Centerfield

Bregman's career OPS is much closer to Alonso's. (.848 to Pete's .854). Like FK said, his OBP took a dive this year. His SLG took a dive five years ago and shows no signs of recovering. All three guys are around the same age. Who ages better is anyone's guess. But to me, both Bregman and Adames look like bad deals in the making.

Had a .717 OPS in 2023. Career OPS 100 points lower. OPS+ has never been higher than Pete. He would improve our defense. And might be a better bet to age slower than Alonso. But just doesn't hit well enough to be corner IF. Also. You don't want two aging infielders locked up long term.

I'd be down.

Hope the league is better than their website.

1) Francisco Alvarez 2) Luis Torrens 3) Tomás Nido 4) Omar Narváez Up to 5 right? I can't in good faith rank Hudson if I can't even remember who he is.

1) Edwin Diaz 2) Reed Garrett 3) Jose Butto 4) Dedniel Nunez 5) Phil Maton 6) Ryne Stanek 7) Drew Smith 8) Danny Young 9) Adam Ottavino 10) Jorge Lopez

Frayed Knot wrote: Ohtani wound up needing surgery for a torn labrum on his left shoulder as a result of his stolen base attempt. That the Yanx were barely able to avoid a sweep despite holding Shohei to 2-for-19 (1 1B, 1 2B), some of that almost certainly attributable to the shoulder, probably doesn't make the loss go down any better. It's crazy how beat up the Dodgers were. The Padres and Mets faced the Dodgers with Freeman a shell of himself. And just when he got better, the Yankees faced a compromised Ohtani. Glasnow was out. As was Kershaw, Dustin May, Gavin Stone and the pitching half of Ohtani. Yamamoto wasn't at full strength yet. If they are anywhere near healthy next year they'll be a monster to deal with. And that's not even taking into account they might get Roki Sasaki.

I thought I'd be only one to vote for "Gooden's Got It". Like. Show me any action shot of Gooden throwing in his glory days and I'll vote for it.

I wonder if Severino might consider taking his. He performed well but not great. Is a little older. And most importantly I wonder if teams would shy away from him since he's attached to the QO.

The covers this year are starting about as strongly as the 2024 Mets.

It occurs to me that one of our WS rosters featured an All-Short OF. Timo, Benny, Jay Payton. Darryl Hamilton was 6'1" and was the giant of the group. We were also pretty short in '86. Mookie, Lenny, Wally Backman. Danny Heep was only 5'11".

Pure speculation by me. But I wonder if having Boras as his agent saved his ass here. If I were the Yankees, I would have cut him loose. I don't see how a 34 year old pitcher with a grumpy elbow gets anything more than 4 years, $36M per on the open market. But knowing that Boras represents Soto (and others) maybe the Yankees didn't want to piss him off. I'm glad he's back with the Yankees. Cuz I think that takes them out of the running for any of the "aces" on the market. Plus a 4 (or more) year deal to a 34 year old pitcher is exactly the type of contract you want a rival to have. But it would have been interesting to see what he got on the market. I don't think the speculation of a 3 year deal with high AAV would have been that far off.

Frayed Knot wrote: My instinct is that the time to pickup Td'A has passed. And in the one outcome I didn't expect, Gerrit Cole is apparently going to stay with the Yanx but without the added season. iow, he opted back in to the deal he just opted out of a few days ago. This isn't official but the deadline for such stuff is 5:00 today ... and it happens to be 5:00 today as I type. The SNY article says the sides are discussing an extension, but haven't agreed to anything yet. If the opt-out was withdrawn, that means Cole is chickenshit. He opted out trying to force the Yankees hand but he knows that he wouldn't get that on the open market. Dumbass.

Great stuff. 1) Sean Manaea 2) David Peterson 3) Luis Severino 4) Jose Quintana 5) Christian Scott 6) Tylor Megill 7) José Buttó 8) Paul Blackburn 9) Kodai Senga 10) Adrian Houser Six of my top seven guys being healthy all year is pretty great.

Braves #5 prospect Drake Baldwin is just about ready to make the jump to the bigs. This move probably has more to do with that. Though you wonder if they could have exercised the option and traded Travis. He's 35 years old now, but still had a .739 OPS and 15 HRs.

He's 5'6”. I wonder if that's the shortest number 1 prospect we've ever had. Our prospects include Jett and Drew Gilbert (5'9”) and Acuna (5'8”). Good thing there are no jump balls in baseball.

Why was Lindor in pain all of 2023? ON EDIT. just looked it up. He had a bone spur in his right elbow.

Can't help but think Cole may have overplayed his hand. If I'm a GM, my 34 year old pitcher opting out of the last 4 years of a mega contract sounds ideal to me.

Edgy MD wrote: If plate discipline were a person, it would be Bonds, but in the Hasn't-Been-Popped-for-Steroids Category, Soto beats most other comers, including Henderson, or Trout, or Votto, or Frank Thomas. And that's a skill that trends suggest improve with maturity. One point Law is inadvertantly making is that, with the advent of automated ball-strike calling, he's probably only going to get better, at least in that department. Agree with this. Which made Nimmo's lack of discipline this year all the more surprising. I wonder if the foot injury hampered him more than we knew.

And it's fine to feel, as a fan, that this is not the way you want your team to be built. If you'd rather develop your talent, like Atlanta, versus compile a team of mercenaries like the Dodgers, there's no shame in saying that. I would too. But if the idea is to win, it's important to recognize that if you don't pay Soto, your competitor will. And you'll see him and the likes of him if you're lucky enough to get to October.

Edgy MD wrote: I certainly have no problem with targeting Soto. The reality is that 29 teams could use him and there's only one, and there's a point at which you don't want to go higher on anybody, so I temper my desires to get Juan Soto off of somebody else's team and hope that the team is always scouting, recruiting, and developing the next Soto. If they can sign this one, great. So yes, of course you always want to your system to develop your own Soto. But to illustrate how hard that is, the Mets, in their 82 year history have never developed a player as good as Soto, and so the likelihood that they will in the near future is pretty low. And should we be lucky enough to do that, then we'll have two Juan Sotos and it will be the best thing in the world. Tempering your desire to get Soto because you ultimately understand it's his decision is fine. But to color that pursuit with the idea that a Soto type deal goes bad as often as it goes good is simply incorrect. Overwhelmingly, these deals work out for the team. And yes, there will be a point where the team isn't comfortable to go higher. But history suggests that the line isn't where we think it will be. Each of those deals had numbers that were mind-blowing at the time, and in nearly every case, you'd make that deal again if given the chance.

Kudos to Newsday to predict that Vientos would mash on February 14.

I think its more complicated or nuanced than you present. Just off the top of my head without looking anything up, as a Met, Jacob deGrom was once the highest paid NLer and the Mets didn't win anything with him. Same with Scherzer and then Verlander. In fact, those two were the highest paid players in MLB history while with the Mets. deGrom's Rangers salary was off the charts. And while the Rangers, remarkably, then won the WS, it was no thanks to deGrom, who missed just about that entire season. Mike Trout's contract, at the time, was a record-breaker, and yet the Angels didn't even make the playoffs. The reason those teams you listed did well is not simply because they gave out record breaking contracts, but because they were smart enough and rich enough to make other successful signings. I don't think it's particularly complicated or nuanced. These are the top ten free agent contracts of all time in terms of total value. The type of contract that teams committed to winning give to the best players in the game who are young enough to perform over the majority of their deal. They've all been successful. Highest AAV is a different animal altogether. Short term, high AAV deals are almost always given to older players, or players who otherwise have a question as to their durability. And as deGrom, Scherzer and Verlander demonstrated, these deals are risky. And yes, you're absolutely correct that teams have to build around that superstar. I don't think anyone is implying we should just sign Soto then wrap up. We want Soto, then just as importantly, we want smart moves around him. And that's why we love Stearns. In my original list, I didn't mean to list the top ten free agent signings, I meant to list the top ten overall. I didn't realize that I did that until i went back and checked. But I think this distinction is important. Clubs who sign the monster free agent contract are, at least, somewhat committed to winning. Clubs that sign their own player may be motivated to win, but might be motivated by other reasons. So let's revisit the top ten, this time including all contracts, not just free agents. Judging these contracts on (a) whether the player performed as hoped, and ( whether the team won. 1. Ohtani. Yes and yes. Unquestionably. 2. Trout. Kind of, and no. Trout has continued to put up very good numbers, but not what you'd hope from Trout. Injury plays a big part here. And no, the Angels haven't won. The Angels are pretty much morons. 3. Betts. Yes and yes. 4. Judge. Yes and yes. 5. Machado. Yes and yes. 6. Lindor. Yes and yes. 7. Tatis. Yes and yes. 8. Harper. Yes and yes. 9 (tie). Stanton. This is an interesting one. First three years were out of this world, including an MVP. But the Marlins didn't win. As a Yankee he's battled injury, but been productive when healthy. The Yankees of course win, and Stanton was their best hitter this post-season. Let's call this a maybe. 9 (tie). Seager. Yes and yes. 9 (tie). Yamamoto. He was injured, but pitched well when healthy, and his team won the WS. Yes, for now, but we'll see if he can stay healthy. So of the top 11, 9 were a success, with Stanton having had some level of success, and Trout being the worst result of the bunch. Expanding further to hit the top 20. 12. Cole. Yes and yes. 13. Devers. He's only in year 1 but put up good numbers. And the Red Sox didn't win, but again, this is an example of ownership perhaps bowing to fan pressure and re-signing a hometown hero versus actually trying to compete. Maybe this one is to early to tell, but let's call it a no for now. 14. Machado. Yes and yes. 15. Turner. Yes and yes. 16. Witt, Jr. Like Devers, he just signed. But so far, yes and yes. 17. Bogaerts. Yes and yes. 18. A-Rod (2008). Yes and yes. 19. Arenado. He's dropped off of late, but largely performed well during his contract. Colorado certainly didn't win with him, but the Cards made the playoffs 2 of his 4 years. We'll call this a no. 20. A-Rod (2000) Yes and yes. So of the next 9, 7 successes, 2 we'd say no. Of the top 20 largest contracts at least 16 resulted in both the player performing and the team winning. 4 can be considered failures. Of those 4 failures, all were big signings by clubs retaining home grown stars (Trout, Devers, Stanton, Arenado). Each of those four, a good case can be made that the clubs weren't committed to winning. And with Stanton, you can see how the Yankees can absorb the injuries and reap the benefits of a good Stanton all the way to a World Series. Edgy MD wrote: Indeed, but that just means the most recent, because "biggest ever" is a thing that ever trends upward. Yes. These are the most recent. But it's 16 to 4. It's not close. It's an 80% success rate over the top 20. To suggest that there are just as many flops as successes is simply wrong. Going back and comparing contracts historically is tougher to do. I can't just go through a list and compare. For instance, Manny Ramirez $160M contract was a monster contract at the time. Brandon Nimmo's $162M is just another contract. I'd have to go back and see where it ranked at the time, and that's simply too much work. But again, I'm highly skeptical that you'd find anywhere near an 80% failure rate to offset the top 20 listed above. And as for going forward, I think you can surmise that the success rates will be even better. At least in terms of player performance. The apprehension around an Alonso extension is evidence that no one would give Chris Davis his contract today. Especially with just 3 good seasons under his belt. An 8 year deal to a 33 year old Miguel Cabrera is laughable. Which brings us back to Ron Darling. Yes. A 26 year old superstar like Juan Soto is absolutely who we should be targeting. It's rare that a player of his ability and his age become available in free agency. But when they do, there's no better move you can make than to lock that player down, because there's no move that provides a better chance of success. And no, Steve Cohen doesn't have to decide between Soto and two mid-tier players, because he has the means to sign all three. But even if he did have to make that choice, you sign Soto and fill in around him. No brainer.

And to that end. I have a theory that the second tier contracts are the ones that go south. But I haven't checked to see if that's actually true.

Edgy MD wrote: I can list just as many top contracts that ended up being an exercise in burning money. And just as many that were neither one nor the other. Nothing guarantees anything. Obviously, a team in a position to hand them out is often in a position to do a lot of things, and in the current environment, any team that makes the playoffs is a real contender for a championship. That list certainly shows how few of the largest contracts are going to pitchers of late. You can't. Because these are literally the top ten. You can list the next ten, or twenty. But these are the top contracts.