actually doubling down on your own initial bad decision. It was much worse than that. Complete unforced error. Shitty Decision #1 This started with Phillips and his infatuation for overpaying for middle relievers. He took a very productive Lance Johnson (great 1996 season, and was slashing .309/.385/.404 in 1997) and traded him for Brian McRae (.705 OPS) and two shitty middle relievers. One of the shitty middle relievers (Rojas) was also expensive. I mean, it's one thing to sign a middle reliever to a big contract and have it go bad. It's another to trade a productive CF who gave you an .827 OPS over two years and trade him for a middle reliever who is already shitty and expensive. To his credit, McRae did have a strong 1998 before turning shitty again. And Turk Wendell found something and gave us 4 good years of middle relief. But Rojas just continued to be shitty and expensive. Shitty Decision #2 And the Mets could have just eaten the $4.5 due to Mel Rojas, but instead, like Edgy said, they just kept digging and traded Rojas for Bonilla, who, as you might have guessed, was also shitty. After getting traded to the Dodgers, he put up a .675 OPS (.715 overall OPS for 1998). Bonilla had 2 years, $11.8M due on his contract. LA threw in $1M. The LA Times headline for that trade was "It's a Relief as Dodgers say Goodbye to Bonilla". But wait. It gets better! Shitty Decision #3 After putting up a predictably shitty year in 1999 (.579 OPS), the Mets agreed to buy out the remaining $5.9M due to him, by agreeing to pay him $30M over 25 years (roughly 8% interest). Shitty Decision #4 In fairness, this could be called Shitty Decision #3A. Because part of the reason they agreed to pay Bonilla 8% interest, is that the Wilpons had this great fund pumping out double digit returns. So they took that Bonilla money, and invested it into a fucking Ponzi scheme. Completing the cycle where they turned a terrific centerfielder into 25 years of obligation, and what is largely considered a punchline in baseball. But hey. All's well that ends well. Because ultimately the Wilpons sold the Mets for a huge profit to Steve Cohen. So God bless the USA. Where shitty rich people do nothing but fail up.

This came up in the Soto thread. But I was wondering why the original Bonilla contract is widely considered a bad signing. Maybe that's an overstatement, but it's not considered a great signing, such as Piazza or Beltran, and not even considered a good signing, such as Curtis Granderson. In December of 1991, Bonilla signed a 5 year, $29M contract. The richest contract at the time. He was the highest paid player in MLB from 1992-1994, until Ryne Sandberg signed his deal. Bonilla was coming off a year where he hit .305, with 18 HRS, .883 OPS, and finished 3rd in the MVP voting. His first year with the Mets was a disappointment. But then, he turned things around. 1992: .249, 18HR, .779 OPS 1993: .265, 34 HR, .874 OPS 1994: .290, 20 HR, .878 OPS (strike shortened) 1995: .329, 28 HR, .963 OPS At the deadline in 1995, Bonilla was traded for O's top prospect Alex Ochoa, and Damon Buford. Overall, Bonilla posted a higher OPS with the Mets than he did in Pittsburgh. And despite a bad first year, for the remaining 4, he more or less performed as he was expected to perform. With just a few months left on his deal, he was traded for a top prospect. I have a few theories why Bonilla is viewed in a negative light. The most obvious is that the team played poorly, and fair or not, Bonilla came to symbolize "the Worst Team Money Can Buy". Equally as likely is the bad first impression that he was never able to shake. I think some Met fans failed to recognize that Bonds was the superior player, and falsely viewed the two as equals. And they were upset when Bonds went to the next level while Bonilla just kinda stayed who he was. And maybe some fans are clouded by Bonilla's second tour of duty in 1999, and the ridiculous deferred payments that still haunt us. Some, like me, were never going to like him because he wasn't Strawberry. But really, none of that was his doing. And the fact that Ochoa was a bust wasn't his fault either. So what do you guys think. Is Bobby Bonilla viewed unfairly?

I can't get worked up at this point. There's nothing substantial left to report until he signs, but people are going to report anyway. Since people like John Olerud are very much the exception and not the rule, I will assume Soto will take the biggest offer until he or his agent publicly says otherwise. I like being able to assume the Mets are in on players like Soto, though. That's the smart approach. Me on the other hand. I can, and absolutely do get worked up. For instance, in the past 24 hours, I've thought to myself: "Heyman wrote an article saying the Red Sox are upping their bid. It's so obvious Boras wants the Yankees to increase their bid. Soto wants to be a Yankee." "Wait a minute. Why would Boras make it so obvious that he's trying to increase the Yankee bid. He's telegraphing that Soto wants to stay a Yankee so the Mets will increase their bid. Soto wants to be a Met." "Steinbrenner is smart. He never would have traded for Soto if he didn't have the means to retain him. Soto's gonna be a Yankee." "No way Steve Cohen gets outbid. If Hal steps up, Cohen will counter with a "fuck you" offer. Soto's gonna be a Met."